Category Archives: North America

‘It’s a Fight They’ll Get’: Defenders of Abortion Rights March throughout the United States

. . HUMAN RIGHTS . .

An article by Jon Queally from Common Dreams (licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 3.0.)

Marches and rallies took place in cities across the United States on Saturday as defenders of reproductive rights vowed to defend the country against a looming decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that would eviscerate protections enshrined in Roe v Wade for nearly half a century.

Scene in Washington D.C.

Under the banner of “Bans Off Our Bodies,” the demonstrations took place in cities large and small but with a shared message.

“If it’s a fight they want, it’s a fight they’ll get,” said Rachel Carmona, executive director of the Women’s March, one of the groups who organized the day of action along with Planned Parenthood, UltraViolet, MoveOn, and others.

Carmona, who participated in the major rally that took place in Washington, D.C., said women and their allies nationwide were marching nationwide “to see an end to the attacks on our bodies,” and vowed, “You can expect for women to be completely ungovernable until this government starts to work for us.”

In Chicago, where thousands also marched, Marj Haleerin of the executive committee of the Indivisible Chicago Alliance, said, “Right now, a minority of lawmakers in Washington are taking away our voice. So we’re here, thousands strong, to use our voice and stand up for what we believe in.”

Betty Linville, a 68-year-old living in Los Angeles, attended the rally in that city and said she remembers a time before Roe. 

(continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Abortion: is it a human right?

(continued from left column)

“I have memories of women and men fighting for abortion rights 50 years ago,” Linville told the Los Angeles Times. She explained to the paper her worries that the “incredible freedom” of legal abortion could soon be lost, especially for women who lack the means to travel from a state where it is banned to one where it is allowed.  “What is next?” she said. “What else is going to be taken away?”

Organizers said Saturday’s rallies should be seen as only the beginning of a “Summer of Rage” that will continue through the expected official ruling from the Court in June and into the mid-term elections.

“Today is day one of an uprising to protect abortion rights,” said one speaker at the D.C. rally. “It is day one of our feminist future. And it is day one of a ‘Summer of Rage’ where we will be ungovernable. Ungovernable!”

Check out just some of the demonstrations that took place Saturday.

Washington, D.C.:

Columbia, South Carolina:

New York City:

Chicago:

Portland, Maine:

Boston:

Cleveland:

Austin:

Los Angeles:

Back in New York City—where thousands marched across the Brooklyn Bridge shouting “Hands off our Bodies!” and “We won’t go back!”—Gilda Perkin, an 88-year-old artist who spoke to the New York Daily News said she also recognized the historic significance of the fight ahead.

“I’ve been at this a long time, there’s no going back,” Perkin said. “I’m passionate about this issue and I won’t stop. Women need to be strong and speak. We can’t expect anyone else to fight for us so we have to do it ourselves.”

HUMAN RIGHTS, North America

Global Progressive Leaders Urge Biden to Drop US Charges Against Assange

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article by Jake Johnson in Common Dreams (licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)

A coalition of progressive leaders from across the globe demanded Monday (April 11) that the Biden administration immediately drop all charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is currently jailed in a high-security London prison as he fights U.S. extradition attempts.


Demonstrators rally in support of freeing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange outside of the Royal Courts of Justice in London on January 24, 2022. (Photo: Thomas Krych/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

“Freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and freedom of the press constitute an instrument that can controvert the interests of any government.”

In a letter to Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), more than 30 progressive advocates, intellectuals, and former heads of state argued that dropping the Espionage Act charges against Assange would “send a strong message to the world: that freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and freedom of the press constitute an instrument that can controvert the interests of any government, including that of the United States of America.”

(Article continued in the column on the right)

Click here for the Spanish original of this article.

Question related to this article:
 
Julian Assange, Is he a hero for the culture of peace?

Free flow of information, How is it important for a culture of peace?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

“The cases where there are reports of serious violations of freedom of expression would also be impacted by the dropping of the 18 charges against Assange,” the letter reads. “It would affirm the defense of this fundamental human right and would undoubtedly represent a clear and robust sign that everyone can express their opinion without fear of retaliation; that all the press outlets can give news to all the citizens of the world, with the certainty that the pluralism of thought is guaranteed.”

Signed by former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, Chilean intellectual Carlos Ominami, and 30 others, the letter was sent on the third anniversary of Assange’s forced removal from the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2019.

Assange has since been languishing in Belmarsh prison under conditions that human rights experts have characterized as “torture.” Last month, the U.K. Supreme Court denied Assange’s request to appeal an earlier decision allowing him to be extradited to the U.S., where he could face up to 175 years in prison.

The charges against Assange stem from his publication of classified material that exposed U.S. war crimes, including video footage of American forces gunning down civilians in Iraq.

Given that journalists frequently report on and publish classified documents, U.S. efforts to prosecute Assange have been denounced as a grave threat to press freedoms.

But despite pressure from rights groups, the Biden Justice Department has continued to pursue charges against Assange that were originally brought by the Trump administration, which reportedly considered kidnapping or assassinating the WikiLeaks founder.

In their letter on Monday, the progressive leaders wrote that the U.S. “has a long tradition of defending freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and freedom of the press.”

“It is precisely in the name of this tradition,” they wrote, “that we, progressive leaders of the world, address you to ask that, within the scope of its constitutional and legal competence, in respect of due process of law and the democratic rule of law, that your presidency exercise its prerogative of dropping all 18 charges leveled against journalist Julian Paul Assange.”

Europe, FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, North America,

USA: A Labor Statement on the Crisis in Ukraine

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A petition available at Action Network

A LABOR STATEMENT ON THE CRISIS IN UKRAINE

by Founders, Leaders and Supporters of
U.S. Labor Against the War*

To: President Joseph Biden

From: [Your Name]

We oppose the bellicose behavior of the U.S. government regarding the crisis in Ukraine. We condemn U.S. provocative rhetoric and preparations for yet another war. We condemn the destabilizing policies the U.S. has pursued that have contributed to the crisis, in this case especially the steady expansion of NATO eastward toward Russia.

We oppose the bellicose behavior of the U.S. government regarding the crisis in Ukraine. We condemn U.S. provocative rhetoric and preparations for yet another war. We condemn the destabilizing policies the U.S. has pursued that have contributed to the crisis, in this case especially the steady expansion of NATO eastward toward Russia.

To defuse the crisis and lay a foundation for its diplomatic resolution, the U.S. should immediately declare its policy and commitment that NATO will not advance any further toward the Russian border. Ukraine’s entry into NATO requires the unanimous agreement of all existing NATO members. Ukraine has no automatic right to join NATO. The US has no obligation to hold open the possibility of that opportunity. Rather than deploying thousands of US troops and billions of dollars in military hardware to the region, which only serves to inflame the situation, the US should make clear its commitment that NATO will not expand any further toward Russia, and that NATO and the US will deploy no missiles or other aggressive weapons or forces in any state on Russia’s borders, recognizing that NATO currently already includes states that border Russia: Norway, Estonia, and Latvia.

We call upon the US, other NATO countries, Ukraine and Russia to de-escalate their confrontation, pull all military forces back from their borders, and engage in good faith negotiations to resolve their differences based on the concept of “common security” in which the strategic interests of all parties are addressed.

The US military-industrial complex has an insatiable appetite for war and the threat and preparation for war. Despite having just ended its “forever war” in Afghanistan, the US is increasing its military budget for the coming year to an astounding $768 billion. We must not allow Congress to once again squander hundreds of billions of dollars in military spending, money that is urgently needed for the full Build Back Better agenda to meet the needs of the American People. We must contract, rather than continue to expand US military operations around the world, operations that are already the world’s leading contributor to carbon emissions and global warming.

(Continued in right column)

Questions related to this article:
 
Can the peace movement help stop the war in the Ukraine?

How can the peace movement become stronger and more effective?

(Continued from left column)

We invite and encourage other leaders, organizers, and activists in the US labor movement to sign on to this statement, pass resolutions along these lines in their unions, and press all members of Congress and President Biden to reverse course and declare that the US will not support continued NATO expansion to Russia’s borders. Twenty years of the so-called “Global War on Terror” should have taught us that complex international disputes cannot be resolved by military might. Patient, persistent multilateral diplomacy that addresses the security interests of all parties is what is now required.

The resources now plowed into war and preparation for war should be devoted to meeting the urgent needs of working class people and addressing the global challenge of climate change. We and the world cannot afford another senseless, wasteful, and destructive military conflict.

Signatories (Organizations listed for ID only)

David Bacon, Independent Photojournalist, Pacific Media Workers Guild/CWA

Kathy Black, USLAW National Co-Convenor (retired); AFSCME DC 47 (retired)

John Braxton, USLAW National Co-Convenor (retired); Co-President Emeritus, AFT Local 2026

Gene Bruskin, USLAW National Co-Convenor (retired)

Elise Bryant, President, CLUW (Coalition of Labor Union Women); Exec Board Member, CWA/TNG Local 32035

Thomas Paine Cronin, President Emeritus, AFSCME DC47, Philadelphia

Jeff Crosby, former President, North Shore Labor Council

Ajamu Dillahunt, APWU Local President (retired); Black Workers for Justice(BWFJ); Southern Workers Assembly (SWA)

Michael Eisenscher, USLAW National Coordinator (retired); American Federation of Teachers AFT Local 1603; Publishers, SolidarityINFOSerivce

Frank Emspak, Producer, Exec. Producer, Madison Labor Radio

Bill Fletcher, Jr., former president of TransAfrica Forum; lifelong trade unionist

Tom Gogan, USLAW National Organizer (retired); National Writers Union

John Matthews, Executive Director (retired), Madison Teachers, Inc.

Bob Muehlenkamp, USLAW National Co-Convenor (retired); Organizing Director (retired), International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Saladin Muhammad, member Black Workers for Justice; Southern Workers Assembly; International Rep of UE (retired)

David Newby, President Emeritus, Wisconsin State AFL-CIO

Marcia Newfield, Professional Staff Congress- CUNY, AFT 2334 (retired)

Peter Olney, Director of Organizing ILWU (retired)

Carl Rosen, President, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America

Edward Sadlowski, Former Exec. Dir. of Madison Teachers, Inc.

Anthony Sessa, General Chair, BMWED Teamsters; General Chair, Passenger Rail Federation

Barbara Smith, AFT Local 4848

Brooks Sunkett, USLAW National Co-convenor (retired); Vice President, Communications Workers of America (retired)

Rand Wilson, Former Organizer, Labor for Bernie

Nancy Wohlforth, USLAW National Co-Convenor (retired); National Secretary-Treasurer, Office & Professional Workers International Union (retired)

Michael Zweig, USLAW National Co-Convenor (retired); United University Professions – AFT 2190

*U.S. Labor Against the War ended in 2020.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

The Expert Dialogue on NATO-Russia Risk Reduction: Seven recommendations

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

A publication by the European Leadership Network

In December 2020, the ELN published a set of recommendations that came out of a series of senior expert discussions led by ELN members Sergey Rogov and Alexey Gromyko on Russia-NATO risk reduction. The recommendations addressed most of the areas of common ground so far sketched in Russian, US and NATO exchanges during the present crisis. Had those recommendations been acted upon, we might now be on a better path away from crisis.

In this new statement, signed by 75 members of the expert group including retired diplomats and military officers from the United States, Russia and Europe, we renew to all sides seven of our recommendations, updated to meet the present situation. Taken together these measures would materially contribute not just to a reduction of Russia-NATO tension but a reduction of Russia-NATO risk.

The recommendations are:

1. Regular meetings should be held between the Chief of General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, reinforced by military experts, to address issues of current concern.

2. In addition, NATO member states and Russia should resume contacts at the level of military representatives in the NATO Military Committee and restore the Russian military liaison mission at SACEUR Headquarters.

3. Russia and NATO member states could agree that both sides will conduct large-scale military exercises, as a rule, at a militarily meaningful distance from their borders, but where geography prevents this then additional measures of notification, transparency and predictability must be taken. They should consider reducing the scale and frequency of military activities with respect to numbers and geography, in particular exercises near borders. Generally, military exercises should be executed responsibly, not provocatively.

4. Both sides could take initial steps in the form of parallel unilateral measures that do not necessarily require conclusion of a formal agreement between NATO, or NATO member states, and Russia, which could prove politically difficult to achieve in the present environment.

5. Russia and the United States could confirm that, irrespective of the course of the present crisis, they will systematically develop their dialogue on the future of strategic stability and cyber security as agreed at their Geneva summit in June 2021.

6. Russia and NATO could immediately agree to launch negotiations on a new zero option for the deployment in Europe of US and Russian intermediate-range land-based missiles and their launchers.

7. Russia and NATO member states could immediately agree to launch negotiations on a package of measures on the basis of the existing bilateral and multilateral agreements on prevention of incidents at sea and above the sea, and on prevention of dangerous military activities.

Read the full statement in English and Russian here.

The opinions articulated above represent the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the European Leadership Network or any of its members. The ELN’s aim is to encourage debates that will help develop Europe’s capacity to address the pressing foreign, defence, and security policy challenges of our time.

Russian signatories
Name Position
1. Dmitry Danilov Head, Department of European security, Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IERAS)
2. Victor Esin Colonel General (ret.), Former Head of the Main Staff of the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces, Research Professor, Centre for Advanced Studies of Russian National Security, HSE University
3. Alexandra Filippenko Senior Research Fellow, Department for Military-Political Research, Institute for the US and Canadian Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences (ISKRAN)
4. Valery Garbuzov Director, Institute for the US and Canadian Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences (ISKRAN)
5. Alexey Gromyko Director, Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IERAS), Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences
6. Evgenia Issraelian Leading Research Fellow, Department of Canadian Studies, Institute for the US and Canadian Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences (ISKRAN)
7. Igor Ivanov Minister of Foreign Affairs (1998-2004), former Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation (2004-2007), President of Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC)
8. Andrey Kortunov Director General, Russian International Affairs Council
9. Oleg Krivolapov Senior Research Fellow, Department for Military-Political Research, Institute for the US and Canadian Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences (ISKRAN)
10. Valentin Kuznetsov Vice Admiral (ret.), former Chief Military Representative of the RF at NATO, Senior Research Fellow, Department for Military-Political Research, Institute for the US and Canadian Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences (ISKRAN);
11. Vladimir Lukin Russian Ambassador to the United States (1992-1994), director on the board of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), Deputy Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Federation Council of the RF
12. Alexander Nikitin Director, Center for Euro-Atlantic Security, Moscow State Institute of International Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (MGIMO), Honorary President of the Russian Association of Political Science
13. Mikhail Nosov Member of Directorate, Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IERAS)
14. Sergey Oznobishev Head, Department of Military and Political Analysis and Research Projects, Primakov Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO)
15. Pavel Palazhchenko Head of Press Office, Gorbachev Foundation
16. Alexander Panov Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Honored Member of the Russian Diplomatic Service, Head, Department of Diplomacy MGIMO University
17. Sergey Rogov Academic Director, Institute for the US and Canadian Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences (ISKRAN), Chairman 4 of the International Security Advisory Board of the Scientific Council at the Security Council of the Russian Federation; Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences
18. Pavel Sharikov Leading Research Fellow, Department of the European Integration, Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IERAS)
19. Igor Sherbak Former First Deputy of the Permanent Representative of the RF at the United Nations, Leading Research Fellow, Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IERAS)

(continued in right column)

Questions related to this article:

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(continued from left column)

20. Alexey Stepanov Research Fellow, Department for Military-Political Studies, Institute for the US and Canadian Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences (ISKRAN)
21. Nataliya Stepanova Research Fellow, Department for Military-Political Studies, Institute for the US and Canadian Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences (ISKRAN)
22. Alexander Usoltsev Head, International Relations Department, Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR)
23. Fedor Voytolovsky Director, Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO), Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences
24. Igor Yurgens President of the All-Russian Insurance Association, Member of the Board of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs
25. Andrey Zagorskiy Head, Department for Disarmament and Conflict Resolution Studies, Primakov National Research Institute for World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IMEMO)
26. Pavel Zolotarev Major General (ret.), Leading Research Fellow, Department of Military-Political Studies, Institute for the US and Canadian Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences (ISKRAN)

European and American signatories
Name Position
27. James Acton Co-director, Nuclear Policy Program Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
28. Roy Allison Professor of Russian and Eurasian International Relations, Director, Russian and Eurasian Studies Centre, St. Anthony’s College, Oxford
29. James Bindenagel Ambassador (ret.), Henry Kissinger Professor, Center for Advanced Security, Strategy and Integration Studies Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn
30. Sharan Burrow General Secretary, International Trade Union Confederation
31. Richard Burt Chairman of Global Zero US, US Chief Negotiator in the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks with the former Soviet Union, former US Ambassador to Germany
32. Pierce Corden Former division chief, United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and research fellow at the Center for Science,Technology and Security Policy, Amer. Assoc. for the Advancement of Science 5
33. Christopher Davis Professorial Research Fellow, University of Oxford
34. Marc Finaud Head of Arms Proliferation and Diplomatic Tradecraft, Geneva Centre for Security Policy
35. Nancy Gallagher Director, Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM)
36. Helmut W. Ganser Brigadier General (ret.), Defence Advisor to the German NATO Delegation 2004-2008, Brussels
37. Joseph Gerson President, Campaign for Peace, Disarmament & Common Security
38. Alexander Graef Research Fellow, Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg (IFSH)
39. Thomas Graham Managing director, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
40. Thomas Greminger Director of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP), former Secretary General of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)
41. Sven Hirdman Ambassador to Russia 1994-2004, State Secretary Ministry of Defence of Sweden (1979-1982);
42. Jon Huntsman Former Ambassador to Russia, former Governor of Utah
43. Daryl Kimball Executive Director, Arms Control Association
44. Lawrence Korb US Navy Captain (ret.), former Assistant Secretary of Defense, Reagan Administration, Senior Research Fellow, Center for American Progress, and Senior Advisor, Defense Information Center;
45. Reinhard Krumm Director, FES Office for Peace and Security, Friedrich-EbertStiftung
46. Ruediger Luedeking Ambassador (ret), former Deputy Commissioner of the German Federal Government for Disarmament and Arms Control
47. Douglas Lute Lieutenant General (rt.), US Ambassador to NATO, 2013- 2017, Senior Fellow, Belfer Center, Harvard University
48. Jack Matlock US Ambassador to the Soviet Union (1987-1991)
49. Hanna Notte Senior Research Associate, Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation (VCDNP)
50. Olga Oliker PhD, Adjunct Professor, Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies
51. Janusz Onyszkiewicz Former Minister of National Defense of Poland
52. Zachary Paikin Researcher, EU Foreign Policy at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)
53. William Perry former US Secretary of Defense, Director of the Preventive Defense Project at CISAC, FSI Senior Fellow
54. Andreas Persbo Research Director, ELN
55. Nicolai Petro Professor of Political Science, University of Rhode Island
56. Thomas Pickering Former US Under Secretary of State, former Ambassador to Jordan, Nigeria, El Salvador, Israel, the United Nations, India and Russia
57. Steven Pifer Former US Ambassador to Ukraine, nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and research fellow at 6 Stanford University;
58. William Potter Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar Professor of Nonproliferation Studies, Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey
59. Wolfgang Richter Colonel (ret.), Senior Military Advisor of the Permanent Representation of Germany to the OSCE, Vienna (2005– 2009); Senior Associate, International Security Division, German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Berlin (SWP)
60. Cynthia Roberts, Professor of Political Science, Hunter College, City University of New York, Senior Research Scholar, Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies Columbia University
61. José M Treviño Ruiz Admiral SP Navy (retired)
62. Lynn Rusten Vice President for Global Nuclear Policy, Nuclear Threat Initiative
63. Kevin Ryan Brigadier-General (ret), Senior Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center
64. Vladimir Senko Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus
65. Reiner Schwalb Brigadier-General (ret), National German Representative at NATO Allied Command Transformation, Norfolk/VA, 2007- 2010; German Senior Defense Official and Attache to the Russian Federation, Moscow, 2011–2018
66. Stefano Silvestri Senior Scientifi c Advisor at Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), former Under Secretary of State for Defence, former President of IAI (2001-2013);
67. Graham Stacey Senior Consulting Fellow, ELN, former Chief of Staff of NATO Transformation
68. Strobe Talbott Distinguished fellow in the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution, Deputy Secretary of State (1994-2001), President of the Brookings Institution (2002-2017)
69. Bruno Tertrais Deputy Director, Fondation pour la recherche stratégique (Foundation for Strategic Research, FRS)
70. Greg Thielmann Board member of the Arms Control Association, Commissioner of the U.S.-Russian-German “Deep Cuts” Project;
71. Adam Thomson Director of the European leadership network, Permanent UK representative to NATO (2014-2016)
72. Owen Tudor Deputy General Secretary, International Trade Union Confederation
73. Harlan Ullman Senior Advisor, Atlantic Council
74. Alexander Vershbow Former Assistant Secretary of Defense, former NATO Deputy Secretary General; former US Ambassador to South Korea, NATO, Russia; Distinguished Visiting Fellow at University of Pennsylvania’s Perry World House; Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council.
75. Dov Zakheim Vice Chair, Foreign Policy Research Institute, Former Under Secretary of Defense 7

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe, North America,

USA: United National AntiWar Coalition : US and NATO aggression towards Russia – danger at the Ukrainian Border

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A statement from the United National AntiWar Coalition

The US government and its corporate media have been trying to build a case that Russia is getting ready to invade Ukraine.  Their main argument is that they have observed around 90,000 Russian troops near the border with Ukraine.  Near the border means that they are on Russian territory, this is what the US calls aggression.  Although US and NATO forces have surrounded Russia and have conducted military maneuvers right at the Russian border, that is deemed to be not provocative, but Russia massing troops in its own territory is.  What is never said in any of these reports is that there are 125,000 Ukrainian troops in the Donbass region right near the Russian border.  These troops have been freshly equipped by the US with advanced weaponry and US military “advisors” have been aiding them in their aggressive military posture.  The massing of Russian troops near its border is a defensive move on their part to counter the threat of the US and NATO and their ally Ukraine that wants NATO membership.

In 1990, as the Soviet Union was collapsing, James Baker the US secretary of state told the Soviet leaders that NATO would not expand east of Germany.  Since then, it has expanded into 14 countries in violation of that agreement, right up to the Russian border.  History has since shown the world that it is the US and its NATO allies that are the aggressors everywhere in the world.  It is the US with its military in more than 170 countries, with 20 times the number of foreign bases as all other countries in the world combined that has invaded and occupied one country after the next.  It is the US that spends almost as much on the military as all other countries combined. This is what the Russians fear and with good reason.
 
The Russians have only to look at the coup that the US orchestrated in Ukraine in 2014.  They can recall Senator John McCain speaking to the protesters in Maidan Square, Kiev, urging them forward to topple their government, and US diplomat Victoria Nuland as she brought treats for the Maidan protesters and was recorded on the phone saying “fuck the EU” because they wanted to replace the Ukrainian president with someone other than the US hand-picked person.  The US pick, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, of course, was installed as the new prime minister after the coup, and ever since the US has had important influence in Ukraine.  The new finance minister in the coup government was Natalie Jeresko, from the US and Joe Biden’s son took a role on the board of the largest Natural gas company in the country.   The new government contained far right and Nazi parties such as the Svoboda Party and others associated with a coalition of right-wing groups called the Right Sector.  In Ukraine today there are openly fascist militias, swastikas chalked on walls or displayed on jackets and torchlight marches through the streets with people chanting anti-Semitic and anti-Russian slogans.   This is what the US put in place and what Russia – who lost 20 million people to the Nazi terror in World War II – fears. 

(Continued in right column)

Questions related to this article:
 
Can the peace movement help stop the war in the Ukraine?

How can the peace movement become stronger and more effective?

(Continued from left column)

 
The key demand of Russia is that Ukraine, which has the largest border with Russia of any European country, not become a NATO member.  They also demand that the U.S. and NATO back off on their approach to the Russian border and stop placing armed nuclear installations on their border.   The US/NATO/Ukraine aggression is happening at a time when the Ukrainian president Vladimir Zelenskiy has been making promises to “win back” Crimea and has started an offensive against the Eastern break-away regions of Luhansk and Donetsk.  All three areas are Russian speaking regions that rejected the 2014 coup as far-right and Nazi forces took hold of the government.  The people of Crimea voted by over 90% to break from Ukraine and re-integrate into Russia since they had been part of Russia untill 1956 anyway.  In the Donbass, which is the area of Luhansk and Donetsk, the people organized into the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic, created their own flags and built people’s militias to defend their territory against the right-wing and anti-Russian government of Kiev.  Although a cease fire agreement was reached, it has been consistently violated by Kiev and recently the Zelenskiy government has stepped-up attacks in the regions.  More than 14,000 people have been killed in this war in the Eastern Ukraine.
 
Another reason for the recent US/Ukraine aggression may be because just recently, Russia completed its Nordstream 2 natural gas pipeline from Russia to Germany and is ready to turn it on.  This can provide gas to Germany and Europe at a much better price than the US can offer with its fracked gas.  This will also replace the Russian gas pipeline that runs through Ukraine.  Natural gas was a key factor in the 2014 Ukrainian coup.  Like many of the other recent US initiated wars, energy may be a big issue in this situation too.
 
We demand:

– No US weapons or military advisors for the Ukrainian military
– Stop the US saber rattling, No war with Russia
– Keep Ukraine out of NATO

(Editor’s note: UNAC brings together most of the leading antiwar organizations of the United States. A recent video conference of UNAC against war in the Ukraine included representatives of the ANSWER coalition, Black Alliance for Peace, CodePink, International Action Center, Popular Resistance, Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, US Peace Council, Black Agenda Report, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Veterans for Peace and World Beyond War.)

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe, North America,

United National AntiWar Coalition: No War with Russia

. .DISARMAMENT & SECURITY. .

An email received at CPNN from the United National AntiWar Coalition

Today (February 6) was an amazing day. In little more than 1 week, the entire antiwar movement came together, signed a joint statement against a war with Russia and organized protests in dozens of cities around the country. We also held an online rally where antiwar leaders from many groups spoke. The consensus is that we must remain unified and continue to organize our movement into the future.


Tomorrow, you will have the opportunity to join our webinar where peace activists from the US, Russia and Ukraine will speak. Hundreds have already registered. You can do so below and help make this a powerful event.

US/NATO Aggression at the Russian Border
A conversation between US, Russian and Ukrainian Peace activists
Webinar, Sunday, February 6,
12 noon Eastern (US/Canada)

Click here to register

(Article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

The peace movement in the United States, What are its strengths and weaknesses?

(Article continued from left column)

Speakers will include:

Ajamu Baraka, National Organizer, Black Alliance for Peace

Larissa Shessler, Chair, Union of Political Emigrants & Political prisoners of Ukraine

Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator, Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space

Joe Lombardo, Coordinator, United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC)

Vladimir Kozin, Correspondent member, Russian Academy of Military Science

Leonid Ilderkin, Coordinating Council of the Union of Political Emigrants & Political Prisoners of Ukraine.

Corporate media in the US has been warning about a possible invasion of Ukraine by Russia. This, Russia denies. But this propaganda has been used by the Biden Administration to whip up sentiment for war. Billions of dollars of US arms have been sent to Ukraine, Ukraine has massed an estimated 145,000 troops on the Russian border with US “advisors” supporting their effort. For years the US and its Western allies have moved NATO into Eastern European and former Soviet States in violation of agreements made with Russia. They have installed missiles at the Russian border and conducted “war games” at the Russian border. Today’s threat is a threat against a major nuclear power that puts the entire world in danger. Join us for this important webinar with voices for peace from Russia, Ukraine and the US.

Click here for UNAC’s statement on the situation on the Russian border

(Editor’s note: See also the CPNN article US Must Take Russia’s Security Concerns Seriously)

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

United States : Marquette Law School Establishes Center for Restorative Justice

. . DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION . .

An article by Rebecca Kelliher in Diverse, Issues in Higher Education

Marquette University recently announced its creation of the Andrew Center for Restorative Justice at Marquette Law School. To establish the Center, Marquette alumni couple Louis and Suzanne Bouquet Andrew have committed $5 million. Janine P. Geske, a retired professor of law at Marquette and a current trustee of the University, will be the Center’s inaugural director.

In a statement, Geske described restorative justice as “a powerful, peace means for addressing conflict, promoting healing, and facilitating problem solving that differs from current mediation practices.” Until 1998, Geske had been a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court before teaching restorative justice to students for about twenty years. Prior to her retirement at Marquette, Geske directed the Law School’s Restorative Justice Initiative. 

“It has been my dream to have a permanent restorative justice program at Marquette Law School,” she said. “As a judge and attorney, I experienced both the successes of our criminal justice system as well as its failures in bringing restoration to victims and communities harmed by crime. I left the bench because I wanted to help better address the needs of those who have been harmed and marginalized in society.”

The Center will build upon Geske’s work, training law students in how to use restorative justice at local, national, and international levels. Restorative justice often involves lawyers, judges, or other professionals who engage in a guided civil dialogue to address conflict, promote healing, and facilitate problem solving. Such dialogues can be between the victim, the victim’s family members, the offender, and other members of the impacted community.

(Article continued in right column)

Discussion question

Restorative justice, What does it look like in practice?

(Article continued from left column)

“I am most excited that this gift will enable us to continue Janine’s restorative justice work in a robust way and thereby help give our students a broad sense of what the possibilities are for lawyers in not just the legal system per se but in serving the community generally,” said Joseph D. Kearney, dean of Marquette Law School and a professor of law.

He noted that recent years have drawn greater attention to how a crime harms not only the victims but surrounding communities. A restorative justice approach aims to mend these ripple effects alongside or separate from the formal processes of the legal system.

“This is not intended in most instances to be an alternative to traditional criminal law or a way for people who have committed a substantial wrong to get a lesser consequence for their action by making a face-to-face apology,” said Kearney.

The Center will also support faculty research and strengthen restorative justice work in the wider community. Geske previously participated in restorative justice efforts that addressed bullying in primary and secondary schools, for instance. This sometimes involved creating a safe setting for a student who was bullied to enter an open dialogue with the student who did the bullying. Through the Center, such community work could be expanded, including training school counselors in similar techniques.

Kearney added that restorative justice can be highly sensitive work. In some cases, a facilitator like Geske could work with an offender and victim for up to a year on taking steps toward restorative justice before deciding it is appropriate for the two to have a face-to-face discussion.

“And in some instances, it will be evident that it will not be appropriate, that there may be too great a risk of re-traumatizing the victim,” said Kearney. 

Such delicacy in restorative justice highlights to Kearney why someone as skillful as Geske is an ideal person to come out of retirement to get the Center off the ground. Later this month, Geske will facilitate the Center’s launch and, while director, help search for its permanent director.

“It is so exciting that because of the Andrews’ generous gift, we will be able to permanently support the teaching, practicing, and promoting of restorative processes to some of our society’s greatest problems,” she said. 

DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION, North America

Peace and Justice Organizations call for Freedom for Julian Assange

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

A petition from United National Antiwar Coalition

Imprisoned Wikileaks founder, journalist and free speech champion Julian Assange today faces life imprisonment for telling the truth about U.S. war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and at the U.S. torture base in Guantanamo Bay.

Assange faces charges under the 1917 U.S. Espionage Act. Prosecution under that WWI anti-democratic law placed thousands of antiwar activists in prison for exercising their free speech right to protest WWI.

Ironically, the Dec 19, 2021 New York Times front-page two-part series entitled, Hidden Pentagon Records Reveal Patterns of Failure in Deadly Airstrikes, follows in Assange’s footsteps in reporting U.S. war crimes, yet The Times staff writers remain free.

Some 100 Times reporters evaluated Pentagon confidential document obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. These included reports on 50,000 U.S. airstrikes on Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan conducted under the Obama and Trump administrations. The Times on-the-scene reporters subsequently confirmed tens of thousands of civilian casualties – collateral damage.

“The [Pentagon] documents,” according to The Times, “identify children killed or injured in 27 percent of cases; in The Times’s ground-breaking reporting it was 62 percent.”

(Article continued in the column on the right)

Question related to this article:
 
Julian Assange, Is he a hero for the culture of peace?

Free flow of information, How is it important for a culture of peace?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

The Times and several other major publications worldwide reprinted much of the same Pentagon material that Assange’s Wikileaks released to the world. Yet Assange faces a life in prison for publishing the truth.

The persecution of Julian Assange by the U.S. government is a threat against free speech and free press. It is also a threat to the Peace Movement and all movements for social change since without information and the ability to speak and write freely about U.S. wars and war crimes we are greatly limited, and the people of the world are kept in the dark.

Therefore, Peace and Justice organizations and activists demand:

Free Julian Assange!
No to U.S. wars!
Freedom of the press!
Free journalists!
Free speech!

Initial signers:
Organizations:  United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC), United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), ANSWER coalition, Code Pink, Black Alliance for Peace, International Action Center, US Peace Council, Veterans for Peace, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), World Beyond War, Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, Popular Resistance, Alliance for Democracy, Ban Killer Drones, People’s Opposition to War, Imperialism and Racism, Free Palestine Movement, International Solidarity Movement (Northern Calif), Palestine Children’s Welfare Fund, Syria Solidarity Movement, NakbaTour, Resumen Latinoamericano, One State Assembly, Association for Investment in Popular Action, Upstate NY Coalition to Ground the Drones and End the Wars, Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War, Sanctions kill Coalition (Editor’s note: We have added CPNN.)

SIGN HERE

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, North America

USA: Bernie opposes exorbitant defense spending bill

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Nation of Change

Outraged at his colleagues for incessantly fighting against social welfare programs while promoting corporate welfare, Sen. Bernie Sanders declared his opposition against the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, which would cost at least $778 billion.

“Many of my colleagues tell the American people, day after day, how deeply concerned they are about the deficit and the national debt,” Sen. Sanders said Tuesday in a press release. “They tell us that we just don’t have enough money to expand Medicare, guarantee paid family and medical leave, and address the climate crisis to the degree that we should if we want to protect the well-being of future generations. Yet, tomorrow, the U.S. Senate will be voting on an annual defense budget that costs $778 billion – $37 billion more than President Trump’s last defense budget and $25 billion more than what President Biden requested. All this for an agency, the Department of Defense, that continues to have massive fraud and cost overruns year after year and is the only major government agency not to successfully complete an independent audit. Isn’t it strange how even as we end the longest war in our nation’s history concerns about the deficit and national debt seem to melt away under the influence of the powerful Military Industrial Complex?”

(Article continued on the right column)

Question for this article:

Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

(Article continued from the left column)

In 2018, the Defense Department reported to Congress that from fiscal years 2013 to 2017, over $6.6 billion  had been recovered from defense contracting fraud cases. In 2020, the DOD Office of Inspector General reported that 395 of its 1,716 ongoing investigations—or approximately one-in-five—are related to procurement fraud.

Due to the fact that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report earlier this year determining that the DOD has wasted billions of dollars in less than a decade due to corruption and fraud, Sanders has called for defunding the U.S. military, which consecutively has the largest budget in the world without any reasonable justification. In addition to losing the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. military remains a perpetual drain on the economy despite repeated incompetence and corruption.

Sanders added, “Further, it is likely that the Senate leadership will attach to the National Defense Authorization Act the so-called ‘competitiveness bill,’ which includes $52 billion in corporate welfare, with no strings attached, for a handful of extremely profitable microchip companies. This bill also contains a $10 billion handout to Jeff Bezos for space exploration.

“Combining these two pieces of legislation would push the price tag of the defense bill to over $1 trillion – with very little scrutiny. Meanwhile, the Senate has spent month after month discussing the Build Back Better Act and whether we can afford to protect the children, the elderly, the sick, the poor and the future of our planet. As a nation, we need to get our priorities right. I will vote ‘NO’ on the National Defense Authorization Act.”

As his fellow legislators drag their feet in opposition to repairing failing infrastructure and improving healthcare for all, Sanders remains well aware that the NDAA passes every year with an overwhelming majority due to all the political contributions from defense contractors and lobbyists. By reducing the exorbitant defense budget, more money would be available to improve the quality of life for most Americans.

But as President Eisenhower warned in his farewell address, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

On Tuesday, Sanders took to twitter and wrote, “No. Congress should not provide a $10 billion handout to Jeff Bezos for space exploration as part of the defense spending bill. Unbelievable.”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

Pittsburgh : Black leaders seek ‘city of peace’

. . DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION . .

An article from the Post Gazette

A month ago, a group of African American lawmakers announced an initiative to curb the wave of gun violence and violent crime throughout Allegheny County.

The group, which calls itself the Black Elected Officials Coalition, announced it would begin a series of community events to promote peace in the streets. Democratic state Rep. Ed Gainey, who represents Lincoln-Lemington and is favored to win the Pittsburgh mayoral race next week, acted as the primary spokesman for the group, raising dramatically the expectations for the BEOC’s access to resources and cooperation across bureaucracies.

Mr. Gainey said the lawmakers, in cooperation with partners in government, the nonprofit sphere and law enforcement, would work together with at-risk young people to “create a city of peace” and promote a culture of nonviolence. This is a tall order, but not an impossible one, especially when elected officials are willing to stand behind their work with their names and reputations attached.

(article continued in right column)

Question related to this article:
 
How can culture of peace be developed at the municipal level?

(article continued from left column)

Even before BEOC was formed, Pittsburgh City Councilman Ricky Burgess, whose district includes Homewood, East Liberty and Garfield, had been working with Councilman Daniel Lavelle, whose district includes Downtown, the Hill District and Oakland, on the Stop the Violence Trust Fund.
 
Both councilmen are deeply involved in the effort to give $9 million to the Center that CARES, a Hill District nonprofit that deploys a dozen outreach workers to seven neighborhoods where most of the violence has been centered. All studies show that early intervention before neighborhood beefs escalate is the key to curbing conflicts.

This initiative will be one part of the strategy that these elected officials will lean on in the coming years. What BEOC proposes goes far beyond the usual “throw money at the problem and hope for the best.” These are elected officials who understand the nature of the problem and are heartbroken by the disappointing results of previous efforts.

This is too important to be left to law enforcement to figure out. The BEOC believes it has the empathy and motivation required to make this initiative a game changer.

Others on the coalition are Allegheny County Council members Olivia Bennett and DeWitt Walton and state Rep. Jake Wheatley, D-Hill District.

For their willingness to put their names and reputations on the line, the Black Elected Officials Coalition deserves our respect and appreciation. If the coalition succeeds, it will help Pittsburgh to serve all of its people, including those formerly without hope and left to settle scores on their own, in the streets.

DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION, North America