by Citizens for Global Solutions | Jul 22, 2026 | Press Release
Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS) is pleased to welcome Sovaida Ma’ani Ewing to its National Advisory Council (NAC), bringing to the organization decades of experience in international law, global governance, peacebuilding, and ethics-based institutional design.
A barrister-at-law of England and Wales and an attorney-at-law in the United States, Sovaida holds an LLM in International Law and European Union Law from Cambridge University. Her distinguished legal career has included private practice in Washington, D.C., including her own law firm, service as an adjunct professor of law, and work as an attorney-advisor in the Legal Adviser’s Office of the U.S. Department of State.
For the past sixteen years, Sovaida has been serving as the Founder and Director of the Center for Peace and Global Governance (CPGG), a think tank and educational platform dedicated to developing principled solutions to some of the world’s most pressing challenges, including climate change, energy security, peace and security, arms control, resource equity, and global institutional reform. Through publications, podcasts, lectures, workshops, and strategic consulting, CPGG advances conversations and contributes to thinking about how ethical principles can inform and shape effective governance at every level. Sovaida is host of a popular audio and video podcast “Reimagining Our World,” which is dedicated to creating a vision of the world we want and infusing hope that we can make the choices necessary to attain it. It is available on most podcast platforms and video form on the CPGG YouTube channel,
Sovaida’s work has also played an important role in shaping CGS’s Global Governance Fellowship at Trinity Washington University, where she has served as a featured facilitator since the program’s pilot in 2022. Her workshops challenge students to imagine how ethical principles can be translated into practical institutional structures capable of addressing complex global challenges. Through exercises focused on a hypothetical Global Energy Authority and a principle-driven system of collective security, students learn that governance is not simply about power; it is about designing institutions that embody justice, accountability, cooperation, and shared responsibility.
As she joins CGS’s National Advisory Council, we sat down with Sovaida to discuss the future of ethics-based global governance and the role emerging leaders can play in building more peaceful, equitable, effective, and resilient systems.
In your view, what role can ethical principles play in advancing the long-term vision of democratic world federation, and what strategies are most effective for translating that vision into political reality?
I believe that a shared set of foundational principles or global ethics is an indispensable foundation for the establishment of a viable system of global governance—ideally in the form of a democratically elected world federation of nation-states. It behooves the international community to bend every effort to identify these principles and agree upon them. Having done that, they must be uncompromisingly operationalized in two ways: firstly, as a starting point when addressing any global challenge; and secondly, as the unshakeable basis upon which we design and build global institutions and their processes.
Two examples of such principles that should be incorporated into a new 21st-century-ready system of international relations are: firstly, the principle that all nations deserve to be treated with equal regard; and secondly, that the advantage of one nation (the part) can only be assured by guaranteeing the advantage of all nations (the whole).
Applying these two principles alone will yield solutions to the plethora of global challenges that plague us while ensuring that these solutions are congruent with each other (rather than undermining each other, as they often do today), proactive and informed by a long-term view, and considerate of the collective interest of humanity rather than narrow nationalistic or individual interests.
In this way, we can avoid the pitfall we so often fall into of reaching for expedient, short-term, and reactive solutions that cater to a narrow set of interests and not only fail to solve the original problem but also sow the seeds of the next disaster.
So, whether we’re considering the challenge of revamping the nuclear non-proliferation regime or whether we should continue to allow a limited number of nation-states to wield veto power in the Security Council, the way forward becomes clear. In the former instance, it becomes apparent that treating nations even-handedly requires the creation of a system in which all nations participate and which binds them all, with no opt-outs. Moreover, if any nation flouts the rules, the consequences should apply to all equally, whether we view the country as an ally or an enemy, as trustworthy or not. With respect to the question of the veto in the Security Council, it quickly becomes apparent that affording nations any sort of veto is antithetical to the claim that nation-states should be treated equally.
The strategy I would recommend for nations to identify and unitedly agree upon a set of global ethics is the one I proposed in my book, “Building a World Federation: The Key to Resolving Our Global Crises.” Essentially, I suggest we follow the roadmap created by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (established by the Canadian government in 2001) in crafting the principle of the Responsibility to Protect, which was ultimately unanimously endorsed by all 192 nation-states at the World Summit in New York in 2005. This principle is considered an emerging norm in international practice, while some would even argue that it has become part of customary international law.
How do you envision students and emerging leaders contributing to the development of a Global Energy Authority or a principle-driven system of collective security?
Students and emerging leaders can contribute to a principle-driven system of collective security by recognizing certain realities: in today’s interconnected and interdependent world, wars are no longer local or regional in their impact but rather have the capacity to trigger global crises.
Take the civil war in Syria. It led to a refugee crisis that impacted not only neighboring states like Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey but also regions farther afield, particularly Europe. The waves of refugees arriving in Europe contributed to a rise in far-right populist movements and, some would argue, were a main trigger for Brexit. The conflict also created fertile ground for ISIL to take root, with devastating and bloody consequences for many.
Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine spawned a global food crisis, a global energy crisis, and a resurgence of the global nuclear threat to its highest level since the Cuban Missile Crisis. The war with Iran has, similarly, set in motion multiple global crises, including dangerous worldwide inflation that threatens to pull the world into a global economic recession.
We must also recognize the fact that most nations of the world feel insecure. It is this feeling of insecurity that leads them to amass arms and seek weapons of mass destruction, which they misguidedly believe will keep them safe from aggression. The ensuing arms race and proliferation of weapons, including nuclear weapons, pose a huge danger to the world as a whole.
It is clear that the path we are on is untenable and will only lead to increased suffering and self-destruction. The time has come for the international community to come together and collaboratively craft a system of collective security that ensures that all nations are secure. They must recognize that, in a world as interconnected and interdependent as ours, a collective challenge of this order demands a collective solution.
The days of unilateral responses or the creation of ad hoc coalitions to respond to threats are over. The collective solution we need requires that all nations collaborate and participate in the creation of a global system of collective security in which they each contribute troops and arms to an international police force that will act at the behest of a democratically elected World Parliament, in the collective interests of humanity, and in accordance with predetermined and collectively agreed-upon rules and guidelines.
In the spirit of operationalizing the principles of oneness and equality, all nations must participate. There can be no opt-outs, and there must be a binding agreement among all nations that, if one nation were to breach or threaten the peace, all nations would arise to bring it to heel using the mechanism of the global standing force.
Having understood that this system is indispensable to ensuring the peace of the world, these students and emerging leaders would strive to raise awareness of this 21st-century-ready idea in all their spheres of endeavor, work, and social discourse, with the goal of spreading this idea to such a degree that we will eventually elect the kinds of leaders who have the requisite sense of responsibility to create the sort of principle-driven system of collective security that constitutes the indispensable foundation for a peaceful world.
Looking Forward
Sovaida Ma’ani Ewing’s appointment to the CGS National Advisory Council reflects CGS’s commitment to engaging thought leaders who bring both deep expertise and innovative perspectives to the challenges shaping our world.
At a time when global issues increasingly demand collaborative solutions, her work offers a compelling reminder that ethical principles are not abstract ideals but practical foundations for effective governance. Through her leadership, scholarship, and commitment to mentoring future changemakers, Sovaida continues to inspire a new generation to think boldly about how institutions can be designed to advance peace, justice, sustainability, and human flourishing.
Sovaida has published five books in the area of peace and global governance including “Building a World Federation: The Key to Resolving our Global Crises.” “Bridge to Global Governance: Tackling Climate Change, Energy Distribution, and Nuclear Proliferation” and “Collective Security Within Reach.” Her latest book, available on Amazon, is “The Alchemy of Peace: 6 Essential Shifts in Mindsets and Habits to Achieve World Peace.” She also hosts a popular monthly podcast – Reimagining Our World – available on most podcast platforms and on the CPGG YouTube channel that is dedicated to creating a vision of the world we want and infusing hope that we can make the choices necessary to attain it. Sovaida is also a certified mediator and a life mastery coach.
We are honored to welcome her to the CGS National Advisory Council and look forward to the insights and leadership she will bring to our community. Citizens for Global Solutions has worked for democratic, accountable global cooperation for seventy-nine years. Subscribe to follow our work.
__
This article was first shared with subscribers of CGS Field Notes, our LinkedIn newsletter featuring insights, updates, and analysis on global governance from Citizens for Global Solutions. Subscribe on LinkedIn to get future stories like this one delivered straight to your feed.
by Citizens for Global Solutions | Jul 21, 2026 | Mondial Journal
Skip to PDF content
by Justin Haner | Jul 16, 2026 | United Nations
In 2025, the world experienced the highest number of armed conflicts since World War II, and, in a time when many struggle to make ends meet, governments collectively spent a record $2.9 trillion on their militaries. The UN’s Security Council was charged with the maintenance of international peace and security eight decades ago, yet has little to show for it because of a promise made but never kept.
The “San Francisco promise” was the compromise that held the Charter negotiations together. Of the 50 countries present, five of them—the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom—secured permanent seats, voting rights, and special veto power for themselves on the Security Council, the UN’s highest governing body. Smaller and middle powers objected fiercely to this proposal by the “P5”, which directly contradicted the Charter’s principle of sovereign equality and relegated them to the indignity of second-class status they continue to endure to this day.
Even the US opposed the absolute veto, conceding it only as the Soviet Union’s price for joining the UN. Many delegates feared, rightly, that allowing one country to block the world’s will would hamstring the organization. We still pay that price today, as two P5 members continue to wage illegal wars and wield their veto as a “get out of jail, free” card to shield themselves and their allies from consequences others would face.
So a bargain was struck. Delegates would sign the Charter, accepting its faults only temporarily and on the condition that within ten years a review conference would be held to revisit the debate. As US delegate John Foster Dulles acknowledged it had “only been possible to secure acceptance of the Charter at San Francisco by a provision assuring that there would be an opportunity to review itin the light of experience”.
Not content to take them at their word, the smaller powers wrote this compromise directly into the Charter as Article 109. It allows a review conference to be convened by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly and any nine Security Council Members. Critically, the P5 cannot veto the review, nor use the veto during its proceedings. All 193 Member States would participate on strictly equal footing, with each having the same “one vote in the conference,” regardless of size, wealth, or military might.
Yet instead of ten years, 81 have passed. The political will to convene the conference never materialized. What was accepted as a temporary compromise has hardened into a permanent hierarchy. Promises made became promises broken.
Until now.
Bolstered by reform commitments at the 2024 Summit of the Future and the launch of the Article 109 Coalition, a growing cohort is reclaiming the spirit of San Francisco. In just the last six weeks, Romania called for invoking Article 109 at the General Assembly, India discussed the mandate for Charter review at the Security Council, and Andorra asked Security Council candidates if it was time to “revise the Charter and try to see what can we do differently?” None of which ruled it out and Germany remarked “There’s an initiative on it [Article 109] that is interesting, we should think about that.” Kyrgyzstan’s President Zhaparov has told his diplomats to “begin considering possible amendments and proposals now,” promising to table them in September.
The momentum is building. Last September, Kazakh President Tokayev stated that now is the time to have a “serious conversation about UN Charter review.” Kazakhstan and The Gambia officially endorsed Article 109 at that meeting, during which 148 countries, representing 78% of the UN’s Membership, called for the UN to be reformed. Brazil, India, and South Africa have also jointly urged “the convening of a review conference, in accordance with its Article 109”.
Detractors insist a review will never happen because it isn’t in the P5’s interest. But that misreads both the Charter and the mood of the world. As Cameroonian Ambassador Ewumbue-Monono noted last year “Article 109 provides a vital pathway… one that is not subject to veto”. While the P5 would still have to ratify an amended Charter, as Türkiye’s President Erdoğan often says, “the world is bigger than five,” and the global majority grows tired of waiting for permission to live in peace and be treated as equals.
81 years is enough. Ours must be the generation that comes together through the Article 109 process, updates the UN for the 21st century, and reignites the spirit of San Francisco by fulfilling its promise.
by Lawrence Wittner | Jul 9, 2026 | Global Cooperation
As Americans and people of other former colonies recognize, there’s a great deal to be said for national independence.
But, at times, we might also wonder: is it sufficient?
Until recently in human history, imperialism was widespread. In 1939, Britain’s Empire and Commonwealth alone had direct or de facto political and economic control of 25 percent of the world’s population and 30 percent of its land mass. In fact, only a century ago, nearly half of today’s independent nations were European colonies.
Imperialism, of course, had severe drawbacks. For the colonized, these drawbacks included genocide, enslavement, exploitation, and the looting of resources. But the colonizers, too, despite the vast riches acquired by a small minority among them, suffered losses. They perished in imperialist wars, died of starvation and diseases, and became infected by arrogance, brutality and racism. Above all, imperialism denied people in the colonies the right to self-government and, therefore, the right to determine the future of their own nations.
But World War II destabilized the imperialist system and, also, discredited it. As a result, a vast wave of decolonization occurred in the aftermath of the war, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. Although there are still holdouts from the worldwide anti-imperialist approach―Vladimir Putin, committed to annexing Ukraine, Benjamin Netanyahu, battling to prevent Palestinian statehood, and Donald Trump, constantly demanding new territory―for the most part national independence has become the acceptable norm.
The problem, however, is that although national independence is preferable to imperialist domination, it does not get us very far toward solving some of the world’s most pressing problems.
Perhaps the most serious of the problems facing us today is war, with wars currently raging throughout large portions of the world. Global military spending continues to soar (reaching $2.9 trillion in 2025), with enormous increases already slated for the future. The result is―and seems likely to continue to be―an enormous loss of lives and economic resources.
Nuclear weapons, of course, threaten to turn war into a catastrophe almost beyond human comprehension, annihilating virtually all life on earth. And yet, in a sharp break with the nuclear arms control and disarmament measures of past decades, the nuclear powers have recently abandoned their commitment to reducing and, ultimately, abolishing the nuclear menace. Having increased their nuclear spending by 19 percent in 2025, they are currently developing a dazzling array of new nuclear weapons.
How are nations going to deal with the immense problem of war and modern weaponry without collective action? Certainly, the solution to the problem does not lie in the hands of any one nation.
If human beings, as well as other species, are not exterminated in the near future by war, they are likely to face gradual extinction by environmental catastrophe. Global warming, the loss of biodiversity, air pollution, deforestation, melting ice caps, sea level rise, soil degradation, overfishing, and a host of other ills are already here and leading to an increasingly unsustainable, unlivable future. Meanwhile, intense heat, raging wildfires, and massive floods are destroying agriculture and sending millions of desperate climate refugees fleeing from their homelands.
Effective protection of the world’s environment surpasses the ability of any one nation, however well-meaning. Surely it is a global matter, requiring global cooperation.
Diseases, of course, also transcend national lines. The COVID-19 pandemic, for example, caused between 15 million and 18 million deaths in nations around the world. But, of course, in recent decades there have been other disease epidemics and pandemics that have shown no regard for national boundaries, including HIV/AIDS, malaria, influenza, hepatitis, SARS, swine flu, dengue fever, Western African Ebola, mpox, MERS, and cholera.
When it comes to diseases, there has been widespread recognition that a global approach is necessary. As a result, 192 nations belong to the World Health Organization (WHO). Three nations, however, stubbornly resist WHO membership. The United States is one of them, thanks to the decision of U.S. President Trump to withdraw from it.
Numerous other challenges―including widespread poverty, the irresponsible behavior of multinational corporations, mass migration, resource scarcity, and the risks of advanced technologies like artificial intelligence―also suggest the need for global collaboration.
These kinds of global issues are frequently discussed at the United Nations, leading to statements made by the UN Secretary-General and other UN officials that appeal for remedial action. But, unfortunately, some nations, and especially the great powers, which seem less committed to global betterment than to their own national agendas, have seen to it that the United Nations is denied the authority and the resources to adequately address these challenges. Russia, for example, has repeatedly vetoed UN Security Council resolutions calling for an end to its continued military invasion, occupation, and annexation of Ukraine. For its part, the United States has compiled a debt of nearly $4 billion to the cash-strapped United Nations by halting its payments for UN dues and UN peacekeeping operations.
The logical solution to the frustration of collective action is to strengthen the United Nations. Several proposals have been advanced along these lines, including enhancing the power of the General Assembly and limiting the veto in the Security Council. In addition, a campaign has recently been launched to reduce the obstacles to more effective UN action in global affairs by employing Article 109 of the UN Charter to hold a UN Charter review conference. If this conference were held and the Charter revised, it could transform world organization into what the campaign calls “a stronger, fairer, and more inclusive international system.”
But the strengthening of the United Nations won’t occur automatically. It will require worldwide public pressure, driven by citizens’ organizations committed to peace, environmental sustainability, public health, and other global imperatives. Ultimately, it’s up to these organizations and to their allies among wise public officials to secure the next great shift in human consciousness and behavior―a shift from a parochial national independence to the interdependence of nations.
by Jerry Tetalman | Jul 2, 2026 | Peace & Disarmament
If those killed in war could speak, this is what I imagine they would say. They would claim that war is humanity’s biggest moral failure and that war is the real enemy. They might ask, “Are we savage animals or are we civilized human beings?” and “When will war be outlawed?”
They might state, “We live in a world where the vilest of crimes―murder, torture, and rape―which are punished with severe consequences within most societies, are somehow accepted when committed as part of war.” They might think about how the organized murder of one group of humans by another group of humans, which is the definition of war, is encouraged by so many people.
War has been an integral part of human history for some 11,000 years or so, depending on the definition of war. Iconic anthropologist Margaret Mead wrote an essay in 1940 that declared that, like so many other human practices, war is an invention—we are not doomed to wage war simply because of human nature. She proved her hypothesis simply by describing peoples that not only didn’t ever wage war, but often didn’t even have a concept of what war is.
In the nuclear age, it is the most imminent threat to our continued existence. As modern civilized people, most of us find war abhorrent, but few of us call for the abolition of war or understand why war still exists in the contemporary world.
War exists for many reasons:
- One is because human society has been organized around the concept of the in-group and the out-group. The in-group could be a tribe, a city, a nation, a religion, a language group, or several associated nations. The out-group may be tolerated, but in many instances, it is considered the enemy.
- Sociologists point to relative deprivation, that is, when everyone is poor, that isn’t a conflict, but if we see one group living quite well while we are not, that can lead to conflict and has led ultimately to casus belli, a reason to wage war.
The question of our time is: can we create a new story in which humanity as a whole is the in-group? Can we civilize a lawless world by creating a basic system of rules, a system of enforceable global law?
Having an understanding of what behavior is acceptable is the prerequisite to creating law. Law is the basis of civilization and allows for the nonviolent resolution of disputes. We currently live in a state of relative anarchy between nations, in which military power, rather than law, makes the rules. The greatest challenge of our time is bringing the rule of law to the global level, thereby replacing war with courts and parliaments. We have peace and order within most countries because of the enforceable rule of law, but between nations, international law is unenforceable, thus ineffective.
The United Nations has succeeded in bringing almost all countries of the world together for dialogue and has laid the foundation for international law through many multilateral treaties. But the United Nations has fallen short because it lacks the enforcement mechanism that true law requires. The law is what protects individual citizens from criminal abuse. We are relatively safe in society because crimes are prosecuted and have consequences. But, at the international level, laws between nations lack an enforcement mechanism. The United Nations is based on treaty law, a voluntary system of agreements between nations. Thus, it lacks an enforcement mechanism that true law provides.
A new, more powerful, and democratic United Nations is needed to create peace among the world’s countries.
Fortunately, transforming the United Nations along these lines is possible. Article 109 of the UN Charter provides a mechanism for initiating a UN Charter Review Conference. Such a conference would open the way to engaging the world’s countries in creating a rules-based system of international law that is enforceable rather than voluntary. In this new, more civilized world, based on law and rules rather than on military power, nations would no longer have the need or ability to engage in war.
Under Article 109 of the UN Charter, convening a global Charter review conference requires approval from three-fourths of the members of the General Assembly and nine members of the Security Council. The final approval of the conference results rests with the five permanent members of the Security Council―the United States, China, Russia, France, and Britain―each of which has veto power. If successful, the conference could transform the United Nations into a more effective international institution―one capable of enforcing laws among nations.
Admittedly, the ability of any of the five permanent members of the Security Council (the P5) to veto UN Charter revisions poses a potential obstacle to UN reform. Even so, implementing the UN Charter revision process will take considerable time, during which the most likely nay-sayers among the P5 governments may change, perhaps for the better. Moreover, a P5 recalcitrant might hesitate to exercise a veto at a momentous conference with overwhelming support for change. It is also possible that, when faced with one or two holdouts, the delegates to a UN Charter revision conference would surge beyond their original mandate and create a new, more effective system of global governance.
To begin gathering public and diplomatic support for holding an appropriate Charter review conference, proponents of UN reform turned in September 2025 to launching the Article 109 Coalition during the annual UN General Assembly High-Level Week. Since then, the campaign has been picking up steam, with civil society groups like Citizens for Global Solutions working to mobilize U.S. support.
In their campaign, they can point to important evidence that strengthened governance reduces the likelihood of war.
The countries of the European Union, for example, have achieved peace after thousands of years of warfare, including two world wars, by trading a small portion of their sovereignty for security. They now resolve disputes in the European Union’s parliament and courts. Similarly, countries around the world could achieve peace by establishing a global system of courts and parliaments through a transformation of the United Nations.
Just as slavery was abolished in the nineteenth century and is now illegal in all countries, war too can be abolished by law. Indeed, with the strengthening and enforcement of international law, war could become an obsolete relic of a barbaric past.
by Lawrence Wittner | Jun 22, 2026 | Peace & Disarmament
Although the U.S. labor movement is sometimes depicted as hawkish and xenophobic, this characterization ignores its repeated attempts to grapple with the global problem of war.
On June 9, 2026, for example, delegates at the annual national convention of the AFL-CIO, the 15-million member labor federation with which most American unions are affiliated, voted to adopt Resolution 9, “We Want a Just and Peaceful World.”
Declaring that “working people must never be treated as pawns in geopolitical power struggles,” the resolution promises that “we will stand with workers and communities harmed by war” and “will advocate for an end to wars that threaten workers’ livelihoods, security and rights.”
“In Gaza,” notes the AFL-CIO statement, “we demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire; full, safe and sustained humanitarian access; a halt to arms transfers that may facilitate violations of international law by all parties; and a credible political process grounded in international law and UN resolutions to achieve a just and lasting peace.”
Furthermore, it declares, the AFL-CIO “will engage forcefully in international institutions,” such as the United Nations and the International Labor Organization, and “will advocate for continued U.S. government and labor engagement in international negotiations,” including those focused on climate change and energy under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement.
Assailing demagogic “efforts to divide working people through fear, exclusion, and racist anti-migrant rhetoric,” the labor federation opposed “discriminatory travel bans and migration policies,” denounced “the abandonment of refugee and asylum commitments under international law,” and demanded “due process for all.” It promised to “seek . . . foreign policies that promote peace and halt support for repressive governments.”
Three months earlier, rebuking the U.S. and Israeli governments for initiating a war with Iran, the AFL-CIO issued a statement calling for an end to the conflict and demanding “strict respect for international law, the United Nations Charter, and the U.S. Constitution that call[s] for the people’s voice through Congress in any war authorization.”
Of course, organized labor’s expressions of support for peace and international cooperation are not always accompanied by major labor movement campaigns to secure them. Within the U.S. labor movement, domestic policy concerns, which have a direct impact upon American workers, tend to outweigh foreign policy concerns.
Furthermore, during most of the Cold War, much of the AFL-CIO leadership was, in fact, quite hawkish, rallying around the flag and supporting U.S. military intervention in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. AFL-CIO president George Meany worked vigorously and successfully to get the labor federation to give “unqualified support” to the U.S. war in Vietnam and, in 1972, to reject backing the peace candidacy of Senator George McGovern, the Democratic nominee for President.
Even so, for more than a century, a significant number of prominent American union leaders have been peace proponents. These include Eugene Debs (president, American Railway Union), a sharp critic of the Spanish-American War and of World War I, who, thanks to this stance, became the nation’s best-known political prisoner. Another was “Big Bill” Haywood (leader of the Industrial Workers of the World), who condemned World War I and, to escape Debs’s fate, fled the country.
In later years, peace-oriented labor leaders included Walter Reuther (president, United Auto Workers and vice president of the AFL-CIO), a world federalist who also served on the board of the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (better-known as SANE) and opposed Meany’s hawkish approach during the Cold War. Another, William Winpisinger (president, International Association of Machinists), became co-chair of SANE, as well as a champion of conversion from a military to a peacetime economy.
Indeed, Samuel Gompers, the founder and long-time president of the American Federation of Labor, began his labor career as a strong advocate of peace. In 1893, answering the question “What does labor want?” Gompers replied: “We want more schoolhouses and less jails; more books and less arsenals.” A few years later, he sharply criticized America’s imperialist role in the Philippines.
On numerous occasions, American labor activists expressed similar views.
Even during the Vietnam War, when the AFL-CIO leadership and numerous unions voiced hawkish sentiments, substantial dissent grew within the labor movement. Several large unions broke with AFL-CIO policy and, by 1970, the leaders of 22 U.S. unions had joined a call for the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Vietnam.
Antiwar activism within labor’s ranks flared up again in the 1980s. A National Labor Committee in Support of Democracy and Human Rights in El Salvador emerged and denounced the Reagan administration’s military aid to rightwing, repressive governments battling leftwing rebels in Central America. Responding to such pressure, the delegates at the 1985 AFL-CIO national convention voted overwhelmingly for a resolution that challenged U.S. government policy by calling for “a negotiated settlement, rather than a military victory” in the region. Also, by 1986, well over half of the AFL-CIO’s affiliated unions backed the U.S. peace movement’s Nuclear Freeze campaign, which called for a halt to the nuclear arms race.
The Iraq War triggered another surge of peace activism within the labor movement. In January 2003, as a U.S. military invasion of Iraq loomed, some 125 delegates from various labor unions met at Teamsters local 705 hall in Chicago and formed U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW). After the invasion began that March, the new organization grew quickly and became a powerful voice within union locals, individual unions, and the AFL-CIO’s state affiliates. It grew so powerful, in fact, that, at the labor federation’s 2005 convention, the delegates voted overwhelmingly for a resolution demanding the “rapid withdrawal” of U.S. troops from the conflict.
Consequently, this June’s AFL-CIO call for a just and peaceful world is in line with much of labor’s past. And the labor movement shouldn’t be written off as a force for peace and international cooperation in the future.
by Lawrence Wittner | Jun 11, 2026 | Global Cooperation
One of the curious ironies of our time is that, although many politicians spout heated nationalist rhetoric, rail against foreign nations, and belittle international cooperation, this approach to international affairs is not at all what most people want.
The climate of aggressive nationalism is clear enough. In nations around the globe, demagogues (usually of a rightwing variety) whip up xenophobia, preach superpatriotism, demand vast military buildups, and―if holding public office―often launch invasions of other nations under the banner of restoring an allegedly glorious national past.
But what is often overlooked is that, across the planet, most people favor a very different way of engaging with the world. In late 2025, Focaldata, a major research company commissioned by the Rockefeller Foundation, conducted a landmark survey of 36,405 people across 34 countries. The resulting report, Demanding Results: Global Views on International Cooperation, revealed that 55 percent of people worldwide “believe their country should cooperate on global challenges even if it means compromising on national interests.” If international cooperation was proven to solve global problems, public support jumped to 75 percent. Respondents viewed such cooperation as essential for food and water security, jobs, health, trade, and climate.
Other opinion surveys confirm the widespread nature of internationalist sentiment. An Ipsos poll conducted between February and April 2026 found a substantial increase over the previous year in support for global solidarity and cooperation, with net disagreement shifting to net agreement. Among the more than 22,000 adults in the 31 countries surveyed, nearly two-thirds now supported the claim that, “for certain problems, like environmental pollution, international bodies should have the right to enforce solutions.” Some 42 percent (a plurality) agreed with the idea that “my taxes should go towards solving global problems.” And nearly four out of ten respondents (a plurality) endorsed the statement: “I consider myself more a world citizen than a citizen of the country I live in.”
Another measure of the worldwide support for international cooperation is provided by polling on public attitudes toward international organizations. The Rockefeller Foundation-Focaldata study reported that public trust was strong for the United Nations (58 percent) and the World Health Organization (60 percent), although weaker for international financial institutions. The global popularity of the United Nations was also attested to by a Pew Research Center survey that appeared in September 2025. Covering 31,938 adults in 25 countries, it found that a median of 61 percent of adults had a favorable view of the world organization, while only 32 percent had an unfavorable one.
Even proposals for new, avant garde global institutions have attracted more public support than opposition. Commissioned by Democracy Without Borders, Nira Data conducted a global survey in September 2025 of public attitudes toward the election of a citizen-elected world parliament to handle global issues. The survey, released in January 2026, drew upon 117,000 people in 101 countries that held 90 percent of the world’s population. The finding was that 40 percent of respondents approved of the world parliament idea, while only 27 percent opposed it.
But what about the United States? Surely in this flag-waving nation, engulfed in the “America First” rhetoric of the Trump administration and its MAGA supporters, we might expect that the ideals of global solidarity and cooperation would be supported by no more than a small minority.
But that’s not the case at all.
One of the most striking findings of the Rockefeller Foundation-Focaldata survey is that 61 percent of U.S. respondents believed that the United States should cooperate on global challenges even it meant compromising on some national interests.
When it came to the United Nations, the Pew Research Center report revealed that 57 percent of Americans held a positive view of the world organization, as compared to 41 percent with a negative one. Moreover, it found that positive views of the United Nations had increased by 5 percent over the preceding year.
A study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, issued in September 2025, reported an even more favorable public attitude toward the United Nations. Two-thirds of the Americans surveyed, it noted, said that the United States should be more willing to make decisions within the framework of the United Nations, even if this meant that the country would sometimes have to go along with a policy that was not its first choice.
Admittedly, opinion surveys found that the level of support for international cooperation varied significantly from country to country. Thus, for example, the backing for international cooperation when that meant compromising on some national interests was greater in India (81 percent) and South Korea (73 percent), the countries highest on the scale, than in Argentina (41 percent) and Japan (34 percent), the countries at the bottom of the scale.
Furthermore, there was often a political dimension to worldwide public attitudes toward foreign affairs. According to the Pew Research Center, “people who place themselves on the left of the ideological spectrum are more likely than those on the right to have a positive view of the UN.”
This political division was particularly wide in the United States, where, as the Pew report maintained, “81% of liberals―versus 34% of conservatives―have a favorable opinion” of the United Nations. When it came to the issue of support for cooperation with other nations, the surveys by Rockefeller-Focaldata and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs both found substantial differences between the attitudes of Democrats (quite positive) and Republicans (far more negative).
Even so, in most countries, including the United States, support for international solidarity and cooperation is very substantial, and growing. Consequently, political activists and politicians shouldn’t be reluctant to speak out for them. Indeed, given the popularity of this internationalist approach to global affairs, it might even prove a winning political issue.
by Charles Howlett | Jun 2, 2026 | Peace & Disarmament
In his award-winning book about World War I, the historian Paul Fussell began The Great War and Modern Memory with the words: “Every war is ironic because every war is worse than expected.”
He was all too correct. During four years of bloodshed, 1914 to 1918, at least 8.5 million combatants were killed, many more were wounded, and close to 10 million non-combatants perished. In terms of economic expenditure, the war cost between $185 billion and $200 billion, roughly equivalent to $6 trillion today.
World War II was even more devastating in terms of lost lives and economic costs, with the economic loss alone running between $4 trillion and $5 trillion in 1940 dollars. Today that would be somewhere around $104 trillion. The Vietnam War cost approximately $168 billion (in today’s dollars, $1 trillion). The Gulf War of 1990-91, though brief, ended up devouring approximately $600 billion, and the Iraq-Afghanistan Wars around $8 trillion. The cost of the current conflict in Iran is expected to exceed $1 trillion.
The Iran war raises a fundamental question peace advocates have been asking since the conclusion of World War I: shouldn’t the wealth of nations be spent improving the lives of their citizens instead of wasting it on war? What if the money allocated for military purposes was used, instead, to make college more accessible, fund health care for all, ameliorate world hunger, fund disease prevention programs, and expand education programs for all children? The costs for this present conflict are already being borne out in terms of high energy costs and rising food prices directly impacting the lives of the less fortunate in our society.
Curiously, this question was conveyed in a popular bubble gum trading card marketed shortly before the advent of World War II. That card, “The Frightful Cost of War,” resonates just as loudly today as it did 88 years ago.
Historically, the card’s origin dates back to July 1937. While listening to radio broadcasts and reading press accounts about Japan’s unprovoked military invasion of the Chinese mainland, Warren Bowman, a Philadelphia gum manufacturer, commissioned an advertising company from nearby Abington, Pennsylvania, to create a series of collector cards depicting the brutality of war. All depictions and descriptions created were based on current radio reports and newspaper stories. Each piece of gum contained in a wrapper, which sold for a penny, also included a card. On the back of each card was printed the caption: “To Know the HORRORS OF WAR is to wantPEACE.”
“The Horrors of War” collection became an instant financial success, producing some 100 million cards and netting the company over $40,000 a week. Indeed, the collection remains the most popular non-sports card set ever manufactured. A portion of the cards covered the Spanish Civil War, Mussolini’s incursion in Ethiopia, and―a very small number―Hitler’s threats to peace in Central Europe. The initial set consisted of 240 cards. Another 48 were added later. These cards contained crisp depictions with colored artwork―illustrating and describing the various military conflicts and bombings of civilians then taking place—on the front of each 2.5”x 3” rectangular card. Eye-popping drawings and chilling narratives appeared on the back.
Nearly one-third of the set focused on the impact of war on innocent civilians. In an effort to influence the mind-set of pre-adolescent purchasers, many of these cards depicted young children and babies being killed. This novel cultural approach led some critics to charge that the cards exaggerated combat scenes and ruthless killings of noncombatants by using red ink for maximum effect, thus appearing to instrumentalize war in the minds of children rather than rejecting it. Mothers and many schoolteachers questioned the effectiveness of the set as an educational lesson due to its graphic nature.
Yet most commentators agreed about the set’s lesson for children, as well as for adults, when it came to one very special card. By design, when the trading cards hit the market in the spring of 1938, the very last one in the initial set encapsulated the true message of the “Horrors of War.” That card, “The Frightful Cost of War,” is cast in a setting where children’s eyes are directed to gaze upon a blood-red setting sun surrounded by an atmosphere of smoke and fire from a destroyed farm, a cemetery filled with white crosses, fleeing wounded soldiers walking or being carried on a stretcher, amputees in a wheelchair and crutches, and what appear to be scavengers, soaring overhead. In the middle is the Grim Reaper on a white horse wielding his scythe. Frightening, yes indeed! But it also effectively challenged the popular idea that war is glorious, by illustrating the losses it entails.
This message was powerfully conveyed in the narrative on the back of the card. “War costs money…billions of dollars!” it declared. “War takes human lives…millions of them! War makes children old, breaks parents’ hearts, kills morale! War destroys cities, art treasure, civilization.”
Unfortunately, the set soon fell victim to the very evil it sought to eradicate. Less than a year after the complete set was produced, another global conflagration was underway―the most destructive war in human history. In this context, the message of the bubble gun card was quickly forgotten.
That message is needed now. When it comes to yet another unpopular war in the Middle East, “The Frightful Cost of War” remains as powerful today as it was when it first appeared on the doorstep of World War II. Now is the time for people and nations to learn its lesson and not forget it.
And, if we have learned its lesson, we need to create an international alternative to war―one providing the security we need, not the false promise of security through war. Merely repeating “war is bad, war is bad” when it comes to money and lives is simply whistling past the graveyard and will never take the politics out of national interests. Now is the time we should consider, seriously and unreservedly, creating a democratic world federation based on justice and law.
by Olivia Gauvin | May 4, 2026 | Human Rights
Amidst yet another year of startling declines for democracies everywhere, Hungary has seemingly defied the odds. Despite being the poster boy of the far-right populist threat to European democracies, recent elections ousted Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party from 16 years of power, effectively shifting the tide on one of the starkest democratic erosions in the European Union. And yet, Orbán’s defeat does not necessarily guarantee democratic revival for his international friends and cronies, including President Donald Trump. Today, behind this celebration in Hungary lives the looming shadow of Trump’s executive overreach in the United States, with Orban’s friendship and autocratic legacy offering a roadmap to America’s sharp democratic regression.
According to the V-Dem Institute’s recently published Democracy Report, the United States is no longer considered a liberal democracy. The V-Dem Institute, an independent research organization that measures democratic growth and regression across 202 countries, now labels the U.S. as merely an ”electoral democracy.” The report details that American democracy has “fallen back to the same level as in 1965,” primarily marked by executive branch overreach. For comparison, this single year of democratic erosion under the Trump administration “took Hungary’s Viktor Orbán over four years” and “Serbia’s Aleksandar Vučić eight years.” For many Americans, the democratic institutions in 1965 were gained through grueling, consistent, and targeted civil rights activism. Such gains, according to V-Dem, have practically disappeared in America today.
These findings do not come as a surprise to many — at least they shouldn’t. V-Dem’s report emerges in the aftermath of one of the longest federal funding lapses in the Department of Homeland Security, as the United States and Israel continue to wage a deadly and costly war in Iran, while the President clamors to distract from the released FBI files that accuse him of sexually abusing trafficked minors for decades. And while free, fair, and recurring elections with universal suffrage still exist on paper, President Trump’s executive overreach has targeted “proof of citizenship for registration, federal reviewing of electronic voting machines, and restricted mail-in voting,” all without Congressional approval.
These actions have triggered dire democratic erosion on federal and state levels. In fact, on March 3rd, just two weeks before V-Dem even published its report, hundreds of voters in Texas were left unable to vote when the state changed precinct-based primary election locations and closed certain polling locations early. Furthermore, congressional oversight has been repeatedly curtailed, as the President declared war on Iran and ordered a military operation to abduct Venezuela’s President, Nicolas Maduro — both times without prior Congressional approval. Alarming cases of violence against civilians have also gained national attention. In January 2026 alone, eight people died while in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody nationwide. That same month in Minneapolis, two nonviolent U.S. citizens were publicly shot and killed by ICE agents in broad daylight. And all of this is only in the first three months of 2026.
It is difficult to defuse all the alarms currently blaring. As trans people in Kansas have their driver’s licenses revoked, and families are ripped apart during ICE raids, and postpartum patients in Texas are arrested for undergoing emergency abortion procedures, it’s clear that federal and state administrations are setting all these fires to weaken Americans. Moreover, it is necessary to recognize that such repression is strategic and targeted. For years, President Trump and autocratic affiliates have publicly touted their Project 2025, the political roadmap published by the Heritage Foundation that includes sweeping reforms to America’s political culture and institutions.
In its essence, Project 2025 seeks to overhaul the executive branch while dismantling legitimate oversight and authority between branches to consolidate power under the President. Rooted in far-right Christian conservatism and crafted by at least 140 current and former Trump staffers, Project 2025 is not an abstract ideology, but an active guide in accomplishing Trump’s authoritarian grab. If the Trump-backed SAVE Act in Congress or the Supreme Court hearing Trump’s case to end birthright citizenship tells us anything, it’s that the legislative and judicial branches risk becoming fully co-opted. And for anyone who has kept a watchful eye on the President’s executive overreach, this risk may seem a reality, as Project 2025 is already over 40 percent of the way to full implementation.
The solution to America’s rapid democratic decline cannot simply be that, in this deteriorating situation, America’s democracy will vote its way out of it. American elections are facing crises of low voter turnout and weak competition. The Cook Political Report recently shared with NPR that “more than 90% of congressional races will pretty much be decided during primary elections” in 2026. The Brennan Center for Justice reports that since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision to reverse campaign finance restrictions, political power and private wealth have increasingly fused together in U.S. elections. The Center found that “donors who gave at least $5 million to super PACs” in the 2024 presidential race “spent more than twice as much as they did in 2020.” Combined with targeted gerrymandering practices and geographic partisan sorting, both electoral competition and the political playing field are severely weakened.
Combatting such authoritarian encroachment must go, as V-Dem recognizes, beyond the ballot box. Alongside robust societal action, responding to these dangerous threats to all facets of our democracy requires urgency and strong institutional safeguards. Now is the critical moment to join together with organizational supporters of global democracy, such as Democracy Without Borders USA and Citizens for Global Solutions, or even those in your local community, to proactively address institutional weaknesses. Simply upholding the democratic system as it exists today will not protect us from such encroachment; it will merely delay it.
by Lawrence Wittner | Apr 27, 2026 | Peace & Disarmament
If the objective of the U.S. war upon Iran is to ensure that that country does not develop nuclear weapons, that goal was attained more than a decade ago through a far different approach than the one now being followed by the Trump administration.
Iran, as a signer of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of 1970, had agreed to forgo the development of nuclear weapons. Even so, fears grew during the early 21st century that Iran’s uranium enrichment program, used for peaceful purposes, might be diverted to the development of the Bomb, thereby throwing the volatile Middle East into yet another crisis, including a frenzied nuclear arms race.
As a result, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France) and Germany began lengthy negotiations with Iran, offering it various incentives to halt uranium enrichment. A key incentive was the lifting of international sanctions, which were having a severe impact on sales of Iran’s oil and, thus, its economy. After the election in 2013 of an Iranian reformer, Hassan Rouhani, as president, the negotiators came to a preliminary accord to guide their talks toward a comprehensive nuclear agreement.
The final agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was negotiated by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany, and the European Union. Signed in July 2015, it granted Iran sanctions relief in exchange for significant restrictions on its nuclear program. These included Iran’s agreement to ban production of highly enriched uranium or plutonium, ensure that its key nuclear facilities pursued only civilian work, and limit the numbers and types of centrifuges that it could operate. In addition, Iran agreed to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog, unfettered access to its nuclear facilities and undeclared sites.
In the United States, the Iran nuclear agreement was strongly supported by the Obama administration, which played a key role in securing it, and by Democrats, but denounced by Republicans. Jeb Bush, then a leading presidential contender, called it “dangerous, deeply flawed, and short-sighted,” while U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham claimed that it was a “death sentence for the state of Israel.” Indeed, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister, lobbied ferociously against U.S. acceptance of the Iran agreement, furiously attacking it as a “historic mistake.”
Despite the opposition, the agreement went into effect in January 2016 and, initially, had smooth sailing. The IAEA certified that Iran was keeping its commitments, nations repealed or suspended their sanctions, Iran’s oil exports surged, and the United States and European nations unfroze about $100 billion of Iran’s frozen assets.
In May 2018, however, Donald Trump, Obama’s successor as President, breaking with America’s European allies, unilaterally withdrew the U.S. government from the Iran agreement and announced the reimposition of oil and banking sanctions. “It is clear to me that we cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of this deal,” Trump announced. Assailing the Iran agreement as “defective to its core,” Trump condemned it for failing to deal with Iran’s ballistic missile program and its proxy warfare in the Middle East, as well as for the agreement’s 10-year sunset provision.
In response, Iranian President Rouhani, stating that the U.S. government had failed to “respect its commitment,” declared that he had “ordered the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran to be ready for action if needed, so that if necessary we can resume our enrichment on an industrial level without any limitations.” Even so, he promised, he would wait to speak about this with allies and the other signatories to the agreement.
Thereafter, things went downhill. Although France, Germany, and Britain sought to keep the agreement alive by evading the U.S. banking sanctions through a barter system, this effort eventually collapsed. Meanwhile, Trump got into a verbal brawl with Rouhani, threatening Iran with what he called “CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE.” Ultimately, Iran began exceeding the agreed-upon limits to its stockpile, enriching uranium to higher concentrations, and developing new centrifuges.
Although Joe Biden, as a 2020 presidential candidate, promised to rejoin the Iran nuclear agreement and “to work with our allies to strengthen and extend it,” by the time he was in office the relationship with Iran had deteriorated too far to make this feasible. Coming under a new, more reactionary leadership, the Iranian regime grew more repressive, as well as more distant from the United States and more politically toxic. As a result, a new agreement was increasingly out of reach.
In retrospect, are there any lessons that can be learned from these events?
One is that, to the degree that the development of nuclear weapons by Iran is currently a problem, it is a result of Trump’s decision to pull out of the JCPOA. Or as Biden put it years ago, Trump’s pullout from the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement was “a self-inflicted disaster.”
Another is that getting a country to forgo nuclear weapons development is easier to accomplish through international―and especially UN Security Council―action than through unilateral action. A threat from one nation to another can easily be viewed and dismissed as bullying. But pressure from a worldwide organization representing the community of nations has greater impact.
More generally, if nations are going to be asked (or pressured) to forgo development of nuclear weapons, it is useful to have a framework that treats nations equally. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty fosters this equality through a bargain, in which the non-nuclear nations forgo building nuclear weapons in exchange for the nuclear nations eliminating their own nuclear arsenals. The next time the President of the United States or the Prime Minister of Israel threatens to annihilate Iranian civilization, someone might remind him of that.
