Category Archives: DISARMAMENT & SECURITY

Call for a National Debate on U.S. “Regime Change” Policy

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by the delegation currently visiting Russia from the Center for Citizen Initiatives

We are a group of concerned U.S. citizens currently visiting Russia with the goal of increasing understanding and reducing international tension and conflict. We are appalled by this call for direct U.S. aggression against Syria, and believe it points to the urgent need for open public debate on U.S. foreign policy.

CCISF
Click on photo to enlarge

On June 16, the New York Times reported :

“More than 50 State Department diplomats have signed an internal memo sharply critical of the Obama administration’s policy in Syria, urging the United States to carry out military strikes against the government of President Bashar al-Assad to stop its persistent violations of a cease-fire in the country’s five-year-old civil war.

The memo, a draft of which was provided to The New York Times by a State Department official, says American policy has been “overwhelmed” by the unrelenting violence in Syria. It calls for “a judicious use of stand-off and air weapons, which would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process.”

We are a group of concerned U.S. citizens currently visiting Russia with the goal of increasing understanding and reducing international tension and conflict. We are appalled by this call for direct U.S. aggression against Syria, and believe it points to the urgent need for open public debate on U.S. foreign policy.

We note the following:

(1) The memo is inaccurate. There is no ‘cease-fire’ in Syria. The ‘cessation of hostilities’ which was agreed to has never included the major terrorist groups fighting to overthrow the government in Syria. This includes Nusra (Al Qaeda), ISIS and their fighting allies.

(2) A U.S. attack on Syria would be an act of aggression in clear violation of the UN Charter. (Ref 1)

(3) The supplying of weapons, funding and other support to armed groups fighting the Syrian government is also a violation of international law. (Ref 2)

(4) A U.S. attack on Syria would lead to more bloodshed and risk potential military confrontation with Russia. With arsenals of nuclear weapons on both sides, the outcome could be catastrophic.

(5) It is not the right of the USA or any other foreign country to determine who should lead the Syrian government. That decision should be made by the Syrian people. A worthy goal could be internationally supervised elections with all Syrians participating to decide their national government.

(6) The memo reportedly says, “It is time that the United States, guided by our strategic interests and moral convictions, lead a global effort to put an end to this conflict once and for all.” Similar statements and promises have been made regarding Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. In all three cases, terrorism and sectarianism have multiplied, the conflicts still rage, and huge amounts of money and lives have been wasted.

In light of the above, and the danger of escalating global conflict:

We urge State Department officials to seek non-military solutions in conformity with the U.N. Charter and international law.

We urge the U.S. Administration to stop funding and supplying weapons to armed ‘rebels’ in violation of international law and end the policy of forced “regime change”.

We call for an urgent nation-wide public debate on the U.S. policy of “regime change”.

(See right column for delegation members)

Question related to this article:

Discussion: How can there be a political solution to the war in Syria?

(continued from left column)

The Center for Citizens Initiative (CCI) delegation currently visiting Russia includes:

Ann Wright, retired United States Army Colonel and U.S. State Department official. Ann received the U.S. State Department Award for Heroism in 1997 after helping evacuate several thousand persons during the Sierra Leone Civil War. She was one of three U.S. State Department officials to publicly resign in direct protest to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Elizabeth Murray, retired Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East in the National Intelligence Council. She is a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) and the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence.

Raymond McGovern, retired CIA analyst (1963 to 1990) who worked in the Washington, DC White House and prepared daily briefs for seven Presidents. In the 1980s Ray chaired the National Intelligence Estimates and the U.S. Presidents’ Daily Briefs. Ray is the founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Kathy Kelly, peace activist, pacifist and author. She is a founding members of Voices in the Wilderness and is currently a co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence. Kathy has traveled to Iraq 26 times, notably remaining in combat zones during the early days of the US-Iraq wars. Her recent work took her to Afghanistan and Gaza.

David Hartsough, co-founder of the Nonviolent Peaceforce and the “World Beyond War.” David is a life-long peace activist, peace maker, and author “Waging Peace: Global Adventurers of a Lifelong Activist.”

William H Warrick III, retired Family Physician and 25-year member of Veterans For Peace. Former US Army Security Agency Intelligence Analyst (1968 – 1971).

Sharon Tennison, President and Founder of the Center for Citizen Initiatives. Sharon has 33 years of experience working in USSR/Russia (1983 to present).

Robert Alberts, MBA, Accountant. Bob volunteers with Voices for Creative Nonviolence.

Peter Bergel, Oregon PeaceWorks Board member and PeaceWorker news magazine editor.

Karen Chester, optometrist by vocation and a peace activist volunteer for two decades. Karen’s greatest concern has been and is the plight of Central American peoples, supporting those who come to the U.S. fleeing violence and poverty.

Jan Hartsough is an educator and community organizer. Jan worked for American Friends Service Committee (Quakers) for many years and currently works at the grassroots level to help African women gain access to safer water.

Paul Hartsough, Ph.D., clinical psychologist. Paul focuses on conflict resolution and how we can survive as one global family in the nuclear age.

Martha Hennessy, retired occupational therapist. Martha volunteers at the New York Catholic Worker.

Bob Spies, website developer, technical support volunteer for CCI, and activist for a number of non-violent causes. Bob previously was a participant in Beyond War.

Rick Sterling , retired aerospace engineer, Vice-Chair Mt. Diablo Peace & Justice Center, co-founder Syria Solidarity Movement, Board President Task Force on the Americas.

Hakim Young is a Singaporean medical doctor who lives in Afghanistan part of the year. He is active with Afghan Peace volunteers and is deeply concerned about US-Russia relations.

References:

(1) UN Charter Preamble: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other matter inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”. The first purpose of the United Nations is “To maintain international peace and security, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace.”

(2) On June 27, 1986 the International Court at the Hague issued its legal ruling in the case of Nicaragua vs. United States. The ruling was as follows:

Decision of the International Court at the Hague

Decides that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the “contra” forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State.

By “training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying” the military rebel groups waging war against the Damascus government, the US and “friends” are committing the same crime that the USA was responsible for committing against Nicaragua in the 1980’s.

Banning Nukes: Divergence and Consensus at the UN Working Group on Nuclear Disarmament

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Excerpts from an article by by Xanthe Hall for the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War

. . . So what did happen [at the May session of the Open-Ended Working Group – OWEG]? For the first time in many years a large number of states decided that they did not want consensus but confrontation on the issue of the illegitimacy of nuclear weapons. Tired with decades of patient discussions on micro-measures, principally for non-proliferation, and led by Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico and Zambia, states are now going for broke [Editor’s note: All of these countries are participants in nuclear-weapon-free zones].

oewg
ICAN protest in front of Australian embassy during the OEWG. Photo: ICAN [International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons]
Click on photo to enlarge

Despite the prospect that the nuclear-armed states are unlikely to attend, they have submitted a proposal to the OEWG to “convene a Conference in 2017, open to all States, international organizations and civil society, to negotiate a legally-binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons” (ban treaty) and “to report to the United Nations high-level international conference on nuclear disarmament to be convened no later than 2018 … on the progress made on the negotiation of such an instrument.”

On the final day of the OEWG resounding majority support for prohibition and the commencement of negotiations was repeatedly expressed. States are convinced that with this approach they can bring pressure to bear on the nuclear-armed and nuclear-dependent states to begin genuinely considering negotiating the elimination of their nuclear arsenals. . . .

The beauty of a stand-alone ban treaty is in its clarity, especially in terms of the moral imperative. It would leave no room for doubt as to the illegitimacy of nuclear weapons and would place any state that relies on nuclear weapons for their defence outside international law, if enough states were to support such a norm. Its entry into force could not be held hostage by nuclear-armed states reticence to ratify, as the CTBT has been. Given the present anger about the arrogance of the nuclear-armed states refusal to engage with the nuclear-free states which has been made explicit both through the boycott of the OEWG, but also through the ever hardening rhetoric of the nuclear umbrella states, it remains the most attractive option for states to pursue at the UN General Assembly in October. In this way, they can continue to put maximum pressure on the nuclear-armed states to take them seriously as the majority and therefore to respect their rights and security needs.

This debate has as much to do with redefining world order and democracy as it has to do with disarmament. As Mexico pointed out: there is nothing to be said against consensus when it is fair and reflects the truth. But when divergence exists and states with more power due to nuclear weapons wield a veto over the majority then there is nuclear oppression. Now the majority is rising up to liberate itself from this yoke with persuasive and well-thought out arguments for a comprehensive ban treaty. After more than twenty years of attending these often repetitive and boring diplomatic debates, I can hardly wait for the next one.

Question related to this article:

The Elders welcome Paris conference as step towards two-state solution for Israel-Palestine

DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY .

An article by The Elders

The Elders welcome the international conference being convened in Paris on 3 June by the French Government, aimed at reviving efforts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

conference
French President Hollande speaks to the Paris conference. Photo from AFP/Stephane de Sakutin, Pool.
Click on photo to enlarge

The last 18 months have seen worsening violence, a hardening of political rhetoric and a diplomatic impasse. The international community must push decisively to shift the dynamics on the ground and secure lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians alike. A two-state solution that respects international law, addresses legitimate security concerns and upholds human rights remains the only way forward.

Kofi Annan, Chair of The Elders, said:

“This conference is an opportunity to revitalise international engagement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After so many decades of conflict, people deserve to live in peace and dignity. This requires an end to occupation, and self-determination for the Palestinian people. The Elders call on all those involved to work constructively and in good faith towards this goal.”

The Elders note the conflicts raging in much of the wider Middle East and argue this makes it even more important that diplomatic efforts for a two-state solution are intensified.

Jimmy Carter, former President of the United States and Honorary Elder, said:

“The world cannot afford to forget about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinians continue to be denied justice and human rights, and their leaders remain divided and disengaged from the search for lasting peace. This stokes resentment and support for extremism across the region. Equally, Israelis are ill-served by a government that promotes illegal settlements and flouts international law.”

(See right column for Final Communique)

Question related to this article:

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

How can a culture of peace be established in the Middle East?

(continued from left column)

[Editor’s note: The final communique from the summit includes an urgent call for a two-state solution, as demanded by the Elders and by the the Arab Peace Initiative.]:

“The Participants met in Paris on June 3, 2016 to reaffirm their support for a just, lasting and comprehensive solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“They reaffirmed that a negotiated two-state solution is the only way to achieve an enduring peace, with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. They are alarmed that actions on the ground, in particular continued acts of violence and ongoing settlement activity, are dangerously imperiling the prospects for a two-state solution.

“The Participants underscored that the status quo is not sustainable, and stressed the importance of both sides demonstrating, with policies and actions, a genuine commitment to the two-state solution in order to rebuild trust and create the conditions for fully ending the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 and resolving all permanent status issues through direct negotiations based on resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), and also recalling relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and highlighting the importance of the implementation of the Arab Peace Initiative.

“The Participants discussed possible ways in which the international community could help advance the prospects for peace, including by providing meaningful incentives to the parties to make peace. The Participants also highlighted the potential for regional peace and security as envisioned by the Arab Peace Initiative.

“The Participants highlighted the key role of the Quartet and key regional stakeholders. They welcomed the interested countries’ offer to contribute to this effort. They also welcomed France’s offer to coordinate it, and the prospect of convening before the end of the year an international conference.”

USA: Over Seventy Prominent Scholars and Activists Urge Obama to meet Hibakusha, Take Further Steps on Nuclear Disarmament

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A letter published by Peace Action

To President Barack Obama, May 23, 2016

Dear Mr. President,

We were happy to learn of your plans to be the first sitting president of the United States to visit Hiroshima this week, after the G-7 economic summit in Japan. Many of us have been to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and found it a profound, life-changing experience, as did Secretary of State John Kerry on his recent visit.

letter
Click on photo to enlarge

In particular, meeting and hearing the personal stories of A-bomb survivors, Hibakusha, has made a unique impact on our work for global peace and disarmament. Learning of the suffering of the Hibakusha, but also their wisdom, their awe-inspiring sense of humanity, and steadfast advocacy of nuclear abolition so the horror they experienced can never happen again to other human beings, is a precious gift that cannot help but strengthen anyone’s resolve to dispose of the nuclear menace.

Your 2009 Prague speech calling for a world free of nuclear weapons inspired hope around the world, and the New START pact with Russia, historic nuclear agreement with Iran and securing and reducing stocks of nuclear weapons-grade material globally have been significant achievements.

Yet, with more than 15,000 nuclear weapons (93% held by the U.S. and Russia) still threatening all the peoples of the planet, much more needs to be done. We believe you can still offer crucial leadership in your remaining time in office to move more boldly toward a world without nuclear weapons.

In this light, we strongly urge you to honor your promise in Prague to work for a nuclear weapons-free world by:

Meeting with all Hibakusha who are able to attend;

Announcing the end of U.S. plans to spend $1 trillion for the new generation of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems;

Reinvigorating nuclear disarmament negotiations to go beyond New START by announcing the unilateral reduction of the deployed U.S. arsenal to 1,000 nuclear weapons or fewer;

Calling on Russia to join with the United States in convening the “good faith negotiations” required by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for the complete elimination of the world’s nuclear arsenals;

Reconsidering your refusal to apologize or discuss the history surrounding the A-bombings, which even President Eisenhower, Generals MacArthur, King, Arnold, and LeMay and Admirals Leahy and Nimitz stated were not necessary to end the war.

Sincerely,

Gar Alperowitz, Professor of Political Economy, University of Maryland

Christian Appy, Professor of History at the University of Massachusetts,

Amherst, author of American Reckoning: The Vietnam War and Our National Identity

Colin Archer, Secretary-General, International Peace Bureau

Charles K. Armstrong, Professor of History, Columbia University

Medea Benjamin, Co-founder, CODE PINK, Women for Peace and Global Exchange

Phyllis Bennis, Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies

Herbert Bix, Professor of History, State University of New York, Binghamton

Norman Birnbaum, University Professor Emeritus, Georgetown University Law Center

Reiner Braun, Co-President, International Peace Bureau

Philip Brenner, Professor of International Relations and Director of the Graduate Program in US Foreign Policy and National Security, American University

Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation; National Co-convener, United for Peace and Justice

James Carroll, Author of An American Requiem

Noam Chomsky, Professor (emeritus), Massachusetts Institute of Technology

David Cortright, Director of Policy Studies, Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame and former Executive Director, SANE

Frank Costigliola, Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor, niversity of Connecticut

Bruce Cumings, Professor of History, University of Chicago

Alexis Dudden, Professor of History, University of Connecticut

Carolyn Eisenberg, Professor of U.S. Diplomatic History, Hofstra University

Daniel Ellsberg, Former State and Defense Department official

John Feffer, Director, Foreign Policy In Focus, Institute for Policy Studies

Gordon Fellman, Professor of Sociology and Peace Studies, Brandeis University.
Bill Fletcher, Jr., Talk Show Host, Writer & Activist.

Norma Field, professor emerita, University of Chicago

Carolyn Forché, University Professor, Georgetown University

Max Paul Friedman, Professor of History, American University.

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

(letter continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(letter continued from left column)

Lloyd Gardner, Professor of History Emeritus, Rutgers University, author Architects of Illusion and The Road to Baghdad.

Irene Gendzier Prof. Emeritus, Department of of History, Boston University

Joseph Gerson, Director, American Friends Service Committee Peace & Economic Security Program, author of With Hiroshima Eyes and Empire and the Bomb

Todd Gitlin, Professor of Sociology, Columbia University

Andrew Gordon. Professor of History, Harvard University
John Hallam, Human Survival Project, People for Nuclear Disarmament, Australia

Melvin Hardy, Heiwa Peace Committee, Washington, DC

Laura Hein, Professor of History, Northwestern University

Martin Hellman, Member, US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University

Kate Hudson, General Secretary, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (UK)

Paul Joseph, Professor of Sociology, Tufts University

Louis Kampf, Professor of Humanities Emeritus MIT

Michael Kazin, Professor of History, Georgetown University

Asaf Kfoury, Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science, Boston University

Peter King, Honorary Associate, Government & International Relations School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of Sydney, NSW

David Krieger, President Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Peter Kuznick, Professor of History and Director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, is author of Beyond the Laboratory

John W. Lamperti, Professor of Mathematics Emeritus, Dartmouth College

Steven Leeper, Co-founder PEACE Institute, Former Chairman, Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation

Robert Jay Lifton, MD, Lecturer in Psychiatry Columbia University, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, The City University of New York

Elaine Tyler May, Regents Professor, University of Minnesota, Author of Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era

Kevin Martin, President, Peace Action and Peace Action Education Fund

Ray McGovern, Veterans For Peace, Former Head of CIA Soviet Desk and Presidential Daily Briefer

David McReynolds, Former Chair, War Resister International

Zia Mian, Professor, Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University

Tetsuo Najita, Professor of Japanese History, Emeritus, University of Chicago, former president of Association of Asian Studies

Sophie Quinn-Judge, Retired Professor, Center for Vietnamese Philosophy, Culture and Society, Temple University

Steve Rabson, Professor Emeritus of East Asian Studies, Brown University, Veteran, United States Army

Betty Reardon, Founding Director Emeritus of the International Institute on Peace Education, Teachers College, Columbia University

Terry Rockefeller, Founding Member, September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows,

David Rothauser Filmmaker, Memory Productions, producer of “Hibakusha, Our Life to Live” and “Article 9 Comes to America

James C. Scott, Professor of Political Science and Anthropology, Yale University, ex-President of the Association of Asian Studies

Peter Dale Scott, Professor of English Emeritus, University of California, Berkleley and author of American War Machine

Mark Selden, Senior Research Associate Cornell University, editor, Asia-Pacific Journal, coauthor, The Atomic Bomb: Voices From Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Martin Sherwin, Professor of History, George Mason University, Pulitzer Prize for American Prometheus

John Steinbach, Hiroshima Nagasaki Committee

Oliver Stone, Academy Award-winning writer and director

David Swanson, director of World Beyond War

Max Tegmark, Professor of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Founder, Future of Life Institute

Ellen Thomas, Proposition One Campaign Executive Director, Co-Chair, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (US) Disarm/End Wars Issue Committee

Michael True, Emeritus Professor, Assumption College, is co-founder of the Center for Nonviolent Solutions

David Vine, Professor, Department of Sociology, American University

Alyn Ware, Global Coordinator, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament 2009 Laureate, Right Livelihood Award

Dave Webb, Chair, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (UK)

Jon Weiner, Professor Emeritus of History, University of California Irvine

Lawrence Wittner, Professor of History emeritus, SUNY/Albany

Col. Ann Wright, US Army Reserved (Ret.) & former US diplomat

Marilyn Young, Professor of History, New York University

Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics & Coordinator of Middle Eastern Studies, University of San Francisco

The historic visit of Barack Obama to Hiroshima marks a new stage in the international mobilization against nuclear weapons

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from the Huffington Post by Eddie Ait, Deputy Secretary General of the Radical Left Party (PRG), Philippe Rio, Mayor of Grigny and President-AFCDRP Mayors for Peace France, and Jacqueline Belhomme, Mayor of Malakoff and vice-President of the International network (translated by CPNN)

The president of the United States, Barack Obama, is at Hiroshima today [May 27] for an historic visit: the first by a US leader almost 71 years after the order of President Truman launched the first two nuclear attacks in history on Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (9 August).

Hiroshima

For the International Mayors for Peace network, chaired by the mayors of these two martyr cities, and its French branch AFCDRP, such a visit is a positive sign which may mark a new stage in the international mobilization for achieving the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, as provided in the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Since its creation in 1982, Mayors for Peace has continued to invite world leaders to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Over the years, more and more embassies have attended its commemorations. Last April, the arrival in Hiroshima of the Foreign Ministers of the G7, including three representatives of nuclear states -United States, France and United Kingdom- was already a step forward. As senior officials of States, all NPT signatories, they were willing to see with their own eyes the city that was a victim of this inhuman weapon, with indiscriminate effects.

US atomic bombs completely destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They turned the cities into immense mass graves. In Hiroshima, the chamber of commerce building, now the Dome of the atomic bomb, could hardly stand. It now shows the power of the blast. In 1945, over 200,000 people have died, victims of the explosion or radiation in the days and weeks that followed. After such horror, the survivors, the Hibakusha, have never ceased to carry a message of peace that no one should suffer as they have suffered. Their message has been relayed tirelessly by local representatives of more than 7,000 communities in 161 countries who are members of the Mayors for Peace network.

Primarily responsible for the safety of our citizens in case of conflict, we have a keen awareness of the magnitude of the nuclear threat to the world as a whole. We cannot take the risk of Hiroshima or Nagasaki being repeated, because today it would entail a suicidal escalation. For this reason, we must act on two levels: locally, by addressing the roots of conflict, drawing on the resources of the culture of peace as defined by UNESCO, and globally by working together with Hiroshima and Nagasaki to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

There are still about 16,000 nuclear weapons on the globe. These weapons threaten the very existence of the human being and his environment. This “total risk” undermines humanity, opening the way to all sorts of deadly excesses that only a culture of peace and reconciliation can solve.

All elected officials in France who are inspired by the symbolic gesture made by the American President in Hiroshima are encouraged to join our network, the French Association of Communities, Departments and REgions for Peace.

(Click here for the original version in French)

Question related to this article:

Text of President Obama’s Speech in Hiroshima, Japan

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Transcript printed by the New York Times

Seventy-one years ago, on a bright cloudless morning, death fell from the sky and the world was changed. A flash of light and a wall of fire destroyed a city and demonstrated that mankind possessed the means to destroy itself.

Obama
Video of Obama speech from Bloomberg news

Why do we come to this place, to Hiroshima? We come to ponder a terrible force unleashed in a not-so-distant past. We come to mourn the dead, including over 100,000 Japanese men, women and children, thousands of Koreans, a dozen Americans held prisoner.

Their souls speak to us. They ask us to look inward, to take stock of who we are and what we might become.

It is not the fact of war that sets Hiroshima apart. Artifacts tell us that violent conflict appeared with the very first man. Our early ancestors having learned to make blades from flint and spears from wood used these tools not just for hunting but against their own kind. On every continent, the history of civilization is filled with war, whether driven by scarcity of grain or hunger for gold, compelled by nationalist fervor or religious zeal. Empires have risen and fallen. Peoples have been subjugated and liberated. And at each juncture, innocents have suffered, a countless toll, their names forgotten by time.

The world war that reached its brutal end in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was fought among the wealthiest and most powerful of nations. Their civilizations had given the world great cities and magnificent art. Their thinkers had advanced ideas of justice and harmony and truth. And yet the war grew out of the same base instinct for domination or conquest that had caused conflicts among the simplest tribes, an old pattern amplified by new capabilities and without new constraints.

In the span of a few years, some 60 million people would die. Men, women, children, no different than us. Shot, beaten, marched, bombed, jailed, starved, gassed to death. There are many sites around the world that chronicle this war, memorials that tell stories of courage and heroism, graves and empty camps that echo of unspeakable depravity.

Yet in the image of a mushroom cloud that rose into these skies, we are most starkly reminded of humanity’s core contradiction. How the very spark that marks us as a species, our thoughts, our imagination, our language, our toolmaking, our ability to set ourselves apart from nature and bend it to our will — those very things also give us the capacity for unmatched destruction.

How often does material advancement or social innovation blind us to this truth? How easily we learn to justify violence in the name of some higher cause.

Every great religion promises a pathway to love and peace and righteousness, and yet no religion has been spared from believers who have claimed their faith as a license to kill.

Nations arise telling a story that binds people together in sacrifice and cooperation, allowing for remarkable feats. But those same stories have so often been used to oppress and dehumanize those who are different.

Science allows us to communicate across the seas and fly above the clouds, to cure disease and understand the cosmos, but those same discoveries can be turned into ever more efficient killing machines.

The wars of the modern age teach us this truth. Hiroshima teaches this truth. Technological progress without an equivalent progress in human institutions can doom us. The scientific revolution that led to the splitting of an atom requires a moral revolution as well.

That is why we come to this place. We stand here in the middle of this city and force ourselves to imagine the moment the bomb fell. We force ourselves to feel the dread of children confused by what they see. We listen to a silent cry. We remember all the innocents killed across the arc of that terrible war and the wars that came before and the wars that would follow.

(Transcript continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Transcript continued from left column)

Mere words cannot give voice to such suffering. But we have a shared responsibility to look directly into the eye of history and ask what we must do differently to curb such suffering again.

Some day, the voices of the hibakusha will no longer be with us to bear witness. But the memory of the morning of Aug. 6, 1945, must never fade. That memory allows us to fight complacency. It fuels our moral imagination. It allows us to change.

And since that fateful day, we have made choices that give us hope. The United States and Japan have forged not only an alliance but a friendship that has won far more for our people than we could ever claim through war. The nations of Europe built a union that replaced battlefields with bonds of commerce and democracy. Oppressed people and nations won liberation. An international community established institutions and treaties that work to avoid war and aspire to restrict and roll back and ultimately eliminate the existence of nuclear weapons.

Still, every act of aggression between nations, every act of terror and corruption and cruelty and oppression that we see around the world shows our work is never done. We may not be able to eliminate man’s capacity to do evil, so nations and the alliances that we form must possess the means to defend ourselves. But among those nations like my own that hold nuclear stockpiles, we must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without them.

We may not realize this goal in my lifetime, but persistent effort can roll back the possibility of catastrophe. We can chart a course that leads to the destruction of these stockpiles. We can stop the spread to new nations and secure deadly materials from fanatics.

And yet that is not enough. For we see around the world today how even the crudest rifles and barrel bombs can serve up violence on a terrible scale. We must change our mind-set about war itself. To prevent conflict through diplomacy and strive to end conflicts after they’ve begun. To see our growing interdependence as a cause for peaceful cooperation and not violent competition. To define our nations not by our capacity to destroy but by what we build. And perhaps, above all, we must reimagine our connection to one another as members of one human race.

For this, too, is what makes our species unique. We’re not bound by genetic code to repeat the mistakes of the past. We can learn. We can choose. We can tell our children a different story, one that describes a common humanity, one that makes war less likely and cruelty less easily accepted.

We see these stories in the hibakusha. The woman who forgave a pilot who flew the plane that dropped the atomic bomb because she recognized that what she really hated was war itself. The man who sought out families of Americans killed here because he believed their loss was equal to his own.

My own nation’s story began with simple words: All men are created equal and endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Realizing that ideal has never been easy, even within our own borders, even among our own citizens. But staying true to that story is worth the effort. It is an ideal to be strived for, an ideal that extends across continents and across oceans. The irreducible worth of every person, the insistence that every life is precious, the radical and necessary notion that we are part of a single human family — that is the story that we all must tell.

That is why we come to Hiroshima. So that we might think of people we love. The first smile from our children in the morning. The gentle touch from a spouse over the kitchen table. The comforting embrace of a parent. We can think of those things and know that those same precious moments took place here, 71 years ago.

Those who died, they are like us. Ordinary people understand this, I think. They do not want more war. They would rather that the wonders of science be focused on improving life and not eliminating it. When the choices made by nations, when the choices made by leaders, reflect this simple wisdom, then the lesson of Hiroshima is done.

The world was forever changed here, but today the children of this city will go through their day in peace. What a precious thing that is. It is worth protecting, and then extending to every child. That is a future we can choose, a future in which Hiroshima and Nagasaki are known not as the dawn of atomic warfare but as the start of our own moral awakening.

Pan-African Parliament calls on African Union to support the creation of a UN Parliamentary Assembly

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from the website of the Campaign for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

Yesterday [May 12], the Pan-African Parliament called on the African Union and Africa’s governments to support the creation of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, in short UNPA. In a resolution adopted by the plenary by consensus, the parliamentary body of the African Union states that “a UNPA is necessary to strengthen democratic participation and representation of the world’s citizens in the UN” and that the new assembly would “contribute to strengthening democratic oversight over UN operations, particularly in Africa.”

panafrican
Click on photo to enlarge

Noting its “concern that the creation of a UNPA is currently not part of the official UN reform agenda,” the document calls on “the African Union and its Member States to support the creation of a UNPA and to take necessary steps to advance this goal at the UN by triggering and initializing a preparatory intergovernmental process for the purpose of establishing a UNPA.”

The president of the Pan-African Parliament, Nkodo Dang from Cameroon, stated last week that “more than 70 years after the establishment of the United Nations, global interdependence has made us all world citizens. It is long overdue that ‘We, the Peoples,’ as the UN Charter begins, have more say in global affairs. For this purpose, a UNPA needs to be established.”

Yesterday’s resolution was introduced by Ivone Soares from Mozambique. “The resolution shows the aspiration of the Pan-African Parliament and the African citizens which it represents that the global order needs to become more democratic. It is time for governments to pay attention to this issue. They need to enter into serious deliberations on the establishment of a parliamentary body at the UN and African governments could take the lead,” she commented.

The global coordinator of the international campaign for a UNPA, Andreas Bummel, said that the resolution was an important step forward. “We hope that African governments will play a leading role and the Pan-African Parliament’s support is crucial to achieve this. The next step that we envisage in the international efforts is the creation of an informal group of open-minded governments at the UN in New York that looks into the proposal of a UNPA and how to proceed best,” he said.

In an opinion piece published by the South African newspaper Mail & Guardian last week, the South African parliamentarians Stevens Mokgalapa and Heinrich Volmink argued that “Africans, perhaps more than anyone, know how urgently we need more capable and more democratic tools of global governance” and that the creation of a UNPA “would represent a watershed moment in the democratic reform of the UN.”

According to a recent BBC World Service poll in 18 countries, “more than half of those asked (56%) in emerging economies saw themselves first and foremost as global citizens rather than national citizens.”

In 2007, the Pan-African Parliament adopted a first resolution in support of a UNPA.

Question for this article:

Calls for UN Security council reform at Istanbul summit

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Handan Kazanci & Ilgin Karlidag, Anadolou Agency, Turkey

World leaders in Istanbul have called for an urgent change to the United Nations Security Council, limiting the power of veto by its five permanent members, including Russia.

ArabLeague
Ahmed Ben Hali with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Click on photo to enlarge

Arab League Assistant Secretary-General Ahmed Ben Hali told the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul on Tuesday: “Reform of the UN Security Council is urgently needed. “The use of veto should be rationalized. There should be a departure from the approach of management of crisis … to depart from double standards in dealing with issues of peace and security and to prosecute those committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

The Arab League consists of 22 member states, including Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Ben Hali’s comments echoed those of summit host and Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who on Monday said the UN Security Council must “urgently” change in order to fulfill its functions.

Each of the permanent members – Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom and the United States – have the power of veto, allowing them to block draft council resolutions – even when these have broad international support.

Erdogan called for the veto by the council’s five permanent members to be limited, a move which Russia – a permanent member of the UN Security Council – is against.

In 2012, Russia and China vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down. The move sparked criticism worldwide and prevented substantial UN-backed action with regards to the Syrian civil war.

Russian President Vladimir Putin declined his invitation to the Istanbul summit, the humanitarian news agency IRIN reported on May 10. In his place, Putin sent a delegation, whose head, Russian Deputy Emergencies Minister Sergey Voronov, said on Tuesday that his country opposes any limitations to the power of veto by any permanent member of the Security Council.

According to James Nixey, the head of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at London-based Chatham House, Putin’s non-attendance at the summit is not surprising. “Vladimir Putin would be rather embarrassed at a world humanitarian summit considering the criticism his regime takes for its aggressive behavior abroad and its human rights record at home,” told Anadolu Agency on Tuesday. “Russia views its veto as pure power, and there is zero chance that it would endorse any move to give up wielding such power, which it has used so effectively in the past,” he added.

Criticized internationally for its role in backing the Assad regime, Russia said in a statement obtained by IRIN that it “refuses to be bound by the results of a process it says failed to include its views”.

Question for this article:

IWPR Holds Landmark Afghan Peace Conference

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting

A groundbreaking conference organised by IWPR in Kabul has produced new recommendations on how the Afghan government can move forward with the reconciliation process. The three-day event was convened in cooperation with the Afghan High Peace Council, the body created in 2010 to facilitate talks with the armed opposition. Government officials, religious leaders, civil society activists and journalists from across Afghanistan were among the 70 people who gathered at the Intercontinental Hotel on May 15-17. Religious scholars from Egypt’s famed Al-Azhar university were also invited.

Afghan
Click on the photo to enlarge and to read the legend.

The conference was part of a two-year IWPR initiative designed to draw Afghans into a nationwide discussion on peace building and reconciliation. Afghan Reconciliation: Promoting Peace and Building Trust by Engaging Civil Society, supported by the US State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour, has so far engaged more than 18,000 Afghans nationwide.

Participants in some 180 panel events have had the opportunity to discuss a range of issues related to peace and reconciliation. More than a dozen call-in radio forums have spread the message further.

“The conference allowed us to share with experts and representatives of the Afghan government our findings and efforts over the past 20 months,” explained Noorrahman Rahmani, IWPR Afghanistan country director.

The working committees used IWPR’s data and feedback to help formulate final proposals, announced at a press conference on the last day of the event. These recommendations stressed the importance of including women and young people in any peace talks and preventing the use of religion as a tool for justifying violence. To that end, the conference called for new controls over mosques and religious education centres as well as creating a central Islamic authority in Kabul to deal with such issues.

One innovative recommendation was the inclusion of a course devoted to peace in the educational curricula of schools and universities.

“Holding the three-day peace conference in Kabul was a major milestone towards the successful completion of IWPR’s 24-month project promoting peace and reconciliation,” Rahmani said. “It wasn’t easy given the recent security developments and unrest in Kabul. “Despite this, IWPR was able to successfully organise and hold the conference, which led to the development of a set of recommendations that will hopefully help the Afghan government and its international partners to approach the ongoing peace process more effectively.”

CYCLE OF CONFLICT

More than three decades of war have extracted a heavy price from the Afghan people, leaving millions dead, many more displaced, a country in ruins and a legacy of bitterness that will take years to overcome. The limited reach of central government, the volatile mix of political, regional and ethnic loyalties, and the heavily militarised social environment make it difficult to move beyond the continuous cycle of conflict. Continued suicide bombings and other attacks underline the enormity of the task ahead, as well as the religious aspect of both conflict and reconciliation. The armed opposition often justifies its actions through its call for jihad or holy war.

With that in mind, experts were brought over from the Al-Azhar university in Egypt, a key Islamic authority, to give their views on the religious aspect of the conflict.

(continued in right column)

Question for this article: Is peace possible in Afghanistan?

(continued from left column)

Mohamed Salem Mohamed Abouaasy, the dean of the Shariah faculty at Al-Azhar, said, “Those who consider jihad and martyrdom permissible in Afghanistan are wrong, because Afghanistan is an Islamic country and the call to prayer is heard here. Thus, this country cannot be regarded as a battlefield from an Islamic perspective.”

Keramatullah Sediqi, of the Afghan ministry of hajj and religious affairs, agreed. “War between two Muslims is unlawful in Islam,” he said.

Fazel Nagar, a civil society activist from Nangarhar province, said that the inclusion of experts from al-Azhar had been particularly wise. “The presence of the Egyptian religious scholars will be very effective in the outcome of the conference, because the people of Afghanistan respect Egyptian religious scholars deeply,” he said. “We understand better now that the war in Afghanistan is illegitimate, because the highest academic source called the war unlawful based on Shariah provisions.”

The conference also discussed the importance of securing the country’s borders. The Durand Line, a poorly defined boundary established by the British in 1893, has long been a source of friction with Pakistan. Kabul does not recognise the Durand Line, whereas Islamabad would like to see it formalised as the official frontier.

Abdul Ghafur Lewal, the deputy minister of borders and tribal affairs, noted that some people argued that recognising the Durand Line would solve all bilateral tensions. This was a mistake, he said. “Pakistan will not be silent simply if the Durand Line is recognised. If we recognise Durand, we should think about how we plan on defending Kabul [from attack].”

Lewal stressed that borders needed to be protected by well-trained security forces with up-to-date equipment. “Criminal groups involved in the smuggling of drugs, and [wasted resources] from our forests and mines… are problems that endanger the country’s security,” he added.

The conference also highlighted the importance of resolving Afghanistan’s water issues.

Sultan Mahmoud Mahmoudi of the ministry of energy and water, said that neighbouring countries had long exploited Afghanistan’s abundant natural resources. He said that 80 billion cubic metres of water flowed unchecked from Afghanistan into neighbouring countries each year, with most of this used by Pakistan and Iran. “One of the main reasons for the war is that Afghanistan’s neighbors interfere so as to prevent plans to control natural water resources in the country, because our neighbors have used our country’s waters for free for centuries,” he said. “They don’t want us to control our own waters so they try to inflame the war in Afghanistan.”

Conference participants were delighted with the outcome of the event.

“These efforts are effective in institutionalising a culture of peace,” said High Peace Council vice-chairman Ataurrahman Salim. “I hope such conferences will be held in the future as well.

“The last day of the conference coincided with the day on which the Afghan government reached a final agreement with the Gulbuddin Hekmatyar-led [jihadi party] Hizb-e Islami, an opponent of the government,” he continued. “This is good news for ensuring peace and security in the country.”

Mohammad Omar Satay, who heads the secretariat of the High Peace Council in Kandahar province, agreed. “This conference inspired us to further strengthen the spirit of coexistence among Afghans,” he said. “ Now the time has come for us to devote ourselves to peace.”

Others said that the summit had been a fitting end to an extensive programme of IWPR discussions on peace and reconciliation.

Shukria Neda, a civil society activist from Bamyan, said that over the last two years she had taken part in the debates IWPR had organised in her home province. “Now I participated in the peace conference following those programmes. We learned new strategies for peace at the conference. The issue should be a priority for every Afghan, because we all have a thirst for peace.”

A Joint Declaration on the Environment, Social Inequality and Elimination of Nuclear Threat, with a Proposal for UN reform

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

From the Website of the Joint Declaration

We, individuals and institutions that are profoundly concerned about the earth’s present state, particularly by potentially irreversible social and environmental processes, and about the lack of an effective, democratic multilateral entity respected by all that is essential for world governance at this extraordinarily complex and changing time,

mayor

URGE YOU

to adhere to this joint declaration in order to contribute to the rapid adoption of the following measures, the grounds for which are attached hereto as Document I and Document II.

Environment

The current tendencies, resulting from a deplorable economic system based solely on making fast profits, must be urgently reversed to avoid reaching a point of no return. Both President Obama –“we are the first generation to feel the effect of climate change and the last generation who can do something about it”- as well as Pope Francis –“(…) intergenerational solidarity is not optional, but rather a basic question of justice, since the world we have received also belongs to those who will follow us”- have with wisdom and leadership warned of the immediate actions that must be taken concerning climate change. We must invent the future. The distinctive creative capacity of human beings is our hope. As Amin Maalouf has underscored, “unprecedented situations require unprecedented solutions”.

We live at a crucial moment in the history of mankind in which both population growth and the nature of our activities influence the habitability of the earth (anthropocene).

All other interests must be subordinated to an in-depth understanding of reality. The scientific community, guided by the “democratic principles” so clearly set forth in the UNESCO Constitution, should counsel political leaders (at the international, regional, national and municipal levels) concerning the actions to be taken, not only in their role as advisors, but also to provide foresight. Knowledge to foresee, foresight to prevent.

It is clear that accurate diagnoses have already been made but that they haven’t led to what is really important: the right and timely treatment.

Communications media and social networks must constantly strive to achieve a resounding outcry, a sense of solidarity and responsibility, adopting personal and collective resolutions at all levels –including radical changes in institutions- capable of halting the current decline before it is too late.

As President Nelson Mandela reminded us, “the supreme duty of each generation is to properly take care of the next”.

2-Social inequality and extreme poverty

It is humanly intolerable that each day thousands of people die of hunger and neglect, the majority of them children between the ages of one and five, while at the same time 3 billion dollars are invested in weapons and military spending. This is particularly true when, as is currently the case, funds for sustainable human development have been unduly and wrongfully reduced. The lack of solidarity of the wealthiest toward the poor has reached limits that can no longer be tolerated. For the transition from an anti-ecological economy of speculation, delocalization of production and war to a knowledge-based economy for global sustainable and human development, and from a culture of imposition, violence and war to a culture of dialogue, conciliation, alliances and peace, we must immediately proceed to do away with the (G7, G8, G20) groups of plutocrats and re-establish ethical values as the basis for our daily behaviour.

3-Elimination of the nuclear threat and disarmament for development

The nuclear threat continues to pose an unbelievably sinister and ethically untenable danger. Well-regulated disarmament for development would not only guarantee international security, but would also provide the necessary funds for global development and the implementation of the United Nations’ priorities (food, water, health, environment, life-long education for all, scientific research and innovation, and peace).

(continued in right column)

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

Question for this article:

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

(continued from left column)

For these so relevant and urgent reasons

WE PROPOSE

Calling an extraordinary session of the United Nations General Assembly to adopt the necessary urgent social and environmental measures and, moreover, to establish the guidelines for the re-founding of a democratic multilateral system. The “new UN System” with a General Assembly of 50% of States representatives and 50% of representatives of civil society, and adding to the present Security Council and Environmental Council and a Socio-Economic Council, has been studied in depth. In all cases, no veto but weighted vote.

***

In view of the poor progress made toward fulfilling the Millennium Objectives (ODM) and, given the present lack of solidarity, increased social inequality and subordination to the dictates of commercial consortia, no one believes that the Sustainable Development Objectives (SDOs) to be adopted in September will actually be implemented.

The solution is inclusive participative democracy in which all aspects of the economy are subordinated to social justice.

Jose Luis Sampedro left a fantastic legacy to young people: “You will have to change both ship and course”. The attached report (I) outlines recent events and projects that leave room for optimism. Human beings, who today may express themselves freely thanks to digital technology, now have global awareness while, moreover, decision making is increasingly influenced by growing numbers of women, the cornerstone of this new era. A historical turning point is drawing near that will enable us to take the reins of our common destiny in our own hands.

First Signatories

Federico Mayor (President of the Foundation for a Culture of Peace and former Director General of UNESCO)

Mikhail Gorbachev (Former President of the Soviet Union, President of Green Cross International and World Political Forum)

Mario Soares (Former President of Portugal and President of the Fundaçao Mario Soares)

Javier Pérez de Cuéllar (Former General Secretary ONU)

Garry Jacobs (Chief Executive Officer of the World Academy of Art & Science)

Colin Archer (Secretary General), Ingeborg Breines (Co-President) and Reiner Braun (Co-President) of the International Peace Bureau

Roberto Savio (Founder and President of IPS- International Press Service)

François de Bernard (President and Co-Founder of the GERM (Group for Study and Research on Globalization)

Alexander Likhotal (Green Cross International)

Miguel Ángel Moratinos (ex Ministro Español de Asuntos Exteriores – Presidente de REDS)

Ricardo Díez Hochleitner (Presidente de Honor del Capítulo Español del Club de Roma)

José Manuel Morán (Vicepresidente Capítulo Español del Club de Roma)

Trinidad Bernal (Secretaria General Fundación ATYME)

Julio E. Celis (Danish Cancer Society)

Jean Paul Carteron (Chairman and Founder Crnas Montana Forum)

Anwarul Chowdhury (Ambassador, Founder Global Movement for the Culture of Peace and former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the UN New York)

Denis Torres (Instituto Martin Luther King – Managua, Nicaragua)

María Novo (Catedrática UNESCO de Educación Ambiental y Desarrollos Sostenible Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED) – España)

Rustem Khairov (Director International Foundation for Survival and Development Humanity)

Alejandro Tiana Ferrer (Rector Universidad de Educación a Distancia (UNED))

Negoslav Ostojic (ECPD)

Prof. José María Sanz (Rector Universidad Autónoma de Madrid)

Prof. Rafael Garesse (Vicerrector de Innovación y Política Científica de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid)

Anaisabel Prera Anaisabel Prera Flores (DEMOS Institut Guatemala – former Minister of Culture of Guatemala and Director of FCP in Madrid (2000-2004)

Frank LaRue (Demos Institut Guatemala)

Anabella Rivera (Demos Institut Guatemala)

Jordi Armadans, Director de FundiPau (Fundació per la Pau)

Enrique Barón Crespo

Carlos Jiménez Villarejo

Juan José Tamayo

Manuel Núñez Encabo (Fundación Antonio Machado)

Juan Manuel de Faramiñan

Emilio Muñoz

Natalia Muñoz-Casayús

María Quintana Romero

Jerónimo Asensio Rueda