Category Archives: DISARMAMENT & SECURITY

Possible Pathways to Nuclear Abolition

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Special to CPNN from Timmon Wallis

How the world can achieve verifiable, irreversible global nuclear disarmament before it’s too late.

We are at the moment facing a very backwards trend in pretty much everything to do with international relations. The last remaining treaty in nuclear arms control has recently expired. And the response from Trump was, “if it expires, it expires” . . .

Trump is surrounded by people who have a vested interest in keeping the nuclear weapons business going for as long as they can.

So this is where the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) comes in. But what is the use of this treaty if the US and the other nuclear powers have not joined it? In fact, all the countries that are in the TPNW are already in the NPT, where they promised not to develop nuclear weapons. So what is the point of another treaty that just makes that same commitment?

Article 1e of the TPNW bans assisting, encouraging, or inducing anyone, in any way, to engage in any of the activities prohibited to a States Party of the treaty.

Treaties, as you know, are agreements between governments. The governments must not develop, manufacture or stockpile nuclear weapons. But this clause refers to anyone, not just governments. In other words, people, corporations, banks, insurance companies – the parties to the treaty must not assist anyone involved in the development, manufacture or stockpiling of nuclear weapons. And the people and corporations that are involved do not just have to be in or based in that country. The TPNW says “anyone.”

So, theoretically at least, the 74 countries that have so far joined the TPNW are forbidden under this treaty from having anything to do with the corporations that develop, manufacture or stockpile nuclear weapons.

Now here’s the thing. The two dozen major nuclear weapons companies don’t just operate in the US or the UK or France. These are multinational corporations. They have operations all over the world, including in many of the countries that have already joined the TPNW.

They also have offices in other countries, they have contracts and projects, they sell their products and services to those countries. They also have suppliers – a whole supply chain – involving many other countries, to obtain the resources and the parts they need. And crucially, they have investors in those countries.

So far, only Ireland has fully divested its sovereign funds and major banks from the nuclear weapons companies (along with Switzerland, which is not even in the treaty) but others should follow – including countries like Austria, South Africa, New Zealand, Philippines, Indonesia, Mexico… These are not insignificant countries and the impact on these companies could be huge.

Another clause in the TPNW that is crucially important for putting pressure on these companies is Article 5, which obliges all parties to the treaty to adopt national legislation that applies the prohibitions of the treaty to persons, including “legal” persons in the country, and defines legal penalties for violations of those prohibitions. As I pointed out, treaties apply to countries, but by passing laws in each country which make it illegal for anyone in that country to have anything to do with nuclear weapons, the TPNW is once again tightening the noose on these companies and the people who work for them – especially CEOs, members of the board of directors and other high level vice presidents and so on.

In Ireland, once again our test case for this, the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons Act was passed in 2019, making it offense, punishable by up to life in prison, for anybody in Ireland having anything to do with nuclear weapons, including assisting anybody else having anything to do with nuclear weapons. So now it’s not just the sovereign fund that belongs to the state and is therefore required to divest from these companies, but also the banks and anybody else with investments in Ireland.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:
 
Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Continued from left column)

Clearly if more and more countries take on these responsibilities of the TPNW, the companies will find themselves under more and more pressure from governments as well as from investors, suppliers, customers and even workers working for those companies.

My book, Nuclear Abolition: A Scenariois imagines a scenario where more and more of the states parties to the TPNW are moving on to these next steps, as more countries are also signing and ratifying the treaty.

Currently we have 74 countries who have ratified the TPNW.

We have another 25 countries who have signed the treaty but not yet ratified it. That makes 99 so far, a majority of the 197 countries in the world able to sign international treaties.

We then have another 40 countries who have been consistently voting for the treaty but have not yet signed it themselves.

We have another 12 countries who have been abstaining…
Including, for instance, Switzerland, where campaigners just succeeded in collecting over 100,000 signatures to put it on the ballot; including Australia, whose Prime Minister is personally committed to the TPNW, whose party has voted to join the TPNW, and just won a re-election with a strong mandate.

Then we have at least 20 countries who are under enormous pressure to join the treaty, including countries in NATO that have government ministers committed to joining the treaty, including the former Prime Minister of Iceland, as well as opinion polls showing overwhelming support from the general public…

I already mentioned the ruling party in Australia is committed to signing the TPNW. So is the ruling party in Norway, and the coalition government in Spain. The previous coalition in Germany was also committed to joining the TPNW, although clearly the current government is not.

Who knows what it will take for one of these countries to join the TPNW, and then another, and another and another. Sooner or later, it will happen. I offer some possible scenarios that could lead to this in my book . . .

Sooner or later, we’re either going to get these countries on board for the elimination of nuclear weapons or we’re going to have a nuclear war. I certainly hope it’s the former.

But it’s also not just these European countries that ultimately have to get on board with this. My book then looks at the situation within the US. The peace and anti-nuclear movement in the US is certainly much weaker than it is or has been in Europe. But there are important steps being taken, and I will highlight just a few:

I hope you all heard a few years ago that the city council of New York voted to divest from the nuclear weapons companies? A few other large cities have already done so, including Oakland, CA. Most recently Philadelphia also voted to divest from nuclear weapons.

My own small city of Northampton, MA has not only divested from these companies, but announced that it will not do business with any of these companies. It has notified these companies that they are not eligible to bid for city contracts.

And there is currently legislation pending in the MA state legislature to do both of these things. It is unlikely to pass in this current session, but there is a growing movement in support of this…

Altogether, these steps being taken across the US and around the world may or may not be enough to pressure the nuclear weapons corporations into seeking other ways to make a profit. After all, these corporations don’t exist in order to make nuclear weapons. They exist in order to make a profit for their shareholders.

Once it starts to become unprofitable for them to be involved in the nuclear weapons business, they will move on to other things – as many of them did in the 1980s when faced with divestment, boycotts and public opprobrium. And while there were many factors at play which led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, the pressure on nuclear weapons corporations at that time was certainly one of them.

Those corporations, like General Electric and Ford Motor Company, not only pulled out of their involvement with nuclear weapons. They demanded that Congress and the Reagan Administration take steps to restore public confidence in those corporations, by cutting back on the nuclear arms race and signing agreements with the Soviet Union.

Pressure on the corporations “worked” then, and it can work again! And with Trump and Putin at the helm, we can only hope it works before it’s too late.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global

Over 100 International Law Experts Warn: U.S. Strikes on Iran Violate UN Charter and May Be War Crimes

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Just Security

The United States and Israel initiated strikes on Iran over one month ago, on February 28, 2026. The attack was a clear violation of the United Nations Charter. The conduct of the war, and statements of U.S. officials, also raise serious concerns about violations of international humanitarian law, including potential war crimes. We have written the below statement together with over 100 U.S.-based international law experts, to detail our profound concerns about the war. The letter is signed by international law experts across the United States, including senior professors; leaders of prominent international law associations, non-governmental organizations, and legal clinics; former government legal advisors; and military law experts and former Judge Advocates General (JAGs).


Letter of over 100 international law experts on Iran war
 
We, the undersigned U.S.-based international law experts, professors, and practitioners write to express profound concern about serious violations of international law and alarming rhetoric by the United States, Israel, and Iran in the present armed conflict in the Middle East.

Due to our connection to the United States, our focus here is on the conduct of the U.S. government, but we remain concerned about the risk of atrocities across the region including the continuing risks posed by the Iranian government to Iranians through violent crackdowns on dissent, and to civilians across the Middle East through Iran’s ongoing unlawful strikes on civilian infrastructure using explosive weapons in densely populated areas.

One month has passed since the United States and Israel launched strikes across Iran. The initiation of the campaign was a clear violation of the United Nations Charter, and the conduct of United States forces since, as well as statements made by senior government officials, raise serious concerns about violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including potential war crimes.  

We collectively affirm the importance of equal application of international law to all, including countries that hold themselves out as global leaders. Recent statements from senior U.S. government officials describing the rules governing military engagement as “stupid” and prioritizing “lethality” over “legality” are profoundly alarming and dangerously short-sighted. These claims, particularly in combination with the observable conduct of U.S. forces, are harming the international legal order and the system of international law that we have devoted our lives to promoting. 

The war, which is costing U.S. taxpayers between $1-2 billion each day, is imposing significant harm to civilians in the region, has resulted in the loss of hundreds of civilian lives across the Middle East, and is causing serious environmental  and economic harms.

We write to express our concern about 1) jus ad bellum, or the decision to go to war, 2) jus in bello, or the conduct of hostilities, 3) rhetoric and threats from senior U.S. officials and their allies, which portend further abuses, and 4) the decimation of civilian harm mitigation structures within the U.S. government as a part of U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s “gloves off” approach to warfare. 

1. Jus ad bellum concerns: The strikes launched by the United States and Israel on February 28, 2026 clearly violated the United Nations Charter prohibition on the use of force. Force against another state is only permitted in self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack or where authorized by the UN Security Council. The Security Council did not authorize the attack. Iran did not attack Israel or the United States. Despite the Trump administration’s varied and sometimes conflicting claims to the contrary, there is no evidence that Iran posed an imminent threat that could ground a self-defense claim. Many international law experts have concluded that Israel and the United States’ actions violate the UN Charter, including the President and President-elect of the American Society of International Law, and the President of the American Branch of the International Law Association; UN Secretary-General António Guterres also condemned the attacks as undermining international peace and security.

2. Concerns about violations of international humanitarian law: The laws of armed conflict constrain the conduct of hostilities of all parties to the ongoing conflict. We are concerned that these fundamental rules may have been violated, including in the context of reported strikes on civilians and civilian objects such as political leaders who have no military role, oil and gas infrastructure, including South Pars, and water desalination plants. On March 19, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk condemned strikes on energy infrastructure, noting their “disastrous” impacts for civilians. 

We are seriously concerned about strikes that have hit schools, health facilities, and homes. The Iranian Red Crescent reports that “67,414 civilian sites have been struck, of which 498 are schools and 236 health facilities.” A report by leading civil society organizations found that at least 1,443 Iranian civilians, including 217 children, were killed by U.S. and Israeli forces between February 28 and March 23. 

The strike on Minab primary school is particularly concerning. On February 28, Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School in Minab, Iran, was struck, resulting in the deaths of at least 175 people, many of them children, according to Iranian officials. Based on easily accessible online information and commercially available satellite imagery, it appears the building had been used as a school for a decade. President Trump denied U.S. responsibility, falsely stating that “It was done by Iran.” However, a preliminary investigation by the Department of Defense reportedly determined that the U.S. conducted the strike, and the targeting had been based on outdated intelligence. The strike likely violates international humanitarian law, and if evidence is found that those responsible were reckless, it could also be a war crime. The strike is among the deadliest single attacks by the U.S. military on civilians in recent decades. 

3. Concerns about rhetoric and threats from senior officials. We are deeply concerned about the dangerous rhetoric government officials have engaged in during the war, including: 

a. Threatened denial of quarter: On March 13, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated “We will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies.” In international law, it is “especially forbidden” to “declare that no quarter will be given,” a prohibition also set out in the Department of Defense’s own law of war manual. Hegseth’s statement likely violates international humanitarian law as well as the U.S. War Crimes statute 18 U.S.C. 2441. Ordering or threatening no quarter is a war crime. 
 
b. Dismissal of rules of engagement and international law: Secretary of Defense Hegseth’s “no quarter” statement followed similarly alarming statements by the Secretary, including on September 25, 2025 and March 2, 2026 that the U.S. does not fight with “stupid rules of engagement.” On January 8, 2026 President Trump had made the disturbing comment that “I don’t need international law.” On March 13, he stated that the U.S. may conduct strikes on Iran “just for fun.”

c. Threats on energy infrastructure: President Trump threatened on March 13, 2026: “I could take out things within the next hour, power plants that create the electricity, that create the water… We could do things that would be so bad they could literally never rebuild as a nation again.” International law protects from attack objects indispensable to the survival of civilians, and the attacks threatened by Trump, if implemented, could entail war crimes. On March 21, President Trump further threatened to “obliterate” power plants in Iran. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, defended power plant attacks the next day, and also said that striking nuclear power plants was not off the table. It is prohibited to attack civilian energy infrastructure. If a power plant has both civilian and military purposes (“dual-use”), it may be considered a military objective where it makes “an effective contribution to military action” and the attack “offers a definite military advantage.” However, any strike must respect the principles of proportionality and precautions in attack. The proportionality principle prohibits attacks expected to cause incidental civilian harm that would be excessive in relation to the military advantage. The civilian harm to be considered includes foreseeable reverberating or indirect harm. In any attack, “all feasible precautions” must be taken to avoid civilian harm. 

Attacks on nuclear power plants, even if they have a military purpose, require particular care because of the high risk of releasing radiation and radioactive material and consequent severe harm to the civilian population. Such a strike could harm the health and safety of millions of civilians.  On March 23, 2026, the ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric Egger expressed her deep concern, noting that “War on essential infrastructure is war on civilians” and described threats to nuclear power plants as “Most alarming.”

4. Concerns about institutional safeguards against further violations: Since the start of the second Trump administration, the Defense Department under Secretary Hegseth has deliberately and systematically weakened the protections meant to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law. This includes removing senior military lawyers without publicly citing misconduct, and replacing the Army, Navy, and Air Force judge advocates general, directly undermining legal oversight of combat operations. It has also abolished “civilian environment teams” and other mechanisms specifically designed to limit harm to civilians during operations. The 2026 National Defense Strategy omits references to civilian protection and international law entirely. These changes are especially concerning in light of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s comments that rules of engagement interfere with “fighting to win.”  

We are gravely concerned that the conduct and threats outlined here are causing serious harm to civilians in the Middle East, and that they also contribute to escalating the conflict, damaging the environment and the global economy, and that they risk degrading the rule of law and fundamental norms that protect every nation’s civilians. Public statements by senior officials indicate an alarming disrespect for the rules of international humanitarian law accepted by states, and which protect both civilians and members of the armed forces. 
  
We urge U.S. government officials to uphold the UN Charter, international humanitarian law, and human rights law at all times, and to publicly make clear U.S. commitment to and respect for norms of international law. 

We remind all states of their legal obligations not to aid or assist the United States, Israel, or Iran in the commission of internationally wrongful acts, as well as to cooperate to bring to an end through lawful means serious breaches of peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens) including the prohibition of aggression and the basic rules of international humanitarian law. 

We also urge the U.S. governments’ allies and cooperating partners to take steps to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law, in line with Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions and associated customary international law. The United States has itself acknowledged that states should seek to promote adherence by others to international humanitarian law. The International Committee of the Red Cross 2016 Commentary on the First Geneva Convention of 1949 provides that a state is “in a unique position to influence the behavior” of partner states where the state “participates in the financing, equipping, arming or training of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict, even plans, carries out and debriefs operations jointly with such forces.”  

Signed,*

William J. Aceves

Chief Justice Roger Traynor Professor of Law

California Western School of Law

E. Tendayi Achiume

Professor of Law

Stanford Law School

Rabiat Akande

Wilson H. Elkins Chair and Associate Professor

University of Maryland School of Law

Susan Akram

Clinical Professor of Law

Director, International Human Rights Clinic

Boston University School of Law

Philip Alston

John Norton Pomeroy Professor of Law

NYU School of Law

José E. Alvarez

Herbert and Rose Rubin Professor of International Law

NYU School of Law

Faculty Director, US-Asia Law Institute

Diane Marie Amann

Visiting Professor, LSE Law School

Special Adviser to the International Criminal Court Prosecutor on Children in & affected by Armed Conflict (2012-2021)

Baher Azmy

Legal Director

Center for Constitutional Rights

Sandra L. Babcock

Clinical Professor of Law

Director, International Human Rights Clinic

Cornell Law School

Aslı Ü. Bâli

Howard M. Holtzmann Professor of Law

Yale Law School

Carolyn P. Blum

Clinical Professor of Law, Emerita

Berkeley Law, University of California

Christine Bustany

Senior Lecturer in International Law

Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy

Charli Carpenter

Professor of Political Science

University of Massachusetts Department of Political Science

Christina M. Cerna

Adjunct Professor of Law (ret.)

Georgetown University Law Centre

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (ret.), OAS

Sandra Coliver

Former Executive Director

Center for Justice and Accountability

Jorge Contesse

Professor of Law

Rutgers Law School

Cody Corliss

Associate Professor of Law

West Virginia University College of Law

Avidan Y. Cover

Professor of Law

Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Rebecca Crootof

Nancy Litchfield Hicks Professor of Law

University of Richmond School of Law

Jamil Dakwar

Director, ACLU Human Rights Program

Adjunct Professor, New York University and Hunter College

Tom Dannenbaum

Professor of Law, Stanford Law School

Frank Stanton Professor of Nuclear Security

Senior Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University

Frederick T. Davis

Lecturer in Law, Columbia Law School
Principal,
Fred Davis Law Office

Christian M. De Vos

Visiting Assistant Professor

City University of New York School of Law

Laura Dickinson

Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law

The George Washington University Law School

Stephanie Farrior

Professor of Law (ret.)

Eugene R. Fidell

Visiting Lecturer in Law

Senior Research Scholar

Yale Law School

Martin S. Flaherty

Charles and Marie Robertson Visiting Professor

School of Public and International Affairs,
Princeton University

Laurel Fletcher

Chancellor’s Clinical Professor of Law

UC Berkeley, School of Law

Claudia Flores

Clinical Professor of Law

Director, Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic

Faculty Co-Director, Orville H. Schell Jr. Center for International Human Rights

Yale Law School

Idriss Fofana

Assistant Professor of Law

Harvard Law School

Barbara Frey

Director Emerita, Human Rights Program

University of Minnesota

Hannah R. Garry

Clinical Professor of Law

Founding Faculty Director, Donna and Spencer Gilbert Global Justice & Human Rights Center

Founding Director, International Human Rights Clinic

University of Southern California (USC) Gould School of Law

James A. Goldston

Executive Director

Open Society Justice Initiative

Jonathan Hafetz

Professor of Law

Seton Hall Law School

Lisa Hajjar

Professor of Sociology

University of California – Santa Barbara

Rebecca Hamilton

Professor of Law

American University, Washington College of Law

Hurst Hannum

Professor Emeritus of International Law

Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy

Tufts University

Oona A. Hathaway

Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law, Yale Law School

Professor, Yale University Department of Political Science

Faculty, Jackson School of Global Affairs, Yale University

Director, Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School

President-elect, American Society of International Law

Adil Haque

Distinguished Professor of Law and Judge Jon O. Newman Scholar

Rutgers Law School

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:
 
How can war crimes be documented, stopped, punished and prevented?

(Continued from left column)

Hadar Harris

Founder and Principal

Rights and Justice Consulting

Lindsay M. Harris

Professor of Law

Director, International Human Rights Clinic

University of San Francisco School of Law

Sarah Harrison

Former Associate General Counsel

Department of Defense

J. Benton Heath

Associate Professor of Law

Temple University School of Law

Paul Hoffman

Director, Defending Democracy Clinic

University of California at Irvine School of Law

Partner, Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman, LLP

David B. Hunter

Professor Emeritus

American University Washington College of Law

Deena R. Hurwitz, Esq.
Founder of the International Human Rights Clinic at the University of Virginia

Rebecca Ingber

Professor of Law

Cardozo Law

Co-Director, Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy
Senior Fellow, Reiss Center on Law and Security,
NYU School of Law

Former Counselor, Office of the Legal Advisor, U.S Department of State

Tejal Jesrani

Human Rights Clinical Instructor

Director, TrialWatch Project

Columbia Law School

Brett Jones

Charles E. Scheidt Human Rights Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Dr Ioannis Kalpouzos

Visiting Professor

Harvard Law School

Jeffrey Kahn

Professor of Law

Director, Program on Law and Government

American University Washington College of Law

David Kaye

Clinical Professor of Law

UC Irvine School of Law

UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression (2014 – 2020)

U.S. Member, European Commission for Democracy through Law (“Venice Commission”)

Pardiss Kebriaei

Senior Staff Attorney

Center for Constitutional Rights

Michael J. Kelly

Professor of Law

Senator Allen A. Sekt Endowed Chair in Law

Director, Kaiman Center for International Criminal Justice & Holocaust Studies

Creighton University

Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum

Professor of Law

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

John H. Knox

Henry C. Lauerman Professor of International Law

Wake Forest University School of Law

Former UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment

Harold Hongju Koh

Sterling Professor of International Law

Yale Law School

Steven Arrigg Koh

R. Gordon Butler Scholar in International Law

Boston University School of Law

Jeremy Konyndyk

President, Refugees International

David A. Koplow

Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Law

Georgetown University Law Center

Christopher Kutz

C. William Maxeiner Distinguished Professor of Law

Philosophy and Political Science (by courtesy)

Berkeley Law School, UC Berkeley

Beatrice Lindstrom

Senior Clinical Instructor and Lecturer on Law

Harvard Law School

Katerina Linos

I. Michael Heyman Professor of Law

Co-Faculty Director, Miller Institute for Global Challenges and the Law

UC Berkeley, School of Law

Bert Lockwood

Distinguished Service Professor

Director of the Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights
University of Cincinnati College of Law

Editor-in-Chief, Human Rights Quarterly

David Luban

Distinguished University Professor

Georgetown University Law Center

Kate Mackintosh

Executive Director, Professor from Practice

UCLA’s The Promise Institute for Human Rights (Europe)

David G. Mandel-Anthony

Faculty Instructor, Binghamton University Institute for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention (I-GMAP)

Former Deputy to the Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice, U.S. Department of State

Sarah Margon

Founder and Principal, Windsong Advisory

Former Director of US Foreign Policy at Open Society Foundations

Joseph Margulies

Professor of the Practice of Government

Cornell University

Craig Martin

Professor of Law

Co-Director, International and Comparative Law Center

Washburn University School of Law

Elisa Massimino

Visiting Professor of Law
Executive
Director, Human Rights Institute

Georgetown University Law Center

Daniel Maurer

Associate Professor of Law, Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law

Advisor, Center for Military Law & Policy, Texas Tech University School of Law

Board of Directors, National Institute of Military Justice
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army (ret.)

Juan E. Mendez

Professor of International Law (ret.)

Former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture (2010-2016)

Washington College of Law, American University

Gay J. McDougall

Former Vice Chair and 3-term Member, UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Former UN Special Rapporteur on Minorities (2005-2011)
MacArthur Award Fellow, 1999

Senior Fellow and Distinguished Scholar-in-Residence

Leitner Center for International Law and Justice / Center for Race, Law and Justice

Fordham University School of Law

Margaret E. McGuinness

Professor of Law

Co-Director, Center for International and Comparative Law

St. John’s University School of Law

Chi Adanna Mgbako

Clinical Professor of Law

Director, Walter Leitner International Human Rights Clinic
Fordham Law School

Zinaida Miller

Professor of Law & International Affairs

Northeastern University

Saira Mohamed

Agnes Roddy Robb Chair in Jurisprudence, Ethics, and Social Responsibility

Professor of Law

UC Berkeley, School of Law

Bridget Moix

General Secretary, Friends Committee on National Legislation

Priyanka Motaparthy

Director, Center for International Human Rights

Clinical Professor

Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

Karen Musalo

Bank of America Foundation Chair in International Law

Professor & Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies

U.C. Law, San Francisco

Aryeh Neier

President Emeritus, Open Society Foundations

Former Executive Director, Human Rights Watch

Former Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union

Mary Ellen O’Connell

Robert and Marion Short Professor of Law

Concurrent Professor of International Peace Studies

University of Notre Dame

Diane Orentlicher

Professor Emerita

American University Washington College of Law

Arzoo Osanloo

Professor of Anthropology

Co-Director of the Human Rights Initiative

Princeton University

Jessica Peake

Director, International & Comparative Law Program

UCLA School of Law

Stephen J. Rapp

Senior Fellow, Center for National Security Law, Georgetown Law School

Former US Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice (2009-2015)

Paul Rink

Associate Professor of Law

Seton Hall Law School

Francisco J. Rivera Juaristi

Clinical Professor of Law

Santa Clara Law

Scott Roehm

Adjunct Professor of Law

Georgetown Law School

Dr. Cesare P.R. Romano

Professor of Law

W. Joseph Ford Fellow

Loyola Law School, Los Angeles

Gabor Rona

Professor of Practice

Cardozo Law School

Naomi Roht-Arriaza

Distinguished Professor of Law Emerita

UC Law San Francisco

Brad R. Roth

Professor of Political Science and Law

Wayne State University

Kenneth Roth

Charles and Marie Robertson Visiting Professor

Princeton School of Public and International Affairs

Former Executive Director, Human Rights Watch

Susana SáCouto

Professorial Lecturer-in-Residence

Director, War Crimes Research Office

Director, Summer Law Program in The Hague

American University Washington College of Law

Leila Nadya Sadat

James Carr Professor of International Criminal Law

Washington University School of Law

Director, Crimes Against Humanity Initiative

Chair, International Law Association (American Branch)

Former Special Advisor on Crimes Against Humanity to the ICC Prosecutor (2013-2023)

Margaret L. Satterthwaite

Professor of Law
, NYU School of Law

Beth Van Schaack

Former Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice, U.S. State Department

Visiting Fellow (Feb. 2026 – June 2026)

European University Institute

Distinguished Fellow

Center for Human Rights & International Justice,
Stanford University

Michael P. Scharf

President of the American Branch of the International Law Association

Joseph C. Hostetler – BakerHostetler Professor of Law

Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Michael N. Schmitt

Professor of International Law, University of Reading

Professor Emeritus, US Naval War College

Former G. Norman Lieber Distinguished Scholar, West Point

Steven M. Schneebaum

Adjunct Professor
Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies

Visiting Professor, Tashkent State University of Law, Uzbekistan

Eric Schwartz

Professor of Public Affairs

Chair, Global Policy

University of Minnesota

Elizabeth Shackelford

Distinguished Lecturer

Dartmouth College

Gregory Shaffer

Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of International Law

Georgetown University Law Center

Dinah Shelton

Manatt/Ahn Professor of Law (Emeritus)
The George Washington University Law School

Rebecca Shoot

Co-Convener, Washington Working Group for the International Criminal Court
Co-Convener, ImPact Coalition on Strengthening International Judicial Institutions

James Silk

Binger Clinical Professor Emeritus of Human Rights

Yale Law School

Matiangai Sirleaf

Nathan Patz Professor of Law

University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
Professor, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health
University of Maryland School of Medicine

David Sloss

John A. and Elizabeth H. Sutro Professor of Law

Santa Clara University School of Law

Stephan Sonnenberg

Associate Professor of Practice

Wesleyan University

Milena Sterio

James A. Thomas Distinguished Professor of Law & LLM Programs Director

Cleveland State University College of Law

Jonathan Tracy

Former Judge Advocate, U.S. Army

Jennifer Trahan

Clinical Professor and Director of the Concentration in International Law and Human Rights

NYU Center for Global Affairs

Convenor, The Global Institute for the Prevention of Aggression

Rachel E. VanLandingham

Lieutenant Colonel (USAF) (ret.)
Professor of Law & Associate Dean for Research, Southwestern Law School

President Emerita & Director, National Institute of Military Justice

* Signatories are signing in their individual capacities and affiliations are for identification purposes only.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

Speech by the Permanent Representative of Cuba to the United Nations, Ambassador Ernesto Soberón Guzmán, at the commemorative event of the 12th Anniversary of the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Cuba’s Representative Office Abroad

Assistant Secretary-General for the Middle East, Europe, the Americas, Asia and the Pacific, Mr. Khaled Khiari,

High-ranking officials un the UN Secretariat,

Distinguished Ambassadors,

Brothers and Sisters of Latin America and the Caribbean,

Dear colleagues,

Twelve years later, we are gathered on a date of profound significance for the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean. On 29 January 2014, the Heads of State and Government of CELAC adopted a landmark decision in Havana: to proclaim our region a Zone of Peace.


(click on image to enlarge)

Such a Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace signed by the Heads of State and Government of the region was a major historic event.

The Proclamation materialized the historic wishes of our people and their fighters for independence, those who envisioned and fought for a free and united Great Motherland, which José Martí called “Our America.”

It was an affirmation of dignity, sovereignty, and confidence in genuine regional integration. It was our joint decision to reject war, coercion, or interference aimed at seizing our region. It was our collective commitment to dialogue, cooperation, and mutual respect—in favor of a true culture of peace.

It committed us to settling differences among nations peacefully, through dialogue and negotiation, with absolute respect for international law—and thereby to banish forever the use or threat of force in our region.

It endorsed the renewed commitment of our States to promoting nuclear disarmament as a primary goal, as well as contributing to general and complete disarmament, with a view to strengthening trust across all nations.

It indicated the path for a peaceful living and for cooperation to face up challenges and to jointly solve the problems which affect us all.

With it, we committed ourselves to fulfilling our “obligation not to interfere, directly or indirectly, in the internal affairs of another State and to observe the principles of national sovereignty, equal rights and the self-determination of peoples”, as well as to respecting the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law.

(Continued in right column)

(Click here for the article in Spanish.)

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

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(Continued from left column)

Distinguished colleagues:

The Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace was clear in its defense of the inalienable right of every State to choose its political, economic, social and cultural system, as an essential condition for ensuring the peaceful coexistence of nations.
This historic document urges all member states of the international community to fully respect its principles in their relations with CELAC member states, practice tolerance and live together peacefully as good neighbors. Preserving these precepts is an imperative.

Just over a decade later, the regional and international context has become extremely dangerous and unpredictable. The United States Government is reviving its imperial claims to domination, driving the planet towards anarchy and war‑mongering chaos, posing a constant threat to international stability and security, and displaying utter disregard for multilateralism and international law. In the face of these colossal challenges, we have a historic duty to safeguard, at all costs, the status of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace.

In just one month, in our region alone, the United States carried out a brutal and unjustified military intervention in Venezuela, kidnapped its constitutional President, Nicolás Maduro Moros, and comrade Cilia Flores and reinforced the aggressive escalation against Cuba by trying to impose an absolute siege on fuel supplies to the country. These irresponsible actions require urgent mobilization by the international community. Today, the fate of our peoples, regional stability and the very identity of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace are at stake.

Reason, International Law and the unwavering will to fulfill and uphold the postulates of the Peace Proclamation are on our side.

In the face of intentions to reinstate the Monroe Doctrine by military force, we reaffirm that Latin America and the Caribbean is neither disputed territory nor anyone’s backyard. Latin America and the Caribbean belong to the peoples from the Rio Bravo to Patagonia, as our Apostle said.

José Martí warned us 135 years ago, and I quote: “The trees must form ranks to keep the giant with seven-league boots from passing! It is the time of mobilization, of marching together, and we must go forward in close ranks, like silver in the veins of the Andes.”

This historic moment needs more unity, even in our diversity. In the face of the differences, challenges and threats that now loom over Latin America and the Caribbean, let us uphold peace. The peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean deserve to live in peace.

Thank you very much.
 
– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, Latin America

People Across Global South Condemn ‘Imperialist’ US-Israeli War on Iran

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Brett Wilkins from Common Dreams (reprinted according to Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)

People, groups, and governments across the
Global South this week condemned the US-Israeli war on Iran, which one prominent international progressive organization slammed as "devoid of any legal justification."

People rally and march in Thiruvananthapuram—the capital of Kerala state in India—on March 2, 2026 to condemn the US-Israeli war on Iran. (Photo by Communist Party of India-Marxist/X)

The attack on Iran sparked large protests in countries including Bangladesh, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Africa, and Turkey, with demonstrators taking to squares and streets to condemn what many called a war of imperialist aggression waged by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.

(Editor’s note: The Guardian lists protests from Pakistan, South Africa, Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, China, Chile, Cuba, and many other developing nations.)

In South Africa—which is leading a genocide case against Israel at the >International Court of Justice (ICJ)—labor, leftist, student, and Muslim groups are among those denouncing the war.

The South African Federation of Trade Unions (SAFTU) issued a statement Tuesday proclaiming, "No to war, no to regime change, no to oppression."

"History has taught the global working class a bitter lesson: So-called 'interventions' in the name of democracy have left behind destruction, instability, and suffering for ordinary people, never liberation," SAFTU asserted. "From Iraq to Libya, from Syria to countless other theaters of intervention, it is workers and the poor who pay the highest price."

"The future of Iran belongs to its people, not to Washington, not to Tel Aviv, and not to foreign intelligence agencies," the federation stressed.

In Pakistan, at least 23 people were killed during demonstrations across the country on Sunday, including 10 protesters outside the US consulate in Karachi. US Marines reportedly opened fire on a crowd of people who attempted to storm the facility. Eleven others were killed in the northern city of Skardu, where people set a United Nations office ablaze. Two people were also slain in capital Islamabad.

The Progressive International (PI) cabinet published a statement condemning the war "in the strongest possible terms."

"The assault once again exposes the true character of US diplomacy," the group said. "Indirect talks between Tehran and Washington—mediated by Oman—were little more than a screen behind which the Trump administration coordinated an agenda of [a] 'major combat operation' under the banner of ‘Operation Epic Fury.’"

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:
 
How can war crimes be documented, stopped, punished and prevented?

(Continued from left column)

"Trump has been clear: This is a regime change offensive—devoid of any legal justification let alone authorization," the PI cabinet continued. "Trump has framed these strikes as 'preemptive,' necessary to eliminate 'imminent threats' and to defend national security. Yet Iran has made no immediate threats to the US. On the contrary, it is a long-standing ambition of the US and Israel to wage war on Iran—the lethal consequences of which will be borne by its people."

"Imperialist war does not liberate peoples—it subjugates them," the group added. "The evidence is found in the ruins of Gaza, Baghdad, and Tripoli, where bombs leveled cities and 'democracy promotion' left ashes in its wake."

Siphamandla Zondi, a professor of politics at the University of Johannesburg in South Africa, told the Guardian that “this is a war of domination and subordination, therefore it has imperialist undertones and motives" and "makes the world unsafe for all of us.”

The International Migrants Alliance (IMA) issued a statement Monday calling the attack "against international law."

"The bombing in Iran has killed hundreds of people, most of them are children and civilians," the group said. "The aggression is part of the Israel-US renewed war to dominate the West Asia region and plunder their resources… For decades, the United States has armed, funded, and protected Israel’s military actions while destabilizing West Asia through sanctions, interventions, and war. The result is endless violence, displacement, and suffering for ordinary people."

"The ongoing attacks will create new waves of refugees," IMA added. "Families are forced to flee across borders that are increasingly militarized. Imperialist wars create a brutal cycle of forced migration: People are driven from their homes, safety, and future, only to face criminalization, detention, or exploitation as migrants and refugees abroad."

Indian-born academic Amitav Acharya, author of The Once and Future World Order: Why Global Civilization Will Survive the Decline of the West, said in an interview with the Guardian that “many countries in the Global South are going to look for a coalition of powers that will stand up to the United States, as the United States is seen as so aggressive, so imperial."

That sentiment was echoed across the developing world. In Brazil, the Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL) said: "Trump is a threat to the world. This is a criminal violation of Iranian sovereignty and international law."

"To justify the war, the United States lies by stating that Iran threatens the American people and the world," the party continued. "We already know this story: The 'weapons of mass destruction' of Iraq… have never been found. Trump invades Iran to defend American neocolonial interests and to give a message to the world that the American government does not accept the existence of independent countries in the world system."

"Once again, US imperialism and Israeli Zionism elect the path of war and barbarism, bombing civilian facilities and killing innocents," PSOL added. "We demand an immediate end to the bombing and express our total solidarity with the Iranian people.

(Editor’s Note: We are impressed by the analysis of Professor John Mearsheimer that “it is almost impossible for me to see how Israel and the US win this war . . . Remember that in the Vietnam War, the US won virtually every battle and lost the war.”)

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global

‘We Are Sailing to Cuba’: Humanitarian Coalition Announces Flotilla to Break US Blockade

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Brett Wilkins from Common Dreams (republished according to Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)

As the Trump administration tightens an already devastating economic embargo of Cuba by targeting the island's fuel imports in a bid to topple the country's socialist government, a coalition of progressive groups on Thursday announced plans for a flotilla to deliver food, medicine, and other essential supplies to the besieged Cuban people.


Members of CodePink protest the United States embargo of Cuba and Cuba’s inclusion on the US state sponsors of terrorism list in Los Angeles on October 29, 2022. (Photo by CodePink/X)

Members of Progressive International, CodePink, and other direct action and advocacy groups plan to set sail for Cuba next month in the Nuestra América—or Our America—Flotilla, which they said is inspired by the Global Sumud Flotilla missions to break Israel's illegal blockade of Gaza amid the ongoing genocide in the Palestinian exclave.

"We are sailing to Cuba, bringing critical humanitarian aid for its people," the flotilla organizers said on their website. "The Trump administration is strangling the island, cutting off fuel, flights, and critical supplies for survival. The consequences are lethal, for newborns and parents, for the elderly and the sick."

"That is why we are launching the Nuestra América Flotilla, setting sail from across the Caribbean Sea in solidarity with the Cuban people," the organizers continued. "And we are asking for your support, to help us prepare the mission and purchase the food and medicine that we will bring to the Cuban people."

"Together, we can break the siege, save lives, and stand up for the cause of Cuban self-determination," they added.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:
 
How can the blockade of Cuba be stopped?

(Continued from left column)

The announcement of the flotilla came as the Trump administration ratchets up pressure on Cuba's socialist government by further suffocating the island's economy via an oil embargo similar to the one imposed on Venezuela before last month's US invasion and abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

At the time, President Donald Trump threatened the leaders of Colombia, Cuba, and Mexico that they could be next.

Trump reversed former President Joe Biden's eleventh-hour move in January 2025 to remove Cuba from the US state sponsors of terrorism list, a designation utterly divorced from reality. Trump officials have cited Cuba's baseless inclusion on the list as justification for measures taken against the country's government and people.

The US embargo on Cuba dates to the early 1960s when the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations responded to the successful revolution that overthrew a brutal US-backed dictatorship with a blockade accompanied by a decadeslong campaign of state-sponsored terrorism against the Cuban people that left thousands dead and more than $1 trillion in economic damages, according to the Cuban government.

Every year since 1992—with the exception of the Covid-19 pandemic year of 2020—the United Nations General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly to condemn and call for an end to the US blockade of Cuba.

Progressive International co-general coordinator David Adler told El País' Veronica Garrido Thursday, "The US government is drowning the Cuban people, who are running out of light, have no food, no medicine, no energy."

"I do not exaggerate when I say that we are seeing in Cuba the same playbook that Israel applied to the people of Gaza: an encirclement, an act of collective punishment that violates every aspect of international law,” he continued.

"We hope that [the flotilla] will be a mechanism of popular pressure to the governments of the world that have the responsibility, before international law, to protect the fundamental rights of the Cuban people and export the energy required by the island,” Adler said.

“There is nothing illegal about what we are doing," he added. "We are coming to a sovereign country and delivering humanitarian aid. We are ready to take risks in the name of humanity and the fundamental right of the Cuban people.
– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Latin America, North America,

Mexico: Al Sharpton and Rigoberta Menchú to Join Mérida Peace Conference

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Carlos Rosado van der Gracht from Yucatan Magazine

The International Peace Conference in Mérida will feature prominent voices such as Nobel Peace Prize laureate Rigoberta Menchú Tum and civil rights leader Alfred Charles Sharpton Jr., better known as Al Sharpton, the firebrand TV pundit and activist.

This regional gathering, organized by UADY, The World House Project Inc., and the Yucatán state government, will take place at the Siglo XXI convention center.

Over three days starting Feb. 4, civic, business, academic, government, and student leaders, as well as activists, will discuss actions to address today’s challenges in peace and justice through dialogue, education, and strategic action.


The conference aims to build a global network for civic awareness and create social infrastructure focused on promoting peace and justice. It will also invite analysis of significant challenges and opportunities for international peace.

Rigoberta Menchú will share her vision for building peace through human rights and social justice. Johnny J. Mack, founder of The World House Project, will present a talk on the World House vision and the metalogic of nonviolence.

Additionally, Rosa Wolpert Kuri, a UNESCO representative, will give the presentation “Without Education, There Is No Peace.” Other experts, including Francisco Javier Gorjón Gómez, Roberto José Beltrán Zambrano, Alberto Manuel Athié Gallo, and Fernando de la Mora Salcedo, will address key topics such as a culture of peace, nonviolent action in the 21st century, and current global scenarios.

The sessions aim to identify three main focus areas: Direct Action, which uses peaceful tactics to mobilize people, challenge injustice, and create pressure for change; Cultural Transformation, which shifts mindsets and social norms through art, storytelling, education, and spiritual leadership; and Structural Change, which reforms policies, systems, and institutions to build equity, justice, and peace.

The conference will also feature a Youth for Peace Agenda. This includes keynote speeches, panel discussions, workshops, intergenerational dialogues, and cultural activities with performances by the UADY Ballet, the University Regional Orchestra, and other musical groups.

Members of the general public may attend the conference by completing the online registration and paying the participation fee of MX$2,800 via bank deposit or transfer, or MX$2,910 via PayPal. Deadline is Feb. 2. Visit https://conferenciadepaz.uady.mx/.

About Rigoberta Menchú

Rigoberta Menchú grew up in a small Mayan village in Guatemala. As a young woman, she experienced injustice and violence during her country’s long civil war, in which family members were killed. Her courageous work for social justice and peace was recognized globally when she received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1992. She used this honor to bring even more attention to the struggles of Indigenous communities everywhere. Today, she continues to travel and teach, emphasizing that lasting peace must be built on a foundation of human rights, dignity, and fairness for all people.

Menchú remains one of the Maya world’s loudest voices on social justice, enduring peace and cultural preservation.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:
 
The Nobel Peace Prize: Does it go to the right people?

(Continued from left column)

The Program

World House Project 2026 International Peace Conference

The World House Project 2026 International Peace Conference takes place over three days at the Centro de Convenciones Siglo XXI, bringing together global thought leaders, activists, and students to explore pathways toward peace and justice. The conference halls were renamed for the occasion.

Wednesday, February 4

The conference opens with a special youth-focused morning session, the JuventudES Paz Agenda, exclusively for high school students from 7:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. in the Mahatma Gandhi Hall (Chichén Itzá 6).

General registration begins at 3 p.m. at the Rigoberta Menchú Tum Passage, followed by the Opening Ceremony at 4 p.m. in the Martin Luther King Jr. Hall (Chichén Itzá 4 and 5).

The inaugural keynote at 5 p.m. features Master Joaquín Díaz Mena, Governor of the State of Yucatán, presenting the “Allies for Life Program.” This is followed at 6 p.m. by Reverend Al Sharpton, who delivers the day’s second keynote address.

Concurrent with the opening sessions, the Mandalas Peace Hub hosts a Human Rights Journey from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. in the Malala Yousafzai Hall (Uxmal 4) and Nelson Mandela Hall (Chichén Itzá 2 and 3).

The first day concludes with a cultural performance at 7 p.m. featuring the UADY Ballet and University Folk Orchestra in Nelson Mandela Hall.

Thursday, February 5

The day begins at 9 a.m. with a keynote address by Dr. Rigoberta Menchú Tum in Martin Luther King Jr. Hall, followed by three consecutive morning sessions: Dr. Francisco Javier Gorjón Gómez speaks on “Peace from Peace: Foundation for Building Peace” at 10 a.m., and Dr. Roberto José Beltrán Zambrano presents “The Right Time for Peace: Culture of Peace and Nonviolent Action in the 21st Century” at 11 a.m.

After a midday break from noon to 1 p.m., Dr. Johnny J. Mack delivers his keynote “Vision of the World House and the Metalogic of Nonviolence” at 1 p.m.

The afternoon shifts to interactive formats with panel discussions, presentations, and workshops running from 2 p.m. to 7 p.m. in Mahatma Gandhi Hall. Simultaneously, an Intergenerational Dialogue for the Next Generation takes place from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m., also in Mahatma Gandhi Hall, while the Mandalas Peace Hub continues its Human Rights Journey programming in both Malala Yousafzai and Nelson Mandela Halls.

The evening features a cultural performance by the musical group Polifonía and collaborating artists at 7 p.m. in Nelson Mandela Hall.

Friday, February 6

The final day opens at 9:30 a.m. with Master Rosa Wolpert Kuri from UNESCO presenting “Without Education There Is No Peace” in Martin Luther King Jr. Hall.

At 10:30 a.m., Master Alberto Manuel Athié Gallo addresses “Where Are We Going? Between Uncertainty, Surprise, Emerging Doubts, and the New World Order,” followed at 11:30 a.m. by Master Fernando de la Mora Salcedo speaking on “Mexico, the World, and the Culture of Peace.”

The conference concludes with a panel discussion at 12:30 p.m. titled “Where Are We Going in Building Peace and Justice in Latin America? Next Collective Steps,” featuring Master Rosa Wolpert Kuri, Master Héctor Dada Sánchez, and Dr. José Luis Espinoza Navarrete, moderated by Dr. Celia Rosado Avilés.

The closing ceremony takes place at 1 p.m., bringing the three-day international gathering to its conclusion.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Latin America

Protests in France agains US attack on Venezuela

Question related to this article:
 
Can Trump force regime change in Venezuela, Cuba and Colombia?

(Continued from left column)

° ° ° ° °


– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe, Latin America,

Massive Protest in Cuba Condemns US Military Operation in Venezuela

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Photos from a Youtube video by Dawn News

Here are some frames from the Youtube video by Dawn News of the rally in Havana to protest the attack and kidnapping of President Maduro by the Trump government of the United States. The frames presented here are in the order in which they occur in the video.


° ° ° ° °

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:
 
Can Trump force regime change in Venezuela, Cuba and Colombia?

(Continued from left column)

° ° ° ° °


– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Latin America

Maduro Supporters Gather in Caracas

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Photos from a Youtube video by Reuters

Here are some frames from the nine-hour Youtube video by Reuters of the rally in Caracas to protest the attack and kidnapping of President Maduro by the Trump government of the United States. The frames presented here are in the order in which they occur in the video.


° ° ° ° °

° ° ° ° °

° ° ° ° °


(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:
 
Can Trump force regime change in Venezuela, Cuba and Colombia?

(Continued from left column)


° ° ° ° °

° ° ° ° °

° ° ° ° °


– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Latin America

Thousands Protest in Colombia

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from CCTV facebook

Thousands of protesters took to the streets of Bogota, the capital of Colombia, on Wednesday to decry threats from the United States to expand its military campaign into their territory in the name of combating drug trafficking, after last weekend’s deadly raid on Venezuela.

Wednesday’s rally took place at Bolivar Square in the heart of downtown Bogota at the call of Colombian President Gustavo Petro after U.S. President Donald Trump said a U.S. military operation against Colombia “sounds good”. Such demonstrations were also held in other cities across Colombia.

U.S. military forces carried out a series of attacks and bombings in Caracas and other parts of Venezuela in the early hours of Saturday, and forcibly seized Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, before putting them in custody in New York.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:
 
Can Trump force regime change in Venezuela, Cuba and Colombia?

(Continued from left column)

“We are now witnessing the resurgence of American imperialism throughout Latin America and many parts of the world. The United States is not only reshaping its imperialism, but also disregarding the fundamental principles of international law,” said Cristian Zuluaga, a protester.

“They always consider us Latin American countries inhuman or more precisely, they see us as their backyard. They believe our wealth belongs to them. They believe we will always be subservient, yielding, never rebellious. But we have courageous people here,” said Claudia Bejarano, another protester.

U.S. attack on Venezuela, which Trump has admitted is to secure “total access” to Venezuela’s massive oil reserves and subsequent threats to Colombia, has sent shock waves through Latin America. Demonstrators this week hit the streets of Europe and the Middle East to condemn the U.S. aggression.

“We are not slaves to anyone, nor are we above anyone. We share the same land, the same territory. All we can do is to unite, engage in dialogue, and reach a necessary peace agreement,” said Maria Mayorga, a demonstrator.

“The whole world has responded. Protests have also taken place in Europe. Protests have also occurred in countries that were once invaded by the United States, such as Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and Baghdad,” said Jhon Fredy Sanchez, another demonstrator.
– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Latin America