Author: Assistant Coordinator

Oleg Bodrov – Board Member

Oleg V. Bodrov is an engineer-physicist, environmentalist, former member of the Council of IPB, chairman of the Public Council of the South Coast of the Gulf of Finland, St. Petersburg, Russia. He was elected as IPB board member in October 2022.

One of the leaders of the Russian peace, environmental protection and nuclear safety movements. In coalition with partners from the Baltic Sea countries is working to reduce the level of confrontation between NATO and Russia in the Baltic.

One of the organizers of the campaign “The Baltic Sea – the sea of peace, peace among people and environmental protection!

The author of reports at international anti-war conferences in Helsinki, Paris, New York, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. Producer of documentaries on the consequences of nuclear weapons production and “peaceful nuclear energy, which are translated into English, German and Japanese. Promotes safe decommissioning of nuclear power plants based on world best practices and democratic participation of authorities, the nuclear industry and the public.

Dr. Lisa Linda Natividad – Board Member

Dr. Lisa Linda Natividad has been elected as IPB board member in October 2022.

She is a Professor of Social Work at the University of Guam. Lisa is also the primary convener of the Guahan Coalition for Peace and Justice and a founding member of I Hagan Famalao’an Guahan.   She is an indigenous CHamoru who has championed the exposure of the human rights violations against her people and homeland Guahan, which is a military colony of the United States.  She has spoken globally on the topics of demilitarization, decolonization, and the critical role women play in the creation of safe and thriving communities.  Dr. Natividad has presented interventions on the halting of the massive military build-up on Guahan before the United Nations Fourth Committee, Decolonization Committee, and the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.  She is a former member of the Guam Decolonization Commission and has spoken on these issues in Japan, the Philippines, the Untied States, Norway, Ecuador, Fiji, and other countries.  Dr. Natividad joined the IPB Council in March 2021.

Kate Hudson – Board Member

Kate Hudson has been elected as IPB board member in October 2022.

Kate is currently General Secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). She have held that post since 2010 and prior to that she was Chair of CND from 2003 to 2010. Before employment with CND, she was Head of Social and Policy Studies at London South Bank University. By profession she is a historian and has a PhD from the University of London, School of Slavonic and East European Studies.

60 Years of the Cuban Missile Crisis – A message by Noam Chomsky

Sixty years ago, the world experienced a direct and dangerous confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union, when the two superpowers came closest to a nuclear conflict in the midst of the Cold War. The leaders from both countries engaged in a tense, 13-day political and military standoff in October 1962 over the installation of nuclear-armed Soviet missiles on Cuba, just 90 miles from U.S. shores.

YouTube

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube’s privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

Sixty years later, the world finds itself living a confrontation that flirts and mentions the threats of nuclear armament. These past months we came close to seeing how mistakes from the past still reverberate, and that on present days we need more than ever a look back to understand the seriousness of even considering the use of such weapons.

In this message, Noam Chomsky enlightens us with his experience tracing a parallel between present struggles and the Cuban Missile Crisis, highlighting different and common characteristics, and pointing out aspects that can guide us through the resolution of such conflicts in current times.

More info:

www.ipb.org

www.cpdcs.org

An Appeal for Peace in Armenia

We Demand Peace!

We, a group of people who stand for peace, from the post-Soviet space
and its neighborhood exhausted by never-ending wars and growing
imperialist rivalry on our territories, are full of rage as we have
observed Azerbaijan’s recent large-scale attack on Armenia. This,
coupled with Russian Federation’s attack on Ukraine and the renewed
military clashes in border areas between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan,
raises heavy concerns regarding possible future escalations not only
in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict but all other conflicts in the
post-Soviet space.

The recent attack on Armenia has costed hundreds of lives within two
days from both sides of the conflict, caused serious destruction to
civil infrastructure in Armenia, displaced thousands, and further
widened the gap between the countries and their people. We raise our
persistent voices against the continuing warfare.

The second Karabakh war two years ago was a devastating experience,
from which the Armenian and Azerbaijani societies have not yet
recovered and remain deeply antagonized. Officials need to finally
understand that military means cannot solve the conflict but they only
deepen the divide between the two countries and cause more violence
and human suffering. We welcome the truce that halted the violence on
September 15 and demand for permanent return to the negotiation table
without any further escalations or violence.

The Azerbaijani side should realize that the “corridors” cannot be
opened, and a peace treaty cannot be achieved through military
aggression. Such prospects are unacceptable for people whose daily
lives would presumably be crossed over by these “corridors,” as they
will not let borderland populations on both sides cooperate with each
other. No one can be forced into peace. Officials in Armenia, in turn,
should recognize the damage their rigid negotiation position had done
for over 30 years, including the displacement of hundreds of thousands
of Azerbaijanis, and their refusal to compromise and settle the
conflict in a timely manner.

Negotiations “mediated” behind closed doors, that do not take into
consideration the livelihood and human needs of people affected, are
doomed to fail. The best mediators for interstate negotiations are
non-state peace-oriented/peacebuilding communities of both countries
who have a great experience of overcoming their own disputes and
facilitating dialogues between other people from their countries with
antagonistic positions.

We see the clear connection of the developments in
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and peace processes with the dynamics of
the war in Ukraine. The deadly war in Ukraine has caused great
turbulence and instabilities in the wider region, exposing the simple
truth that violence creates more violence. There is no military
solution to any conflict and human life is of absolute value. The only
priority should be nonmilitary diplomatic solutions that are always
possible regardless of whatever statesmen try to convince us. The
inability or unwillingness of states to solve the problems through
non-violent means and ensure human security can no longer be
tolerated.

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, we’ve lived through decades
of violence. We continue to suffer through regularly recurring warfare
on the territory of Ukraine, Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan,
and Kyrgyzstan. We are deeply concerned about overt attempts to reopen
the Moldovan/Transdniestrian, Georgian/Abkhaz and Georgian/Ossetian
conflicts. The confrontation between NATO and the Russian Federation
on the territory of Ukraine is playing out primarily at the expense of
lives of people in Ukraine and, increasingly, residents of Russian
regions adjacent to Ukraine. Moreover, hundreds of military men from
Ukraine and Russia are killed daily.

If we stay on the current trajectory, it is only a matter of time
until the ongoing and recurring warfare in different regions of
Eurasia will synergize with one another and with wars in other parts
of this world, turning into a bigger regional or global war and
sacrificing more and more people from numerous countries.

We cannot afford this! We do not call for peace – we demand peace! We
demand that governments commit to non-use of force, to engage in
genuine search for diplomatic solutions that prioritize human
security, and to stop interfering with, and better yet, support
people-to-people contacts and peacebuilding.

We demand that international actors involved in the official
negotiations ensure that the voices of people affected by conflict are
heard and that people-to-people negotiations and human security
considerations are at least on an equal footing with the official
negotiation process.

For more information: https://postsovietpeace.mailchimpsites.com/

To join the statement, send us your full name, country and profession
at postsovietpeace@gmail.com.




Chile: Who won? Those same as always

– by Pablo Ruiz (19/09/2022)

With 61.86% of the votes cast, the triumphal rejection to the proposal for a New Constitution in Chile, on the September 4th plebiscite, should invite us to a profound reflection on the exercise of democracy and its contradictions, such as the strong impact of the hegemonic media dominated by conservative sectors in Chile.

A truthful democratic country would never have a constitution whose origins and birth arise in a military dictatorship. Unfortunately, in the case of Chile, we have been governed for more than 32 years by the 1980s Constitution imposed during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet and tolerated, by the political elite, in this long transition to a true democracy.

The Constitution of 1980 has been the fundamental pillar through which the model of neoliberal and individualistic society has been maintained, in which economic, social, and cultural rights, among others, are not guaranteed to the majority of the population. According to a 2020 study by the World Inequality Database, with available information of 175 countries, Chile is the 8th country in the world with the highest concentration of wealth, where the 10% with the highest income gets 60.2 % of the country’s total income.

The Proposal for the New Constitution, which was rejected, stated that workers must have equitable, fair, and sufficient salaries. That all people have the right to health, education, housing, to care and to be cared for, to not suffer violence or torture, to fair trials. It recognized domestic work, the rights of our elders and children, of diversity, nature, native peoples, of the disabled. There are so many and, in a few words, it enshrined human rights so that people could live with full dignity.

It also stated that our nation “is committed to maintaining the region as a zone of peace” and that the Armed Forces and the police must “act with respect for international law and the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution.” However, these proposals were rejected by a large majority of the Chilean population, incredible as it may seem.

The power of big media

The proposal for a New Constitution for Chile, which has been rejected, represented a major danger to the economic interests of the Chilean elite and the large corporations that control and concentrate the wealth generated in Chile. We can then understand why the US newspaper Financial Times was right when it noted in an editorial that “Chile’s decision to forcefully reject a utopian constitution” is “a remarkable example of civic maturity.”

Some say that it has been a punishment for the management of the new president Gabriel Boric, who is facing, as in many countries in the world, high economic inflation and that, logically, it affects broad social sectors. However, Gabriel Boric won the presidential elections with 55.87% of the votes in his favor – particularly, he obtained 4,620,890 votes. In his elections, voting was voluntary and 55% of the electorate with the right to vote chose to do it.

The option “I approve of the New Constitution Proposal” obtained 4,860,093 votes, even more votes than President Gabriel Boric when he won. However, in this plebiscite the vote was mandatory and the rejection option prevailed with 7,886,434 votes. Many factors can explain the Rejection of the New Constitution proposal. Some of them could be:

1 – During the last elections close to 50% of Chileans who have the right to vote did not vote and it is surely the first time they exercised this right. Why didn’t they vote voluntarily earlier? This sector of the population is very disinterested in the entire political system and in Chilean democracy, which is why they have not participated.

2 – The neoliberal system has strengthened the culture of individualism as a way of solving one’s own needs. A large portion of the population is not fully aware that human rights are an obligation of States.

3 – Perhaps the most important factor is that the Chilean elite, with the media support of the large Chilean and foreign Press Media, controlled by the large corporations, campaigned against deep and substantial changes in Chile from the beginning.

According to the newspaper La Tercera, the Rejection campaign had 200 times more funding than the Approval campaign. The big media and propaganda played a very important role in the results that we know based on a campaign of fear based on lies and distortion of the real content that was proposed in the New Constitution.

Although the Rejection option prevailed, the path is not entirely closed for Chile to have a new Constitution that governs its destiny in the future. In the coming weeks, Congress must determine a law for the creation of a new Constitutional Convention. The members who are elected must prepare a new Constitution proposal which will very possibly go to a plebiscite in 2023. The social movements must continue working to achieve true democracy and for the consecration of human rights in a new Constitution for Chile.

– Pablo Ruiz is part of the Observatory for the Closure of the School of the Americas in Chile, and a close contact of the International Peace Bureau in Latin America.

Peace Agenda for Ukraine and the World

– Statement of the Ukrainian Pacifist Movement, adopted at the meeting of Ukrainian Pacifists on the 21st September 2022, International Day of Peace (video).

“We the Ukrainian pacifists demand and will strive to end the war by peaceful means and to protect human right to conscientious objection to military service.

Peace, not war, is the norm of human life. War is an organized mass murder. Our sacred duty is that we shall not kill. Today, when the moral compass is being lost everywhere and self-destructive support for war and the military is on the rise, it is especially important for us to maintain common sense, stay true to our non-violent way of life, build peace and support peace-loving people.

Condemning Russian aggression against Ukraine, the UN General Assembly called for an immediate peaceful resolution of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and emphasized that parties to the conflict must respect human rights and international humanitarian law. We share this position.

Current policies of war until absolute victory and contempt for criticism of human rights defenders is unacceptable and must be changed. What is needed is a ceasefire, peace talks and serious work to correct the tragic mistakes made on both sides of the conflict. Prolongation of the war has catastrophic, deadly consequences, and continues to destroy the welfare of society and environment not only in Ukraine, but throughout the world. Sooner or later, parties will sit at the negotiating table, if not after their reasonable decision, then under the pressure of unbearable suffering and weakening, the last better to be avoided by choosing the diplomatic path.

It is wrong to take the side of any of the warring armies, it is necessary to stand on the side of peace and justice. Self-defense can and should be carried out by non-violent and unarmed methods. Any brutal government is illegitimate, and nothing justifies the oppression of people and bloodshed for the illusory goals of total control or conquest of territories. No one can evade responsibility for his own misdoings by claiming to be a victim of misdoings of others. Wrong and even criminal behavior of any party cannot justify creation of a myth about an enemy with whom it is allegedly impossible to negotiate and who must be destroyed at any cost, including self-destruction. A desire for peace is a natural need of every person, and its expression cannot justify a false association with a mythical enemy.

Human right to conscientious objection to military service in Ukraine was not guaranteed according to international standards even in peacetime, not to mention the current conditions of martial law. The state shamefully avoided for decades and now continues to avoid any serious response to the relevant suggestions of the UN Human Rights Committee and public protests. Although the state cannot derogate this right even in time of war or other public emergency, as says the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the army in Ukraine refuses to respect the universally recognized right to conscientious objection to military service, denying even to replace coercive military service by mobilization with an alternative non-military service according to the direct prescription of the Constitution of Ukraine. Such scandalous disrespect to human rights should have no place under the rule of law.

The state and society must put an end to the despotism and legal nihilism of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, manifested in policies of harassment and criminal punishment for refusal to be engaged in war effort and the forced turn of civilians into soldiers, due to which civilians cannot move freely within the country nor go abroad, even if they have vital needs to rescue from danger, to obtain an education, to find means for living, professional and creative self-realization, etc.

Governments and civil societies of the world appeared to be helpless before the scourge of war, drawn into the funnel of conflict between Ukraine and Russia and wider enmity between NATO countries, Russia and China. Even the threat of destruction of all life on the planet by nuclear weapons had not put an end to the mad arms race, and the budget of the UN, the main institution of peace on Earth, is only 3 billion dollars, while global military expenditures are hundreds of times larger and have exceeded a wild amount of 2 trillion dollars. Due to their inclination to organize mass bloodshed and coerce people to kill, nation states have proven to be incapable of non-violent democratic governance and the performance of their basic functions of protecting life and freedom of people.

In our view, the escalation of armed conflicts in Ukraine and the world are caused by the fact that the existing economic, political and legal systems, education, culture, civil society, mass media, public figures, leaders, scientists, experts, professionals, parents, teachers, medics, thinkers, creative and religious actors are not fully perform their duties of strengthening the norms and values of a non-violent way of life, as envisages the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace, adopted by the UN General Assembly. Evidences of the neglected peace-building duties are the archaic and dangerous practices which must be ended: military patriotic upbringing, compulsory military service, lack of systematic public peace education, propaganda of war in the mass media, support of war by NGOs, reluctance of some human rights defenders to advocate consistently for the full realization of human rights to peace and to conscientious objection to military service. We remind stakeholders of their peace-building duties and will steadfastly insist on compliance with these duties.

We see as goals of our peace movement and all peace movements of the world to uphold human right to refuse to kill, to stop the war in Ukraine and all wars in the world, and to ensure sustainable peace and development for all the people of the planet. To achieve these goals, we will tell the truth about the evil and deception of war, learn and teach practical knowledge about peaceful life without violence or with its minimization, and we will help to the needy, especially those affected by wars and unjust coercion to support army or participation in war.

War is a crime against humanity, therefore, we are determined not to support any kind of war and to strive for the removal of all causes of war.”

Press release: 2022 MacBride Peace Prize recipients

About the Sean MacBride Peace Prize

Every year the International Peace Bureau (IPB) awards a special prize to a person or organization that has done outstanding work for peace, disarmament and/or human rights. These were the principal concerns of Séan MacBride, the distinguished Irish statesman who was Chairman of IPB from 1968-74 and President from 1974-1985. MacBride began his career as a fighter against British colonial rule, studied law and rose to high office in the independent Irish Republic. He was a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize 1974.

The Prize is a non-monetary one.

This year the IPB Board has chosen the following three winners of the prize:

Alfredo Lubang (Non-Violence International Southeast Asia)

Asya Maruket & Yurii Sheliazhenko

Hiroshi Takakusaki

Alfredo ‘Fred’ Lubang – as part of Non-Violence International Southeast Asia (NISEA), a Philippines based non-governmental organization working towards peacebuilding, disarmament and non-violence as well as regional peace processes. He holds a Master degree in Applied Conflict Transformation Studies and served on various boards of global disarmament campaigns. As the Regional Representative of NISEA and National Coordinator of the Philippine Campaign to Ban Landmines (PCBL), Fred Lubang is a recognized expert on humanitarian disarmament, peace education and decolonialization of humanitarian engagement for almost three decades. His organization NISEA served on the board of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, the Control Arms Campaign, a member of the International Coalition of Sites of Conscience, a member of the International Network on Explosive Weapons and Stop Killer Robots Campaign as well as a co-convener of the Stop Bombing campaign. Without Fred Lubang’s unflagging work and commitment – especially in the face of ongoing wars – the Philippines would not be the only country that has ratified nearly all humanitarian disarmament treaties today.

Asya Maruket & Yurii Sheliazhenko – two activists from Russia and Ukraine, whose common goal of a peaceful world seems more important today than ever before. Asya is an experienced psychologist and peace builder from Russia, who since 2011 has been active in the fields of human rights, democratic values, peace and non-violence communication aiming at a more peaceful country through cooperation and cultural exchange. She holds a Bachelor degree in Psychology and Philology and is presently working as Coordinator/Project Manager in several women’s empowerment projects. In line with her voluntary positions, Asya has been constantly working towards a safer country for women and other vulnerable society groups. Yurii Sheliazhenko is a male activist from Ukraine, who has worked towards peace, disarmament and human rights for many years and is currently serving as the Executive Secretary of the Ukrainian Pacifist Movement. He is a member of the Board of the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection as well as World BEYOND War and a lecturer and research associate at the Faculty of Law and KROK University in Kyiv. Beyond that, Yurii Sheliazhenko is a journalist and blogger persistently defending human rights. Both Asya Maruket and Yurii Sheliazhenko have raised their voices for peace – showing us what commitment and bravery looks like. 

Hiroshi Takakusaki – for his lifelong dedication to a just peace, the abolition of nuclear weapons and social justice. Hiroshi Takakusaki started his career by serving as a student and international youth movement leader and soon became involved in the Japan Council against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs (Gensuikyo). Working in several positions for Gensuikyo, he provided the vision, strategic thinking and dedication that fuelled Japan’s nationwide nuclear abolition movement, the international campaign for the abolition of nuclear weapons, and Gensuikyo’s yearly World Conference. Regarding the latter, he played a leading role in bringing high-ranking United Nations officials, ambassadors and leading figures from the field of disarmament to participate in the conference. Apart from this, Hiroshi Takakusaki’s care and unstinting support for the Hibakusha as well as his ability to build unity within the social movement demonstrate his subtlety and leadership qualities. After four decades in service to the disarmament and social movements, he is presently the Representative Director of the Japan Council against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs.

Please find the PDF version of the press release here.

Gustavo Petro’s “total peace” plan and how it could shape the notion of security in Colombia.

– Article by Angelo Cardona

In his inaugural speech, Petro said, “peace is the meaning of my life, and it is the hope of Colombia” his words resonated in the ears and hearts of an entire nation striving to overcome the grief of war.       

The killing of social leaders, exacerbation of inequality due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and increasing distrust in governmental institutions led the Colombian people to set their faith in former guerrilla fighter Gustavo Petro as the first leftist President of Colombia. Now, he joined a group of rising progressive leaders in Latin America.

Petro’s government will face an enormous challenge in rebuilding trust in the state institutions, which will require a paradigm change in how the Colombian people understand security. 

To this end, he seeks to achieve “total peace” in Colombia to prepare the ground to overcome the country’s six decades of armed conflict. The ambitious plan involves the significant advancement in the implementation of the peace agreementwith the former Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), resuming peace talks with the National Liberation Army (ELN), establishing dialogues with Colombia’s drug-trafficking militia “Clan del Golfo,” criminal groups, and the FARC dissidents. 

The peace plan comes with substantial challenges that will require the cooperation of a broad range of actors that historically have opposed previous peace agreements, particularly conservative movements. In the face of this, the government is committed to building a “national accord” to find consensus. Despite Petro’s ambitious agenda’s challenges, he is stubbornly committed to it.      

This ambitious peace plan will require a shift in the notion of security that has permeated the country for decades of confrontation. Petro aims to hear those who have not been heard before so that no insurgent group would have to retake weapons to have a say in a country that has suffered the scourge of war for so long due to political, social, and economic exclusion.      

As a former member of Colombia’s extinct M-19 guerrilla group, Petro was in prison in 1985 for illegally possessing weapons. However, his ideology changed when he was released, and he realized that a military revolution wouldn’t lead to a meaningful structural change. After Petro was freed, the M-19 signed a peace treaty with the government in 1990. His experience in the militia, time in prison, and a subsequent peace agreement with the M-19 shaped his current notion of security. 

Before he was sworn into office, he prepared the ground for his “total peace” policy. Petro’s first step was appointing peace facilitator Alvaro Leyva as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Next, Leyva diligently engaged in conversations with Venezuelan Foreign Minister Carlos Faria to reestablish diplomatic ties with Venezuela. After that, a delegation of Colombian government representatives — composed of Chancellor Leyva, Senator Ivan Cepeda, and Colombia’s Commissioner for peace, Danilo Rueda — flew to Havana to meet with National Liberation Army (ELN) representatives to restore peace talks with the rebel group. 

Petro also named Ivan Velasquez as Defense Minister. Lawyer and jurist Velasquez has played a prominent role against corruption in Colombia and Guatemala. He won notability for his investigations as a prosecutor against Pablo Escobar and uncovered the ties between politicians and paramilitary groups in the 90s. In 2007, he went to work for the Supreme Court of Justice and obtained the imprisonment of more than 50 members of congress for their ties with paramilitary groups.  

In 2013, Velasquez was appointed Commissioner of the United Nations International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). His investigations as head of the CICIG led to the resignation and imprisonment of the then-president of Guatemala, Otto Perez Molina, for corruption charges.

Colombia’s security forces have a long history of corruption scandals and human rights abuses. The appointment of Velasquez aimed to rebuild the trust the Colombian people lost in the military establishment, and Petro sent a solid message with the designation — Colombia’s army wouldn’t engage in corruption and human rights abuses during his term.  

Petro’s approach to the military and security will be based on the notion of human security — which seeks to increase freedom from fear and human dignity — instead of getting body counts; success will be measured in reducing deaths and massacres. Petro pledged during his presidential campaign that soldiers and members of the police accused of human rights abuses would stand trial in regular courts rather than military ones.

He has already replaced his military and police commanders. The criteria for selecting them were based on “zero corruption, and zero violation of fundamental rights,” and their priorities will be “the reduction of violence, criminality, and the substantial increase in respect for human rights and civil liberties.” Petro said during a press conference.    

He has also promised to eliminate the riot police, remove compulsory military service, and invest in education for peace and reconciliation across many institutions. However, these significant reforms will require systemic changes that undoubtedly will be challenged by the opposition — represented predominantly by the right-wing Democratic Center Party of Colombia — whose political leaders have questioned Petro’s approach to national security. 

Numerous challenges plague Petro’s “total peace” agenda. Implementing such an ambitious plan will require a lot of practical actions and the commitment not only of his government but also one of his successors, as he’s promised not to seek reelection after his four-year-mandate.

However, his plan has begun to bear some fruit. Colombia’s drug-trafficking militia “Clan del Golfo” already announced a unilateral ceasefire in hopes of engaging in peace negotiations with Petro’s government, which could lead other criminal groups to follow.  

During Petro’s tenure, Colombia will see a different approach to national security. Respect for human rights and dignity will be the measuring criterion, and dialogue could be the primary weapon to deal with guerilla groups. A country that has been fueled with hate and violence for decades will now strive to build a different narrative — one that endures human security.