FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION .

An article by Nova Kruijning from Jurist

Pope Leo XIV on Thursday urged  the US and Iran to return to peace negotiations amid rising tensions in the ongoing war, calling for a new “culture of peace” to replace the default recourse to violence whenever conflicts arise. The remarks come on the heels of a very public back-and-forth  between the Pope and US President Donald Trump over the war, marked by Trump’s repeated threats of escalation, which the Pope criticized as undermining diplomatic efforts and risking further instability in the region.

En route home from his trip to Africa, Pope Leo emphasized  the need to collectively reject the use of force in international relations and instead rely on consistent, diplomatic mechanisms to resolve international disputes of this scale. Characterizing the current geopolitical situation as “chaotic,” Pope Leo noted the lack of consistency in diplomatic signals and attributed the escalating severity of the situation in the Middle East thereto. “One day Iran says yes, the United States says no, and vice versa,” the pontiff stated. “We don’t know where it will go.”

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

(article continued from left column)

The tension between Pope Leo XIV and Donald Trump has become an unusually prominent element of the crisis. While disagreements between the Vatican and world leaders are not uncommon, the directness of this exchange particularly stands out. Trump’s emphasis on strength and escalation has contrasted sharply with the Pope’s calls for restraint and dialogue, turning what might have been a quiet disagreement into a public divide. 

Observers note that Pope Leo’s tone marks a deviation from his typically mild, more tempered approach. Rather than offering broad moral guidance, he has taken a firmer stance, openly criticizing rhetoric he views as destabilizing. This suggests a belief that the gravity of the situation – particularly involving Iran and the United States – requires clearer, more urgent intervention to prevent further destabilization. This shift was also pointed out during his recent trip to Africa, where his remarks took on a more urgent and pointed character, taking aim at a “handful of tyrants” and “masters of war” who have “ravaged” the world. 

“The perceived change in tone is due to the escalation of events … which have forced his words to become more explicit,” said the Rev. Antonio Spadaro, undersecretary of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Culture and Education. “But the vision was already right there, right beneath the surface.”

The exchange reflects a broader pattern of volatility in the conflict itself, where inconsistent signals and increasingly irrational rhetoric have made (sustained) diplomacy increasingly difficult, if not seemingly impossible. As tensions between the United States and Iran fluctuate, each escalation appears to narrow the leeway for negotiation and increases the chance that even a minor incident or misunderstanding could trigger a wider confrontation to topple an already exceedingly fragile region.

– – – – – –

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

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Special to CPNN from Timmon Wallis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Continued in right column)

(Continued from left column)

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

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

Currently we have 74 countries who have ratified the TPNW.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– – – – – –

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

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Continued in right column)

(Continued from left column)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– – – – – –

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