by Lawrence Wittner | Oct 25, 2017 | Peace & Disarmament
In recent months, advances in the North Korean government’s nuclear weapons program have led to a sharp confrontation between the government leaders of the United States and of North Korea. This August, President Donald Trump declared that any more threats from North Korea “will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.” In turn, Kim Jong Un remarked that he was now contemplating firing nuclear missiles at the U.S. territory of Guam. Heightening the dispute, Trump told the United Nations in mid-September that, if the United States was forced to defend itself or its allies, “we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.” Soon thereafter, Trump embellished this with a tweet declaring that North Korea “won’t be around much longer.”
From the standpoint of heading off nuclear weapons advances by the North Korean regime, this belligerent approach by the U.S. government has shown no signs of success. Every taunt by U.S. officials has drawn a derisive reply from their North Korean counterparts. Indeed, when it comes to nuclear weapons policy, escalating U.S. threats seem to have confirmed the North Korean government’s fears of U.S. military attack and, thus, bolstered its determination to enhance its nuclear capabilities. In short, threatening North Korea with destruction has been remarkably counter-productive.
But, leaving aside the wisdom of U.S. policy, why is the U.S. government playing a leading role in this situation at all? The charter of the United Nations, signed by the United States, declares in Article 1 that the United Nations has the responsibility “to maintain international peace and security” and, to that end, is “to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace.” Not only does the UN charter not grant authority to the United States or any other nation to serve as the guardian of the world, but it declares, in Article 2, that “all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” It’s pretty clear that both the U.S. and North Korean governments are violating that injunction.
Moreover, the United Nations is already involved in efforts to limit North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. The UN Security Council has not only condemned the behavior of the North Korean government on numerous occasions, but has imposed stiff economic sanctions upon it.
Will further UN action have any more success in dealing with North Korea than the Trump policy has had? Perhaps not, but at least the United Nations would not begin by threatening to incinerate North Korea’s 25 million people. Instead, to ease the tense United States-North Korea standoff, the United Nations might offer to serve as a mediator in negotiations. In such negotiations, it could suggest that, in exchange for a halt to the North Korean nuclear weapons program, the United States agree to a peace treaty ending the Korean War of the 1950s and halt U.S. military exercises on North Korea’s borders. Giving way to a UN-brokered compromise rather than to U.S. nuclear blackmail might well be appealing to the North Korean government. Meanwhile, the United Nations could keep moving forward with its Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons―a measure both Kim and Trump despise (and might, in their opposition to it, even bring them closer together), but is very appealing to most other countries.
Critics, of course, say that the United Nations is too weak to deal with North Korea or other nations that ignore the will of the world community. And they are not entirely incorrect. Although UN pronouncements and decisions are almost invariably praiseworthy, they are often rendered ineffective by the absence of UN resources and power to enforce them.
But the critics do not follow the logic of their own argument for, if the United Nations is too weak to play a completely satisfactory role in maintaining international peace and security, then the solution is to strengthen it. After all, the answer to international lawlessness is not vigilante action by individual nations but, rather, the strengthening of international law and law enforcement. In the aftermath of the vast chaos and destruction of World War II, that’s what the nations of the world claimed they wanted when, in late 1945, they established the United Nations.
Unfortunately, however, as the years passed, the great powers largely abandoned a United Nations-centered strategy based on collective action and world law for the old-fashioned exercise of their own military muscle. Unwilling to accept limits on their national power in world affairs, they and their imitators began engaging in arms races and wars. The current nightmarish nuclear confrontation between the North Korean and U.S. governments is only the latest example of this phenomenon.
Of course, it’s not too late to finally recognize that, in a world bristling with nuclear weapons, savage wars, accelerating climate change, rapidly-depleting resources, and growing economic inequality, we need a global entity to take the necessary actions for which no single nation has sufficient legitimacy, power, or resources. And that entity is clearly a strengthened United Nations. To leave the world’s future in the hands of nationalist blowhards or even prudent practitioners of traditional national statecraft will simply continue the drift toward catastrophe.
by Rene Wadlow | Jul 19, 2017 | Peace & Disarmament
On 7 July 2017, at the United Nations in New York, a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was voted by 122 Member States, one Member State, the Netherlands, voted against, and one Member State, Singapore, abstained. The nuclear-weapon States did not participate in the drafting of the Treaty.
Immediately after the positive vote, the delegations of the USA, the United Kingdom, and France issued a joint press statement saying that “This initiative clearly disregards the realities of the international security environment… This treaty offers no solution to the grave threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear program, nor does it address other security challenges that made nuclear deterrence necessary.”
Article I of the Treaty sets out its basic intention: to prohibit all activities involving nuclear weapons including to develop, test, produce, manufacture, acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons and to use, threaten to use, transfer, station, install or deploy these weapons.
The Treaty will be open for signature and thus the start of the process of ratification at the start of the U.N. General Assembly on 20 September 2017. 50 ratifications are necessary for the Treaty to come into force. 21 September is the World Day for Peace, set by the U.N. General Assembly in 1981. The theme this year is “Together for Peace: Respect, Safety and Dignity for All”.
The Association of World Citizens believes that signing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons would be a most appropriate way to mark the Day of Peace and its theme “Together for Peace”. The Association of World Citizens warmly welcomes the Treaty and expresses its deep appreciation to the U.N. secretariat, the delegates of the Member States, and fellow non-governmental organization representatives who have worked to achieve this common goal, an important step toward a world free of the threats posed by nuclear weapons.
World Citizens were among those who called for the abolition of nuclear weapons shortly after their first use on Japan, and many Japanese world citizens have constantly participated in efforts toward their abolition.
World Citizens have also stressed that the abolition of nuclear weapons is part of a larger effort of disarmament and the peaceful settlement of disputes. At each 5-year review of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), World Citizens have stressed that Article VI of the NPT has not been fulfilled by the nuclear-weapon States. Article VI says that “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” Unfortunately, the issue of general and complete disarmament and forms of verification and control are no longer topics on the world agenda.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons follows what has been called The Hague Law tradition of the banning of weapons because of their humanitarian consequences, a tradition first stressed in Saint Petersburg in 1868 and which was at the heart of the two peace conferences of The Hague in 1899 and 1907. This tradition has led to the ban on poison gas by the 1925 Geneva Protocol as well as the more recent bans on chemical weapons, biological weapons, anti-personnel land mines, and cluster munitions. A conference of U.N. Member States was held in Vienna, Austria on the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons which brought up-to-date the many reports and studies on the impact of the use of nuclear weapons on humans and Nature. Thus the emphasis of the negotiations on the Treaty concerned more humanitarian consequences rather than arms control issues.
World Citizens have always stressed that the abolition of nuclear weapons and other disarmament measures must be accompanied by efforts to strengthen world institutions that can skillfully address conflicts as early as possible. Acting together, all States and peoples can help to define a dynamic vision and program for achieving global security that is realistic and achievable. Progress toward a cosmopolitan, humanist world society requires the development of effective norms, procedures and institutions.
Thus, the start of a speedy ratification procedure of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons on 21 September, Day of Peace, would be a sign to the peoples of the world that there is at the world level a vision of this crucial step toward a world of peace and justice.
by Citizens for Global Solutions | Jul 6, 2017 | Peace & Disarmament
These are self-evident truths:
That all humans are a single family living on a fragile and endangered planet whose life support systems must remain intact if we are to survive;
That the well-being of the planet and the well-being of humanity are one and the same;
That the well-being of each requires the well-being of all—security is common;
That all humans have a natural right to peace and a healthy planet;
That all war is a crime against humanity and nature;
That any war anywhere degrades the quality of life for all of us everywhere;
That we live at the decisive moment in history when we will choose between break down or breakthrough on a planetary scale;
That we here now dedicate our intellectual, spiritual and material resources to the establishment of permanent peace and the conservation of nature, and,
That we are fully endowed by our Creator with the wisdom and the ability to achieve these ends.
We live at a unique and dangerous moment in history, an unprecedented planetary emergency defined by permanent war, the threat of nuclear annihilation which still lurks just over the horizon, and our rapidly deteriorating ecological life-support base. But it is also a moment of opportunity, the chance for a great turning—away from war and environmental destruction to a civilization based on peace, justice and sustainability. To make the turn we need to reject the old story that the world is a zero sum game, that violence will ensure us security, that nature is just so much stuff we can rearrange for our out-of-control consumerist culture, and that we are the masters of nature. We have lived under these dysfunctional illusions too long. We need to recognize ancient and eternal truths. The Declaration of Peace is meant to be a concise and compelling statement of these truths and it is my conviction that if we spread them around the world they will be recognized and we will make the turn toward a new era in planetary history. We really have no other choice.
Kent Shifferd is a writer and lecturer who taught environmental history and ethics and directed a peace studies program at Northland College (Wisconsin) for many years. He is author of From War to Peace: A Guide to the Next Hundred Years, and other works and has just finished the manuscript for a new book, The Planetary Emergency. He blogs at Peace With Each Other and the Earth, at wordpress.com.
by Lucy Webster | Apr 9, 2017 | Global Justice, Peace & Disarmament
Ever since President Obama drew a red line to prevent further use of poison gas by Bashar al-Assad to murder Syrian citizens, I have advocated action to enforce the treaty against the use of such weapons. The U.S. Congress refused to review and endorse Obama’s call for action because Russia and other supporters of Assad said they would remove the remaining poison gas from Syria and take it to Russia. However, they did not actually fulfill this commitment. This lack of action was wrong, morally and legally.
Now, we can move forward—carefully. Let us take creative notice of the fact that Russia and Iran have been acting as the protectors of the use of poison gas. Let us state that clearly. Let us, the United States of America, stand for international law and justice for people worldwide. Let us continue to mend relationships with Arab leaders who also support law and justice. Let us continue our efforts to defeat ISIS and its violence against the people of Syria, Iraq and other nations, but let us note that this is above all a war of ideas. It is basically a war for human rights and a struggle for a peaceful world.
One important aspect of the situation is the fact that President Bashar al-Assad and his father, Hafiz al-Assad, are part of an ethnic-religious group, the Alawi, that represents only a small part of the population of Syria. This group does not need to rule all of Syria in order to have safety for themselves. Russia could be allowed to continue leasing the naval base in the Mediterranean on the Western edge of Syria. This matter could be negotiated as an end in itself and as part of an effort to improve Russian-US relations. Assuring Bashar al-Assad and/or his supporters control of Western Syria could open the way to free and fair elections for the rest of Syria, supervised by the UN, which has extensive experience supervising elections. This proposed solution would also provide space for many Kurds to live in peace and prosperity.
This Blog comes from Lucy Law Webster who worked as a Political Affairs Officer in the UN Department for Disarmament Affairs during the period when the International Protocol on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons was drafted, negotiated and ratified.
by Donna Park | Aug 9, 2016 | Peace & Disarmament, World Federation
On Tuesday, August 9, the Cincinnati Peace Committee held a memorial at the World Peace Bell in Newport KY to remember and honor civilian casualties of war. August 9 is the 71st anniversary of the atomic bombing of the city of Nagasaki, Japan which happened 3 days after the annihilation of Hiroshima. 120,000 people were killed on these 2 days and tens of thousands would later die of radiation exposure. Most of these people were civilians.
In spite of the attempt to protect civilians with international treaties, the killing of civilians during war is an even larger problem today. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reports that civilian fatalities account for more than 90% of all deaths in the wars that started since the 1990s.
Recently there was a report that US led airstrikes in Syria accidently killed more than 80 civilians, mostly woman and children. This tragedy was practically ignored by the US media compared to the coverage of the terrorist attack in Nice that was of the same magnitude. The US media mostly ignores civilian casualties of war caused by the US. This lack of media coverage leaves our citizens woefully uninformed as to the loss of life and terror we inflict on the people of other nations, and results in our lack of understanding as to why there is such strong and growing anti-American sentiment.
We believe that US citizens need to be aware that our military is killing more civilians than soldiers in our ongoing wars. We need to demand that our nation find other ways to make the world safe for us and for democracy, a way that is better than our current reliance on violence which kills innocent people and gives birth to terrorists resulting in even more violence.
US history shows us a better way. Before the signing of our constitution, the states formed a confederation and each had a militia that was called out to resolve disputes between the states on the battlefield. With the signing of our constitution we became a federation of states and we agreed to solve our disputes in the court of law instead of on the battlefield.
We can do that now at the global level by transforming the United Nations into a democratic, representative federation of nations and agreeing to solve international disputes in the court of law instead of with military force. Imagine the money we would save and how that money could be better spent to deal with social issues and care for our planet. Imagine the lives we would save: lives of our military men and women as well as civilians. Please check out http://globalsolutions.org/issues/global-democracy-governance to learn more about the issue of global democracy and governance.
by Jennifer Keck | Jul 7, 2016 | Human Rights, Peace & Disarmament
Ready or not, Rio de Janeiro will host the 2016 Summer Olympics in August. The Brazilian city, which is set to receive one million visitors, has long been plagued by violent crime and police brutality—a security risk for both athletes and tourists. In order to combat these fears, Brazil loaned $895 million to the city to keep the peace. But there is another, often neglected group, that also deserves protection: Rio de Janeiro’s residents.
Combined with the numbers on police violence, Brazil’s security policy gives NGOs and observers reason to pause. Police in the state of Rio de Janeiro were responsible for 436 killings in 2014 alone, according to Human Rights Watch. And no fewer than 85,000 security officers will be deployed throughout the games. (Forces include civilian and military police, National Public Security Force soldiers, members of the armed forces, and privately funded brigades.)
Police Brutality
Brazil’s extreme security measures might make visitors feel more at home, but the same can’t be said for millions of residents who face high rates of homicides committed by police. These security operations to reduce crime before events such as the World Cup or the Olympics often threaten the local population, according to Amnesty International.
Since 2009 (when Brazil was awarded the 2016 Games), “2,500 people have been killed by the police in the city of Rio alone, and justice has only been served in a negligible number of cases,” said Atila Roque, executive director of Amnesty Brazil, in the NGO’s latest report. Over the past 10 years, police have killed nearly two people per day, on average.
Social Cleansing
In addition to violence, the police are known for unlawfully detaining homeless people as well as black youth and poor people heading to the beach. They even evict residents in the name of what the United Nations calls “social cleansing.”
Authorities have been driving a culture of fear among these groups, according to São Paulo-based Human Rights lawyer, Karina Quintanilha. “We have been witnessing heightened repression since the mass protests of June 2013, not only on the part of the police but also the political and judicial authorities,” she told Equal Times.
New Justice Minister Alexandre de Moraes follows this hard line. He invested heavily in anti-riot equipment, developed new tactics for restoring order, and reinforced the criminalization of protesters’ actions in his previous post as Secretary for Public Security in the state of São Paulo.
“It’s as if the state of São Paulo has been his testing ground. And no one knows what he could do on the scale of Brazil,” said Quintanilha.
Loss of Freedom
An anti-terrorism law, approved in March, gives judges a wide margin for interpretation when it comes to protesters and could curtain freedom of expression and assembly. Denouncements of abuses tied to preparation for the Games may now fall under this law.
Likewise, emergency legislation requested by the International Olympics Committee (IOC), the General Law of the Olympic Games, will restrict freedom of movement and assembly in specific areas and includes penalties of up to one year in prison for anyone using or misusing the “Olympic brand” for critical ends.
The possibility of taking a more critical look at the intersection of human rights and security may have passed this time around, but Brazil must be a lesson for both the Olympic host and the IOC. The Olympic Games should be a celebration of athletic performance and national pride—not an excuse to curtain freedom.
