Category Archives: DISARMAMENT & SECURITY

Joint statement by World Future Council members and Right Livelihood Laureates : Abolish Nuclear Weapons to Assure a Sustainable Future

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A statement from the World Future Council

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Continued in right column)

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

(Continued from left column)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global

Who to Believe about Venezuela’s Election: Firsthand observation or PBS Newshour?

. .DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION . .


An article by Rick Sterling in Transcend.org

In early December I traveled to Venezuela to be an election observer at their national assembly election. I was part of a group of eight persons from Canada and US organized by CodePink. There were about two hundred international observers in total, including the  Latin American Council of Electoral Experts.  I have previously been an official election observer in Honduras and was an unofficial observer at the 2015 Venezuela national assembly election.


Photo: Rick Sterling

Meeting Opposition Leaders

Before the election, our small group met eight leaders of the Democratic Alliance. This is the major opposition coalition. Pedro Jose Rojas of Accion Democratica said the US sanctions are not doing what is claimed; they are hurting average citizens. Bruno Gallo of Avanca Progressista said Venezuela needs negotiation not confrontation. Juan Carlos Alvarado of the Christian Democratic Party said Venezuelans have been “victims of politics” and that dialogue and flexibility are needed. Several leaders spoke about the importance of the national assembly and the road to change is through voting not violence. Several leaders expressed the wish for better relations with the US; another one said Venezuelan sovereignty needs to be respected.  The common request was to end US sanctions and interference in Venezuelan politics.

We visited the factory where voting machines were assembled, tested and certified. The staff was openly proud of their work. In March this year, nearly all the pre-existing voting computers were destroyed in a massive fire at the main election warehouse. There were calls to delay the December election. But in six months, forty thousand new computers were ordered, built, assembled, tested and certified for the December election.

The Election Process

On election day, Sunday December 6, we visited many different elections sites. Typically, the election voting takes place at a school, with five or ten classrooms designated as “mesas”.  Each voter goes to his or her designated classroom / “mesa”.

The voting process was quick and efficient, with bio-safety sanitation at each step. The first step is to show your identity card and prove your identity with fingerprint recognition. Step 2 was to make your voting choices at the touchscreen computer and receive a paper receipt. Step 3 is to verify the receipt matches your voting choice and deposit the receipt in a ballot box. The fourth and final step is to sign and put your fingerprint on the voting registry.  The entire voting process took about 3 minutes.

At the end of the voting day, we observed the process of tabulating the votes. At each “mesa”, with observers from other parties present,  the paper receipts were recorded one by one. At the end, the results were compared to the digital count.  Voting results were then transmitted to the headquarters for overall tabulation.

Election results were announced by the Council for National Election (CNE) which manages the entire process.  CNE leaders are not permitted to be members of any party and the CNE leadership was recently changed at the request of the opposition.  In our discussion with leading opposition members, they complained about incumbent party advantages but acknowledged the election process is free, fair and honest.

PBS Newshour Special

With this firsthand experience, on December 29 I watched a PBS Newshour segment   about the Venezuela election and overall situation.   PBS reporter Marcia Biggs said, “Maduro’s party essentially ran unopposed in this month’s election.”   As noted above, this is untrue.

In fact, there were 107 parties and over 14,000 individuals competing in the December 6 election for 277 national assembly seats. While 8 parties were in alliance with the governing United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), there were over 90 opposition parties. The strongest opposition coalition was the Democratic Alliance comprising 7 opposition parties.  The Democratic Alliance won 1.1 million votes or 18% of the vote. The LEFT opposition to the PSUV, under the banner of the Communist Party of Venezuela, received 168 thousand votes.

Reporter Marcia Biggs claimed that “politics permeates everything in Venezuela and can determine whether you support Maduro and eat or go hungry.” This claim is based on a campaign statement by PSUV Vice President Diosdado Cabello encouraging people to vote. He jokingly said that women are in the forefront and can say to their family, “No vote, no food.” Video of him making the statement is here.  This statement has been distorted out of all meaning and context.

The PBS story showed a fistfight in the national assembly, implying that it was the Venezuelan government.  But, as reported in the “Juan Guaidó surreal regime change reality show”,  the fight was between competing factions of the Venezuelan opposition.

(continued in right column)

Question for this article:

What is really happening in Venezuela?

(continued from left column)
 
When they showed Juan Guaidó climbing over a fence, that was a publicity stunt to distract from the important news that Luis Parra was elected Speaker of the national assembly one year ago.  That was embarrassing because Guaidó’s claim to be “interim president” was based on his being Speaker.

Election turnout was lower than usual at 31% but one needs to account for the election taking place despite covid19 with no mail-in voting. Also, millions of registered voters have had to leave the country due to economic hardship. Also, transportation is difficult due to gasoline scarcity. This was a national assembly election, equivalent to a US mid-term election, which gets lower turnout. Note that 95% of voting eligible Venezuelans are registered voters compared to just 67%  in the USA.  Thus a turnout of 50% registered voters in the US equates to 33% of eligible voters.

US Meddling in Venezuela

The star of the 7-minute PBS story is Roberto Patino, the Venezuelan director of a food distribution charity. The report neglects to mention that Patino is associated with a major US foreign policy institution. He is a Millennium Leadership fellow and “expert”  at the neoliberal Atlantic Council where the “regime change” goals against Venezuela are  clear.  His food charity “Alimenta la Solidaridad” is allied with the “ Rescue Venezuela ” funded by the US with the apparent goal of undermining the Venezuelan government and promoting “interim president Juan Guaidó”.

Roberto Patino says the Venezuelan government is “very paranoid and they see conspiracies all over.” Paranoia is a mental condition where there is fear of imaginary threats.  But US threats and aggression against Venezuela are not imaginary; they are very real:

In 2002 the US supported the kidnapping and coup against the popular and elected President Hugo Chavez. The years have gone by but US hostility persists.

* In August 2018 there was a drone assassination attempt  on the Venezuelan President.

* In January 2019 the US declared that it would not recognize the elected President Maduro and instead recognized Juan Guaidó as “interim president”. His background is described in the article “The Making of Juan Guaidó: How the US regime change laboratory created Venezuela’s coup leader”

* In February 2019 President Trump threatened military intervention  against Venezuela.

* In March 2019, there was massive power blackout caused by sabotage of the electrical grid, with probable US involvement.

* In May 2020, two former US Special Forces soldiers and other mercenaries were arrested in a failed attempt  to overthrow President Maduro.

* In June 2020, the US Navy warship Nitze  began provocative “freedom of navigation” patrols along the Venezuelan coast.

* In August 2020, the US seized four ships  carrying much needed gasoline to Venezuela.

* In September 2020, in a attempt to undermine the Venezuelan election, the US imposed sanctions  on political leaders who planned to participate.

* The US 2021 stimulus bill includes $33Million  for “democracy programs for Venezuela”.

Based on the past twenty years, Venezuela’s government has good reason to be on guard against US threats, meddling and intervention. The PBS program ignores this history.

Another hero of the show is the exiled politician Leopoldo Lopez. He was imprisoned in 2014 for instigating street violence known as “guarimbas”  which led to the deaths of 43 people.

Like Patino, Lopez  is from the Venezuelan elite, studied in the US and has major public relations  support in the US. Like Guaidó, Leopoldo Lopez is more popular in Washington than his home country.

Will the US respect Venezuelan sovereignty?

If the PBS Newshour reporters had not been so biased, they would have interviewed members of the moderate opposition in Venezuela. Viewers could have heard Democratic Alliance leaders  explain why they participated in the election, why they are critical of US economic sanctions and US interference in their domestic affairs. That would have been educational for viewers.

On January 5, the newly elected national assembly will commence in Venezuela.  The fig leaf pretense of Juan Guaidó as “interim president” of Venezuela will be removed because he is no longer in the national assembly.  In fact, he was removed as speaker of the national assembly one year ago.

But viewers of the PBS special did not learn this. Instead, they received a biased report ignoring the moderate opposition and promoting a few US supported elites.  The report ignores or denigrates the efforts of millions of Venezuelans who carried out and participated in an election which compares favorably with the election process in the US.  You would never know it from PBS, and you might not believe it, unless you saw it with your own eyes.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, Latin America

Nuclear deterrence gives ‘false sense of security,’ Vatican official says

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Catholic Philly

The goal of a nuclear-free world can only be achieved through a renewed sense of unity and solidarity among nations that breaks the dynamic of mistrust, said Archbishop Paul Gallagher, Vatican foreign minister.

Addressing a webinar Dec. 16 on nuclear disarmament, Archbishop Gallagher highlighted the Vatican’s support of political dialogue that goes “beyond the theory of fear” and of the need to “emphasize how nuclear deterrence represents a false sense of security and of stability.”


A Russian Yars RS-24 intercontinental ballistic missile system drives during the Victory Day parade marking the 71st anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany in World War II, at Red Square in Moscow May 9, 2016. (CNS photo/Grigory Dukor, Reuters)

“The Holy See reaffirms its unwavering commitment in this direction as demonstrated by its ratification of all the main nuclear treaties and its continuous efforts to promote a concrete culture of peace based on the dignity of the human person and on the primacy of law, fostering responsible honest and consistent cooperation with all members of the family of nations,” he said.

The webinar, titled “A world free from nuclear weapons,” was co-sponsored by the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, Georgetown University, Notre Dame University and the Catholic Peacebuilding Network.

(Continued in right column)

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

(Continued from left column)

The event coincided with the launch of a new book that features Pope Francis’ address in November 2017 in which he spoke out against nuclear weapons, as well as “testimony from Nobel Peace Prize laureates, religious leaders, diplomats, and civil society activists,” according to Georgetown University Press.

In a Dec. 14 statement, the dicastery said the goal of the event was to stress the link between peace, disarmament and health security during a time of pandemic.

In his talk, Archbishop Gallagher cited the pope’s video message to the U.N. General Assembly in late September. In his message, the pope said the current pandemic can lead to two paths: one that shifts toward a “renewed sense of global co-responsibility” or one of “self-sufficiency, nationalism, protectionism, individualism and isolation” that “excludes the poor, the vulnerable and those dwelling on the peripheries of life.”

The Vatican foreign minister said the pope’s perspective also applies to the issue of nuclear weapons as a means of deterrence.

He also expressed concern that “nuclear powers often seem to continue turning inward away from multilateralism,” such as the uncertainty regarding the renewal of the New START treaty, a bilateral agreement between the United States and the Russian Federation that seeks to reduce and limit the use of nuclear warheads, ballistic missiles and other strategic offensive arms.

However, he also cited the U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which bans the possession and use of nuclear weapons, as a step toward a “nuclear weapons-free world.”

To achieve a lasting peace, Archbishop Gallagher said the international community must look beyond nuclear deterrence.

“International peace and security cannot be founded on the threat of mutual destruction or total annihilation or maintaining a balance of power or regulating relations by substituting the rights of the power to power of right,” the archbishop said.

“Peace and security must be built on justice, integral human development, respect for fundamental human rights, the protection of creation, the building of trust among peoples, the promotion of educational and health structures, dialogue and solidarity,” he said.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, North America,

In bipartisan vote: US House approves record $741 billion military spending bill

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from the World Socialist Web Site

The overwhelming bipartisan vote by the House of Representatives Tuesday evening [December 8] to approve the largest military budget in American history demonstrates the reality of capitalist politics. Democrats and Republicans are supposedly at each other’s throats over an array of social and political issues, but they are entirely in agreement on funding the world’s largest and most lethal military machine.


The Pentagon in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

The House vote for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was by a massive margin, 335–78. Democrats supported passage by 195–37. Republicans supported passage by 140–40. Every leader of the House Democrats backed passage: Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Majority Whip James Clyburn. They were joined by the top Republicans: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Minority Whip Steve Scalise and the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, the co-sponsor of the massive bill, Mac Thornberry of Texas.

The margin was far more than the two-thirds required to override a threatened Trump veto, although it is not clear that Trump will actually follow up on his tweets demanding two changes in the bill, neither relevant to its basic purposes. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already said the Senate will pass the NDAA in the next few days. The margin is likely to be even more decisive than in the House.

While rubber-stamping the largest-ever Pentagon budget, the House and Senate remain locked in a protracted stalemate which has blocked the payment of a single dollar of federal supplemental unemployment insurance since the benefit expired last July 31.

The $741 billion for the Pentagon is approximately six times as much as the $121 billion in unemployment benefits paid out to 60 million workers since the coronavirus pandemic struck.

The goal of the NDAA, according to its preamble, is to achieve “irreversible momentum in the implementation of the National Defense Strategy” spelled out by the Pentagon in 2018, which identified “strategic competition” with Russia and China, not terrorism, as the “preeminent challenge” of US military policy. This includes, according to the various subdivisions of the massive bill, achieving “Superiority in the Air”, “Superiority on the Seas,” “Superiority on the Land,” and, in keeping with the demands of Trump, “Superiority in Space.”

It is not hard to imagine what the rest of the world is to think of this all-out US drive for military power “uber alles”: China, Russia and imperialist powers like Germany, Britain, France and Japan are all engaged in military build-ups to match that in America, bringing ever closer the danger of an uncontrolled military clash between great powers, most of them nuclear armed.

Well short of such an apocalypse, the arms race involves an unforgivable squandering of economic resources needed to meet social concerns such as education, health care, alleviating poverty and retirement security.

One of the largest single components of the Pentagon budget is Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), funded to the tune of $69 billion. This is the spending for ongoing military operations where US forces are deployed: primarily Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, as well as the Persian Gulf, where vast naval and air assets are arrayed against Iran. The OCO also covers active drone missile warfare operations across Central Asia, the Middle East and North Africa.

(Article continued on the right column)

Question for this article:

Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

(Article continued from the left column)

The bill puts billions into preparations to confront Russia and China, including fully funding the European Deterrence Initiative, the NATO build-up on Russia’s western borders, and the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, providing $2.2 billion for similar activity by US naval and air forces directed against China. The label “deterrence” is entirely deceptive: the Pentagon is not seeking to ward off Russian and Chinese aggression, but to prepare for US aggression against one or both countries, regarded as the main obstacles to maintaining US world domination. Another $250 million goes for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, while $500 million (and likely much more) is earmarked for Israel.

Some other major provisions of the bill include:

– Requiring the Air Force to maintain 386 operational squadrons comprising at least 3,850 combat aircraft. This includes $9.1 billion to buy an additional 93 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, 14 more than the Trump administration requested.

– Adding $108 million to the procurement of MQ-9 drones equipped to fire missiles.

– Purchasing another seven C-130J transport aircraft, used to rapidly deploy troops, tanks and artillery to new war zones.

– Procurement of additional major warships for the US Navy, including one additional Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarine, cost roughly $3 billion, and additional smaller submarines, amphibious ships and P-8 anti-submarine aircraft.

– Funding to support redesign and improvement of land-based combat systems like artillery, tanks and armored vehicles for the “future of warfare against near-peer competitors” (war with Russia, China or another major power).

– Equipping the Army with an additional 116 helicopters, including 60 UH-60 Blackhawks, 50 AH-64E Apaches, and six of the giant MH-47G Chinooks.

– Continued funding for a systematic, across-the-board modernization of US nuclear weaponry, begun under Obama and continued under Trump, including submarine-fired missiles, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and heavy bombers capable of intercontinental flight.

The legislation incorporates a number of provisions to block military moves announced by Trump in recent months, delaying reduction of US troops stationed in Germany and South Korea, for example, until the next administration. Trump did not threaten a veto over these items, demonstrating that his threats of withdrawal were only for electoral purposes, or to extract more money from the countries being “protected” by US forces.

The veto threat came over one provision included in the bill, and one provision that the drafters left out despite Trump’s incessant demands to the contrary.

The provision Trump objects to establishes a procedure through which all US military bases named after Confederate commanders will be renamed in the course of the next three years. These include Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, and Ft. Hood, Texas, two of the largest centers of the US military, as well as Ft. Benning, Georgia, and Camp A. P. Hill in Virginia.

The provision Trump has demanded as an addition to the NDAA would repeal Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1995, which frees social media companies of liability for anything posted by their users. Because of this provision, Trump has been unable to sue Facebook and Twitter when they have placed warning messages on his tweets and postings of brazen falsehoods or incitements to violence. Both Senate and House leaders rejected Trump’s demand as extraneous to the Pentagon budget and likely to derail the legislation if included.

What is most remarkable, however, and almost unreported in the media, is the lockstep agreement between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party on this legislation. Under conditions where Trump is defying the outcome of the November election and seeking to overturn its results through unconstitutional actions, the Democrats nonetheless vote to provide the “commander in chief” with virtually a blank check.

Democratic and Republican leaders on the committees overseeing Pentagon policies and military budgets gave unanimous support to the NDAA, boasting that the military budget has passed Congress by huge majorities for 59 straight years, and the Fiscal 2021 budget will be number 60.

When it comes to the most critical institution of the capitalist state, there is not even a two-party system in America, there is only one party: the party of the military-intelligence apparatus, which is required both to assert US imperialist interests around the world and to defend the financial aristocracy against the looming threat of social disorder and class conflict at home.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

BREAKING: TFF Statement – “Convert Military Expenditures To Global Problem-Solving”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A statement from The Transnational

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

The Corona should be a wake-up call.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Statement continued on the right column)

Question for this article:

Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

(Statement continued from the left column)

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

Is it a large or small sum?

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

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

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

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

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

It’s time for more global cooperation and less confrontation

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need to use the Corona crisis constructively.

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

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

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

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

Click here and scroll to bottom to sign.

Thanks a lot!

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global

Global arms industry: Sales by the top 25 companies up 8.5 per cent; Big players active in Global South

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Article continued on the right column)

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

Question for this article:

Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

(Article continued from the left column)

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

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

Other notable developments and trends in the top 25

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

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

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

Mapping shows Global South becoming integrated into global arms industry

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

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

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

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

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

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

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global

Abolition 2000 Youth Network : Youth Fusion

. TOLERANCE & SOLIDARITY .

Information and photo from Youth Fusion

Youth Fusion is a world-wide networking platform for young individuals, youth organizations & youth initiatives in the field of nuclear disarmament, risk-reduction and non-proliferation. Our focus spans the globe, engaging youth at national, regional and international levels through our programs, events and actions.

Youth Fusion highlights the links between disarmament, peace, climate action, public health and sustainable development, and builds connections and cooperation amongst people and organisations working on these inter-related issues.

(continued in right column)

Question related to this article:
 
Youth initiatives for a culture of peace, How can we ensure they get the attention and funding they deserve?

(continued from left column)

Youth Fusion organises forums and events for inter-generational dialogue, so that youth and those more experienced can listen and learn from each other and build cooperation for more effective policy action.

Our goals are clear: to inform, educate, connect  and  engage  our fellow students, young professionals, activists and enthusiasts. Through these activities, and as part of Abolition 2000 Network, we are contributing to the total abolition of nuclear weapons. 

Are you 35 or younger? Join the Youth Fusion network to receive our email newsletter plus aditional information on how to participate in youth events, projects and actions. Membership is free and there are no commitments! Join our network

Are you older than 35? Sign up for our email newsletter, support youth actions and engage in inter-generational dialogue. Subscribe to news

Are you an organisation? We’re looking to partner up with schools, universities, youth groups and NGOs, to collaborate on projects and help us reach more young people worldwide. Join as organisation

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, TOLERANCE & SOLIDARITY

United Nations General Assembly adopts annual culture of peace resolution

DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY .

Information from United Nations Press Release

The Assembly concluded its consideration of its agenda item on the culture of peace . . .   acting without a vote, it adopted the resolution “Follow-up to the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace” (document A/75/L.28). 

The resolution was sponsored by Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Morocco, Qatar, Russian Federation, Singapore and Viet Nam:

Here are the 19 operative sections of the resolution.

1. Reiterates that the objective of the effective implementation of the
Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace is to strengthen further the globalmovement for a culture of peace following the observance of the International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World, 2001–2010, and calls upon all concerned to renew their attention to this objective;

2. Welcomes the inclusion of the promotion of a culture of peace in the 2030Agenda for Sustainable Development;

3. Invites Member States to continue to place greater emphasis on and expandtheir activities promoting a culture of peace at the national, regional and international levels and to ensure that peace and non-violence are fostered at all levels;

4. Invites the entities of the United Nations system, within their existing
mandates, to integrate, as appropriate, the eight action areas of the Programme of Action into their programmes of activities, focusing on promoting a culture of peace and non-violence at the national, regional and international levels;

5. Commends the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization for strengthening efforts to mobilize all relevant stakeholders within and outside the United Nations system in support of a culture of peace, and invites the Organization to continue to enhance communication and outreach, including through the culture of peace website;

6. Commends the practical initiatives and actions by relevant United Nationsbodies, including the United Nations Children’s Fund, the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN-Women) and the Universityfor Peace, as well as their activities in further promoting a culture of peace and non-violence, in particular the promotion of peace education and activities related to specific areas identified in the Programme of Action, and encourages them to continue and further strengthen and expand their efforts;

7. Underlines that early childhood development contributes to the developmentof more peaceful societies through advancing equality, tolerance, human development and promoting human rights, and calls for investment in early childhood education, including through effective policies and practices, towards promoting a culture of peace;

8. Encourages Member States, United Nations entities, regional and subregionalorganizations and relevant actors to consider instituting mechanisms to involve youth in the promotion of a culture of peace, tolerance and intercultural and interreligious dialogue and develop, as appropriate, an understanding of respect for human dignity, pluralism and diversity, including, as appropriate, through education programmes, that could discourage their participation in acts of terrorism, violent extremism as and when conducive to terrorism, violence, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination;

(continued in right column)

Question for this article:

What is the United Nations doing for a culture of peace?

(continued from left column)

9. Encourages the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations to increase its
activities that focus on peace education and global citizenship education in order to enhance an understanding among young people of values such as peace, tolerance, openness, inclusion and mutual respect, which are essential in developing a culture of peace;

10. Encourages the United Nations peacebuilding architecture to continue to
promote peacebuilding and sustaining peace activities, as outlined in its resolution 72/276, and to advance a culture of peace and non-violence in post-conflict peacebuilding efforts at the country level;

11. Urges the appropriate authorities to provide age-appropriate education inchildren’s schools that builds a culture of peace and non-violence, including lessons in mutual understanding, respect, tolerance, active and global citizenship and human rights;

12. Encourages the involvement of media, especially the mass media, in
promoting a culture of peace and non-violence, with particular regard to children and young people;

13. Commends civil society, non-governmental organizations and young
people for their activities in further promoting a culture of peace and non-violence, including through their campaign to raise awareness on a culture of peace and the peaceful settlement of disputes;

14. Encourages civil society and non-governmental organizations to further
strengthen their efforts to promote a culture of peace, inter alia, by adopting their own programme of activities to complement the initiatives of Member States, the United Nations system and other international and regional organizations, in line with the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace;

15. Invites Member States, all entities of the United Nations system and civilsociety organizations to accord increasing attention to their observance of theInternational Day of Peace on 21 September each year as a day of global ceasefireand non-violence, in accordance with its resolution 55/282 of 7 September 2001, and of the International Day of Non-Violence on 2 October, in accordance with itsresolution 61/271 of 15 June 2007;

16. Reiterates its request to the President of the General Assembly to considerconvening a high-level forum, as appropriate and within existing resources, devoted to the implementation of the Programme of Action on the occasion of the anniversary of its adoption, on or around 13 September, and requests the Secretariat to provide required logistical support for its effective organization within their respective mandates and existing resources;

17. Invites the Secretary-General, within existing resources, in consultationwith the Member States and taking into account the observations of civil societyorganizations, to explore mechanisms and strategies, in particular strategies in the sphere of information and communications technology, for the implementation of the Declaration and Programme of Action and to initiate outreach efforts to increase global awareness of the Programme of Action and its eight areas of action aimed at their implementation, including through public information activities by the Department of Global Communications of the Secretariat;

18. Requests the Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly at its
seventy-sixth session a report, within existing resources, on actions taken by Member States, on the basis of information provided by them, and those taken system-wide by all concerned entities of the United Nations to implement the present resolution and on heightened activities by the Organization and its affiliated agencies to implement the Programme of Action and to promote a culture of peace and non-violence;

19. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its seventy-sixth sessionthe item entitled “Culture of peace”.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, United Nations,

Bolivia: Choquehuanca meets with the UN to “strengthen the culture of peace”

DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY .

An article from Pagina Siete (translation by CPNN)

Vice President David Choquehuanca met on Wednesday with the Under-Secretary General of the United Nations Organization for Political Affairs and Peacebuilding, Miroslav Jenča, to “strengthen” the culture of peace.


Vice President Choquehuanca in meeting with Miroslav Jenča / Photo: ABI

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

Question for this article:

What is the United Nations doing for a culture of peace?

“We had a meeting with Brother Miroslav Jenča, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs and Peacebuilding for Europe, Central Asia and the Americas. We promote the culture of peace and dialogue, that is our path, the path of unity and brotherhood “, wrote the Vice President, through his Facebook account.

At the time of assuming the Vice Presidency of the State, Choquehuanca made several reflections with a view to seeking balance and the recovery of the rule of law with impartial justice and the full exercise of democracy, reported the state ABI.

“Bolivians see each other as equals and we know that united we are worth more, we are in times of being Jiwasa again. It is not a question of me, it is a question of us. Jiwasa is the opposite of self-centeredness,” he said on November 8, upon taking office.

The UN delegation is in Bolivia to consolidate peace, in relation to the acts of violence that occurred after the resignation of Evo Morales in 2019.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Latin America

Following peace deal, talks on Libya’s political future begin

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from UN News

Talks to draw up a blueprint for a new political era in Libya began in Tunisia on Monday [November 9], following a peace deal struck by Libya’s warring sides last month [See CPNN October 17]


(Click on image to enlarge)

“You have gathered today to continue forging a new era of peace and stability for Libya. You have the opportunity to end a tragic conflict and create a future of dignity and hope”, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said in a video message to participants of the Libyan Political Dialogue Forum.

“Now it is your turn to shape the future of your country. Your commitment to this process will help restore Libyan sovereignty and the democratic legitimacy of Libyan institutions. As you engage in dialogue to resolve your differences, your determination will be tested.

Future ‘is now in your hands’

“However, compromise is the only approach that will pave the road to national unity”, he said. “The future of Libya is now in your hands.”

Tunisian President Qais Said, opening the meeting, said the talks would lead to a new legitimacy for Libya.

The country has been beset by chaos and conflict since the downfall of long-time Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, culminating in a civil war and the siege of the Libyan capital Tripoli which began in April last year.

(article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

What is being done for peace in Libya?

(article continued from left column)

The head of the UN mission in Libya, Stephanie Williams, told the meeting that it was a time of rare optimism, a glimmer of hope after many years of crisis.

New national vote

“The overriding aim of the National Political Programme is to renew political legitimacy by holding national elections, within an agreed timeframe”, she said.

Acting UN Special Representative Williams presided over a breakthrough peace agreement between five senior commanders from either side, at a meeting in Geneva last month. She arrived at the political talks in Tunis fresh from another successful round of military negotiations in the Libyan city of Ghadames, she said.

“Every day cooperation is increasing, and the transformation of the 5+5 into the ‘group of 10’ is more than just a slogan; it is a reality”, Ms. Williams said.

“The new government will launch national reconciliation, combat corruption, and restore public services. Its progress will be monitored; its work will be reviewed on a regular basis by mechanisms that can hold it to account.”

Executive body

In a statement released late on Sunday, Ms. Williams said that over the past two days she had been taking note of the participants’ suggestions about what the political talks should aim to achieve, including the creation of an executive authority capable of organizing elections and implementing the political, economic and military reforms necessary to bring some normalcy back to Libyans’ lives.

The participants had stressed the importance of designing a thorough roadmap for the political process and to develop a national charter based on the principles of accountability, justice and human rights and a firm commitment to a civilian state.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Mideast, United Nations,