NATO – IPB – International Peace Bureau

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.”

Report “NATO, Building Global Insecurity” – English Version

(UPDATE): This report, which has been published last month, now has a official english version:

Nato, Building Global Insecurity (english version)Download

On the 25^th of June, at the occasion for the Peace Summit Madrid 2022, the Centre Delàs d’Estudis per la Pau, in collaboration with the International Peace Bureau (IPB) and the Global Campaign on Military Spending (GCOMS), issued its 53^th report under the name “NATO, Building Global Insecurity” (La OTAN, Construyendo Inseguridad Global” in the original) with the coordination of Gabriela Serra and contribution of many authors.

This report on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) presents an updated and detailed reading of military alliances, taking into account the global context of simultaneous crises and the increase of the tensions caused by the invasion of Ukraine at the beginning of 2022.

“NATO’s modus operandi is reflected in its Strategic Concepts, and from the last two approved we can draw some conclusions that help us understand the Alliance’s objectives: on the one hand, it attempts to promote a broad conception of defense, which it makes it possible to greatly expand its scope of action to deal with “new threats”, many of them non-military; There is also an attempt to make submission to the Charter of the United Nations more flexible, situating itself in what has been described as “legal deregulation of war”; Similarly, NATO expands its geographical scope of action beyond what is established by the North Atlantic Treaty, as happened in the case of Afghanistan; Lastly, the democratic deficit with which this strategy is decided, which breaks the most basic rules of parliamentarism, is notable. In June 2021, a new Strategic Concept will be approved in Madrid which, predictably, will focus on reinforcing deterrence and defense, which is equivalent to increasing all military capabilities, whether nuclear, conventional or cyber. It will also include an express reference to the relationship with China, which it considers a “systemic challenge.” In addition, it will state that it will not only respond to armed attacks, but that NATO could intervene militarily against any threat to its security (…)

Therefore, this publication defends the “No to war, no to NATO”, as an amendment to the whole, to a predatory militarism of lives and human resources, of habitats, of economies. peace is not only a hackneyed slogan, but a relationship policy that must be deployed at all levels, from the interpersonal to the interstate, now more than ever”

At the adjunct (annex), from pages 47 to 49, you can find the contribution of Reiner Braun – Executive Director of the International Peace Bureau (IPB) – addressing the Olof Palme Report “Common Security 2022: For our Shared Future”, focusing on how Common Security serves to avoid disasters regarding nuclear armament and militarization. The Common Security report aims to encourage that “in times of acute crisis, there must be those who look forward and give a vision of a better future”, complementing in many ways the words of Centre Delàs’ report.

Click in this link to have access to the full report in Spanish as well, or visit Centre Delàs’ website.

24 Hour Peace Wave – Summary Report

In times of increasing armament and ever-growing insecurities, with current discussions that retrieve fears and traumas from the past century – mistakes that the global community should have overcome – we can still find hope in the actions of those committed to a world without war, with less militarization and more cooperation. For a deeply and widely spread message, only a movement of global reach could connect different voices of the world around the common and ubiquitous demand for peace.

To achieve that, The International Peace Bureau and World BEYOND War organized the very first 24 Hour Peace Wave in protest of excessive military spending and the expansion of NATO, which took place from the 25^th to the 26^th of June, as a counter-action to the NATO Summit in Madrid and the 48^th G7 Summit in Munich, with both also taking place at the end of June. The event served to speak up for peace and cooperation, the scaling back and dismantling of military alliances, the disarmament of governments, and the democratization and strengthening of international institutions of nonviolent cooperation and the rule of law.

This was a one-of-a-kind global rally for Peace and cooperation around the clock, with twenty-four non-stop hours of protests, demonstrations, vigils, teach-ins, speakers, discussion rounds, music, and art from all around the world. To achieve maximum reach, the event was recorded and livestreamed simultaneously across four major social media channels (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn), moving West around the globe from 2:00pm in the UK on June 25^th to 4:00pm in Ukraine on June 26^th. The participants had the opportunity to choose between various sessions to join, depending on which part of the world they were in at the time of the event. Divided in twelve different sections, the Peace Wave could be nothing short of a spectacular global appeal for Peace.

The first section started with live street demonstrations directly from city centre of London, United Kingdom – we had speeches, protests, banners and music being played to all of those passing by. We even had some contributions from a protest regarding Sudan. At the end of the session were displayed videos provided to us directly from Western Sahara, instructing the viewers and participants about their culture and current struggles. And to compliment that, more musical contributions.

The second section covered most of South America, bringing contributions from various voices of different countries: Chile, Argentina, Perú, Ecuador, and Brazil. We had the opportunity to learn more about the political structures and struggles of these people, their past, and the actions currently taken to promote peace by music, youth organizations and political engagement against increasing militarization and armament by governments.

The third section was established to cover the Atlantic side of the United States, starting with a great demonstration in Manhattan, at the centre of New York City – poetry, songs, theatre and speeches from many contributors. We also had a poetic participation from Ontario, Canada, beautiful banners, kites and music from Long Island, and a big rally in Asheville, North Carolina.

The fourth section took us back to Latin America, now addressing countries such as Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, Venezuela, Argentina, the Dominican Republic and Colombia. In this section we followed an important round table of discussions, with many interesting contributions and points of view on Peace education, popular participation, and Human Rights in the face of the dangers of militarization.

The fifth section covered the Pacific side of the United States. We started in the state of Washington, with music, prayers, and a small discussion on military bases at the Pacific side. We had videos from a protesting flashmob, a theatrical piece, and discussions on military environmental impact. Beyond that, we had contributions from Vancouver and Victoria in Canada, and also from California.

The sixth section started in Hawaii, with a poetic contribution regarding a “world without RIMPAC”. We had recordings, poetry and documentaries about military presence on the islands, hearing from natives about how it all impacts their original land. From Guam, we also had a glimpse into the destructive presence of nuclear testing in the pacific and the militarization of the seas.

The seventh section brought us words from Australia and New Zealand. In the first half we had speeches, interviews, choir songs, presentations and protests from many parts of Australia regarding many themes around Peace. From New Zealand, we also had a series of talks, music, and outdoor events, including voices from native peoples and youth.

The eighth section, starting in Japan, presented us a live protest in the streets of Tokyo – a street campaign with speeches, testimonials, signs and music against war, militarization and the use of nuclear weapons. Next in the rally, we had contributions from South Korea talking about RIMPAC exercises, military presence at the peninsula. From the streets, a demonstration with protesting theatre, dance and signs against NATO.

The ninth sections, conducted by the Philippines, brought us multiple artistic contributions to delegitimize NATO, against all imperialism, proxy wars and general sanctions. We had a real-time panel being painted by artists. Poetry, dances, testimonials and different genres of music established the tone of protests here, with many young people participating and helping in this intensive rally.

The tenth section was made by an international participation of people from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal. We had poetry, prayers, paintings, messages, protests and even the presence of state figures. We heard about Positive Peace, media manipulation, economics of Peace, including voices of natives and refugees at our peace wave.

The eleventh section started with a German song and a welcome message from Berlin. Why “no to NATO” from Hungary, and a Livestream intervention from Sinjajevina, Montenegro. From Cameroon we heard about Disarmament for Development, and from Czech Republic words on nuclear disarmament. We had protests from Barcelona and live rallies from Rammstein and Madrid.

The twelfth section, concluded the peace wave with voices from Norway, Finland and Lebanon in an interesting panel discussion about Peace, collaboration, democratization, media and security challenges from peace activists. We also had major live statements from peace activists from Iran, Kenya and Ukraine addressing important topics and their experiences in the struggle for peace.

This peace wave gathered contributions from 39 different countries, not to include the different regions within a given country. From all these contributions, we had close to 200 people collaborating with messages and art from all over the world addressing one common demand: No to militarization, yes to cooperation. Peace was the leading word for those twenty-four hours of activities.

The event was open to the public, with hundreds of people joining from different parts of the world across major social media channels and an average of 50-60 participating directly via Zoom. Being the first-of-its-kind Peace action, our hope is to continue down this path in the years to follow. Many thanks to all who squeezed time out their busy schedule to ensure that this event was a success.

To sum up all the content that we had in this first peace wave we compiled a video with the highlights of the event:

This video serves as a brief highlight of the many activities we had, so you can be sure that much more can be found in the recordings. To have access to the recording of the 24 hours of our event, access this link:

https://worldbeyondwar.org/videos-from-the-24-hour-peace-wave/

The International Peace Bureau (IPB) and World BEYOND War would like to thank all the participants and viewers from all around the world who were present with us directly via Zoom or indirectly in the livestreams (Youtube, Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram). A special message of appreciation to all the coordinators for each section, who accepted the challenge to organize the twelve different parts of two hours, dedicating much of their time and effort in the two months prior to the day of the event.

Berlin, July 2022.

Thousands call for peace and defunding war as NATO summit begins in Madrid – People’s Dispatch

Thousands of people took to the streets in Madrid on Sunday, June 26, against the NATO summit which began in Madrid on June 28. Protesters called NATO a threat to global peace and demanded its dissolution. The organizers also held a two-day peace summit in Madrid on June 24-25, at the conclusion of which, a joint declaration was issued asserting that “NATO is a serious threat to world peace, having left a trail of destruction from Yugoslavia to Afghanistan”.

The video, provided by People’s Dispatch Youtube Channel, features Reiner Braun, Executive Director of the International Peace Bureau, who was present at the panels and demonstration in Madrid for the Peace Summit.

Publication of the report “NATO, Building Global Insecurity”

Click in this link to have access to the full report or visit Centre Delàs’ website.