NATO – IPB – International Peace Bureau

NATO Turns Global and Expands Theatres of Escalation

By: Prof. Anuradha Chenoy

This article was first published in Economic&Political Weekly (Vol. 59, Issue No. 30, 27 Jul, 2024), then IDN-InDepthNews, and is being republished with the author‘s permission.

NEW DELHI | 2 August 2024 (IDN) — The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) of 32 Western countries has formally declared its security interests to be global, despite its title and founding mandate as a transatlantic security alliance. The 75th anniversary summit held in Washington (10 July) conceptualised its security as a “360-degree approach”, indispensable and essential. The reason to extend its operations are because the threats to NATO are “global and interconnected”. (1) It is the instrument for the “rules-based order” which NATO demarcates from international law. NATO signals that it will operationalise its strategic reach globally anywhere any time and will likely be intolerant and indifferent to the security needs of those outside this exclusive club.

The Ukraine War a Year From Now: A Realist Case for Ceasefire & Negotiations

Joseph Gerson

Text of speech given on the IPB’s webinar, Feb. 24, 2024

I don’t have a crystal ball, and I can’t promise accurate predictions about the state of the Ukraine War a year from today. Three things that we do know are first, that Russia will continue fighting until it secures Ukrainian neutrality, and it will resort to any means necessary to prevent what U.S. General Austin has named as the ambition of winning Russia’s strategic defeat. Second, recently re-forged Ukrainian nationalism will continue to resist Russian domination then and in one way or another for decades to come. And, finally, as was the case before Russia’s invasion, Ukraine will have no chance of joining NATO.

War opponent Boris Kagarlitsky is unexpectedly released in Russia

Press release from the People and Peace Network 12 December 2023

War opponent Boris Kagarlitsky is unexpectedly released in Russia

Today, the Russian war opponent Boris Kagarlitsky was released from prison in the trial in Suktyvkar. Unlike many other prominent opponents of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, Kagarlitsky did not flee the country but continued his advocacy work from Moscow. On July 25, he was arrested by the authorities on behalf of the FSB and taken to the remote Republic of Komi and its capital Sykthyvkar.

Kagarlitsky was accused of “justifying terrorism” in a video on YouTube channel Rabkor where he talked about the first explosion on the Crimean Bridge in the summer of 2022. This is according to Article 205.2 of the Russian Criminal Code on “justifying” terrorism committed “using mass media or electronic networks or information and telecommunications networks, including the Internet”, for which the penalty can be a fine of up to one million rubles or imprisonment from 5 to 7 years. The prosecutor requested 5.5 years in prison.

The case was based on a report written by Leonid Krasnoperov, a member of the City Duma of United Russia in the city of Ukhta in the Republic of Komi. Rabkor wrote in a Telegram post when the trial started yesterday, December 11: “Despite the well-known slowness of the Russian judiciary, which is capable of considering any case for years, it seems that the trial of Kagarlitsky could be concluded as early as tomorrow.”

Boris Kagarlitsky was able to leave the court today as a free man. He is, however, sentenced not to edit any media or website for two years and a fine of 6,000 dollars. “Miracles do happen even in the darkest times of political persecution, especially when backed by widespread material, moral and political support from around the world!” writes Rabkor in a comment. “The verdict opens the way for the cooperation between the climate and peace movement against oligarchs in East and West that Boris Kagarlitskij works for,” says Tord Björk, convener of the People and Peace Network’s communication and action group. Both Kagarlitsky and the Russian environmental movement continue to be labeled as foreign agents, but both the verdict and continued environmental protests in Russia, which have been particularly strong in Suktyvkar, show the hope of bringing together the fight for peace and the environment.

The result of the trial is surprising in a time of increased repression of all voices of peace. The success may be due to several forces working together in the campaign for Kagarlitsky as an important symbol of war resistance. One was a broad rally campaigning for the release of Boris and all political prisoners in Russia. That Kagarlitsky is the international best-known left-wing intellectual who was imprisoned both during the Soviet era, Yeltsin and Putin were grateful to highlight as a symbol. Another force was academics who cooperated with Kagarlitsky but are not as critical of Russia’s current actions as he is. One of these is Radika Desai, who raised the issue of Kagarlitsky in a conversation with Putin during a Valdai meeting. A third line has been the peace and environmental movement that stood up both for Kagarlitsky and conscientious objectors in both Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, something that opposition voices in Russia saw as a tactic that makes it easier for them to defend themselves.

In Sweden, the People and Peace Network has supported Kagarlitskij in a statement. At the Peace Fair in November arranged by i.a. Artists for Peace, Friends of the Earth, Women for Peace and the People and Peace Network, the issue of repression against war opponents in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and the EU was an important theme. The People and Peace network has also participated in the peace movement’s international campaign for Boris Kagarlitskij and other war opponents in collaboration with social forum forces both from Russia and EU countries and the International Peace Bureau.

The people and peace network calls for continued support to Boris Kagarlitskij for payment of fines and to enable Rabkor to continue its operations. Donation Alerts (https://www.donationalerts.com/r/rabkortv) We also call for support for other political prisoners in Russia and work against repression in the East and West.

Tord Björk for the People and Peace Network communication and action group (Attached: )

International campaign for Kagarlitsky: https://freeboris.info

The statement of the People and Peace Network in Swedish: https://folkochfred.wordpress.com/2023/09/17/stoppa-repressionen-i-ost-och-vast/

On the International Peace Bureau website:
https://ipb.org/stop-the-repression-in-the-east-and-the-west/
About the environmental struggle in Suktyvkar and the Republic of Komi:

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2020/01/09/this-is-the-land-of-our-ancestors

Tord Björk email: tord.bjork@gmail.com, skype: tordbjork, tel: +46 (0)722 15 16 90, address: Kyrkängsbacken 8, 14135 Huddinge, Sweden

Kagarlitsky-and-the-climate Download

The military elephant in the room will lead to an unjust transition

Post-review of NATO Climate Killer Part 2: Climate Crossfire Webinar, recorded on December 2nd, 2023, during COP 28

Author: Pippa Bartolotti

As we navigate COP 28, this webinar addressed the pertinent issues of military spending and its environmental ramifications.

Ably introduced by the Canadian policy analyst IPB Vice President Steven Staples, this important webinar discussed in detail the links between the military and environmental degradation. Taking place on Day 4 of the COP 28 summit in Dubai, it was a thorough reality check.

The first speaker was Nick Buxton, Transnational Institute, who had some superb graphics and data to support his call to shrink the military, boost renewables and fund poorer nations in their efforts to combat the climate change they did not cause.

He explained that, in view of global emissions significantly exceeding the pledges to stay within 1.5 degrees of warming, (Paris Agreement 2015) we now only have a tiny window in which to take radical action. Shrinking the military was now critical is we are to deliver climate justice.

The gap between policy and action has increased. Those countries promising to make adjustments by 2050 were basically not planning to make any changes at all. In other words, 2050 pledges are the ‘do nothing’ option.

Nick pointed out that holding this COP in a petro-state such as the UAE was rather like asking the head of a tobacco company to launch an anti-smoking campaign – ludicrous. His research showed clearly that those countries with the highest military spending created the most emissions, and that fossil fuel expansion had been the real aim since the end of WW1 when the Ottoman Empire was carved up to reflect the places where oil pipelines were going. The US backed Israeli onslaught on Gaza in order to claim the gasfields off that coast are an ongoing example of this policy.

The global military spend in 2022 was $2.24 trillion. In 2028 it is expected to be $11.8 trillion. The richest countries spend 30 times more on their military than on supporting a survivable climate.

In 2015 £100 billion was promised to help poorer countries. Only half of that has been delivered to date, and that came late.

Russia spends $158b on the military, China $578b, NATO spends $2,327b – that is 55% of global military spending. Of the 2% of GDP spending goal expected from NATO countries, 20% is targeted to be spent on military equipment, thus enriching the military industrial complex.

Nick showed us a map pinpointing the 750+ US military bases across the world, most of which correlate closely with the infrastructure of resource extraction.

Every country now has Climate Security Plans. The trend is to see climate change as a security issue where the victims are seen as threats, where borders become militarised, where exploitation of the vulnerable is increased, and where any form of peaceful response is denied. Spending on borders alone is now twice the spend on climate finance. NATO is now in place to deal with the consequences of the unstable conditions they themselves have created.

The second speaker was Wendela de Vries of Stop Wapenhandle, has been looking at the lack of transparency and accountability of the military across the globe.

She spoke of hardliners evading the subject of emissions, of the NATO Arctic Command established in order to protect deep sea mining in the Arctic. Of how current discussion is fuelling a new cold war and how closely correlated military spending was to a rise in emissions.

Most military spending is now in equipment not personnel. There is not expected to be a rise in numbers of personnel. But expenditure on ships, tanks and weapons would increase.

The military carbon footprint as of 2021 was bigger than the worlds footprint from civil aviation.

Th US emissions are more than all other NATO countries combined. More than 70% of all military emissions come from the US. 50% is from the military and more than 20% is on weapons manufacture.

Future member contributions to NATO are scheduled to rise to 3% of GDP. This is important for the arms industry who want to consolidate long term contracts, but labor and environmental rights are being damaged in the upscaling of weapons production – largely being driven by the Ukraine war.

Wendela spoke of the greenwashing of military products, such as the fallacious term ‘sustainable defence’ being used to greenwash biofuels and synthetic fuels, both of which still require burning for energy, and which will not reduce emissions at all. In the case of biofuels, enormous amounts of land would be required to grow the feedstock, damaging ecosystems and compromising biodiversity. The military are not going to change their energy systems to electricity as that would make all their ships, tanks etc obsolete. Electric propulsion would require a full redesign, and as military hardware is expected to last 40 years, such a proposal is not entertained.

Nuclear, particularly the plethora of small reactors, will make it much more difficult to control the toxic waste, and is no solution at all.

The arms industry still has huge support, many people still believe that the military make the world a safer place, and that thinking has to change. We have to de-militarize to be more safe.

Some interesting points came out of the question and answer session at the end. There was discussion about health being at the heart of peace, that a peaceful world would enable a healthy and dignified life for all. Others were looking for some way out of our current trajectory of everlasting war where every problem looked like a nail, and needed a hammer to solve it.

There was concern that rich countries did not look after poor countries. On the whole the speakers were not optimistic for the future as we sink into dark circumstances in this crisis of all crises.

The real challenge is to put collaboration before competition, to find a different pathway, and to make war illegal. Hope remains with social movements and in the streets.

Co-organized by four esteemed organizations—the International Peace Bureau, Global Women’s United Against NATO, No to War, No to NATO, and the Asia-Europe People’s Forum—this series of webinars seek to provoke thoughtful dialogue and foster a deeper understanding of the complex interplay between militarism and the environment.

Watch the full Recording in IPB YouTube Page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0axVq1alkkw&t=18s

NEW RESEARCH: NATO 2% SPENDING GOAL COULD DIVERT $2.6 TRILLION FROM CLIMATE FINANCE BY 2028

NATO’s goal of 2% spending of GDP on the military will accelerate climate breakdown by diverting millions of dollars from climate finance and increasing greenhouse gas emissions, concludes a new report that urgently calls for a ‘climate dividend’ similar to the ‘peace dividend’ that was won with the end of the Cold War.

The report, Climate Crossfire, produced by the international research organization, Transnational Institute, together with Stop Wapenhandel (Netherlands) and Tipping Point North South (UK) estimates the likely financial implications as well as increased greenhouse gas emissions that would result if all NATO members meet their commitment to increase military spending to a minimum of 2% of GDP.

The report finds that:

NATO’s military spending this year – $1.26 trillion- would pay for 12 years of promised climate finance of $100 billion a year.
If all NATO members meet its 2% military spending targets, it would divert an estimated additional US$2.57 trillion by 2028 away from climate spending, enough to pay for climate adaptation costs for all low- and middle-income countries for seven years.
NATO’s estimated military carbon footprint this year – 205 million tCO2e – is comparable to the total annual greenhouse gas emissions of many countries. If NATO’s militaries were a country, it would rank 40th in the world in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
If all NATO members meet its 2% military spending targets, this would lead to an estimated additional 467 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.
NATO members export arms to 39 of the 40 most climate-vulnerable countries, fuelling conflict and repression at a dangerous moment of climate breakdown.

NATO’s spending goals have undoubtedly gained momentum as a result of Russia’s full-scale illegal invasion of Ukraine, however even before achieving the 2% target, in 2021 NATO overall spent more than 16 times as much as Russia and its allies in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO, which includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan). Russia has increased its military expenditure to a projected $102 billion in 2023, but this would still be less than a twelfth of NATO’s collective expenditure of $1.26 trillion.

The biggest danger of NATO’s 2% military spending goals is that it is encouraging a worldwide arms race. Global military spending in 2022 reached record highs of $2.24 trillion. Our report last year, Climate Collateral, revealed that the richest nations (known as ‘Annex 2’ countries in UN climate negotiations) are spending 30 times as much on military as on climate finance.

Nnimmo Bassey, former president of Friends of the Earth International and director of the Health of Mother Earth Foundation, Nigeria says in a foreword to the report:

‘Wars kill people, extinguish biodiversity, and destroy the infrastructure that could otherwise provide safeguards in the face of extreme weather events. Warfare is an act of climate denial.’

Co-author of the report, Nick Buxton of Transnational Institute says:

‘This report shows that the climate has tragically become the latest victim in the crossfire of war. We have a closing window of time to address the climate crisis, but the world’s political leaders are more focused on arming themselves to the teeth than prioritising climate action. NATO’s 2% minimum spending goals are adding fuel to the climate fire, diverting much needed resources and increasing greenhouse emissions. We urgently need to de-escalate tensions and find peaceful solutions to conflicts if we are to defend our planet. There is no secure nation on an unsafe planet.’

Contact: Nick Buxton | +1 530 902 3772 /California | nick@tni.org | @nickbuxton

Co-authors of the report, Dr Ho-Chih Lin and Deborah Burton of Tipping Point North South say:

‘The military like to portray themselves today as positive climate actors, but they have been the biggest institutional user of fossil fuels. Oil-free fighter jets or electric tanks do not exist and there is nothing realistic on the horizon that will make a meaningful dent in military carbon footprint. Not in our lifetime and certainly not by 2050. The stark reality facing politicians is that to green the military, we need to reduce military spending significantly and this will require a new approach to security, one invested in building diplomacy, peace and climate resilience rather than war.’

Contact: Deborah Burton | +44 7779 203455/ UK | deborah@tippingpointnorthsouth.org

Wendela de Vries, a researcher at StopWapenhandel, Dutch Campaign Against the Arms Trade says: ‘High military budgets lead to more emissions, which is not making the world safer. The big winner is the arms industry whose profits are skyrocketing. As the planet reaches a climate tipping point, it is insane that we are investing in making arms dealers even richer, rather than protecting those whose lives are being devastated by climate breakdown

Contact: Wendela de Vries | +31 (0) 6 506 522 06/Netherlands | w.de.vries@stopwapenhandel.org | @CTWnl

Notes

The full report can be found at https://www.tni.org/climatecrossfire. The executive summary is also available in Spanish, French, Catalan and German.
Total global military expenditure increased by 3.7 per cent in real terms in 2022, to reach a new high of $2240 billion https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2023/world-military-expenditure-reaches-new-record-high-european-spending-surges

Deborah Burton of Tipping Point North South attended COP27 and spoke at a packed UNFCCC side event, Dealing with military and conflict related emissions under the UNFCCC, on 9 November 2022. She hopes to attend COP28 in UAE.

Executive summaries

Military Spending in 2022 Shows the Precarity of the Shifting Geopolitical Landscape and the Flawed Logic of Militarism

Press Release – April 24th, 2023

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s (SIPRI) newest military expenditure data for 2022 shows yet another year of increase in global military spending, up 3.7 percent from 2021 to another all-time high of US$ 2240 billion. With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, increases in military spending in Europe and the Western world were certainly expected; however, with the release of this data an important question must be addressed: does the outbreak of war drive increases in military spending, or rather do the incessant, yearly increases in military spending drive conflict and work?

While there is certainly no direct or decisive answer to that question, we have to take this year’s SIPRI data in the context of the geopolitical landscape of the past decades. What is crystal clear from this perspective is that constant increases in military spending have not fostered peace or peace processes in ongoing wars and have not prevented the outbreak of new, larger, and increasingly concerning conflicts such as the war in Ukraine. Likewise, increases in military spending are completely unable to address the various security concerns at the forefront of our societies – from the effects of climate change and environmental degradation to protection from future pandemics and growing inequality and food insecurity in many parts of the world. And of course, the threat posed by countries upgrading their nuclear arsenals combined with increased rhetoric around the threat of the use of nuclear weapons and further expansion of illegal nuclear sharing to Belarus (already present in Western Europe under the US nuclear umbrella) puts our entire planet at risk.

In many other cases, from Saudi Arabia and Iran to Sudan and Burundi, and Japan and China, military expenditure increases have not helped to reduce growing tensions and violence. The United States and the NATO alliance, who together continue to account for the majority of global spending, have in particular been a source of growing global tensions. In the face of recent geopolitical developments, there needs to be an alternative to constant growths in military budgets; there needs to be a resurgence of funding for diplomatic efforts, for the reduction of global tensions, complemented by funding for peace advocacy, peacebuilding, just resolution, and just reconstruction of conflict zones. The current global military expenditure is more than enough to fund not only peace work, but also to address the UN’s sustainable development goals (SDGs), including climate change, poverty, and hunger.

The world cannot continue on the path we are on. The International Peace Bureau, Global Campaign for Military Spending, and our global network of partners reject the logic of global leaders that preparing for war creates peace, we reject the role of the military-industrial complex in fuelling this continued growth, and we reject the view that there is no alternative. We urge the UN General Assembly to organize a special session on disarmament. We will use the Global Days of Action on Military Spending (GDAMS) from 13 April until 9 May to make our message heard and promote peaceful alternatives to militarism and war.

You can download a PDF version of this text here:

GDAMS-2023-IPB-Press-Release-Berlin Download

Your organization can endorse it through this form on Action Network.

Don’t forget to engage with the campaign on Social Media – follow us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

Read the Appeal GDAMS 2023 – War costs us the Earth

The world’s militaries are responsible for roughly five percent of global Greenhouse Gas emissions, however, their carbon footprint, as well as the various other ways that they contribute to climate breakdown, are rarely scrutinized. Our governments currently spend more than US$2 trillion on militarization, but military expansion is inconsistent with efforts to reach essential emissions targets and will exacerbate, not stem, the climate emergency. War and armed conflict lead, not only to death and destruction but also to environmental devastation and climate breakdown. Although our governments may argue that such “defense” spending is necessary, it will ultimately render us defenseless in the face of the existential threat posed by the climate crisis.

Global heating poses a major and sustained risk to our planet’s climatic cycles and the resultant weather-related disasters often exacerbate existing injustices – and this can lead to conflict for access to land and basic resources, as well as forced displacement. Tackling Climate change must involve dealing with other structural problems such as poverty, economic shocks, and weakened institutions. This is particularly true in regions that have contributed the least to the climate crisis, yet are impacted the most by its devastating consequences.

As well as their carbon footprint, the world’s military structures also contribute to the climate crisis in other key ways:

Crucially, military spending diverts resources away from essential environmental and social spending, including initiatives to slow the speed of climate change, deal with loss and damage, and respond to weather emergencies.
Military structures in the form of national armies, militarized police forces, or private security companies are often deployed to protect the fossil fuel industry. This sector is one of the largest producers of GHG and military protection of it makes it complicit in these emissions.
Although we urgently need to protect our ecosystems from environmental destruction, all too often when environmental activists take steps to safeguard their lands, rivers and seas, they are violently repressed by militarized security structures including the police, private security companies, and, at times, the army.
The nexus between fossil fuel and extractivism, and armed conflict and war is well documented, from the colonial period to the wars of today.
More and more people are being forced from their homes due to extreme weather events brought about by climate change. In the same way that the border security apparatus currently contains people and stops them from reaching safety or seeking asylum, the military will likely be further deployed to keep out those fleeing climate-related disasters.
Moreover, the arms industry, which in many ways is the backbone of militarism, invests significant time and finance in corporate lobbying to advance its own profit-driven agenda. In recent years it has used the climate crisis as an opportunity to position itself as a key player in designing ‘greener’ weapons and has lobbied for more funding to be earmarked for that purpose. This approach prolongs and deepens the logic that drives militarism and war.

Political leadership has focused on hawkish politics and saber-rattling, stoking tension and fear, instead of cultivating international relations based on mutual trust, diplomacy, and cooperation – three components that are essential to tackle the global nature of the climate threat. Funds that could be used to mitigate or reverse climate breakdown, and to promote peaceful conflict transformation, disarmament, and global justice initiatives, are instead being spent on militarizing an already over-militarised world.

We urgently call on governments to:

Change course and focus on rapid, deep cuts to military spending, driving an arms race and fuelling war;
Demilitarize public policy, including policies designed to tackle the climate crisis;
Implement human and common-security-centered policies that protect people and the planet and not the profit-driven agenda of the arms and fossil fuel industries;
Create governance structures and alliances based on mutual trust and understanding, cooperation, and true diplomacy, where conflict is resolved through dialogue, not war.

The opportunity cost of doing otherwise just can’t get any higher.

War costs us the Earth.

You can read the full statement as a PDF attachment by clicking here.

Your organization can endorse it through this form on Action Network.

Don’t forget to engage with the campaign on Social Media – follow us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

The Dismal State of Nuclear Disarmament

Viewpoint by Jacqueline Cabasso

The writer is the Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation.

OAKLAND, California (IDN) — The year 2022 has been a nightmare for nuclear disarmament. The year started out with a mildly reassuring Joint Statement by the five original nuclear-armed states, issued on January 3, 2022, declaring:

“The People’s Republic of China, the French Republic, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America consider the avoidance of war between Nuclear-Weapon States and the reduction of strategic risks as our foremost responsibilities. We affirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

But less than two months later Russia launched a brutal war of aggression on Ukraine, accompanied by a series of veiled and no-so-veiled nuclear threats, raising concerns about the dangers of nuclear war to their highest level since the darkest days of the Cold War. And prospects for progress on nuclear disarmament went down from there.

The January 3 Joint Statement also avowed: “We remain committed to our Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations, including our Article VI obligation ‘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…’.”

However, more than 50 years after the NPT entered into force, their behavior points in the opposite direction. All of the nuclear-armed states, including the four outside the NPT (India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea) are engaged in costly programs to qualitatively upgrade and in some cases quantitatively increase their nuclear arsenals.

The 10th NPT Review Conference, which took place in August, was an abject failure, not because it couldn’t agree on a final outcome document, but because the nuclear-armed states haven’t made good on their fundamental nuclear disarmament obligation under Article VI of the Treaty, nor on the promises and commitments to action items that would lead to nuclear disarmament they agreed to in connection with the indefinite extension of the Treaty in 1995 and in the 2000 and 2010 final documents.

Despite the reassuring-sounding words in the Joint Statement, “We intend to continue seeking bilateral and multilateral diplomatic approaches to avoid military confrontations, strengthen stability and predictability, increase mutual understanding and confidence, and prevent an arms race that would benefit none and endanger all,” the reality is that a new nuclear arms race is already underway—compounded by offensive cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, developing hypersonic capacities, a return to intermediate-range delivery systems, and the production of delivery systems capable of carrying either conventional or nuclear payloads.

In September and October, while our attention was focused on the U.S. midterm election results and Russia’s continuing nuclear threats in Ukraine, alarming developments were taking place on the Korean peninsula, where North Korea conducted a flurry of missile tests.

According to North Korea’s state news agency, these tests simulated showering South Korea with tactical nuclear weapons, as a warning in response to large-scale navy drills by South Korean and U.S. forces.

As the year wore on, negotiations on reviving the Iran nuclear deal stalled. And as Iran increased its uranium enrichment, the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia declared, “If Iran gets an operational nuclear weapon, all bets are off.”

Against this volatile backdrop, ten months into the Russian war in Ukraine, the Biden administration released the unclassified version of its Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which doubles down on the centrality of nuclear deterrence—the threatened use of nuclear weapons—in U.S. national security policy.

The NPR could be read as pouring gas on the fire, naming Russia and China as strategic competitors and potential adversaries, and identifying North Korea and Iran as lesser potential threats. While giving lip service to “a renewed emphasis on arms control”, it declares, “For the foreseeable future, nuclear weapons will continue to provide unique deterrence effects that no other element of U.S. military power can replace. …” To this end, “The United States is committed to modernizing its nuclear forces, nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) system, and production and support infrastructure. …”

This commitment is fully funded in the obscene $858 Billion National Defense Authorization Act passed by the Senate on December 15, which includes $50 Billion for nuclear weapons – more than was requested in the NPR.

The current state of nuclear disarmament affairs might be exemplified by the public unveiling of the B-21 Raider on December 3, with great fanfare, at contractor Northrup Grumman’s California headquarters. The B-21, a “sixth generation” aircraft, is the first new strategic bomber in more than three decades, designed to deliver both nuclear and conventional munitions.

It deploys the latest stealth technology and has global reach. Earlier plans included an unmanned option. The B-21 will replace the B-1B and B-2A bombers, and the number of strategic bomber bases in the U.S. that can store nuclear weapons will be increased from two at present to five by the mid-2030s. And so, it goes.

The Doomsday clock is ticking. By doubling down on the concept of national security through military might, at any cost, the governments of the nuclear-armed states and their allies are putting humanity on the road to Armageddon.

People everywhere, together, need to rise up non-violently and demand the implementation of a different concept of security, one based on cooperation among governments to make meeting human needs and protecting the environment their highest priority.

[IDN-InDepthNews – 25 December 2022]

This article was reproduced from IDN-InDepthNews with their authorization: https://www.indepthnews.net/

IDN is the flagship agency of the Non-profit International Press Syndicate.

This article was produced as a part of the joint media project between The Non-profit International Press Syndicate Group and Soka Gakkai International in Consultative Status with ECOSOC on 25 December 2022.

We believe in the free flow of information. Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, except for articles that are republished with permission.

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.

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

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.”