Peace Education – Page 2 – IPB – International Peace Bureau

Speech by Reiner Braun on Hiroshima Day, 6 August 2026, in Berlin at the Peace Bell

Translated using Deepl. Attached below is the original speech in German

Dear friends,

6 August 1945, 8.15 am, a sunny day in Hiroshima, already hot even in the morning; hundreds of thousands were on their way to work, to school, to university – tired and exhausted after all those years of war.

In the blue sky, an aeroplane – no danger, just a reconnaissance plane; no air-raid siren.

Seconds later, utter horror; for the people of Hiroshima and the surrounding area, it was the end of the world. A bomb – the first atomic bomb – was dropped from the aeroplane. We know the consequences, which can be summed up in the words: ‘The living will envy the dead.’ You will be surprised to learn who first coined this phrase – not the ‘Doctors Against the Nuclear War’, but Nikita Khrushchev.

Hiroshima International Declaration

2026 World Conference against A and H Bombs

Declaration of International Meeting

The world now stands at a critical crossroads: between war and nuclear catastrophe on the one hand, and peace and the abolition of nuclear weapons on the other.

The use of force in violation of the Charter of the United Nations is absolutely unacceptable. The United States’ attack on Iran, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Israel’s genocide in Gaza and military offensive to the West Bank must be brought to an immediate end. The nuclear-armed states, including the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China, as well as their allies, such as NATO members and Japan, are further deepening their reliance on nuclear weapons, reigniting a nuclear arms race. Nuclear conflicts between India and Pakistan, as well as North Korea’s nuclear armament, are also serious issues. The use of force by nuclear-armed states and their allies increases the real danger of nuclear war.

Two Speeches from the World Conference Against A- and H-Bombs 2026

Two speeches by IPB Co-President and CPDCS Director Joseph Gerson, given on August 3rd and 4th, 2026, at the World Conference Against A and H Bombs in Hiroshima, Japan.

Conference Speech

By Joseph Gerson
HIroshima, August 4, 2026

Minosan Konichiwa. Friends, it was a pleasure to work with Gensuikyo in organizing our successful international conference in New York on the eve of the NPT Review Conference. Let me share a moment from the Hibakusha tour that followed. At one university, I saw that there were two Chinese professors were in the audience, After Kanamoto-San’s and Ohmura-san’s speeches, I added that Nihon Hidankyo is critical of Japan’s past conquest and brutalities in China. Ohmura-san followed immediately, saying that Hidankyo remains angry that the Japanese government has yet to apologize for the war and brutal occupation in China. A brief exchange with one of the professors and Ohmura-san followed, and the next thing I was the two men embracing. That embrace won’t change policies, but it illustrates what is possible.

IPB Condemns Benin’s Cancellation of the World Social Forum and Repression of International Delegates

UPDATE August 6 – Beninese authorities have since reversed the cancellation. See more here.

The International Peace Bureau (IPB) expresses its deepest concern and regret with the sudden, unexpected, and undemocratic decision of the government of Benin to cancel the World Social Forum and to deny entry to international delegations and caravans. The last-minute decision to block the event, which expected tens of thousands of participants from across Africa and beyond, is yet another sign of the continued global trend of repression of civil society movements.

Appeal to the German Government and the Parliament: Nuclear Disarmament Must Not Remain an Empty Promise!

30th Anniversary of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Illegality of Nuclear Weapons under International Law

Appeal and Press Release

Exactly thirty years ago – on 8 July 1996 – the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a landmark advisory opinion. Its key finding: the threat or use of nuclear weapons generally violates the rules of international humanitarian law.

‘The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time. They have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet.’ (Paragraph 35)

Thus, the ICJ advisory opinion reminds us of what nuclear weapons are: weapons of mass destruction whose purpose is to kill millions of people in a very short space of time. They threaten us all, every day.

Online Dialogue on Movement Convergence Towards the World Social Forum in Benin 2026

The dialogue brought together representatives of social movements, grassroots organisations, trade unions, peace groups, environmental activists, and civil society networks to exchange perspectives on strengthening alliances across struggles. Participants explored how movements can work together to respond to the interconnected social, economic, political, and environmental crises affecting communities at the local, national, and global levels.

Held in the lead-up to the World Social Forum in Benin (4–8 August 2026), the discussion highlighted the importance of movement convergence, international solidarity, and collective action in building a more just, peaceful, and sustainable world.

We invite you to watch the recording and share it with your networks as we continue preparing for the World Social Forum 2026.

Watch the full recording in English or Spanish below:

English

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information

Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

Spanish

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information

Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

Thailand: Court to rule in first criminal case on conscientious objection to military service

On July 20, the Samut Prakan District Court will deliver its verdict in the case of Netiwit Chotiphatphaisal, Thailand’s first publicly declared conscientious objector to stand trial for refusing military conscription. If convicted under the 1954 Military Service Act, he will face up to three years in prison. Netiwit is a democracy and human rights activist, publisher, and organiser whose activism began in high school and who has publicly maintained this position for twelve years, culminating in this criminal trial.

On his eighteenth birthday, Netiwit declared he would not participate in military conscription. He did not disappear or seek quiet exemption. Every year, he reappeared before the authorities to say the same thing. On April 5, 2024, he went to the conscription centre in Samut Prakan’s Bang Pu district and read a manifesto of refusal, stating that all Thai citizens should have equal freedom to choose whether to serve, and that no one should be coerced into it, “as it is not beneficial to individuals or the nation.” He then declined to enter the lottery. He was charged under Section 45 of the Military Service Act.

During the trial, Netiwit’s lawyer asked the court to refer the question of whether the Military Service Act is constitutional or not to the Constitutional Court, marking the first time conscientious objection had been argued in this way. On May 12, 2026, the Constitutional Court ruled unanimously that the Act’s provisions do not violate constitutional protections of liberty and religious freedom. The criminal case resumed on that basis, and the verdict now falls on July 20.

BEYOND THE JOG: WHAT THE AFRICA FORWARD SUMMIT ACTUALLY SAID ABOUT PEACE, POWER AND DISARMAMENT

This article is written by Sahlim Charles, a Council Member at the International Peace Bureau and enthusiastic about Disarmament and Militarization discourse. Sahlim is also the Founder and Executive Director of Re-Imagining New Communities.

I took time to analyze the stakes at the Africa Forward Summit 2026 co-hosted by Kenya and France in Kenya’s capital of Nairobi between 11–12 May 2026. Much of the global commentary that followed fixated on the theatre of the event that included President Emmanuel Macron’s early-morning jog with Eliud Kipchoge, the sports demonstrations and youth pavilions. That imagery did its job. Designed to signal warmth and reset after decades of a more transactional, extractive French posture on the continent.

But as peace and security practitioner interested in cross-border issues, my interest was beyond the choreography to the architecture underneath it. And underneath it, Africa Forward 2026 was not simply a trade summit that happened to include a “Peace & Security” plenary as a courtesy panel. It landed at a genuine hinge point in the security relationship between France and the continent that’s been shaped by three converging trends including the collapse of France’s military footprint in West Africa, a hesitant and underfunded new architecture for African-led peacekeeping and a quiet re-militarization of the relationship through the back door of “defense cooperation,” this time in Anglophone East Africa rather than the Francophone speaking African region.

In this article, you will read my thoughts on what the summit actually committed to in terms of peace and security, what it conspicuously avoided saying about arms and disarmament, and what that combination should mean for international organizations and bodies focusing on disarmament and militarization.

Solidarity with Turkish Anti-War and Human Rights Activists

9 July 2026 | By: Stop Rearm Europe (SRE)

*The International Peace Bureau is a member of the SRE.

We stand in solidarity with the activists, journalists, lawyers, and human rights defenders being detained and silenced across Türkiye ahead of the 36^th NATO Summit, taking place in Ankara on July 6th and 7th 2026. In the last weeks, Turkish authorities have been systematically targeting anti-war, anti-imperialist and human rights activists.

The Ankara Governor’s Office announced a ban on the collective use of public spaces between June 28th and July 10th. As a result, planned protests and events such as the Anti-NATO Peace Conference had to be cancelled or moved online.

Moreover, last week police carried out early morning raids across Ankara, arresting more than 200 people. Authorities stated the operation targeted suspected members of armed groups. However, those detained included LGBTQI+, women, and feminist rights defenders, as well as lawyers, academics, revolutionary youth, labour union representatives, and human rights activists. Around 100 people remain in pretrial detention.

The Turkish Journalists’ Association has also reported that journalists from news organisations seen as opposition-leaning or independent have been excluded from covering the NATO Summit, with no explanation given.

Together, these measures show how the rights to peaceful assembly and demonstration, as well as press freedom are being suspended in Türkiye, and how the exercise of democratic rights is being restricted. Carried out under the guise of security concerns, this repression is yet another example of the domestic face of militarisation.

The targeting of activists opposing the war machine in Türkiye is not an isolated case. Governments across the world are using intimidation and criminalisation to suppress dissent. Striking examples in Europe include the United Kingdom and Germany, where activists taking direct action against weapons companies are facing unprecedented trials and charges for terrorism. These cases show a pattern: the same forces driving militarisation are criminalising those who resist it. International solidarity is therefore fundamental in the struggle against militarisation.

Since the 2025 The Hague Summit, NATO is forcing its member states to increase military spending by 5% of their GDPs, a threshold that has come to be known as the “Trump 5% norm”, following months of pressure by the U.S. President to push members toward the figure. NATO’s nature as an institution promoting war and militarisation has thereby become clear once again.

Similarly, EU institutions are promoting increased investment and spending towards militarised security, from the proposed €131 billion for “defence, security and space” in the new Multiannual Financial Framework, to the €800 billion ReArm Europe plan, financed primarily through national-level debt. However, the notion that increased military budgets make us safer is an illusion: deterrence has never prevented escalation. More military spending will only deepen our social, environmental and political problems:

It diverts resources from healthcare, education, climate action, and welfare
It erodes workers’ rights
It fuels arms races which in turn lead to more conflicts and violence, human rights violations, and displacement

This is why it is so urgent to collectively oppose the plans to ReArm Europe, the new EU Multiannual Financial Framework proposal allocating €131 billion to military spending, and all military alliances, including NATO.

The struggle against militarisation and war can only be won when we stand in solidarity with each other. We call for:

The immediate release of all those detained in Türkiye,
An end to the criminalisation of anti-war activism everywhere,
Collective resistance to NATO and the plans to ReArm Europe.

As leaders in Ankara are gathering to prepare for war, activists are preparing for peace. We support the organisers of the Istanbul Anti-imperalist Peace Summit that took place on July 4th and the Anti-NATO Peace Conference (online) on July 5, 2026.

Solidarity_to_Turkish_Anti_War_Activists Download

Toward Dialogue and Survival in a Perilous Time

Common security lessons for the US and Russia in a world without arms control.

*By Joseph Gerson, Jul 05, 2026, Common Dreams

The following article was initially written at the request of Oleg Bodrov, a Russian physicist with commitments to peace and environmental sustainability and safety. I met Oleg about a decade ago during the World Conference against A- & H- Bombs in Hiroshima, and today we both serve on the board of the International Peace Bureau, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient organization. In addition to serving on IPB’s board, Oleg is chairman of the Public Council of the South Coast of the Gulf of Finland. He lives outside of St. Petersburg and does what he can given the limits of the possible in Putin’s Russia. When he and I last spoke, Ukrainian drones had devastated a massive Russian oil refinery, spewing toxins into the Baltic Sea and across many Russian communities. With Ukrainian drones flying overhead he hadn’t slept the previous night, making Oleg one more innocent caught in that mutually disastrous war.

In our exchanges, Oleg came up with a proposal to take a small step toward bridging the divisions of the new US-Russian Cold War and building for the time when the missiles, drones, and guns of the Ukraine War have been silenced. His idea: I should write an article that shared US peace movement thinking and named actions that can reduce the increasingly perilous military tensions and serve as foundations for a future era of US-NATO-Russian Common security. Oleg would translate the article and arrange for its publication in a Russian scientific journal. As we corresponded about the article’s publication, it occurred to us that it might also prove helpful for US readers, hence its publication here in Common Dreams. Where this will lead, only time will tell. But the truth is that both the US and Russia are going to be around for a long time, and a just and peaceful Common Security order will be essential for this and future generations.