Vicenç Fisas on the Ukraine War: A Year of Mistakes and Horrors

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Vicenç Fisas in Other News (Creative Commons: Atribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC 4.0)) – (translation by CPNN)

The truth, however, is that this war in the Ukraine cannot be won by anyone, however it ends, because the harm that has been done transcends any possibility of resolution. The accumulated hatred is of such magnitude, proportional to the level of destruction and loss of human lives, that any reconciliation project will not be possible in the medium term.


Ukrainian soldiers fire an anti-aircraft gun near Bajmut on February 4.
EFE/EPA/SERGEY SHESTAK

One year after the start of the war in Ukraine, it is good to reflect on what has happened and what has not been done. The balance is sinister and not at all hopeful, since there is no end in sight in the short term. In my opinion, several points should be taken into consideration to reflect on the past, present and future.

Decisions that are irreversible or difficult to reverse have been made, such as increasing military spending, ending the status of neutral countries and expanding NATO. These decisions jeopardize the future of European security, and have ruined any possibility of resuming a shared security policy that could one day incorporate Russia. Many years will pass before this possibility can occur. Even if it is very costly, it is our obligation to think about future scenarios where we all fit into European security.

We have returned to the mentality of the cold war, of friend-foe and good and bad, increasing the warmongering and arms culture, not only in Europe, but throughout the world. We are facing a brutal setback in terms of prospects for peace and conflict resolution, and in the old continent a fatal blow has been dealt to the OSCE, which was the body that could have acted promptly and effectively in the moments of tension prior to the war. However, it was completely rendered useless, turning it into an already useless and discredited body in the face of the warmongering rage. Moreover, peace diplomacy, that of States with the capacity to influence and that of regional or international organizations, was hijacked and then annulled from the start, leaving us orphaned with actors willing to play this necessary role.

(Continued in right column)

(Click here for the original article in Spanish.)

Questions related to this article:
 
Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

Can the peace movement help stop the war in the Ukraine?

(Continued from left column)

The decisions, from the first moment, have been on the military route, to the delight of the arms manufacturers, which has given rise to a continuous escalation on the war front, with the conviction of both parties that they could win the war, and in the case of Ukraine, thanks to a continuous supply of weapons by third countries. Russia, for its part, has also resorted to buying weapons abroad. The truth, however, is that this war cannot be won by anyone, however it ends, because the harm that has been done transcends any possibility of resolution. The accumulated hatred is of such magnitude, proportional to the level of destruction and loss of human life, that any reconciliation project will not be possible in the medium term. Hopefully and if things change, perhaps the next generation may be able to mend the wounds. For the moment, what can be affirmed is that everyone loses, and it is delusional to think that destruction will one day lead us to glory, when it only leads us to misery.

It is not often that, in the face of an armed conflict, people bet so much on war and put aside the negotiating path to carry out a peace process. In the last half century, 90% of wars have ended at a negotiating table and a final peace agreement. Ukraine is one of the exceptions, and we should ask ourselves if this is a merit or a very serious mistake that we are committing.

I don’t know when, but I am convinced that one day the two parties will have to sit down to negotiate the status of eastern Ukraine, with the terrible paradox that any agreement that can be reached will hopefully not be very different from what that should have been done after the Minsk agreements were signed in 2015. Failure to do so is what has led us to where we are today, so it will be terrible to think of the price that will be paid for not having acted diligently when it was appropriate. In this sense, responsibilities are shared, although no one seems capable of recognizing their own mistakes or negligence.

– – – –

* Vicenç Fisas is a Spanish analyst of conflicts, international politics and peace processes. He has directed the School for the Culture of Peace of the Autonomous University of Barcelona from its foundation in 1999 until 2016, and he was the holder of the UNESCO Chair on Peace and Human Rights at the university. He received the National Human Rights Award in 1988.

(Thank you to Other News for having sent this to CPNN.)

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe

Boaventura de Sousa Santos: The beginning of the end of eurocentrism

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Boaventura de Sousa Santos* in MEER

One hundred years after World War I, Europe’s leaders are sleepwalking toward a new, all-out war. As in 1914, they believe that the war in Ukraine will be limited and short-lived. In 1914, the word in Europe’s chancelleries was that the war would last three weeks. It lasted four years and resulted in more than 20 million deaths. As was the case in 1918, the dominant view today holds that it is necessary to inflict exemplary punishment on the aggressor, so as to leave it broken and humbled for a long time.  

Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) brought peace to Europe until 1914

In 1918, the defeated power was Germany (and the Ottoman Empire). There were dissenting voices (John Maynard Keynes and a few others) for whom the complete humbling of Germany would be disastrous in terms of the reconstruction of Europe and of a lasting peace on the continent and in the world. Their warnings were not heeded, and twenty-one years later Europe was again at war. There followed five years of destruction that left more than 70 million people dead. History does not repeat itself, nor does it seem to teach us anything, but it does illustrate and highlight similarities and differences. Let me offer two illustrations.

By 1914, Europe had been experiencing relative peace for a hundred years, a period during which there had been many wars, but of a limited and short-lived nature. The secret of this peace lay in the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815). Held with the purpose of putting an end to the cycle of change, turmoil and war that had been set in motion by the French Revolution and made worse by the Napoleonic wars, it led to a treaty that was signed nine days before Napoleon’s final defeat at Waterloo. The whole conference was dominated by conservative forces, and the period that followed came to be known as the Restoration (of the old European order). The reason that meeting in Vienna comes to mind at this time has to do with another of its aspects. It was chaired by Klemens von Metternich, a great Austrian statesman whose main concern was to bring together all the European powers, the victors and the vanquished, in order to ensure lasting peace. It was clear that the defeated power (France) would have to suffer the consequences (territorial losses), but it signed the treaty along with all the other powers (Austria, England, Russia and Prussia), with conditions being imposed on all so as to ensure lasting peace across Europe. And so it came to be.

When compared to the present situation, there are numerous differences. The main difference is that, although this time the war is also taking place in Europe, the warring parties are a European and a non-European power (Russia and the US, respectively). The conflict has all the characteristics of a proxy war, one in which the two sides use a third country – ‘the country of sacrifice’ (in the present case, Ukraine) – to achieve geostrategic goals that go well beyond the country in question and even the region to which it belongs (Europe). In fact, the only reason Russia is at war with Ukraine is because it is at war with NATO, an organization whose Supreme Allied Commander for Europe “is traditionally a US commander.”

As an organization, NATO has been at the service of US geostrategic interests, especially since the end of the first Cold War. Once a steadfast champion, in other geopolitical contexts, of the self-determination of peoples, Russia is now illegally sacrificing these same principles to assert its own security concerns, after failing to have them recognized through peaceful means, and out of an undisguised imperial nostalgia. For its part, since the end of the first Cold War the US has striven to deepen Russia’s defeat, a defeat which in fact was probably more self-inflicted than brought about by any superiority on the part of its opponent. For a brief period, the diplomatic debate in Washington was between ‘partnership for peace’ and ‘the expansion of NATO to ensure the security of the emerging countries of the Soviet bloc’. Under President Clinton, the latter policy prevailed. Albeit for different reasons, the US, too, sees Ukraine as the ‘country of sacrifice’. In this light, the ultimate goal of the war in Ukraine is to inflict an unconditional defeat on Russia, preferably one that leads to regime change in Moscow. The duration of the war depends on that goal.

(Continued in right column)

Questions related to this article:
 
Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

Can the peace movement help stop the war in the Ukraine?

(Continued from left column)

Where is Russia’s incentive to end the war when the British Prime Minister permits himself to say that sanctions against Russia will continue, no matter what Russia’s position is at the present moment? Is it enough that Putin be ousted (as was the case with Napoleon in 1815), or is it Russia that needs to be ousted so that China’s expansion can be halted? There was also regime change in the 1918 humbling of Germany, but it all ended up leading to Hitler and an even more devastating war. President Zelensky’s political greatness could be construed as being either in recognition of the brave patriot who defends his country from the invader to the last drop of blood, or in recognition of the brave patriot who, faced with the imminence of so many innocent deaths and the asymmetry in military strength, successfully enlists the support of his allies to negotiate fiercely in order to secure a dignified peace. The fact that the former construction is now the prevalent one has probably little to do with President Zelensky’s personal preferences.

My second illustration of similarities and differences vis-à-vis the recent past concerns Europe’s geopolitical position. During the two world wars of the 20th century, Europe was the self-proclaimed center of the world. That is why we call them world wars. About four million of ‘Europe’s’ troops were in fact African and Asian, and many thousands of non-European deaths were the price paid by the inhabitants of remote colonies of the countries involved, sacrificed in a war that did not concern them. Now, however, Europe is but a small corner of the world, which the war in Ukraine will render even smaller. For centuries it was the farthest tip of Eurasia, the huge land mass that stretched from China to the Iberian Peninsula and witnessed the exchange of knowledge, products, scientific innovations and cultures. Much of what was later attributed to European exceptionalism (from the scientific revolution of the 16th century to the industrial revolution in the 19th century) cannot be understood, nor would it have been possible, without those centuries-old exchanges.

The war in Ukraine – especially if it goes on for too long – runs the risk not only of amputating one of Europe’s historic powers (Russia), but also of isolating it from the rest of the world, notably from China. The world is far bigger than what we get to see through European lenses. Seeing through these lenses, Europeans have never felt so strong, so close to their larger partner, so sure of standing on the right side of history, with the whole planet being run by the world of the ‘liberal order,’ a world finally feeling strong enough to go forth sometime soon and conquer – or at least neutralize – China, after having destroyed China’s main partner, Russia. Seeing through non-European lenses, on the other hand, Europe and the US stand haughtily all but alone, probably capable of winning one battle, but on their way to certain defeat in the war of history.

More than half of the world’s population lives in countries that have decided not to join the sanctions against Russia. Many of the UN countries that voted (rightly) against the illegal invasion of Ukraine did so based on their historical experience, which consisted in being invaded, not by Russia, but rather by the US, England, France or Israel. Their decision was not dictated by ignorance, but by precaution. How can they trust countries that created SWIFT – a financial transfer system aimed at protecting economic transactions against political interference – only to end up removing from that system a country on political grounds? Countries that arrogate to themselves the power to confiscate the financial and gold reserves of sovereign nations like Afghanistan, Venezuela and now Russia? Countries that trumpet freedom of expression as a sacrosanct universal value, but resort to censorship the moment they are exposed by it? Countries that are supposed to cherish democracy and yet have no qualms about staging a coup whenever an election goes against their interests? Countries in whose eyes the ‘dictator’ Nicolas Maduro becomes a trading partner overnight, because the circumstances have changed?

The world is no longer a place of innocence – if it ever was.

– – – –

* Boaventura de Sousa Santos is Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the School of Economics, University of Coimbra (Portugal), Distinguished Legal Scholar at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School and Global Legal Scholar at the University of Warwick. He is Director of the Center for Social Studies of the University of Coimbra and Scientific Coordinator of the Permanent Observatory for Portuguese Justice..

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe

Lula Won’t Send Arms to Ukraine: “Brazil Is a Country of Peace”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Telesur English

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said on Monday (January 30) after meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz that the South American country will not send ammunition that could be used in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

Lula da Silva said through his official Twitter account, “Brazil has no interest in ceding ammunition to be used in the war between Ukraine and Russia. Brazil is a country of peace. At this moment, we have to find those who want peace, a word that until now has been used very little.” 

The President of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (R), meets with the Chancellor of Germany, Olaf Scholz (L), January 30, at the Planalto Palace, in Brasilia (Brazil) | Photo: EFE/ André Borges

(Continued in right column)

Questions related to this article:
 
Latin America, has it taken the lead in the struggle for a culture of peace?

Can the peace movement help stop the war in the Ukraine?

(Continued from left column)

At a joint press conference following the meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz at the Planalto Palace in Brasilia, the President affirmed that Brazil is willing to contribute, together with countries such as China, India and Indonesia, to create a “club of countries that want to build peace on the planet.”

Lula da Silva recognized China’s role in the current conflict. “Our friends, the Chinese play a very important role,” said the Workers’ Party (PT) leader, adding that he wants to “discuss peace between Russia and Ukraine with President Xi Jinping,” during his visit in March.

On the issue of reaching a Russia-Ukraine consensus, Lula da Silva said it is necessary “to constitute a group with sufficient strength to be respected at a negotiating table and sit down with both (Ukrainian President Vladimir / Russian President Vladimir Putin).”

The Brazilian President referred to the role of the United Nations (UN) in the face of the conflict. Lula said the UN “no longer represents the geopolitical reality,” and added: “We want the UN Security Council to be strong, more representative and able to speak another language that the world needs.”

While calling Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine a “mistake,” the Brazilian President said that Ukraine’s possible entry into the European Union and NATO were possible reasons. 

The Presidents of Argentina and Colombia, Alberto Fernandez and Gustavo, Petro respectively, have also refused to send armaments to Ukraine, claiming that they are on the side of peace.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Latin America

Interview with Helen Caldicott: “We’ve never been closer to nuclear catastrophe”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute and pubished by the Asia Times.

The following interview took place on January 25, 2023, one day after the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists advanced  the hands of the Doomsday Clock to 90 seconds before midnight – in large part because of developments in Ukraine.

Helen Caldicott (above), an Australian peace activist and environmentalist, discussed the extreme and imminent threat of a nuclear holocaust due to a proxy war between the US and Russia in Ukraine. She also addressed the announcement by the US Department of Energy of a controlled nuclear reaction and outlines the relationship between the nuclear power industry and nuclear weapons.

Caldicott is the author of numerous books and is a recipient of at least 12 honorary doctorates. She was nominated for the Nobel Prize by physicist Linus Pauling and named by the Smithsonian Institution as one of the most influential women of the 20th century. Her public talks describing the horrors of nuclear war from a medical perspective raised the consciousness of a generation.

Caldicott believes that the reality of destroying all of life on the planet has receded from public consciousness, making doomsday more likely. As the title of her recent book  states, we are “sleepwalking to Armageddon.”

Steve Taylor: What is the Doomsday Clock, and why is it now set to 90 seconds to midnight?

Helen Caldicott: For the last year, it’s been at 100 seconds to midnight, which is the closest it’s ever been. Each year they reset the clock according to international problems, nuclear problems. Ninety seconds to midnight – I don’t think that is close enough; it’s closer than that. I would put it at 20 seconds to midnight.

I think we’re in an extremely invidious position where nuclear war could occur tonight, by accident or by design. It’s very clear to me, actually, that the United States is going to war with Russia. And that means, almost certainly, nuclear war – and that means the end of almost all life on Earth.

ST: Do you see similarities with the 1962 Cuban missile crisis?

HC: Yes. I got to know John F Kennedy’s secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, later in his life. He was in the Oval Office at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. He once told me, “Helen, we came so close to nuclear war – three minutes.” Three minutes. We’re in a similar situation now.

ST: So back then, though, famously, the world held its breath during the missile crisis.

HC: Oh, we were terrified. Terrified, absolutely terrified.

ST: That doesn’t seem to be the case today.

HC: Today, the public and policymakers are not being informed adequately about what this really means – that the consequences would be so bizarre and so horrifying.

It’s very funny; New York City  put out a video  as a hypothetical [public service announcement] in July 2022 showing a woman in the street, and it says the bombs are coming, and it’s going to be a nuclear war. It says that what you do is go inside, you don’t stand by the windows, you stand in the center of the room, and you’ll be all right. I mean, it’s absolutely absurd.

ST: That is what you were fighting against back in the ’70s and ’80s – this notion that a nuclear war is survivable.

HC: Yes. There was a US defense official called T K Jones who reportedly said, don’t worry; “if there are enough shovels to go around,” we’ll make it. And his plan was if the bombs are coming and they take half an hour to come, you get out the trusty shovel. You dig a hole. You get in the hole. Someone puts two doors on top and then piles on dirt.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:
 
Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(Continued from left column)

I mean, they had plans. But the thing about it is that evolution will be destroyed. We may be the only life in the universe. And if you’ve ever looked at the structure of a single cell, or the beauty of the birds or a rose, I mean, what responsibility do we have?

ST: During the Cuban missile crisis, the US did not want missiles pointed at it from Cuba, and the Soviet Union did not want missiles pointed at it from Turkey. Do you see any similarities with the conflict in Ukraine?

HC: Oh, sure. The United States has nuclear weapons in European countries, all ready to go and land on Russia. How do you think Russia feels – a little bit paranoid?

Imagine if the Warsaw Pact moved into Canada, all along the northern border of the US, and put missiles all along the northern border. What would the US do? She’d probably blow up the planet as she nearly did with the Cuban missile crisis. I mean, it’s so extraordinarily unilateral in the thinking, not putting ourselves in the minds of the Russian people.

ST: Do you feel we’re more at risk of nuclear war now than we were during the Cold War?

HC: Yes. We’re closer to nuclear war than we’ve ever been. And that’s what the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists indicated by moving the clock to 90 seconds to midnight.

ST: Does it seem like political leaders are more cavalier about nuclear exchange now?

HC: Yes, because they haven’t taken in what nuclear war would really mean. And the Pentagon is run by these cavalier folks who are making millions out of selling weapons. Almost the whole of the US budget goes to killing and murder, rather than to health care and education and the children in Yemen, who are, millions of them, starving.

I mean, we’ve got the money to fix everything on Earth, and also to power the world with renewable energy. The money is there. It’s going into killing and murder instead of life.

ST: You mentioned energy. The US Department of Energy has announced  a so-called fusion breakthrough. What do you think about the claims that fusion may be our energy future?

HC: The technology wasn’t part of an energy experiment. It was part of a nuclear weapons experiment  called the Stockpile Stewardship Program. It is inappropriate; it produced an enormous amount of radioactive waste and very little energy. It will never be used to fuel global energy needs for humankind.

ST: Could you tell us a little bit about the history of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, where scientists developed this fusion technology?

HC: The Lawrence Livermore Laboratory was where the first hydrogen bombs were developed. It was set up in 1952, by Edward Teller, a wicked man.

ST: There is this promotion of nuclear energy as a green alternative. Is the nuclear-energy industry tied to nuclear weapons?

HC: Of course. In the ’60s, when people were scared stiff of nuclear weapons, there was a Pentagon psychologist who said, look, if we have peaceful nuclear energy, that will alleviate the people’s fear.

ST: At the end of your 1992 book If You Love This Planet, you wrote, “Hope for the Earth lies not with leaders, but in your own heart and soul. If you decide to save the Earth, it will be saved. Each person can be as powerful as the most powerful person who ever lived – and that is you, if you love this planet.” Do you stand by that?

HC: If we acknowledge the horrifying reality that there is an extreme and imminent threat of nuclear war, it’s like being told that as a planet, we have a terminal disease. If we’re scared enough, every one of us can save the planet. But we have to be very powerful and determined.

– – – – –

This interview has been edited for clarity and length. A video of the description of nuclear war from the interview can be viewed on Vimeo. Listen to the entire interview, available for streaming on Breaking Green’s website  or wherever you get your podcasts. Breaking Green  is produced by the Global Justice Ecology Project.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

Let’s “work together for peace”, Nuns, Clergy Appeal after South Sudan Peace Pilgrimage

TOLERANCE AND SOLIDARITY .

An article from ACI Africa

The ecumenical visit to South Sudan undertaken by Pope Francis, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, and the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, Rev. Dr. Iain Greenshields, is a challenge to be instruments of peace and hope to the people of God in the East-Central African nation, ACI Africa has been told.

Pope Francis ended his ecumenical trip in South Sudan with a farewell ceremony at Juba international after presiding over Holy Mass at the grounds of Dr. John Garang Mausoleum.


Photo credit: Vatican Media

More than 100,000 people participated in the Papal Mass that was held at the Mausoleum commemorating Dr. John Garang, a liberation leader known as the “father of South Sudan”.

In an interview with ACI Africa at the Papal Mass venue, a member of Solidarity with South Sudan (SSS), an initiative of the International Union of Superiors General (UISG) and the Union of Superiors General (USG), established in response to a request from the members of the Sudan Catholic Bishops’ Conference (SCBC), described the ecumenical trip as an “epoch-making visit”.

“The fact that the three of them have come together to visit us in South Sudan gives a great signal that we can come together as Christians to work together for peace,” Sr. Cecilia Nya said.

The Nigerian-born member of the Society of the Holy Child Jesus (SHCJ) emphasized, “South Sudan is mostly a Christian country, so we can come together to work together for peace.”

Sr. Nya who serves at the Good Shepherd Peace Center went on to recall the 11 April 2019 dramatic gesture when Pope Francis knelt and kissed the feet of President Salva Kiir and opposition leader Dr. Riek Machar among other South Sudanese political leaders.

She is both ecumenically and interfaith minded and works “The powerful gesture that Pope Francis made … by inviting the President and the Vice presidents and the politicians of this country to Rome for a special retreat was a fantastic gesture and in fact I heard somebody saying one of the politicians who was there saying that he cried,” she told ACI Africa on February 5 just before the Papal Mass started.

Sr. Nya who has previously been part of SHCJ Leadership Team continued, “This coming of the Pope to South Sudan is a clarion call that let our hearts be broken, not our garments torn. I think it is a big call for all of us to join hands to fan into flame the fire that Pope Francis has ignited by this visit.”

“All of us from the top to the bottom, from the grassroots, everybody has to be more committed to working for peace, to ensuring that peace is restored in the land,” she said.

The SHCJ member who, from 2009 to 2014, served on the Board of Directors of UNANIMA International, a non-governmental organization advocating on behalf of women and children, immigrants and refugees, and the environment, expressed confidence in realizing peace in South Sudan, saying, “We can make it; we’ve got the Spirit working in and through everybody.”


On her part, Sr. Mary Moraa told ACI Africa that the Apostolic Journey of the Holy Father was “timely and appropriate for us here in South Sudan, especially for what has been going on in these past days.”

The member of the Pious Society of the Daughters of St. Paul (FSP) explained, “South Sudan is a country that has suffered so long in civil wars since 1956. So, in a way, the Pope comes to call us, that we become the people who give hope and peace to the people of South Sudan.”

(Article continued in right column.)

Question for this article

Religion: a barrier or a way to peace?, What makes it one or the other?

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(Article continued from left column.)

“People live without hope because of the so much suffering that they have gone through,” Sr. Moraa said during the February 5 interview, adding that “as a person who is supposed to become salt and light, I’m supposed to become that hope that there is a better tomorrow … to bring light in the moment of darkness for these people who have suffered for so long.”

The Kenyan-born FSP member who has been in South Sudan since last August further said, “I pray and hope that the words of the Pope will sink deep into the hearts of our leaders and that they will implement them.”

“Differences on tribal lines should be kept aside and we all work for peace,” Sr. Moraa went on to say, and added, “We need a break from this suffering; all the blood that has been poured has to come to an end … We need a better tomorrow; we need a better South Sudan.”

She reflected on their apostolate in the light of the exhortations of the Holy Father. “As a Congregation of the Daughters of Saint Paul, I think we are also called to become these channels of peace and hope to the people through our apostolate,” she said.

“We are involved in the means of social communication,” Sr. Moraa who has previously served in Uganda, Zambia, Malawi, and her native country of Kenya said, and added, “in the books that we distribute, the major theme in this our South Sudan should be peace and hope so that all the tribes feel that we are working for them.”

“I feel that it’s a challenge that has been brought to us as Daughters of St. Paul to work on this peace in South Sudan in our own ways through the means of social communication that we use in our apostolate,” she said during the February 5 interview in Juba, moments after the Holy Father left for Rome in the company of Archbishop Welby, and Rev. Dr. Greenshields.

“The visit of the Pope has just ended, and from it I take the following for myself: to become Moses, to become salt and light for the people of South Sudan,” Sr. Moraa told ACI Africa.

In carrying out the apostolate as Daughters of St. Paul in South Sudan, she continued, “we are not favoring anybody but we are working for all of them to become one, to become peaceful in their coexistence among themselves, so that we have one country, not a country that is divided among individuals on the lines of tribes and clans.”

Also speaking to ACI Africa after the Papal Mass on the grounds of Dr. John Garang Mausoleum, a member of the Religious Institute of the Salesians of Don Bosco (SDB) said he was touched by the simple gesture of Pope Francis visiting South Sudan.

“I am touched by the simple gesture of the Holy Father coming to our land. This land where there is violence, there is war and all kinds of atrocities yet this Holy man, this humble man comes to us, to be with and to reassure us that better days will surely come,” Fr. Charles Taban said.

The South Sudanese Catholic Priest who ministers among young people in Sudan’s Catholic Diocese of El Obeid added in reference to Pope Francis, “We are encouraged by his presence.”

“We admire the Holy Father for the powerful messages he has left to us,” Fr. Taban said, and added, “The message of hope that he has left to us will give us a kind of impetus to move forward and to work for peace and reconciliation in this country,”

He continued, “I am certain of our politicians; they are all Christians and for certain they have been moved by the message of the Holy Father and above all by the gesture that he made by coming to be with us.”

The native of South Sudan’s Wau Diocese urged all people of goodwill to “to help us in whichever way you can, in your own capacity to help us build a true culture of peace in South Sudan.”

For the Archbishop of Ethiopia’s Addis Ababa Archdiocese, the realization of the previously postponed Papal trip to Africa was “a great joy”.

“A great joy that he finally came to South Sudan because as you know he was supposed to come some months back but he finally came and greeted the people,” Berhaneyesus Demerew Cardinal Souraphiel said about Pope Francis, adding, “He is an instrument of peace and South Sudan needs peace and he spoke also to the leaders yesterday, to the nation (about) enough conflict, enough war.”

In the February 4 interview with ACI Africa at St. Theresa’s Cathedral of Juba Archdiocese, the Cardinal who serves as the President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Ethiopia (CBCE) said South Sudan “is a beautiful country; it is a young country that needs peace and reconciliation and reconstruction.”

“I have the confidence that his (Pope Francis) message has gone down to the people and also to the political leaders,” Cardinal Souraphiel, a member of the Congregation of the Mission (CM) said.

Africa, FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, TOLERANCE & SOLIDARITY

UK National Demonstration: Peace Talks Now – Stop the War in Ukraine

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Received by email from office@stopwar.org.uk

President Zelensky’s visit to parliament took us a big step closer to open war with Russia. The UK stop on Zelensky’s whirlwind European tour was the first and most important. He used it to push for more tanks and crucially for fighter jets. Boris Johnson demanded Typhoons be shipped out immediately. Sunak responded by saying planes would likely be sent.

If NATO planes confront Russian fighters over Ukraine we would be on the brink of a great power confrontation. If the demand for jets is agreed, we can be sure it will be followed by calls for ground troops.

The anti-war movement needs to respond and respond decisively. We are calling for all Stop the War groups and all our members and supporters to spend the next two weeks mobilising urgently for the Peace Talks Now – Stop the War in Ukraine demonstration on 25 February.

Assemble at BBC, Portland Place, W1A 1AA at 12 Noon. Marching to Trafalgar Square.

Yes, I’ll Join the March!

We ask you to publicise the demonstration in every way possible; join our twitter storm this evening (February 10) using hashtags #NoToWar & #PeaceNow; organise stalls and leafleting sessions in your area; get in touch with your local sympathetic organisations and activists including trade unions; distribute and display leaflets at your workplace or college.

(Continued in right column)

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

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(Continued from left column)

If you live in London please join one or more of the leafletting sessions already organised.

You can download flyers for the demo here. If you need to order leaflets or any other material drop us a line at office@stopwar.org.uk

Peace Now – Stop the War in Ukraine! International Online Rally

To make the call for peace, Stop the War Coalition is hosting an online international rally on Mon 13 Feb. We’ll be joined by some great speakers from around the world to discuss what we can do to de-escalate the war in Ukraine and end the devastation that’s taking place there.

Speakers: Tariq Ali (Writer & Activist), Clare Daly MEP, Lindsey German (StWC), Kate Hudson (CND), Medea Benjamin (CODEPINK) and more.

Sign Up Here

20 Year anniversary of Iraq Demo

February 15 marks the 20th anniversary of the largest political demonstration ever in the UK. Well over a million people joined us on the streets to oppose the war.

We are asking all our supporters who took part to email in your photos from the day, tweet and share on social media using the hashtag #Iraq20Years so that we can re-share them.

On 20 March we are holding an anniversary event marking the date the war broke out (19th) at the Swiss Church in Central London. Hold the date!

We are also participating in the International Peace Bureau’s online event to mark the global nature of the protests. Further information and link to join here.

Peace Talks Now! Demonstration Fundraiser

Putting on a demonstration in Central London costs a lot of money. Please help us cover the cost of the demonstration by donating to our fundraiser...

Donate to Our Demo Fundraiser

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe

Letter To President Biden: Sign The Nuclear Ban Treaty!

. .DISARMAMENT & SECURITY. .

From the website Nuclear Ban

January 22, 2023 to: President Joe Biden, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Biden,

We, the undersigned, call on you to immediately sign, on behalf of the United States, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), also known as the “Nuclear Ban Treaty.”

Mr. President, January 22, 2023 marks the second anniversary of entry into force of the TPNW. Here are six compelling reasons why you should sign this treaty now:


1. It’s the right thing to do. As long as nuclear weapons exist, the risk increases with every passing day that these weapons will be used.

According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the world stands closer to “doomsday” than at any point even during the darkest days of the Cold War. And the use of even one nuclear weapon would constitute a humanitarian disaster of unparalleled proportions. A full-scale nuclear war would spell the end of human civilization as we know it. There is nothing, Mr. President, that could possibly justify that level of risk.

Mr. President, the real risk we are facing is not so much that President Putin or some other leader will purposely use nuclear weapons, although that is clearly possible. The real risk with these weapons is that human error, computer malfunction, cyber attack, miscalculation, misunderstanding, miscommunication, or a simple accident could so easily lead inexorably to a nuclear conflagration without anyone ever intending it to.

The increased tension that now exists between the US and Russia makes an unintended launch of nuclear weapons so much more likely, and the risks are simply too great to be ignored or downplayed. It is imperative that you take action to reduce those risks. And the only way to reduce that risk to zero is to eliminate the weapons themselves. That is what the TPNW stands for. That is what the rest of the world demands. That is what humanity requires.

2. It will improve America’s standing in the world, and especially with our closest allies.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the US response to it may have greatly improved America’s standing, at least in Western Europe. But the imminent deployment of a new generation of US “tactical” nuclear weapons to Europe could quickly change all that. The last time such a plan was attempted, in the 1980s, it led to enormous levels of hostility toward the US and nearly toppled several NATO governments.

This treaty has enormous public support across the world and especially in Western Europe. As more and more countries sign on to it, its power and significance will only grow. And the longer the United States stands in opposition to this treaty, the worse our standing will be in the eyes of the world, including some of our closest allies. 

As of today, 68 countries have ratified this treaty, outlawing everything to do with nuclear weapons in those countries. Another 27 countries are in the process of ratifying the treaty and many more are lining up to do so.

Germany, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium (and Australia) were among the countries who officially attended as observers at the first meeting of TPNW last year in Vienna. They, together with other close allies of the United States, including Italy, Spain, Iceland, Denmark, Japan and Canada, have voting populations who overwhelmingly support their countries signing the treaty, according to recent opinion polls. There are also hundreds of legislators in those countries who have signed the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) pledge in support of the TPNW, including the prime ministers of both Iceland and Australia.

It is not a question of “if,” but only of “when,” these and many other countries will join the TPNW and outlaw everything to do with nuclear weapons. As they do, US armed forces and the international corporations involved in the development and production of nuclear weapons will face increasing difficulties in carrying on with business as usual. It is already punishable with an unlimited fine and up to life in prison if found guilty of involvement with the development, production, maintenance, transportation or handling of (anyone’s) nuclear weapons in Ireland.

As it states very clearly in the US Law of War Manual, US military forces are bound by international treaties even when the US does not sign them, when such treaties represent “modern international public opinion” as to how military operations should be conducted. And already investors representing more than $4.6 trillion in global assets have divested from nuclear weapons companies because of the global norms that are shifting as a result of the TPNW.

3. Signing is nothing more than a statement of our intention to achieve a goal that the United States is already legally committed to achieving.

As you know very well, signing a treaty is not the same as ratifying it, and only once it is ratified do the terms of the treaty enter into force. Signing is just the first step. And signing the TPNW does not commit this country to a goal it is not publicly and legally committed to already; namely, the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

The United States has been committed to the total elimination of nuclear weapons since at least 1968, when it signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and agreed to negotiate the elimination of all nuclear arsenals “in good faith” and “at an early date”. Since then, the United States has twice given an “unequivocal undertaking” to the rest of the world that it would fulfil its legal obligation to negotiate the elimination of these weapons.

President Obama famously earned a Nobel Peace Prize for committing the United States to the goal of a nuclear-free world, and you yourself have reiterated that commitment on a number of occasions, most recently on August 1, 2022, when you pledged from the White House “to continue working toward the ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons.”

Mr. President, signing the TPNW would demonstrate the sincerity of your commitment to actually achieve that goal. Getting all the other nuclear-armed nations to also sign the treaty would be the next step, ultimately leading to ratification of the treaty and the elimination of all nuclear weapons from all countries. In the meantime, the United States would be no more at risk of nuclear attack or nuclear blackmail than it is at present, and until ratification, would still maintain the same arsenal of nuclear weapons as it does today.

In fact, under the terms of the treaty, the complete, verifiable and irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons only takes place well after ratification of the treaty, in accordance with a legally-binding timebound plan that all parties must agree to. This would allow for staged reductions according to a mutually agreed timetable, as with other disarmament treaties.

4. The whole world is witnessing in real time the reality that nuclear weapons serve no useful military purpose.

Mr. President, the whole rationale for maintaining an arsenal of nuclear weapons is that they are so powerful as a “deterrent” they would never need to be used. And yet our possession of nuclear weapons clearly did not prevent the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Nor has Russia’s possession of nuclear weapons prevented the United States from arming and supporting Ukraine despite Russia’s threats.

Since 1945, the US has fought wars in Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Libya, Kosovo, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Possession of nuclear weapons did not “deter” any of those wars, nor indeed did possession of nuclear weapons ensure that the US “won” any of those wars.

The possession of nuclear weapons by the UK did not prevent Argentina from invading the Falkland Islands in 1982. The possession of nuclear weapons by France did not prevent them losing to insurgents in Algeria, Tunisia or Chad. The possession of nuclear weapons by Israel did not prevent the invasion of that country by Syria and Egypt in 1973, nor did it prevent Iraq from raining down Scud missiles on them in 1991. India’s possession of nuclear weapons did not stop countless incursions into Kashmir by Pakistan, nor has Pakistan’s possession of nuclear weapons stopped any of India’s military activities there.

It is no surprise that Kim Jong-un thinks nuclear weapons will deter an attack on his country by the United States, and yet you would no doubt agree that his possession of nuclear weapons makes such an attack more likely at some point in the future, not less likely.

President Putin threatened to use nuclear weapons against any country that tried to interfere with his invasion of Ukraine. That was not the first time anyone has threatened to use nuclear weapons, of course. Your predecessor in the White House threatened North Korea with nuclear annihilation in 2017. And nuclear threats have been made by previous US Presidents and the leaders of other nuclear-armed nations going all the way back to the aftermath of World War II. 
But these threats are meaningless unless they are carried out, and they are never carried out for the very simple reason that to do so would be an act of suicide and no sane political leader is likely to ever make that choice.

In your joint statement with Russia, China, France and the UK in January of last year, you clearly stated that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” The G20 statement from Bali reiterated that “the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible. The peaceful resolution of conflicts, efforts to address crises, as well as diplomacy and dialogue, are vital. Today’s era must not be of war.”

What do such statements mean, Mr. President, if not the utter pointlessness of retaining and upgrading expensive nuclear weapons that can never be used?

5. By signing the TPNW now, you can discourage other countries from seeking to acquire nuclear weapons of their own.

Mr. President, despite the fact that nuclear weapons do not deter aggression and do not help win wars, other countries continue to want them. Kim Jong-un wants nuclear weapons to defend himself from the United States precisely because we continue to insist that these weapons somehow defend us from him. It is no surprise that Iran might feel the same way.

The longer we go on insisting that we must have nuclear weapons for our own defense, and that these are the “supreme” guarantee of our security, the more we are encouraging other countries to want the same. South Korea and Saudi Arabia are already considering acquiring their own nuclear weapons. Soon there will be others.

How can a world awash in nuclear weapons possibly be safer than a world without any nuclear weapons? Mr. President, this is the moment to seize the opportunity to eliminate these weapons once and for all, before more and more countries are engulfed in an uncontrollable arms race that can have only one possible outcome. Eliminating these weapons now is not just a moral imperative, it is a national security imperative.

Without a single nuclear weapon, the United States would still be the most powerful country in the world by a very wide margin. Together with our military allies, our military spending outpaces all our potential adversaries put together many times over, every single year. No country on earth comes close to being able to seriously threaten the United States and its allies – unless they have nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons are the global equalizer. They enable a comparatively small, poor country, with its people virtually starving, to nevertheless threaten the mightiest world power in all of human history. And the only way to finally eliminate that threat is to eliminate all nuclear weapons. That, Mr. President, is a national security imperative.

6. There is one final reason for signing the TPNW now. And that is for the sake of our children and grandchildren, who are inheriting a world that is literally burning down in front of our eyes as a result of climate change. We cannot adequately address the climate crisis without also addressing the nuclear threat.

You have taken important steps to address the climate crisis, through your infrastructure bill and the inflation reduction act. You have been hampered by Supreme Court decisions and a difficult Congress from achieving more of what you know is needed to fully address this crisis. And yet, trillions of taxpayer dollars are being poured into developing the next generation of nuclear weapons, along with all the other military hardware and infrastructure you have signed off on.

Mr. President, for the sake of our children and grandchildren, please use this opportunity to switch gears and begin the transition to a sustainable world for them. You don’t need Congress or the Supreme Court to sign a treaty on behalf of the United States. That is your prerogative as President.

And by signing the TPNW, we can begin the monumental shift of resources that is needed from nuclear weapons to climate solutions. By signalling the beginning of the end of nuclear weapons, you would be enabling and encouraging the vast scientific and industrial infrastructure that supports the nuclear weapons industry to begin to make that transition, along with the billions in private finance that support that industry.

And most importantly, you would be opening up a door to improved international cooperation with Russia, China, India and the EU without which no action on climate will be sufficient to save the planet.

Mr. President, as the first country to develop nuclear weapons and the only country to have ever used them in war, the United States bears a special moral responsibility to ensure they are never used again. As you yourself said in a speech on January 11, 2017, “If we want a world without nuclear weapons—the United States must take the initiative to lead us there.” Please, Mr. President, you can do this! Please take the first clear step to nuclear abolition and sign the Nuclear Ban Treaty.

Yours sincerely,

(Article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

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

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(Article continued from left column)

* Organizations in bold = official signatories, organizations not in bold are for identification purposes only

Timmon Wallis, Vicki Elson, Co-Founders, NuclearBan.US

Kevin Martin, President, Peace Action

Darien De Lu, President, US Section, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom

Ivana Hughes, President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

David Swanson, Executive Director, World Beyond War

Medea Benjamin, Jodie Evans, Co-Founders, CodePink

Johnny Zokovitch, Executive Director, Pax Christi USA

Ethan Vesely-Flad, Director of National Organizing, Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR-USA)

Melanie Merkle Atha, Executive Director, Episcopal Peace Fellowship

Susan Schnall, President, Veterans For Peace

Hanieh Jodat, Partnerships Coordinator, RootsAction

Michael Beer, Director, Nonviolence International

Alan Owen, Founder, LABRATS (Legacy of the Atomic Bomb. Recognition for Atomic Test Survivors)

Helen Jaccard, Manager, Veterans For Peace Golden Rule Project

Kelly Lundeen and Lindsay Potter, Co-Directors, Nukewatch

Linda Gunter, Founder, Beyond Nuclear

Leonard Eiger, Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action

Felice and Jack Cohen-Joppa, Nuclear Resister

Nick Mottern, Co-coordinator, Ban Killer Drones

Priscilla Star, Director, Coalition Against Nukes

Cole Harrison, Executive Director, Massachusetts Peace Action

Rev. Robert Moore, Executive Director, Coalition For Peace Action (CFPA)

Emily Rubino, Executive Director, Peace Action New York State

Robert Kinsey, Colorado Coalition for the Prevention of Nuclear War

Rev. Rich Peacock, Co-Chair, Peace Action of Michigan

Jean Athey, Secretary of the Board, Maryland Peace Action

Martha Speiss, John Raby, Peace Action Maine

Joe Burton, Treasurer of the Board, North Carolina Peace Action

Kim Joy Bergier, Coordinator, Michigan Stop The Nuclear Bombs Campaign

Kelly Campbell, Executive Director, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility

Sean Arent, Nuclear Weapons Abolition Program Manager, Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility

Andrea Jones, Government Relations and Public Policy Director, Georgia WAND Education Fund, Inc.

Lizzie Adams, Green Party of Florida

Lois Gagnon, Co-Chair, Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts

Doug Rawlings, Veterans For Peace Maine Chapter

Mario Galvan, Sacramento Area Peace Action

Gary Butterfield, President, San Diego Veterans For Peace

Michael Lindley, President, Veterans For Peace Los Angeles

Dave Logsdon, President, Twin Cities Veterans For Peace

Bill Christofferson, Veterans For Peace, Milwaukee Chapter 102

Philip Anderson, Veterans For Peace Chapter 80 Duluth Superior

John Michael O’Leary, Vice President, Veterans For Peace Chapter 104 in Evansville, Indiana

Jim Wohlgemuth, Veterans For Peace The Hector Black Chapter

Kenneth Mayers, Chapter Secretary, Veterans for Peace Santa Fe Chapter

Chelsea Faria, Demilitarize Western Mass

Claire Schaeffer-Duffy, Program Director, Center for Nonviolent Solutions, Worcester, MA

Mari Inoue, Co-Founder, Manhattan Project for a Nuclear-Free World

The Rev. Dr. Peter Kakos, Maureen Flannery, Nuclear Free Future Coalition of Western Mass

Douglas W. Renick, Chair, Haydenville Congregational Church Peace and Justice Steering Committee

Richard Ochs, Baltimore Peace Action

Max Obuszewski, Janice Sevre-Duszynka, Baltimore Nonviolence Center

Arnold Matlin, Co-Convenor, Genesee Valley Citizens for Peace

The Rev. Julia Dorsey Loomis, Hampton Roads Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (HRCAN)

Lorie Cartwright, Trustee, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Inc.

Jessie Pauline Collins, Co-Chair, Citizens’ Resistance at Fermi Two (CRAFT)

Keith Gunter, Chair, Alliance To Halt Fermi-3

Hendrica Regez, Chair, Galena Green Team

Julie Levine, Co-Director, MLK Coalition of Greater Los Angeles

H.T Snider, Chair, One Sunny Day Initiatives

Topanga Peace Alliance

Ellen Thomas, Director, Proposition One Campaign for a Nuclear-Free Future

Lynn Sableman, Branch President, WILPF St. Louis

Mary Faulkner, President, League of Women Voters of Duluth

Sister Clare Carter, New England Peace Pagoda

Tracy Powell, No More Bombs

Ann Suellentrop, Program Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility – Kansas City

Robert M. Gould, MD, President, San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility

Cynthia Papermaster, Coordinator, CODEPINK San Francisco Bay Area

Patricia Hynes, Traprock Center for Peace and Justice

Christopher Allred, Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center

Jane Brown, Newton Dialogues on Peace and War

Steve Baggarly, Norfolk Catholic Worker

Mary S Rider and Patrick O’Neill, Founders, Father Charlie Mulholland Catholic Worker

Jill Haberman, Sisters of St. Francis of Assisi

Rev. Terrence Moran, Director, Office of Peace, Justice, and Ecological Integrity/Sisters of Charity of Saint Elizabeth

Thomas Nieland, President Emeritus, UUFHCT, Alamo, TX

Henry M. Stoever, Co-Chair, PeaceWorks Kansas City

Rosalie Paul, Coordinator, PeaceWorks of Greater Brunswick, Maine

New York Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (NYCAN)

Craig S. Thompson, White House Antinuclear Peace Vigil

Jim Schulman, President, A Thousand Friends of Virginia’s Future

Mary Gourdoux, Border Peace Presence

Alice Sturm Sutter, Uptown Progressive Action, New York City

Donna Gould, Rise and Resist NY

Anne Craig, Reject Raytheon Asheville

Nancy C. Tate, LEPOCO Peace Center (Lehigh-Pocono Committee of Concern)

Marcia Halligan, Kickapoo Peace Circle

Marie Dennis, Assisi Community

Mary Shesgreen, Chair, Fox Valley Citizens for Peace & Justice

Jean Stevens, Director, Taos Environmental Film Festival

Mari Mennel-Bell, Director, JazzSLAM

Diana Bohn, Coordinator, Nicaragua Center for Community Action

Nicholas Cantrell, President, Green Future Wealth Management

Mary Hanson, Chair, Seattle Fellowship of Reconciliation

Charles Michaels, Coordinator, Pax Christi Baltimore

Sven Lovegren, Coordinator, UUCA Peace Network

Rachel Roberts Bliss, Founder and Administrator, Western North Carolina for Peace

Jane Leatherman Van Praag, President, Wilco Justice Alliance (Williamson County, TX)

Ernes Fuller, Vice Chair, Concerned Citizens for SNEC Safety (CCSS)

The World Is My Country

Carmen Trotta, Catholic Worker

Paul Corell, Shut Down Indian Point Now!

Patricia Always, West Valley Neighborhoods Coalition

Thea Paneth, Arlington United for Justice with Peace

Carol Gilbert, OP, Grand Rapids Dominican Sisters

Susan Entin, Church of St. Augustine, St. Martin

Maureen Doyle, MA Green Rainbow Party

Lorraine Krofchok, Director, Grandmothers for Peace International

Jasmin Nario-Galace, Facilitation Committee, Pax Christi Asia-Pacific

Bill Kidd, MSP, Convenor, Scottish Parliament Cross Party Group on Nuclear Disarmament

Ed Lehman, President, Regina Peace Council

Dr David Hutchinson Edgar, Chairperson, Irish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament / An Feachtas um Dhí-Armáil Núicléach

Marian Pallister, Chair, Pax Christi Scotland

Ranjith S Jayasekera, Vice President, Sri-Lanka Doctors for Peace and Development

Juan Gomez, Chilean Coordinator, Movimiento Por Un Mundo Sin Guerras Y Sin Violencia

Darien Castro, Co-Founder, Wings for Amazon Project

Loreta Castro, Co-President, Pax Christi Philippines

Lynda Forbes, Secretary, Hunter Peace Group Newcastle, Australia

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

USA: Ilhan Omar Vows to Continue Speaking Out Against Israel’s Abuse of Palestinians

TOLERANCE AND SOLIDARITY .

An article by Jake Johnson in Common Dreams (licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.)

Rep. Ilhan Omar vowed Thursday that the House GOP’s vote to remove her from the chamber’s foreign affairs panel would not stop her from criticizing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, a pledge that came after the Israeli government carried out  its latest bombing campaign in the occupied Gaza Strip.


Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) speaks to reporters on February 2, 2023 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

“My critique of our foreign policy, Israel’s policy towards Palestinians, or that of any foreign nation will not change,” Omar (D-Minn.) wrote in a Twitter post   following passage of a Republican resolution forcing her off the House Foreign Affairs Committee—a seat she has used to speak out against human rights violations and demand accountability   for war crimes, including those committed by the U.S. and Israel.

“As a person who suffered the horrors of war and persecution,” Omar added, “my advocacy will always be for those that suffer because of the actions of governments.”

The House vote was held hours after Israel’s far-right government launched a series of airstrikes in the densely populated “open-air prison” of Gaza, bombings that came a week after Israeli forces killed 10 Palestinians at a refugee camp in the occupied West Bank. When two rockets were fired at Israel from Gaza in the wake of the massacre, Israel bombarded the enclave, reportedly hitting a refugee camp at the center of the strip.
During t
he floor debate ahead of the GOP resolution’s passage, Republican lawmakers made clear that Omar’s criticisms of Israeli policy—which are frequently conflated with antisemitism  —were a driving force behind the effort to remove her from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) specifically cited Omar’s past characterization of Israel as an “apartheid” state, calling the description “appalling”—even though mainstream organizations, including Human Rights Watch   and Amnesty International, have offered the same assessment of Israel’s decades-long occupation and brutalization of Palestinians.

(continued in the right column)

Question for this article

Presenting the Palestinian side of the Middle East, Is it important for a culture of peace?

(continued from the left column)

“Rep. Ilhan Omar was booted off of the House Foreign Affairs Committee today for one reason only: her firm and unequivocal opposition to Israel’s brutal apartheid rule over the Palestinian people,” wrote   Josh Ruebner, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University and the former policy director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights.

“All other pretexts,” Ruebner argued, “are just designed to obscure this fact.”

The House GOP passed its resolution kicking Omar off the powerful committee as rights groups warned that Israel is ramping up its assault on Palestinian rights and livelihoods.

“This circus is happening while the Israeli government is escalating an entirely new phase of state violence against Palestinians,” Beth Miller, political director of Jewish Voice for Peace Action, told The Intercept’s Akela Lacy, who argued   Thursday that congressional Democrats “paved the way” for the GOP’s attacks on Omar.

“If you actually look at what the Israeli government is doing right now,” Miller said, “the mask is off completely.”

Over the weekend, Israel moved to seal—and signaled plans to demolish—the West Bank homes of two Palestinians suspected of deadly attacks against Israelis. Human Rights Watch condemned   Israel’s response as an act of “collective punishment.”

“Deliberate attacks on civilians are reprehensible crimes,” Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement Thursday. “But just as no grievance can justify the intentional targeting of civilians in Neve Yaakov, such attacks cannot justify Israeli authorities intentionally punishing the families of Palestinian suspects by demolishing their homes and throwing them out on the street.”

Amnesty International noted earlier   this week that Israeli forces killed 35 Palestinians in January alone. Last year was one of the deadliest in decades   for Palestinians in the occupied territories.

“The devastating events of the past week have exposed yet again the deadly cost of the system of apartheid,” said Agnès Callamard, Amnesty’s secretary-general. “The international community’s failure to hold Israeli authorities to account for apartheid and other crimes has given them free rein to segregate, control, and oppress Palestinians on a daily basis, and helps perpetuate deadly violence.”

“Apartheid is a crime against humanity, and it is frankly chilling to see the perpetrators evade justice year after year,” Callamard added. “Israel has long attempted to silence findings of apartheid with targeted smear campaigns, and the international community allows itself to be cowed by these tactics. Until apartheid is dismantled there is no hope of protecting civilian lives, and no hope of justice for grieving families in Palestine and Israel.”

North America, TOLERANCE & SOLIDARITY

Pope Francis: “Hands off the Democratic Republic of the Congo, hands off Africa”

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article from Pagina12 (translation by CPNN)

Pope Francis denounced on Tuesday “the economic colonialism” that loots the resources of Africa, shortly after arriving in Kinshasa, the capital of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). It is the first leg of an African tour.”Hands off the Democratic Republic of the Congo, hands off Africa. Stop suffocating it. Africa is not a mine to be exploited or a land to be plundered”.


frame from video of Pope’s visit

“May Africa be the protagonist of its own destiny,” Francis proclaimed before the authorities and the country’s diplomatic corps. In a speech at the presidential palace in Kinshasa, the Pope stated that the country’s history has been torpedoed by conflicts but also by the domination of foreign interests. “After political colonialism, an equally enslaving ‘economic colonialism’ has been unleashed. Thus, this country, abundantly pillaged, is not able to benefit sufficiently from its immense resources,” said the 86-year-old pontiff.

“The poison of greed has bloodied its diamonds. It is a drama to which the most economically advanced world often closes its eyes, ears and mouths. However, this country and this continent deserve to be respected and listened to,” added the Argentine Pope in his applauded speech.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo, a huge central African country that gained independence from Belgium in 1960, has huge mineral reserves, but is one of the poorest countries on the planet.

About two-thirds of the population lives on less than $2.15 a day, according to the World Bank. Likewise, the east of the country has been devastated by armed conflicts. For this reason, Francis encouraged peace efforts, stressing that “we cannot get used to the blood that has flowed in this country for decades.”

(Article continued in the column on the right)

(Click here for the original Spanish version of the article)

Questions related to this article:

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

He also stressed the importance of having “free, transparent and credible elections” in a country that plans presidential elections on December 20. “We must not allow ourselves to be manipulated or bought by those who want to keep the country in violence, to exploit it and do shameful business,” Francisco added. Sitting next to him was Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi, who came to power in 2018 in a highly disputed election.

Banners and chants

Joy overflowed the streets of the capital, Kinshasa, where Pope Francis arrived, who was received with banners, songs and in the midst of a strong security device.

“The Pope is here, no more useless fights. This is the support that the country was waiting for to be better served by the international community. We are happy,” Aime Mboyo, one of the hundreds of thousands of fervent Catholics and religious who rushed to receive the pontiff.

At Kinshasa’s Ndjili International Airport – where he was received by the Congolese Prime Minister, Sama Lukonde – and along Lumumba Boulevard, one of the main arteries of the city that Francis traveled in the popemobile, the faithful vibrated by waving their banners and palms. “We are a country of peace and hospitality. The Pope is at home and he can stay here if he wants to,” said Angélique Mutombo, an old woman waving a handkerchief with her hands from the Limete neighborhood in the northeast of the capital. the image of the pontiff.

In addition to the faithful, a strong security device made up of thousands of agents was activated this Tuesday in the capital. Large portraits of the Pope hung on billboards and banners with a welcoming message, such as “Welcome to our home”, were the accessories in the shower of crowds that accompanied Francis as he walked down the avenue on his way to the Palace of the Nation, where he would meet with President Tshisekedi.

“We deployed 7,500 members of the Congolese National Police to guarantee good security for this great guest in the country,” said General Sylvain Kasongo, the police officer in Kinshasa.

(Editor’s note: According to CNN , “on Friday the pope leaves Kinshasa for South Sudan’s capital, Juba, where he’ll be joined by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby and the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Iain Greenshields. “This will be a historic visit,” Welby said. “After centuries of division, leaders of three different parts of (Christianity) are coming together in an unprecedented way.”)

Africa, FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

Lula’s address to CELAC “Nothing should separate us, since everything brings us together”

. DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION . .

An article from Peoples Dispatch (republished under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license)

The much awaited return of Brazil to the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) was celebrated during the VII Summit of the bloc on Tuesday January 24. In his opening address to the Summit, Argentine President Alberto Fernández highlighted the return of Brazil to the bloc and emphasized that “a CELAC without Brazil is a much emptier CELAC”. 


Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva addresses the VII CELAC Heads of State Summit. Photo: Ricardo Stuckert

Fernández received Lula on Monday January 23 at the Casa Rosada, the seat of the Argentine government, and the two leaders defended the resumption of diplomacy and cooperation between the two largest economies in South America.

Brazil left the CELAC during the government of Jair Bolsonaro (PL), a measure that Lula classified as “inexplicable”.

In his speech, the Brazilian president defended points that can collaborate towards regional integration and a “peaceful world order”, such as the potential to participate in the energy transition of Latin American and Caribbean countries.

Read the full speech of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva below:

Dear friend Alberto Fernández, President of Argentina, President pro tempore of CELAC and world football champion, who fraternally welcomes us in Buenos Aires,

Dear fellow heads of state and government of the countries that make up our region, and our friends who are present,

As fate would have it, Comrade Alberto Fernández, my first activity outside the country in this new mandate was in Argentina, and for a Summit meeting of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean Nations.

In my first speech after the election results, I stated that Brazil was returning to the world. Nothing could be more natural than to start this path of return through CELAC.

Throughout the successive Brazilian governments since the re-democratization, we have worked hard and with a sense of mission towards regional integration and the consolidation of a peaceful region, based on relations marked by dialogue and cooperation. The unfortunate exception was the recent years when my predecessor took the inexplicable decision to withdraw Brazil from CELAC.

During my first two mandates, I was dedicated, along with so many that I see gathered here today around this table, to the task of building a Latin America based on bonds of trust.

It is with great joy and very special satisfaction that Brazil is back in the region and ready to work side by side with all of you, with a very strong sense of solidarity and proximity.

Today I renew, with emotion, the spirit that animated us in 2008, when we hosted in Costa do Sauípe, in the Brazilian state of Bahia, the first Latin American and Caribbean Summit, which three years later would evolve into the format of this Community.

That meeting had a historical meaning that is still very current. Because it was the first time that the heads of state and government of Latin America and the Caribbean came together, without any foreign tutelage, to discuss our problems and seek our own solutions to the challenges we share.

This spirit – of solidarity, dialogue, and cooperation – in a region of the size and importance of Latin America and the Caribbean could not be more current and necessary.

The world is going through a time of multiple crises: pandemics, climate change, natural disasters, geopolitical tensions, pressures on food and energy security, threats to representative democracy as a form of political and social organization. All this against an unacceptable backdrop of increasing inequality, poverty, and hunger.

I want to take this opportunity to thank each and every one of you who have stood up for Brazil and for the Brazilian institutions over the last few days in repudiation of the anti-democratic acts that took place in Brasilia. It is important to emphasize that we are a peaceful region that repudiates extremism, terrorism, and political violence.

Most of these challenges, as we know, are global in nature, and require collective responses. We do not want to import into the region particular rivalries and problems. On the contrary, we want to be part of the solutions to the challenges that belong to all.

CELAC has advanced and collaborated in this recent period to prove the importance and the potential of this mechanism. I was very pleased to learn how much has been built during the recent presidencies of Mexico and Argentina, which coincided with one of the most difficult international periods.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

Questions related to this article:

The culture of peace at a regional level, Does it have advantages compared to a city level?

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

CELAC acted promptly during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the constitution of a plan to strengthen the production capacities of vaccines and medicines.

CELAC did not shy away from the challenges of food security, energy security, and climate change.

I am convinced that, with a pragmatic sense and based on collaboration with specialized organizations and agencies, such as FAO, WHO, and ECLAC, among many others, we have much to contribute to each of these issues.

In the area of energy, we have very special capacities to participate, in an advantageous way, in the global energy transition. We have diversified energy matrices and potential for growth in renewable and clean energies.

In addition to this, our territories are home to some of the main biomes; we have strategic natural resources, such as critical minerals; we preserve a significant portion of the planet’s biodiversity; and we are a powerhouse in aquifer resources, key to the future of humanity.

At the COP27, in Egypt, I announced that Brazil will soon convene a Summit of Amazon Countries. The cooperation that comes from outside our region is very welcome, but it is the countries that are part of these biomes that should sovereignly lead the initiatives to take care of the Amazon. That is why it is critical that we value our Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization – ACTO.

Brazil recently presented the candidacy of Belém do Pará to host the COP-30 in 2025. The support we are receiving from the CELAC countries is indispensable for us to show the rest of the world the richness of our biodiversity, the potential for sustainable development and green economy, and, of course, the importance of preserving the environment and fighting climate change.

Ladies and gentlemen,

There is a clear contribution to be made by the region to the construction of a peaceful world order, based on dialogue, the strengthening of multilateralism and the collective construction of multipolarity.

We consider essential the development and deepening of dialogues with extra regional partners such as the European Union, China, India, ASIAN and, especially, the African Union.

My friends

The various crises we are experiencing in the world today demonstrate the value of integration. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the risks associated with our excessive dependence on key inputs for the well-being of our societies.

This does not mean that we should close ourselves off from the world. It only highlights that this integration will be on better terms if we are well integrated in our region. We must join forces for better physical and digital infrastructure, for the creation of value chains between our industries, and for more investment in research and innovation in our region.

Our development strategy must go hand in hand with the reduction of inequality in its various dimensions, with guaranteed access to fundamental rights in the fields of education, health, and work, among many others. In order to grow in a sustainable way, we cannot continue to have unacceptable poverty and hunger rates, nor can we continue to live with the inequality and gender violence that affect half of our populations. It is necessary to respect and protect our Indigenous peoples that are still threatened and neglected. It is necessary to work so that the color of our skin no longer defines the future of our young people.

Nothing should separate us, since everything brings us together. Our colonial past. The intolerable presence of slavery that marked our profoundly unequal societies. The authoritarian temptations that even today challenge our democracy.

But also the immense cultural wealth of our Indigenous peoples and the African diaspora. The diversity of races, origins, and creeds. The shared history of resistance and struggle for autonomy. All this makes us feel part of something greater and feeds our search for a common future of peace, social justice, and respect in diversity.

For this reason, I could not end without paying tribute to an extraordinary Brazilian who dedicated himself to rethinking our region when a Latin American and Caribbean community was still a mirage.

Last October, Darcy Ribeiro, a public man and one of our greatest thinkers, would have turned 100 years old. Having lived in exile in the 1960s and 1970s, he was one of the first to speak of our unity in diversity. This Patria Grande, and the particular contribution to civilization that our region has to give to the world.

Brazil is once again looking to its future with the certainty that we will be associated with our neighbors bilaterally, in Mercosur, in UNASUR and in CELAC.

To comrade Ralph Gonsalves, Prime Minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, who takes over CELAC, I wish you all the luck in the world.

It is with this feeling of common destiny and belonging that Brazil returns to CELAC, with the feeling of finding oneself again.

Thank you very much.

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, Latin America