DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A statement from the World Future Council

Joint statement by World Future Council members and Right Livelihood Laureates on the occasions of the Entry-into-Force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the 75th anniversary of UN Resolution 1 (1)
 
We, Right Livelihood Laureates and Members of the World Future Council, express deep concern about the existential threat to humanity and the planet from the 14,000 nuclear weapons possessed by nine nuclear-armed States, many of them poised for use at a moment’s notice by decision of unstable leaders or through use by accident, miscalculation or crisis escalation.

The production, deployment, testing, use and threat to use nuclear weapons violate the Right to Life and other international law, threaten current and future generations, provoke international conflicts and consume resources required to address the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change, and to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

The very first resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, UN Res 1 (1) which was adopted by consensus on January 24, 1946, established the UN goal of the elimination of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. It is time to fulfil that goal.

On January 22, 2021, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) will enter into force making it illegal for States Parties to develop, test, produce, manufacture, acquire, possess, deploy, use or threaten to use nuclear weapons, or to assist or encourage such acts. The treaty is an important measure by the 51 non-nuclear countries who have ratified, and others who may subsequently join, to advance the abolition of nuclear weapons through national nuclear prohibition measures and international promotion.

We encourage all ratifying states to adopt comprehensive implementing measures, to include prohibition of the threat, use, production, testing, transit and financing of nuclear weapons within their territorial jurisdiction. In particular, the prohibition of nuclear weapons transit and financing, including public investments in the nuclear weapons industry, would impact considerably on the nuclear arms race and on the policies and practices of the nuclear-armed states.

In addition, we encourage the ratifying states to establish ministerial positions, public advisory committees and disarmament education funds to facilitate public education and effective policy to further advance the objective of a nuclear-weapon-free world, as has already been done, for example, in New Zealand.

The nuclear armed and allied states have said that they will not join the Treaty. As such, they will not be bound by it. However, they cannot escape their individual and collective obligations to achieve nuclear disarmament. They agreed to this in UNGA Resolution 1 (1). Most of them also agreed to this in joining the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Article VI of which requires them to achieve nuclear disarmament. In addition, they are bound by customary international law prohibiting the threat or use of nuclear weapons as affirmed by the International Court of Justice in 1996 and the UN Human Rights Committee in 2018.

The Entry-into-Force of the TPNW on January 22, and the 75th anniversary of UNGA Resolution 1 (1) on January 24, 2021 provide opportune occasions for non-nuclear governments and civil society to remind the nuclear armed and allied states of the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons and of their nuclear disarmament obligations, and call on them to implement these immediately.

The nuclear armed and allied states claim that they require nuclear deterrence for their security. However, they have a legal obligation under the UN Charter (Article 2) to achieve security without reliance on the threat or use of force in their international relations. In addition, the UN and many regional bodies and treaty organisations, provide mechanisms for achieving security and resolving conflicts through common security approaches including diplomacy, negotiation, mediation, arbitration and adjudication – instead of through militarism and war.

And, if we have learned anything from the climate crisis, unprecedented biodiversity loss and the COVID-19 pandemic, it is that militarism and weapons, including nuclear weapons, are useless in addressing the key human security issues of today and tomorrow.

The 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), with 183 States Parties, has abolished biological weapons, and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), with 193 States Parties, has abolished chemical weapons.  It is now time to abolish the third class of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons.

(Continued in right column)

(Continued from left column)

Measures the nuclear-armed and allied states should take include;

1. Affirm that nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, stand down their nuclear forces and affirm policies never to initiate a nuclear war;

2. Replace nuclear deterrence with security frameworks based on human security and common security, including acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice for international disputes not resolved by other means;

3. Collectively join the TPNW, or alternatively start negotiations in a series of Summits or in a UN negotiating forum on the elimination of nuclear weapons under strict and effective international verification and enforcement;

4. Cut nuclear weapons budgets, end investments in the nuclear weapons industry, and redirect these investments and budgets to support the United Nations, COVID-19 management and recovery, drastic reductions in carbon emissions to protect the climate, achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, and public education for disarmament and the peaceful resolution of conflict; and

5. Commit to achieving the complete, global elimination of nuclear weapons no later than 2045, the 100th anniversary of the United Nations.

In this way, humanity can abolish nuclear weapons and help assure a sustainable future.

Endorsers of the Joint RLA/WFC Statement on Nuclear Abolition for a Sustainable Future

Ales Bialiatski, Belarus, Right Livelihood Laureate 2020
Alexander Likhotal, Russia, Member, World Future Council
Alexandra Wandel, Germany, Chair Management Board, World Future Council
Alice Tepper Marlin, United States of America, Right Livelihood Laureate 1990
Alyn Ware, New Zealand, Right Livelihood Laureate 2009
Anda Filip, Romania, Member, World Future Council
Anders Wijkman, Sweden, Member, World Future Council
András Biró, Hungary, Right Livelihood Laureate 1995
Andrea Reimer, Canada, Member, World Future Council
Angelina Davydova, Russia, Member, World Future Council
Angie Zelter for Trident Ploughshares, United Kingdom, Right Livelihood Laureate 2001
Anwar Fazal, Malaysia, Right Livelihood Laureate 1982
Ashok Khosla, India, Member, World Future Council
Cherie Nursalim, Indonesia, Member, World Future Council
Chico Whitaker, Brazil, Right Livelihood Laureate 2006
Fernando Rendón, for  Festival Internacional de Poesia de Medellin, Colombia, Right Livelihood Laureate 2006
Dan Ellsberg, United States of America, Right Livelihood Laureate 2006
Dipal Barua, for Grameen Shakti, Bangladesh, Right Livelihood Laureate 2007, Member, World Future Council
Frances Moore Lappé, United States, Right Livelihood Laureate 1987, Member, World Future Council
Gino Strada, Italy, Right Livelihood Laureate 2015
Hafsat Abiola, Nigeria, Member, World Future Council
Hans Herren, Switzerland, Right Livelihood Laureate 2013, Member, World Future Council
Hanumappa R. Sudarshan,India, Right Livelihood Laureate 1994
Helen Mack, Guatemala. Right Livelihood Laureate 1992
Helmy Abouleish, Egypt, Right Livelihood Laureate 2003, Member, World Future Council
Herbie Girardet, UK, Honorary Member, World Future Council
Hunter Lovins, USA, Right Livelihood Laureate 1983
Ida Kuklina for Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers of Russia, Russia, Right Livelihood Laureate 1996
Jacqueline Moudeina, Chad, Right Livelihood Laureate 2011
Jakob von Uexküll, Founder of the Right Livelihood Award and the World Future Council
Jan L McAlpine, USA, Member, World Future Council
Jean Ann Bellini for Comissão Pastoral da Terra, Brazil, Right Livelihood Laureate 1991
Juan E. Garcés, Spain, Right Livelihood Laureate 1999
Julia Marton-Lefèvre, Hungary, Member, World Future Council
Kehkashan Basu, Canada, Member, World Future Council
Khadija Ismayilova, Azerbaijan, Right Livelihood Laureate 2017
Mageswari Sangaralingam for SAM Sarawak, Malyasia, Right Livelihood Laureate 1988
Maria Fernanda Espinosa, Ecuador, Member, World Future Council
Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger, Canada, UK, Switzerland, Member, World Future Council
Martín von Hildebrand for COAMA, Colombia, Right Livelihood Laureate 1999
Maude Barlow, Canada, Right Livelihood Laureate 2005, Member, World Future Council
Neshan Gunasekera, Sri Lanka, Member, World Future Council
Nnimmo Bassey, Nigeria, Right Livelihood Laureate 2010
Ole von Uexküll, Executive Director, Right Livelihood Foundation
Paul Walker, United States of America, Right Livelihood Laureate 2013
Raul Montenegro, Argentina, Right Livelihood Laureate 2004
P K Ravindran for Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishat (KSSP), India, Right Livelihood Laureate 1996
Sam Perlo-Freeman, for the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, Right Livelihood Laureate 2012
Shrikrishna Upadhyay, Nepal, Right Livelihood Laureate 2010
Sima Samar, Afghanistan, Right Livelihood Laureate 2012
Sulak Sivaraksa, Thailand, Right Livelihood Laureate 1995
Tony Colman, UK, Member, World Future Council
Tony Rinaudo, Australia, Right Livelihood Laureate 2018
Theo van Boven, the Netherlands, Right Livelihood Laureate 1985
Walden Bello, the Philippines, Right Livelihood Laureate 2003
Wes Jackson,  United States of America, Right Livelihood Laureate 2000
Yetnebersh Nigussie, Ethiopia, Right Livelihood Laureate 2017

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A statement from The Transnational

On top of all the global problems we must solve as soon as possible comes the Corona. This statement argues that the priorities of the world are – well, perverse; everything the UN does amounts to 3% of the global military expenditures.


TFF’s Board suggests that all countries reduce their military by 50% immediately. That would save about US$ 1000 billion. And that that huge sum should be re-allocated to solve the problems we had and the socio-economic consequences of the Corona pandemic.


That would also – finally – be a step to prove that governments are willing to implement a policy for true disarmament and move towards human and common security for the common good.


In a civilised world, this should be common sense.
If you do not want to read the whole argument, just scroll down and sign this statement.

“We’ve likely only seen the beginnings of the worldwide economic consequences of the Coronavirus. For those who want to see, there are forecasts of a deep economic crisis written on all the walls.

Before the Corona, the world faced huge problems that – among other resources – require funds to solve: huge sums. Think the 17 UN Development Goals, think technological innovation; think the global climate/warming crisis; think the rebuilding of war-torn countries and think the reduction towards zero and repatriation of the world’s 80 million displaced people.

And think funds to convert the present military systems towards another, less costly way of creating security. We have just experienced how the outdated non-human security has deprived us of the needed resources when the Corona hit. Recklessly, virtually all governments had ignored a predictable civilian challenge but wasted billions of taxpayer money on weapons and war.

The Corona should be a wake-up call.

So we ask: Where are the funds going to come from to solve humanity’s most urgent problems before they become too big to solve? 

It seems that most governments believe that the annual world military expenditures – ranging around US$ 2000 billion, the highest ever – can be maintained. Some even believe their national expenditures must increase substantially.

The same governments believe that the world’s most important organisation of which they are all members – the United Nations and its organisations – can do what it must on a regular budget of US$ 3 billion and total annual expenditures of US$ 50-60 billion. That is 3 per cent of the costs of global militarism.

Those are the priorities of our world. It’s not sustainable in Corona times – if it ever were. It is ethically indefensible too. And it produces neither security nor peace.

Perhaps the incomprehensible sum of US$ 2000 billion would be justified if the world experienced solid defence and security as well as trust, cooperation and peace.
But the fact is that there are more tension, hatred, dominance attempts, new kinds of wars added to old ones and much more terrorism than before the US-led Global War on Terror.

Furthermore, one country after the other has been destroyed since the end of the First Cold War in 1989-90. It has been possible thanks to a systematic violation of international law, including in particular the UN Charter.

(Statement continued on the right column)

Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

(Statement continued from the left column)

Imagine that every country in the world would reduce its military expenditures by at least 50%. Then we would have US$ 1000 billion.

Is it a large or small sum?

It’s equivalent to what China in 2013 put behind the Belt and Road Initiative, BRI – a cooperative effort around infrastructure, fast physical and digital communication, sea and land transport, education and cultural exchange, and much more. Today it involves around 80 countries, some on all continents and it is open to everyone.

The philosophy behind it is, at least theoretically, one of peace. It dates back to the Panchsheel Treaty of 1954, the five principles of peaceful coexistence.

Beyond doubt, this is the largest and most positive cooperation project in today’s world. It is the project that will give birth to – if it has not already? – a new multi-polar world order based more on cooperation than confrontation.

There is, therefore, no doubt that a substantial conversion of, say, US$ 1000 billion from the military to the solution of humanity’s common problems would provide a desperately needed boost for the common good.
(This argument does not rest on any assumption that money is the primary tool to solve problems; that takes lots of non-material qualities. But with economies falling apart at a moment when all economies need funds for” rebooting humanity,” this is a straightforward thing to do with a rather large bang for the buck).

Additionally, lots of human and other resources, knowledge, experience and equipment today operated by the military could be converted and put to civilian tasks.
Such a conversion would boost employment – as there exists no documentation for the often-stated assertion that military investments boost employment more than civilian investments. It is, rather, comparatively wasteful.

It’s time for more global cooperation and less confrontation

Ours is not the time for more militarism, warfare and antagonism. The net effect of military investments is suffering, destruction (of lives, capital and property) and unavoidable environmental destruction.
 
Furthermore, every military dollar stands in the way of precisely  that global cooperation without which we are doomed. And it is not matched by a security or peace effect.

Time is up for those who strut about and try to master others by violence or the threat of it. Militarism and warfare are now as outdated and indefensible as is slavery, absolute monarchy, dictatorship, child labour, rape and discrimination. These are phenomena we have decided, in the name of civilisation, to abolish or condemn.

If you feel we cannot, very quickly, reduce or abolish militarism, nuclearism and warfare but should uphold at least some self-defensive military capacity, that should be discussed. It’s in line with Article 51 of the UN Charter.

That would mean much more dis-armament than the suggested 50% and it would mean trans-armament toward a new way of handling our unavoidable conflicts, create security in diversity and with defensive military and civilian means, and – thereby – realise the peaceful future which 99% of citizens around the world strongly desire.
 
There are, indeed, alternatives. But minds, as well as other resources, need to be liberated before it’s too late.

So, to begin with: Reduce everybody’s military expenditures equally much, say 50%. And see the marvellous positive results – politically, economically and in terms of peace. Then move on.

A better world is possible. And the Corona is a benign wake-up call compared with World War III.

We need to use the Corona crisis constructively.

In this 11th hour, humanity’s situation makes it abundantly clear to us that it is either cooperation and coexistence or destruction and no existence.”

TFF’s Board
Annette Schiffmann
Thore Vestby
Jan Oberg
Christina Spännar, co-founder

Almost 400 TFF Associates and friends of the foundation have already endorsed this statement – see them all further down. They are some of the most peace competent and concerned citizens in the world. 

You can trust their judgement, and now it is your turn!

Click here and scroll to bottom to sign.

Thanks a lot!

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

Sales of arms and military services by the sector’s largest 25 companies totalled US$361 billion in 2019, 8.5 per cent more than in 2018. The largest companies have a geographically diverse international presence. This is according to new data released today [December 7] by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Photo: Flickr/Robert Sullivan

New data from SIPRI’s Arms Industry Database shows that arms sales by the world’s 25 largest arms-producing and military services companies (arms companies) totalled US$361 billion in 2019. This represents an 8.5 per cent increase in real terms over the arms sales of the top 25 arms companies in 2018.

US companies still dominate, Middle East represented in top 25 for the first time

In 2019 the top five arms companies were all based in the United States: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics. These five together registered $166 billion in annual arms sales. In total, 12 US companies appear in the top 25 for 2019, accounting for 61 per cent of the combined arms sales of the top 25.

For the first time, a Middle Eastern firm appears in the top 25 ranking. EDGE, based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), was created in 2019 from the merger of more than 25 smaller companies. It ranks at number 22 and accounted for 1.3 per cent of total arms sales of the top 25.

‘EDGE is a good illustration of how the combination of high national demand for military products and services with a desire to become less dependent on foreign suppliers is driving the growth of arms companies in the Middle East,’ said Pieter Wezeman, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme.

Another newcomer in the top 25 in 2019 was L3Harris Technologies (ranked 10th). It was created through the merger of two US companies that were both in the top 25 in 2018: Harris Corporation and L3 Technologies.

Chinese arms companies’ sales increase, Russian companies’ sales fall

The top 25 also includes four Chinese companies. Three are in the top 10: Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC; ranked 6th), China Electronics Technology Group Corporation (CETC; ranked 8th) and China North Industries Group Corporation (NORINCO; ranked 9th). The combined revenue of the four Chinese companies in the top 25—which also include China South Industries Group Corporation (CSGC; ranked 24th)—grew by 4.8 per cent between 2018 and 2019.

Reflecting on the rise in the arms sales of Chinese companies, SIPRI Senior Researcher Nan Tian said: ‘Chinese arms companies are benefiting from military modernization programmes for the People’s Liberation Army.’

(Article continued on the right column)

(Click here for a version of this article in French or here for a version in Spanish.)

Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

(Article continued from the left column)

The revenues of the two Russian companies in the top 25—Almaz-Antey and United Shipbuilding—both decreased between 2018 and 2019, by a combined total of $634 million. A third Russian company, United Aircraft, lost $1.3 billion in sales and dropped out of the top 25 in 2019.

Alexandra Kuimova, Researcher at SIPRI, said: ‘Domestic competition and reduced government spending on fleet modernization were two of the main challenges for United Shipbuilding in 2019.’

Other notable developments and trends in the top 25

After the USA, China accounted for the second largest share of 2019 arms sales by the top 25 arms companies, at 16 per cent. The six West European companies together accounted for 18 per cent. The two Russian companies in the ranking accounted for 3.9 per cent.

Nineteen of the top 25 arms companies increased their arms sales in 2019 compared with 2018. The largest absolute increase in arms revenue was registered by Lockheed Martin: $5.1 billion, equivalent to 11 per cent in real terms.

The largest percentage increase in annual arms sales—105 per cent—was reported by French producer Dassault Aviation Group. ‘A sharp rise in export deliveries of Rafale combat aircraft pushed Dassault Aviation into the top 25 arms companies for the first time,’ says Lucie Béraud-Sudreau, Director of the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme.

Mapping shows Global South becoming integrated into global arms industry

The report also looks at the international presence of the 15 largest arms companies in 2019. These companies are present in a total of 49 countries, through majority-owned subsidiaries, joint ventures and research facilities.

With a global presence spanning 24 countries each, Thales and Airbus are the two most internationalized companies—followed closely by Boeing (21 countries), Leonardo (21 countries) and Lockheed Martin (19 countries).

The United Kingdom, Australia, the USA, Canada and Germany host the largest numbers of these foreign entities. Outside the arms industry hubs of North America and Western Europe, the largest numbers of entities of foreign companies are hosted by Australia (38), Saudi Arabia (24), India (13), Singapore (11), the UAE (11) and Brazil (10).

Alexandra Marksteiner of the SIPRI Arms and  Military  Expenditure Programme said: ‘There are many reasons why arms companies might want to establish themselves overseas,  including better access to growing markets, collaborative weapon programmes, or policies in the host countries tying arms purchases to technology transfers.’

Of the 49 countries hosting foreign entities of the top 15 arms companies, 17 are in low- and middle-income countries. ‘Countries in the Global South seeking to jump-start their arms production programmes have welcomed foreign arms companies as a means to benefit from technology transfers,’ said Diego Lopes da Silva, Researcher at SIPRI.

Siemon Wezeman, Senior Researcher at SIPRI, said: ‘The Chinese and Russian arms companies in the top 15 have only a limited international presence. Sanctions against Russian firms and government-mandated limits on acquisitions by Chinese firms seem to have played a role in constraining their global presence.’