Category Archives: DISARMAMENT & SECURITY

Pope Francis denounces nuclear weapons possession

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Abolition 2000

On Friday Nov 10, Pope Francis denounced the possession of nuclear weapons, in what appears to be a departure from the Roman Catholic Church’s position of conditional (and temporary) acceptance of nuclear deterrence and mutually assured destruction.


Video of Pope’s address to conference

In a presentation to participants in a high-profile Vatican conference on nuclear disarmament, including representatives of Abolition 2000 member-organisations and affiliated networks, Pope Francis said that ‘humanity cannot fail to be genuinely concerned by the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental effects of any employment of nuclear devices. If we also take into account the risk of an accidental detonation as a result of error of any kind, the threat of their use, as well as their very possession, is to be firmly condemned.”

‘Pope Francis is taking a pro-active approach toward nuclear disarmament which is to be commended, celebrated and supported’ says Alyn Ware, Co-convener of the Abolition 2000 Interfaith working group and a participant in the conference. ‘This should give encouragement to people of all faiths – and also non-religious people – to feel new hope and to be inspired to act for nuclear abolition.’

Pope Francis did not directly criticize world leaders such as U.S. President Donald Trump, who has openly threatened nuclear war with North Korea over that country’s continuing development of nuclear arms. However, he remarked that “International relations cannot be held captive to military force, mutual intimidation, and the parading of stockpiles of arms. Weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, create nothing but a false sense of security. They cannot constitute the basis for peaceful coexistence between members of the human family.”

While previous popes have strongly called for the abolition of nuclear weapons, in general they also granted conditional moral acceptance to the system of nuclear deterrence. Pope John Paul II, for example, said in a message to the U.N. in June 1982 that the system of deterrence could be judged “morally acceptable” as “a step on the way toward a progressive disarmament.”

The exception was Pope Benedict XVI who also condemned the possession of nuclear weapons: ‘One can only encourage the efforts of the international community to ensure progressive disarmament and a world free of nuclear weapons, whose presence alone threatens the life of the planet and the ongoing integral development of the present generation and of generations yet to come’.

Jonathan Granoff, President of the Global Security Institute, proposed that Pope Francis turn his condemnation of nuclear weapons into church doctrine by including this in a papal encyclical. The encyclical Pacem in Terris released by Pope John XXIII, accepts nuclear weapons as a deterrent. The encyclical Laudato si, released by Pope Francis in 2015, notes the risks of nuclear weapons but does not condemn possession outright.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Continued from left column)

“The church should be saying the ethic of nuclear deterrence is not morally warranted any longer,” said San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy, who also serves as a member of the U.S. bishops’ committee on international justice and peace. McElroy pointed to the fact that the conditional acceptance of deterrence was given with the understanding that the nations of the world would gradually move to disarm.

The Vatican conference, brought together Nobel Peace laureates, government representatives, religious leaders, United Nations officials, academics, and non-governmental representatives.This included leaders from ICAN, which is the 2017 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for their actions to promote and achieve the treaty.

Cardinal Peter Turkson, the head of the Vatican dicastery, said that the participants at the event had gathered “for a very candid conversation about how to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. This conversation is urgently needed, given the current tensions among nuclear weapons states and given the tensions between nuclear weapons states and states seeking to become nuclear weapons states.”

The new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was a key topic at the conference. Many of the participants commended the Vatican for being one of the three signatories that have already ratified the agreement. However, it was also recognised that none of the nuclear powers and no NATO members have signed on to the measure.

Mexican Ambassador Jorge Lomonaco, one of the leaders of the initiative to achieve the treaty, said that the treaty was one of the ‘jigsaw pieces of the framework required to achieve a nuclear-weapon-free world.’ He noted that this is a contribution that non-nuclear States have made. He urged everyone to move beyond divisions about the treaty – to end the debate on whether one supports it or not – and work now on the other pieces of the jigsaw, especially those pieces requiring action by the nuclear-armed and allied states.

Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s Secretary of State, told the conference their considerations were taking place during a “decidedly disheartening state of affairs” across the world.

‘In such a fractious and uncertain world there are many voices that contend the time is not ripe for disarmament and that weapons provide security. There is an insinuation that disarmament is a utopian dream,’ said UN High Representative Izumi Nakamitsu. ‘However, I believe that quite the opposite is true. In a fractious and uncertain world, more than ever we need disarmament as a diplomatic key to unlock the door to peaceful solutions.’

Cardinal Parolin noted that 2017 marks the 50th anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Populorum progressio, which proposed that the world’s governments set aside a portion of their military spending for a global fund to relieve the needs of impoverished peoples. Paraphrasing the encyclical, Parolin stated: “Is it not plain to everyone that such a fund would reduce a need for those other expenditures that are motivated by fear [or] stubborn pride? Countless millions are starving. We cannot approve a debilitating arms race.”

“Nuclear armament is never an appropriate policy to achieve a long-term basis for peace,” said Cardinal Turkson. “And true security is not found in the size of our military or the number of weapons we possess, but when every human need for food, for housing, for healthcare, for employment and dignity is met — that’s when we begin to fashion peace.”

A number of Abolition 2000 member-organisations are active in the Move the Nuclear Weapons Campaign which acts to cut nuclear weapons budgets and re-direct these resources for social, environmental and economic needs. This includes actions in legislatures of the nuclear-armed States to slash nuclear weapons budgets. It also includes actions that can be taken by governments, cities, churches, universities, banks and others to end investments in corporations manufacturing nuclear weapons See Abolition 2000 working group on Economic Dimensions of Nuclearism.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global

USA: Fearing Trump, Congress Holds First Hearing in Decades on President’s Nuclear Authority

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Jessica Corbett in Common Dreams (reprinted according to provisions of Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License)

Despite Sen. Bob Corker’s (R-Tenn.) insistence that the congressional hearing on Tuesday about the authority to use nuclear weapons “is not specific to anybody,” it is the first hearing on this topic in decades, and comes at a time when U.S. President Donald Trump seems to have made a sport out of taunting North Korea’s leader as his nation advances its nuclear abilities.


Youtube video of Congressional hearings

Even before Trump took office and started threatening North Korea with “fire and fury,” the Pentagon had developed a $1.7 trillion plan > under Barack Obama “to build a new generation of nuclear-armed bombers, submarines, and missiles, as well as new generations of warheads to go with them”—even though, as William Hartung describes in an excerpt from his new book about nuclear weapons, “in every sense of the term, the U.S. nuclear arsenal already represents overkill on an almost unimaginable scale.”

Trump’s behavior throughout his campaign and presidency has heightened concerns about the threat of nuclear annihilation and has, for months, provoked global demands that the U.S. Congress strip Trump of his nuclear authority. “A tough-guy attitude on nuclear weapons, when combined with an apparent ignorance about their world-ending potential,” writes Hartung, “adds up to a toxic brew.”

Thus, advocates of nuclear disarmament welcomed the decision by Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to hold the first nuclear authority hearing since 1976. Several groups and individuals offered real-time analyses and critiques of the testimonies, tweeting with the hashtag #NoRedButton.

(Article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

Are we more than ever in danger of perishing in a nuclear war?

(See responses below)

(Article continued from left column)

A key takeaway seemed to be the president’s sweeping authority over whether the U.S. ever uses its nuclear weapons—and, as Ploughshares Fund president Joe Cirincione put it, “If a crazy president orders a legal nuclear strike from one of the already vetted war plans, there is no one that can stop him.”

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said members of Congress are concerned the president “is so unstable, is so volatile” that under the current authorization process, “he might order a nuclear weapons strike that is wildly out of step with U.S. national security interests.”

As Bloomberg News outlined—with help from Global Zero co-founder and nuclear expert Bruce G. Blair—earlier this year, despite brief consultation with military and civilian advisers, the commander-in-chief “has the sole authority to use nuclear weapons.”

“About five minutes may elapse from the president’s decision until intercontinental ballistic missiles blast out of their silos, and about fifteen minutes until submarine missiles shoot out of their tubes,” Bloomberg notes. “Once fired, the missiles and their warheads cannot be called back.”

“Trump can use the nuclear codes just as easily as he can use his Twitter account,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) quipped during the hearing.

“There may be plans in place, right now, at the White House, to launch a preemptive war with North Korea using nuclear weapons—without consulting Congress,” Markey added. “No one human being should ever have the power.”

Earlier this year, Markey and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) introduced legislation that would prevent the president from launching a nuclear first strike without a declaraton of war by Congress, with Markey saying at the time that “neither President Trump, nor any other president, should be allowed to use nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack.”

Although the bill has been praised as fears continue to mount in the U.S. and beyond, many critics of nuclear weapons point to it as merely, in the words of Global Zero executive director Derek Johnson, “an important first step to reining in this autocratic system and making the world safer from a nuclear catastrophe.”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

USA: Sign The People’s Peace Treaty with North Korea

. .DISARMAMENT & SECURITY. .

An article from United for Peace and Justice

Alarmed by the threat of a nuclear war between the U.S. and North Korea, UFPJ and other concerned U.S. peace groups have come together to send an open message to Washington and Pyongyang that we are strongly opposed to any resumption of the horrific Korean War. What we want is a peace treaty to finally end the lingering Korean War!


Inspired by the Vietnam-era People’s Peace Treaty, we have initiated a People’s Peace Treaty with North Korea, to raise awareness about the past U.S. policy toward North Korea, and to send a clear message that we, the people of the U.S., do not want another war with North Korea. This is not an actual treaty, but rather a declaration of peace from the people of the United States.

Our goal is to collect many thousands of signatures by the end of 2017, and to publicize the People’s Peace Treaty in conjunction with nationally coordinated peace actions on Armistice Day (aka Veterans Day), November 11. The People’s Peace Treaty will be sent to the governments and peoples of Korea, as well as to the U.S. Government. Please add your voice for peace by signing the People’s Peace Treaty with North Korea. Add your name today.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN!

TO: WASHINGTON & PYONGYANGFROM: YOU

PEOPLE’S PEACE TREATY WITH NORTH KOREA

A MESSAGE OF PEACE FROM THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

Deeply concerned with the increasing danger of the current military tensions and threats between the Governments of the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (the DPRK, North Korea), which may re-ignite the horrendous fighting in the Korean War by design, mistake or accident;

Recalling that the United States currently possesses about 6,800 nuclear weapons, and has threatened the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea in the past, including the most recent threat made by the U.S. President in his terrifying speech to the United Nations (“totally destroy North Korea”);

(Article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

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

Are economic sanctions a violation of human rights?

(Article continued from left column)

Regretting that the U.S. Government has so far refused to negotiate a peace treaty to replace the temporary Korean War Armistice Agreement of 1953, although such a peace treaty has been proposed by the DPRK many times from 1974 on;

Convinced that ending the Korean War officially is an urgent, essential step for the establishment of enduring peace and mutual respect between the U.S. and the DPRK, as well as for the North Korean people’s full enjoyment of their basic human rights to life, peace and development – ending their long sufferings from the harsh economic sanctions imposed on them by the U.S. Government since 1950.

NOW, THEREFORE, as a Concerned Person of the United States of America (or on behalf of a civil society organization), I hereby sign this People’s Peace Treaty with North Korea, dated November 11, 2017, Armistice Day (also Veterans Day in the U.S.), and

1) Declare to the world that the Korean War is over as far as I am concerned, and that I will live in “permanent peace and friendship” with the North Korean people (as promised in the 1882 U.S.-Korea Treaty of Peace, Amity, Commerce and Navigation that opened the diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Korea for the first time);

2) Express my deep apology to the North Korean people for the U.S. Government’s long, cruel and unjust hostility against them, including the near total destruction of North Korea due to the heavy U.S. bombings during the Korean War;

3) Urge Washington and Pyongyang to immediately stop their preemptive (or preventive) conventional/nuclear attack threats against each other and to sign the new UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons;

4) Call upon the U.S. Government to stop its large-scale, joint war drills with the armed forces of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) and Japan, and commence a gradual withdrawal of the U.S. troops and weapons from South Korea;

5) Call upon the U.S. Government to officially end the lingering and costly Korean War by concluding a peace treaty with the DPRK without further delay, to lift all sanctions against the country, and to join the 164 nations that have normal diplomatic relations with the DPRK;

6) Pledge that I will do my best to end the Korean War, and to reach out to the North Korean people – in order to foster greater understanding, reconciliation and friendship.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, East Asia, North America,

Remembering the US soldiers who refused orders to murder Native Americans at Sand Creek

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Billy J. Stratton in The Convesation

Every Thanksgiving weekend for the past 17 years, Arapaho and Cheyenne youth lead a 180-mile relay from the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site to Denver.

The annual Sand Creek Massacre Spiritual Healing Run opens at the site of the Sand Creek Massacre near Eads, Colorado, with a sunrise ceremony honoring some 200 Arapaho and Cheyenne people who lost their lives in the infamous massacre. This brutal assault was carried out by Colonel John Chivington on Nov. 29, 1864.


Members and supporters of the Arapaho and Cheyenne Native American tribes, 2014.

While the Sand Creek massacre has been the subject of numerous books< , much less attention has been given to a href="http://www.jhwriter.com/?page_id=4">two heroes of this horrific event: U.S. soldiers Captain Silas Soule and Lt. Joseph Cramer.

These were men who rejected the violence and genocide inherent in the “conquest of the West.” They did so by personally refusing to take part in the murder of peaceful people, while ordering the men under their command to stand down. Their example breaks the conventional frontier narrative that has come to define the clash between Colonial settlers and Native peoples as one of civilization versus savagery.

This is a theme I’ve previously addressed as a scholar in the fields of American Indian studies and Colonial history, both in my book on the Indian captivity narrative genre, “Buried in Shades of Night,” and more recently in writings on Sand Creek.

The letters of Soule and Cramer

Soule’s noble act of compassion at Sand Creek is humbly conveyed in a letter to his mother included in the Denver Public Library Western History Collections: “I was present at a Massacre of three hundred Indians mostly women and children… It was a horrable scene and I would not let my Company fire.”

Refusing to participate, Soule and the men of Company D of the First Colorado, along with Cramer of Company K, bore witness to the incomprehensible. Chivington’s attack soon descended into a frenzy of killing and mutilation, with soldiers taking scalps and other grisly trophies from the bodies of the dead. Soule was a devoted abolitionist and one dedicated to the rights of all people.

He stayed true to his convictions in the face of insults and even a threat of hanging from Chivington the night before at Fort Lyon.

In the following weeks, Soule and Cramer wrote letters to Major Edward “Ned” Wyncoop, the previous commander at Fort Lyon who had dealt fairly with the Cheyenne and Arapaho. Both harshly condemned the massacre and the soldiers who carried it out. Soule’s letter details a meeting among officers on the eve of the attack in which he fervently condemned Chivington’s plans asserting “that any man who would take part in the murders, knowing the circumstances as we did, was a low lived cowardly son of a bitch.”

Describing the attack to Wynkoop, Soule wrote, “I refused to fire and swore that none but a coward would.” His letter goes on to describe the soldiers as “a perfect mob.”

(Article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

“Put down the gun and take up the pen”, What are some other examples?

(Article continued from left column)

This account is verified by Cramer’s letter. Detailing his own objections to Chivington, whom he describes as coming “like a thief in the dark,” Cramer had stated that he “thought it murder to jump them friendly Indians.” To this charge, Chivington had replied, “Damn any man or men who are in sympathy with them.”

In Soule’s account, he writes, “I tell you Ned it was hard to see little children on their knees have their brains beat out by men professing to be civilized.”

While few Americans – especially those living outside of Colorado – may know their names, Soule and Cramer are honored and revered by the descendants of the people they tried to save. According to David F. Halaas, former Colorado state historian and current historical consultant to the Northern Cheyenne, without their courage in disobeying Chivington’s orders and keeping their men from the massacre, “the descendants probably wouldn’t be around today,” and there would be no one to tell the stories.

The horrific descriptions of Soule and Cramer prompted several official inquiries into the atrocity. Both men also testified before an Army commission in Colorado as witnesses. While the officers and soldiers responsible escaped punishment, their testimony brought widespread condemnation upon Chivington, who defended the massacre for the rest of his life.

These investigations also ended the political career of the Colorado territorial governor, John Evans, who had issued two proclamations calling for violence against Native people of the plains, and for organizing the 3rd Colorado Cavalry Regiment in which Chivington was placed in command.

Sites of reverence and healing

The Cheyenne and Arapaho will return to Denver this year to honor their ancestors and remember Soule’s and Cramer’s conscience and humanity. This will be done through an offering of prayers and blessings, along with the performance of honor songs.

On the third and final day of the healing run, they will gather for a sunrise ceremony at Soule’s flower-adorned grave at Denver’s Riverside Cemetery. The participants will then continue on to 15th and Lawrence Street in downtown Denver. There, a plaque is mounted on the side of an office building at the place where Soule was murdered on April 23, 1865. His death, for which no one was ever brought to justice, occurred only two months after he testified against Chivington before the Army commission.

Over the last few decades, Soule’s grave and place of death have been transformed into sacred sites of remembrance within a violent and traumatic frontier past.

The catastrophe of the Sand Creek Massacre is recognized by historians as among the most infamous events in the annals of the American West. Even now, it is the only massacre of Native people recognized as such by the U.S. government, with the land itself preserved as a national historic site for learning and reflection.

In Cheyenne and Arapaho stories, this event remains an ever-present trauma and persists as part of their cultural memory. In addition, it encapsulates the stark moment of betrayal against their ancestors and the theft of their lands.

The story of Soule’s and Cramer’s actions and their courage to say “no” to the killing of peaceful people at Sand Creek is an important chapter of U.S. history. I maintain that it is people like Soule and Cramer who truly deserve to be remembered through monuments and memorials, and can be a source for a different kind of historical understanding: one based not on abstract notions of justice and right, but upon the courage and integrity it takes to breathe life into those virtues.

On the 152nd anniversary of the Sand Creek Massacre, as we honor the memory of those who died at Sand Creek, may we also be inspired by the heroic actions of these two American soldiers.

(Thank you to Janet Hudgins, the CPNN reporter for this article)

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

Prague: International youth conference: Reaching High for a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Abolition 2000

A conference for young academics, professionals and activists to advance initiatives and build cooperation for nuclear disarmament will be held just before the Prague Insecurity Conference, which flows on from the Prague Agenda Conferences held annually since former U.S. President Barack Obama gave his historic speech in Prague putting forward the vision and commitment to achieve a nuclear-weapon-free world.


(Click on image to enlarge)

There is now a different U.S. administration, as well as new political realities and international conflicts to be addressed in order to reduce the risks of nuclear confrontation and make progress toward the elimination of nuclear weapons. There are also new opportunities including the Treaty on the Prohibition on Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) adopted at the United Nations in July 2017, and the UN High-Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament (UNHLC) which will take place in May 2018.

A key focus of the conference will be to explore the political and economic dynamics of nuclear weapons policies, and the ways in which youth can engage with parliamentarians, governments, UN agencies and other civil society networks to influence policy and support the UN processes, especially the 2018 UNHLC.

The conference will include workshop sessions, networking, action planning and a visit to the ATOM Museum, a former nuclear weapons depot approximately one-hour drive from Prague.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

A UN High-Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament: Distraction or progress?

(Continued from left column)

Workshop sessions, with opening presentations by youth, include:

1 Nuclear risk reduction and incremental disarmament measures;

2 Nuclear weapons and sustainable development – economic aspects including nuclear divestment;

3 The TPNW and other international law prohibiting nuclear weapons;

4 2018 UNHLC on nuclear disarmament;

5 Engaging parliamentarians, UN, mayors and other key constituencies;

6 Planning youth actions and intergenerational cooperation.
Click here for the conference flyer.

To register please contact Marzhan Nurzhan marzhan@pnnd.org

Cosponsors: Abolition 2000, Basel Peace Office , Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament , Střediska Bezpečnostní Politiky, Unfold Zero and Prague Vision

The conference is being organised by the Abolition 2000 Youth Network, a working group of Abolition 2000, the global civil society network to eliminate nuclear weapons. The Abolition 2000 youth network brings together young activists from Abolition 2000 member-organisations and affiliated networks including Amplify, Ban All Nukes generation (BANg), Chain Reaction 2016, CTBTO Youth Group, Global Zero, IALANA, ICAN, IPPNW Student Network, PNND youth, Parliament of the World’s Religions youth, Pugwash Student and Youth, UNFOLD ZERO, Youth Future Project and others.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Europe

Panama: CUMIPAZ promotes justice and democracy

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article written by Lineth Rodriguez for Metro Libre (translated by CPNN)

Panama is home to the third Summit of Integration for Peace, which tomorrow (21 October) will have its closing ceremony, and which has discussed issues of great importance, from scientific work for the preservation of Mother Earth and Humanity to diplomacy and education .


“We work for an altruistic cause, including sowing a culture of peace, building a culture of peace, promoting and defending human rights, respect for human dignity, tolerance for equality and peaceful resolution of conflicts,” said Magistrate Camilo Montoya Reyes.

(Article continued in right column)

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

Question for this article:

Proposals for Reform of the United Nations: Are they sufficiently radical?

(Article continued from left column)

He said that among its programs, the organizer, the World Embassy of Activists for Peace, seeks to strengthen justice and impartiality in the international arena, especially to strengthen the International Criminal Court, which is responsible for investigating international crimes.

Also, they seek to democratize the UN, so that the Security Council is enlarged to have not only the present five permanent members, but also a permanent member from Latin America.

The following are presentations in the morning session:

– Proposal for strengthening the autonomy and effectiveness of the Criminal and International Court by Dr. Ania Salinas Cerda;

– Challenges of International Justice in detecting alarm signals, and in preventing genocidal atrocities by Judge Rafaa Ben Achour;

– Introduction to the Peace and Democracy Panel in Latin America and Latin America as an Island of Peace by attorney Ernesto Samper Pizano, former president of Colombia.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Latin America

The Elders applaud Palestinian reconciliation; renew call for end to blockade of Gaza

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A press release from The Elders

The Elders warmly welcomed the reconciliation agreement reached by Fatah and Hamas in Cairo last Thursday. The agreement is an essential step towards the full reunification of the West Bank and Gaza, and keeps alive prospects for the peaceful emergence of a Palestinian state.

After 10 years of internal conflict, and several previous failed attempts at reconciliation, the latest developments also hold out the prospect of an end to the blockade of Gaza. During this period, the lives of over two million Gazans have been blighted by three destructive wars and tight restrictions on the movement of people and goods in and out of the territory.

The Elders commended the crucial role played by the Egyptian Government in bringing about this latest – and most promising – reconciliation initiative.

Kofi Annan, Chair of The Elders and former UN Secretary-General, said:

“The restoration of a single authority throughout the occupied territories is long overdue. The feud between Hamas and Fatah has done no good to the Palestinian people and has seriously damaged prospects for the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state. Those in the international community who have rightly decried the absence of Palestinian unity must now seize this opening to push decisively for resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Lakhdar Brahimi, a member of The Elders and former Algerian Foreign Minister, commented:

“There are difficult challenges ahead before we can begin to speak of full unity having been restored to Palestinian ranks. Egypt’s constructive role will be needed over the coming weeks and months.”
Supporting a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, along the lines of the two-state solution, has been a key priority for The Elders since the organisation was founded by Nelson Mandela in 2007. Elders’ delegations have visited the region on four occasions, meeting Israeli and Palestinian leaders and supporting their civil societies. The Elders have also spoken out regularly on the urgent need to end the unjust Gaza blockade and restore Palestinian unity.

(Thank you to Janet Hudgins, the CPNN reporter for this article.)

Question related to this article:
DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Mideast

United Nations: Reaching HIGH civil society ‘virtual’ conference for nuclear disarmament proposals

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from UNFOLD ZERO

Governments have gathered at the United Nations in New York this month (October) to discuss and adopt nuclear disarmament proposals, including a draft resolution to set the dates and mandate for the first ever UN High Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament (UNHLC), scheduled for 2018. A coalition of international civil society organisations and networks used this occasion to meet on Oct 11-12 in a ‘virtual’ conference to discuss action plans and strategies to ensure success of the UNHLC.


Alyn Ware and Marzhan Nurzhan at the hub of the virtual conference – the Global Security Institute office next to the United Nations in New York

The conference involved a series of webinar sessions with civil society representatives participating from around the world through their home/office computers, laptops, cell phones and smart phones.

It was convened by the Basel Peace Office, Global Security Institute, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, UNFOLD ZERO and the Abolition 2000 working group on the 2018 UN High-Level Conference.

Why the UN High-Level Conference

‘We are at a cross-roads of increased nuclear dangers and alternative realities,’ said Alyn Ware, convener of the conference.

‘On the one hand regional conflicts and tensions, such as in North-East Asia, and between Russia and the West, are increasing the reliance on nuclear weapons and the risk of a nuclear catastrophe by accident, miscalculation or even intent. On the other hand, we have a majority of UN member states – all non-nuclear countries – adopting a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).’

‘These two communities are living in different realities, and the divide between them is increasing. The 2018 UN High-Level Conference provides an opportunity to bridge the communities, and make progress on both nuclear-risk reduction and disarmament measures.’

‘The UN Conference can also bridge the different multilateral processes and forums such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review process, UN General Assembly (through which the TPNW was negotiated), UN Security Council and the Conference on Disarmament.’

Most importantly, the UN High-Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament, which will take place in May 2018, can elevate the political, media and public attention to nuclear disarmament in all UN member states, and establish a global expectation of a concrete outcome or outcomes.

We have had considerable success with similar high-level UN conferences on Sustainable Development (2015) which adopted the 17 Sustainable Development Goals; Climate Change (2016) which adopted the Paris Agreement; Refugees and Migrants (2016) which achieved the New York Declaration; and Oceans (2017) which adopted the 14-point action plan Our Ocean Our Future.

But these all required cooperative action by civil society to push their governments into concrete action. The civil society virtual conference on Oct 11-12 is one of the many efforts to build cooperation and action to ensure the 2018 UNHLC on Nuclear Disarmament is also a success.

The Oct 11-12 conference included six sessions focusing on:

* Politics of current nuclear weapons policies. Nuclear risk-reduction and disarmament initiatives;

* Value of UN High-Level Conferences/Summits. Learning from UN summits on other issues (climate change, sustainable development);

* Visions for the 2018 UNHLC. What are possible outcomes which we should be promoting;

* Engaging governments and preparatory work. How to ensure governments will attend at the highest level and take action in good faith on concrete nuclear disarmament measures;

* Summarizing and packaging the politics and opportunities of the UNHLC; Making it understandable to public.

* Engaging key constituencies and building the campaign. Involvement of parliamentarians, mayors, youth, religious leaders/communities, academics… Public events and promotion.

The conference built on a series of consultation events and meetings conducted by the co-sponsoring organisations in key capitals, UN centres and inter-parliamentary assemblies over the past year. Input from these consultations provided the basis for a food-for-thought paper which explores the optimum agenda and approach of the 2018 UNHLC to ensure success.

(Article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

A UN High-Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament: Distraction or progress?

(Article continued from left column)

Key themes and approaches;

There were a number of key themes and approaches to the UNHLC discussed during the Oct 11-12 conference. These included:

Civil society should call on all governments to attend the UNHLC at the highest level. This call can be made to governments of nuclear-armed, allied and non-nuclear countries alike;

Governments already supporting the UNHLC could do joint calls on all other governments to attend the UNHLC at the highest level. CELAC (organisation of Latin American and Caribbean governments) is an obvious possibility given their initial push for the high-level conference;

The UNHLC should provide a space for all countries to participate, and for a range of initiatives to be advanced, including the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, lowering the salience of nuclear weapons, de-alerting, no-first-use, ending nuclear tests, negative security assurances, nuclear stockpile reductions, establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones and developing a framework for global elimination;

A goal for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons could be to obtain 100 signatures by the close of the UNHLC (a number of governments could choose to sign at the UNHLC);

A ‘gift-basket‘ approach could be useful, as it was in the Nuclear Security Summits. This would involve the announcement and/or adoption of a range of measures and initiatives by groups of States, without requiring unanimity of all at the UNHLC;

The UNHLC could recommend UN Security Council action on a number of initiatives, such as that any testing of nuclear weapons would be a threat to peace and security, and that any use of weapons of mass destruction would be a crime against humanity and a threat to peace and security;

In order to move nuclear-armed and allied States to agree to eliminate the role of nuclear weapons in their security doctrines, it will probably be necessary to advance common security approaches for addressing security situations in which they currently believe that nuclear deterrence is necessary. Common security approaches (diplomacy, mediation, arbitration, adjudicaton…) and mechanisms (United Nations, International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court, Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe…) are already available but need promoting;

Parliamentarians have a key role to play in moving governments to attend the UNHLC and to commit to concrete outcomes. Civil society should work with parliamentarians to raise questions and advance debates/motions about the 2018 UNHLC in their parliaments;

Civil society should also contact their government officials (foreign ministries and UN ambassadors) directly. PNND and GSI maintains (and will expand) a database of government officials from key countries, plus background on ‘entry points’ (relevant UN resolutions they have supported, and IPU resolutions their parliaments have supported) in order to assist civil society advocates.

Actions and commitments arising from, or announced at, the Oct 11-12 conference include:

1. Abolition 2000 has established a working group on the 2018 UNHLC which is open to anyone to join.This will provide a basis for building cooperation amongst civil society on actions and plans for the 2018 UNHLC;

2. PNND is organising an event at the Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly in St Petersburg to promote the ban treaty, nuclear-risk reduction measures and the 2018 UNHLC;

3. The Abolition 2000 Youth Network and PNND are organising an international youth conference on the 2018 UNHLC. The youth conference will take place in Prague, Czech Republic on Nov 28-29, 2017;

4. UNFOLD ZERO maintains a webpage dedicated to the 2018 UN High-Level Conference. This includes all relevant documents, reports and actions;

5. The Abolition 2000 Youth Network is planning a global Reach HIGH for a nuclear-weapon-free world video, which will involve youth around the world lifting a peace sign high and then passing it to youth video video connection (more detailed explanation to follow). The final video will be shown during the Prep Com for the 2018 UNHLC in New York on March 28;

6. PNND has just produced a Parliamentary Action Plan for a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World which includes parliamentary actions to support the 2018 UNHLC;

7. UNFOLD ZERO and PNND will produce a civil society action guide for the 2018 UNHLC;

8. PNND, Mayors for Peace and Religions for Peace will present the joint appeal ‘A Nuclear-Weapon-Free World: Our Common Good‘ to the President of the 2018 UNHLC and participating governments at the UNHLC Preparatory Meeting in New York on March 28. Additional mayors, parliamentarians and religious leaders can be invited to endorse before March 25, 2018.

9. World Future Council, PNND, Basel Peace Office and the Abolition 2000 working group on the 2018 UNHLC are planning an action ‘Count the nuclear weapons budget‘ in New York over the three days of the UNHLC. Celebrities, youth and peace activists will count 1 million mock $1 million notes = $1 trillion dollars (the nuclear weapons budget for the next decade).

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, global, United Nations,

USA: Campaign Nonviolence Organizes over 1,600 events for Week of Actions

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Maria Benevento for the National Catholic Reporter Online

A grassroots movement to bring nonviolence into the mainstream has been quietly but exponentially growing, resulting in 1,600 nonviolent actions in all 50 U.S. states and 16 other countries during the week of Sept. 16-24.


A March for Peace in Wilmington, Delaware on Sept. 23. Organizers in Delaware held over 60 events during Campaign Nonviolence’s Week of Actions. (Courtesy of Pace e Bene)

For the fourth year in a row, Pace e Bene, an organization founded by Franciscan Friars in 1989 and dedicated to promoting peace, justice and well-being for all, sponsored the Week of Actions as part of Campaign Nonviolence, a long-term movement to build a culture of peace.

“We have started this with the hope to get people to ‘connect the dots’ on issues of violence,” said Fr. John Dear, nonviolence outreach coordinator for Pace e Bene, “but also to promote the vision of a new culture of nonviolence, to try to get the movement moving.”

Campaign Nonviolence asked local event organizers to take a holistic approach, drawing attention to the interconnection of four main issues — poverty, racism, war and environmental destruction — as forms of violence and promoting a positive vision of a culture of nonviolence.

Common events included vigils, marches, public lectures, teach-ins, nonviolence trainings and prayer services.

In Cincinnati, the Intercommunity Justice and Peace Center worked with Dear to launch “Nonviolent Cincinnati” as part of the Nonviolent Cities Project.

Charity Sr. Andrea Koverman, a program manager at the center who helped initiate and organize the launch, said the first goal of the project is to promote awareness that violence is “a really pervasive and critical problem,” then show people there are alternatives to solving problems with violence or failing to respond.

The growing “Nonviolent Cincinnati” coalition currently has about 35 groups and individual members, including religious orders, schools and community organizations. Several elected officials also attended the launch.

“We’re trying to make it very inclusive and cross-sectional, so we want people at the grassroots all the way up to elected officials,” Koverman said.

Meanwhile, organizers of Arkansas Peace Week planned a total of 60 events such as daily activities for elementary school students, an art contest, a peace fest, lectures, movie showings, a food drive and events commemorating the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School.

(Article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

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

(Article continued from left column)

Other notable actions included Peace Week Delaware, which put on over 60 events; an interfaith prayer service outside the civil rights museum in Memphis and events in Huntington, Indiana, where Our Lady of Victory Missionary Sisters held a peace march and the mayor proclaimed a day of peace.

Campaign Nonviolence organizers see this year’s actions as only the early stage of a decades-long movement.

“We have been so immersed in the vision and belief system of violence, we’ve been formed and trained in it, and it’s obviously something where that unlearning is going to take a long time,” said Ken Butigan, a professor at DePaul University and a strategist and consultant for Campaign Nonviolence.

“We would love to see the question: ‘What is the nonviolent option?’ on the lips of the media, members of Congress and the larger movement for change,” Butigan said.

As the campaign prepares for its fifth Week of Actions, which will take place a few weeks before the November 2018 congressional elections, Butigan said they plan to sharpen the focus, encouraging “people all over the country to find creative ways to pose that question.”

This year, organizers were most focused on getting large numbers of people involved in events and giving new activists the opportunity to gain experience.

“These are not long-time activists, generally speaking,” said Dear. “These are people who have stepped up to the plate. They have been so energized by the response locally that they have kept at it.”

Campaign Nonviolence organizers also hoped the week would give local groups a chance to get acquainted and find ways to collaborate and form coalitions throughout the year.

This was definitely true in Little Rock, where Cheryl Simon, president of the city’s new Pax Christi chapter, said she met more people from other organizations at the peace fest than she would otherwise have met in a year.

“I really believe meeting those people in only the first step,” Simon said. “I really hope that we’ll keep working together throughout the year. Now that we know one another I want those relationships to deepen. … The more people that can do the work, the broader our scope can be.”

Butigan certainly hopes the movement keeps growing.

Activists need to mobilize and train about 3.5 percent of the population, 11 million people in the case of the U.S., in order to effect change, he said, citing research by international relations experts Erika Chenoweth and Maria Stephan in their book Why Civil Resistance Works.

“In the next few years, say in the next five years, we envision helping to build a movement of millions of people who want an alternative to violence that’s neither violent nor passive,” said Butigan.

This could help people respond to specific manifestations of violence, he said, “but also help a growing number of people see that there is an alternative and that we can actually build a society and institutions that put the message and vision of nonviolence into practice.”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

Spreading Hiroshima’s Message of Peace

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from NHK World

Atomic bomb survivors are getting older and their number is dwindling. An American NGO has come up with a new way of preserving their experiences. It’s calling global educators to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to discuss how to share the survivors’ messages with their students.


Frame from NHK video

In early August, a group of teachers from around the world gathered in the peace park.

“My first impression of the site was… It’s hard to look at for too long for me,” says Matthew Winters, one of the participants. He is a junior high school teacher from the US state of Utah.

“There is a narrative in the United States about Nagasaki and Hiroshima in which you enunciated very well about, it was necessary to drop the nuclear bomb. It was necessary to end the war,” he says.

Winters has held classes discussing whether the bombing was necessary. But he says he wasn’t sure what the right answer was. He came to Hiroshima to learn more. “There is a human factor there that goes well beyond what’s happening in the pages of a history book,” he says.

Another participant is Hacene Benmechiche from Algeria. He is a history lecturer, and believes that peace education is especially important in his region and the Middle East, where violence persists.

“So I want our students to be peace-loving children. We are weary of violence. Violence is not a good thing. It beats development, it shatters countries, it destroys families,” he says.

This program, “Oleander Initiative,” is named after the city flower of Hiroshima, the first one to bloom after the bombing. It has become a symbol of resilience and peace. The organizer, Ray Matsumiya, hopes the teachers and their students take home the spirit of Hiroshima. He learned about the horror of the bombing from his grandfather, who experienced it.

“With the nuclear weapons ban treaty, one of the ideas is to mobilize civil societies around the world. In terms of our program, it helps spread that knowledge of why nuclear weapons shouldn’t exist,” he says.

On this day, the participants visited an atomic bomb survivor. 88-year-old Teruko Ueno welcomed them for lunch. Ueno was 1.6 kilometers away from ground zero when the bomb was dropped.

She was 16 years old and worked as a nurse at the Red Cross Hospital. She was shielded from the extreme heat by the hospital building. She still suffers from the effects of the radiation.

(Continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Continued from left column)

After the bombing, she struggled for days to save her colleagues and patients, who were badly burned. “Their skin was melted off their bodies. People came to my hospital saying ‘Give me water,’ and collapsed,” she explains.

She recalls how many children were born with physical disabilities. Her daughter and granddaughter listen next to her. “People were saying we would give birth to children with deformities. I was so worried,” says Ueno.

The participants are at a loss for words. “Your story…Thank you, thank you, thank you…” Winters says to Ueno.

“I am glad to hear that,” Ueno responds.

“She gave me a giant hug that just made me cry immediately. It was like being hugged by my grandmother. It was so emotionally fulfilling. It changed me. I feel like a different person today than I did yesterday,” says Winters.

Benmechiche says he learned something different. “I cannot feel exactly the way they feel. But I think that they are ready to forgive, otherwise there are still very deep wounds inside, because they know that forgiveness, not forgetfulness,” he says.

The teachers were deeply impressed with the openness and resilience of the people of Hiroshima.

The ceremony this summer was particularly special for the people of Hiroshima. It marked the achievement of a long-standing goal — the nuclear weapons ban treaty adopted in July. The teachers took part in the events.

The teachers discussed the goal of a nuclear-free world and how countries can work together to attain it. They talked about the recent nuclear weapons ban treaty, and the deep rift between nuclear powers and non-nuclear states.

“It was almost like a virtual media blackout. There was nothing said about it, even though it happened at the UN in New York,” says Kathleen Sullivan, a lecturer from the US.

“Nothing would make any change. The gap will be there unless we do something with the leaders, with the politicians,” says Khalil Smidi, a teacher from Lebanon.

“That’s where the educator’s roles are so important. It was the people that brought the ban treaty. I mean the thing that was so exciting about it, was that it was actually a process of education,” responds Sullivan.

Winters shared his new determination with his peers.

“A large majority of my students have parents that work at that military base. They are air force people and it’s a large economic center for the city. So, to combat that is going to be very difficult. We have to start a dialogue about these issues,” he says.

The teachers come up with a motto: “Education is the best weapon.” They want their students to think about how they can make even a small amount of change toward a better world.

(Thank you to the Global Campaign for Peace Education for calling this article to our attention.)

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, East Asia