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 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.
by Lawrence Wittner | Apr 15, 2026 | Peace & Disarmament
On April 1, 2026, Donald Trump startled the world by publicly declaring that he was “absolutely without question” considering withdrawing the United States from the 77-year-old NATO alliance. Trump’s remarks came only hours after Pete Hegseth, his Defense Secretary, declined to reaffirm the U.S. government’s commitment to NATO’s collective defense.
Actually, the Trump administration’s recent trashing of NATO was less shocking than it appeared. During Trump’s two terms in office, he derided the alliance from the start, developed a warm relationship with its foremost adversary (Vladimir Putin), withdrew U.S. support from embattled Ukraine, called for U.S. annexation of Canada (a NATO member), threatened a military takeover of Greenland (a territory of Denmark, a NATO member), and failed to consult his NATO allies about launching a U.S. war on Iran. Indeed, the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy of December 2025 outlined a sharp shift in U.S. policy from collective action through NATO toward a heavy reliance on U.S. military power.
In line with his “America First” rhetoric, Trump has reverted to an old U.S. tradition―narrow nationalism―and all that entails in terms of militarism, war, and imperialism.
Nationalism has long played an important role in an unruly and ungoverned world. Within nations, law prevailed to at least some extent, limiting crime and violence. But, when it came to international affairs, the situation more closely resembled every nation for itself. In this context, many a nation adopted a go-it-alone strategy, employing military power and, on occasion, war as its rulers sought to maintain or secure whatever they viewed as in its national interest.
Over time, however, national rulers realized that their nations’ military strength could be enhanced by having allies―at least if the members of the alliance could agree upon a satisfactory division of the spoils in the event of a victory over their foes. From the standpoint of national security and, at times, survival, alliances among nations seemed to have advantages over go-it-alone nationalism. Alliances not only provided a remedy for the comparative weakness of small nations in a dangerous world, but added an element of collective decision-making in the realm of international affairs. Furthermore, by fostering cooperation among allied nations, alliances limited the danger of conflict or war among them.
Even so, as people learned only too well, alliances were hardly foolproof. Most notably, they failed to prevent two disastrous world wars.
Consequently, against the backdrop of massive slaughter in the First World War, government officials began exploring a new approach to national security: international organization. In a largely lawless, anarchic world, argued U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, a League of Nations would provide the institutional framework for international cooperation and peace. Amid much fanfare, the League was established in 1920.
The League, however, remained a weak organization, constrained in taking effective action for peace by the requirement of unanimous agreement among its member nations and, more fundamentally, by the unwillingness of “the great powers” to depart from their traditional approaches to world affairs. Despite Wilson’s prominent role in creating the League, the U.S. Senate rejected U.S. membership. Meanwhile, major nations continued to enhance their military might and to squabble over raw materials, territory, and colonies. As a result, within a generation, the world had plunged into the Second World War, the most destructive conflict in human history, culminating in the development and use of nuclear weapons.
Toward the end of the Second World War, the anti-fascist allies were sufficiently sobered by the calamitous nature of the war to make another try at international organization. The new international entity, the United Nations, had some advantages over its predecessor. These included participation by all the great powers, a Charter that clearly banned international aggression, a General Assembly of all member nations with decisions made by majority vote, and considerable respect by member nations and the public.
And, subsequently, the United Nations did manage to resolve numerous international conflicts, to facilitate the end of colonialism, to secure worldwide definitions of human rights, and to institute a broad array of programs that improved the health and living standards of billions of people around the globe.
Nevertheless, although an advance over its ill-fated predecessor, the United Nations has remained a loose confederation of countries without the authority and strength necessary to curb destructive behavior by the world’s most powerful nations. All too often, action to maintain international peace and security has been subverted by the great power veto in the UN Security Council, as has been the case in recent years in connection with international military aggression by Russia, Israel, and the United States. Lacking an independent source of funding, the United Nations faces the prospect of reducing or terminating vital programs whenever major powers decide to punish it by cutting back contributions and required dues payments.
Currently, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Benjamin Netanyahu, and their rightwing counterparts, outraged at attempts by international organizations to enforce international law, are working zealously to undermine the United Nations and other international bodies―for example, the International Criminal Court―as part of their campaigns to silence their critics and restore their own national “greatness.”
To judge from the blood-stained history of narrow nationalism, this reversion to a go-it-alone approach to world affairs represents a recipe for disaster. Nor does an alliance approach offer a satisfactory improvement.
But the record of international organization is more promising. Why not strengthen the United Nations by granting it new, expanded authority to enforce international law, human rights, and world peace? The United Nations could even be reshaped into a democratic federation of nations, which, among other things, would enact world laws and prosecute individuals who violate them. In fact, an international campaign is already underway to authorize a UN review conference to strengthen and transform the world organization.
Rather than throw up our hands at the latest outbreak of horrific violence by marauding nationalist bullies, let’s use the challenge afforded by the current international crisis to create a new and better world.
But the record of international organization is more promising. Why not strengthen the United Nations by granting it new, expanded authority to enforce international law, human rights, and world peace? The United Nations could even be reshaped into a democratic federation of nations, which, among other things, would enact world laws and prosecute individuals who violate them. In fact, an international campaign is already underway to authorize a UN review conference to strengthen and transform the world organization.
Rather than throw up our hands at the latest outbreak of horrific violence by marauding nationalist bullies, let’s use the challenge afforded by the current international crisis to create a new and better world.
by Lawrence Wittner | Mar 13, 2026 | Global Justice
The U.S. military attack upon Iran is but the latest indication that the system of international law―which provides guidelines for the behavior of nations in world affairs―is crumbling.
In the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, after thousands of years of violent international conflict, efforts to establish global norms for nations in connection with war, diplomacy, economic relations, and human rights accelerated. These efforts resulted in the founding of the United Nations (which develops, codifies, and enforces international law), the International Court of Justice (which settles legal disputes among nations and provides advisory opinions on legal questions), and the International Criminal Court (which investigates and tries individuals charged with the gravest crimes of concern to the international community).
Of course, the current U.S. military attack on Iran flies in the face of the UN Charter, which, in Article 2, states that “all Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means” and that they “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Furthermore, contemptuous of the United Nations, Trump has withdrawn the U.S. government from dozens of UN agencies and blocked the U.S. government’s payment of billions of dollars in mandatory dues to the world organization.
Other nations are also clearly out of line with international law. The Russian government’s over four years of war and occupation of Ukrainian territory are flagrant violations of the UN Charter, as attested to by a ruling of the International Court of Justice and numerous overwhelming condemnations by the UN General Assembly. The Israeli government is also a prominent transgressor, having joined the U.S. military assault on Iran and conducted an illegal occupation of conquered Palestinian territory for decades while violating international humanitarian law in its treatment of the civilian population.
Disgusted by the ability of these and other nations to act with impunity, Majed al-Ansari, Qatar’s foreign policy advisor, remarked bitterly in 2025: “We are moving into a system where anybody can do whatever they like. . . . As long as you have the ability to wreak havoc, you can do it because no one will hold you accountable.”
This lack of accountability is striking. Within nations, there is usually effective enforcement of law. But, on the global level, law enforcement is weak, indeed. When the International Criminal Court announced warrants for the arrests of Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes, a former Russian president threatened the judges with a hypersonic missile attack and the U.S. government imposed heavy sanctions on the judges. Meanwhile, Putin and Netanyahu remain at large.
Scornful of international law, some national officials openly champion a return to the traditional might-makes-right conduct of international affairs. “You can talk all you want about international niceties,” said Stephen Miller, Trump’s influential White House aide, “but we live in . . . the real world . . . that is governed by strength, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”
Naturally, officials of nations that are militarily powerful find a power politics approach appealing, as do people with militarist and nationalist views. Trump recently announced: “I don’t need international law.”
Conversely, officials of less powerful nations are dismayed by the resurrection of a might-makes-right standard, as are people with peace-oriented and internationalist views. They argue that what the world needs is not the abandonment of international law, but its more effective enforcement. Furthermore, they contend that a return to great power imperialism in a world bristling with modern weapons, including nuclear weapons, is a recipe for catastrophe.
But if effective enforcement of international law is preferable to a power politics approach to world affairs, can that effective enforcement be attained?
There are certainly feasible, small-scale actions along these lines that could be taken. One is to increase the number of nations that accept compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Currently, only 75 nations of the 193 UN member states do so. Another is to increase the number of nations that are parties to the statute of the International Criminal Court. The current number is 125, and does not include the United States, Russia, China, and Israel.
Even the use of the veto in the UN Security Council―employed most frequently by the U.S. and Russian governments―could be limited to some degree. One way is to simply enforce Article 27 in the UN Charter providing that a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting on that dispute. Another―championed by France and Mexico―is to exclude the veto in situations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
Also, of course, deadbeat nations could be pressured into paying their UN dues―for example, by denying them their vote in the UN General Assembly.
More thoroughgoing action would be difficult to secure, but not impossible. Perhaps the leading obstacle to a substantial strengthening of the United Nations and the international law it seeks to develop and enforce is the provision in the UN Charter that all five permanent members of the Security Council (the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France) must agree to any change in the Charter. Nevertheless, the Charter also provides that a two-thirds vote by the General Assembly and by any nine members of the Security Council can produce a Charter review conference. Consequently, there is now a significant campaign underway to call for one. And, if such a meeting is held, perhaps after the current crop of aging, reactionary officials has passed from the scene, who really knows what will occur?
Admittedly, the prospects aren’t good for halting the return of nations to their traditional practices of war and imperialism.
Even so, if people can create the scientific and technological marvels of the modern world, they might also be capable of developing ways to stop killing one another.
