Books

NEW PUBLICATION: Human Security and Common Security to Build Peace – A Toolkit for Parliamentarians

A new joint publication by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), the International Peace Bureau (IPB) and the World Academy of Art and Science (WAAS) is designed to provide parliamentarians around the world with a toolkit for prioritizing human security and common security as opposed to militarized state security.

Read the publication here.

With every passing month, our world becomes more violent and dangerous. After a decline in the 1990s and early 2000s, the number of conflicts around the world has been growing – and no region has been left untouched. These conflicts often involve multiple parties and are increasingly fuelled by transnational criminal activity. Some have been going on for decades and some remain unaddressed by the international community. Their cost is immense, however, and it is usually civilians who pay the heaviest price.

The future hardly looks encouraging. Disinformation, social media and artificial intelligence (AI) are spreading hate, division and mistrust. AI-powered weapons are making it easier than ever to kill, while cyberattacks on critical infrastructure are also taking their toll. Meanwhile, nuclear disarmament has come to a grinding halt and global tensions are distracting our leaders from the urgent – and sometimes existential – challenges that face us: climate change, pandemics, hunger and much, much more. We need multilateral collaboration to address and fix these challenges. But conflicts take us in the opposite direction.

Two alternative approaches offer new possibilities to get us all back on track. The first is human security, which is about engaging with and representing people, and implies contextualized and tailored legislation rooted in several dimensions relating to the well-being of the individual. The second is common security, which takes the principles of human security to a larger scale and enshrines the idea that dialogue, multilateralism and collaboration are key to any attempt to solve a problem.

Read the publication here.

YouTube

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

Load video

Honoring the Legacy of Fredrik S. Heffermehl: A Voice for Peace and a Final Masterpiece

With heavy hearts, we announce the passing of Fredrik S. Heffermehl in late December 2023, a cherished member of our community and a relentless advocate for peace. As a distinguished lawyer, author, and former Vice President of the IPB, Heffermehl dedicated his life to the cause of peace and disarmament.

Fredrik’s involvement in peace activism extended beyond the IPB. He played a vital role as Vice President of IALANA (International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms) and led the Norwegian Peace Council from 1985 to 2000. His influential works, including “Peace is Possible” and “The Nobel Peace Prize. What Nobel Really Wanted,” have been translated into multiple languages, reflecting his global impact.

Today, we honor his final contribution to the field of peace literature, a book poignantly published shortly before his passing: “The Real Nobel Peace Prize. A Squandered Opportunity to Abolish War.” This groundbreaking work, available in English, is a culmination of Heffermehl’s lifelong quest to unveil the true intentions behind Alfred Nobel’s peace vision.

In “The Real Nobel Peace Prize,” Heffermehl reveals a startling discovery he made in 2007 about Alfred Nobel’s original peace ideals, a secret obscured by the very stewards of Nobel’s legacy. This book uncovers how Norwegian politicians, designated executors of Nobel’s will, have deviated from its intended purpose since the inception of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Fredrik’s work is a testament to his unwavering commitment to truth and justice. His deep analysis and bold revelations offer a critical perspective on the Nobel Peace Prize, challenging us to reconsider how Nobel’s vision can truly foster a world free of war.

We invite you to explore this profound piece of literature, a final gift from a man who tirelessly worked to make the world a more peaceful place. “The Real Nobel Peace Prize” is available for purchase at realnobelpeace.org. For further information, feel free to contact our office.

As we bid farewell to Fredrik S. Heffermehl, we are reminded of his enduring message: peace is not just a dream, but a possibility within our grasp. Let us honor his memory by continuing to strive for the peaceful world he envisioned.

Monitoring Report on the Situation of Belarusian Refugees in Lithuania

Regrettably, a concerning situation is unfolding in Lithuania, involving the rights of Belarusian refugees escaping the Lukashenko regime and compulsory military service.

In collaboration with Our House, we aim to provide you with their observational findings and recommendations for addressing the circumstances in Lithuania related to Belarusian political refugees and conscientious objectors from Belarus.

For instance, Belarusian female human rights activists in Lithuania are victimized in two ways: firstly, they are targeted by Komitet gosudarstvennoy bezopasnosti (KGB) or Committee for State Security (CSS) espionage, and secondly, they face attacks from male Lithuanian human rights defenders. This double victimization places them in a distressing and even more vulnerable position, underscoring the urgent need for enhanced protection and support.

As one voice with Our House, the IPB respectfully calls for global attention to the escalating situation, which is becoming increasingly critical. More than 1700 Belarusians have been classified as posing a threat to Lithuania’s national security, resulting in a five-year ban from entering the European Union. Among this group, 910 individuals are currently at risk of deportation to Belarus.

Read the full monitoring reports:

1st Report: Situation of Belarusian Refugees in Lithuania

Conscientious Objection in Belarus Raises Alarming Human Rights Concerns, Particularly for Lithuanian Refugees. Despite recognized rights, Belarusian objectors face grave situations, including death penalty for desertion and strict military deferment laws. Perceptions of threat to Lithuania’s security are subjective, lacking legal clarity, relying on flexible interpretation.Refuge-seeking Belarusians opt for Russia, not endorsing policies but due to practical reasons like border ease. Female rights activists in Lithuania face dual victimization: KGB espionage and local attacks. Urgent protection needed.

[2nd Report] Situation of Belarusian Conscientious Objectors & Evaders in Lithuania

Our House presents the 2nd report on challenges faced by Belarusian migrants in Lithuania. Highlights include activist struggles, discrimination against conscientious objectors, “National Security Panic,” and hate speech instances. Urgent global attention needed as the situation intensifies. 1700+ Belarusians labeled threats, 910 facing deportation.

Authored by: International Centre for civil initiatives “Our House” (Nash Dom), Belarus & Lithuania

With the support of:

Publication date: August 2023

#HumanRights #Belarus #Lithuania #ConscientiousObjection #Protection4Olga

Peace Is Possible, If We Want It

Ahead of the 70th Anniversary of the Korean War Armistice in 2023

Written by Sooyoung Hwang: Manager, Center for Peace and Disarmament, PSPD Secretary General, Korea Peace Appeal Campaign

Not long ago, there was an accident in which a South Korean missile fell into a military unit in Gangneung, a city in the east of South Korea. The missile fired by the South Korean military in response to North Korea’s ballistic missile launch was mistakenly dropped during an abnormal flight. The explosion and fire left residents in a state of anxiety all night. As North Korea’s missile crossed the South Korea’s NLL(Northern Limit Line) and fell into the open sea, an air raid warning was issued for the first time on Ulleungdo, a small island in the east sea. Many military experts said the missile was likely a “fault.” Residents living in Gunsan, where USFK air base is located, continuously say, “It’s too loud to live here.” Because a large-scale ROK-US combined air force exercise ‘Vigilant Storm’ was conducted last november. It was a military exercise mobilizing 250 aircrafts including F-35A fighter jets of South Korean army and USFK, and F-35B fighter jets of USFJ to strike hundreds of strategic locations in North Korea simultaneously. 

Year 2022, Crisis on the Korean Peninsula

The crisis on the Korean Peninsula is so serious enough to cause armed conflicts at any time. Everyone is worried that there will be an accidental armed conflict when inter-Korean dialogue has been halted. One of the largest military drills, the ROK-US combined military exercise, is being conducted frequently in the small peninsula. These exercises involve utilizing both nuclear and non-nuclear forces. North Korea’s response to South Korea and US military action is also getting tougher. North Korea has pushed ahead with the most missile tests ever this year, including ICBMs.

Even more dangerous is the fact that South Korea, the US, and North Korea are announcing and practicing a ‘preemptive strike’ strategy against their opponents. South Korea and the US are practicing operational plans, including preemptive strikes and leadership beheading, and are frequently deploying fighter jets capable of dropping nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula under the name of ‘extended deterrence.’ In response, North Korea has also announced the Law on the DPRK’s Nuclear Forces Policy, that said it could preemptively use nuclear weapons if an attack is deemed imminent or if the leadership is threatened. The vicious cycle of arms race is repeating.

It is contradictory for both South Korea, North Korea, and the US to be so preoccupied with war exercises that they want no war to break out. South Korea Yoon Suk-yeol administration’s policy toward North Korea is based on an old idea that “we will make economic compensation if North Korea gives up its nuclear weapons.” It is also strengthening its aggressive military posture, insisting on ‘peace through strength.’ Beyond the ROK-US military alliance, the ROK-US-Japan military cooperation is being promoted at a rapid pace, and cooperation with NATO is also being strengthened. It is hard to find an independent strategy and realistic solution for peace in the current administration. As a result, South Korean government has not had any significant contact or dialogue with North Korea so far.

In 2018, the Korean Peninsula showed hope for peace to the world. But now, military tensions are rising without an exit. Since North Korea announced a moratorium on nuclear and ICBM tests in 2018, South Korea and the US have not taken appropriate countermeasures to improve hostile relations and resolve security threats felt by North Korea. This is one of the reasons for the loss of momentum in negotiations, and why North Korea cannot be blamed solely for the current situation.

Northeast Asia, the Front Line of the US-China Conflict

Recently, a series of diplomatic events such as the US-China summit, the G20 summit, the ROK-US-Japan summit were held. But it is still difficult to find peace, cooperation, or a bright future. It is a good thing that the leaders of the US and China announced that there would be no ‘New Cold War’ and decided to resume climate change negotiations. But it’s not enough. The world’s blocization and militarism are getting worse day by day. In particular, the strategic competition between the world’s top military expenditure (US) and second (China) is taking place in all areas, and is expected to continue to be.

As the confrontation between the US and China intensifies, conflicts and tensions are occurring throughout Northeast Asia, including the Korean Peninsula, the East China Sea, the South China Sea, and Taiwan. Any accidental armed conflict in these areas would have disastrous consequences. The confrontation between the ROK-US-Japan and the DPRK-China-Russia are gradually increasing around the Korean Peninsula. The Korean Peninsula, which had not escaped the Cold War structure even during the post-Cold War period, is now in the midst of an unpredictable vortex called the ‘New Cold War.’

Our proposal, Peace-First Approach

We do not have much time. From now on, we cannot guarantee that even the unstable cease-fire on the Korean peninsula that has lasted for the past 70 years will remain in place. We must urge each government and the international community to act as follows to ensure a peaceful resolution of the conflict on the Korean Peninsula and to prevent armed conflicts in Northeast Asia.

First, the countries concerned must immediately stop all military action that intensifies military tensions on the Korean Peninsula. They must recognize that armed protests only intensify the vicious circle and can never be a solution. In particular, South Korea and the US need to take preemptive measures to reduce threats, such as suspending combined military exercises. It is urgent to restore trust and create conditions for the dialogue to resume. We need to find extraordinary ways, such as appointment of special envoys to North Korea. The US has the strongest military power in the world, and South Korea spends more than 1.5 times the total GDP of North Korea on military spending alone. South Korea and the US, which have an overwhelming advantage in economic and military power over North Korea, should act first. If anyone doesn’t change, we can’t expect change.

Second, it is necessary to reassess the purpose and effectiveness of the UN Security Council sanctions on the DPRK. The policy to make North Korea give up its nuclear weapons through sanctions and military pressure has failed for the past two decades. As a result, we all witnessed that North Korea’s nuclear capability has grown over time. We should all remember that North Korea’s nuclear and ICBM tests were suspended, at least while talks and negotiations were underway. The international community cannot solve problems simply by demonizing the DPRK and imposing sanctions and pressure. UN Security Council resolutions on the DPRK emphasize not only sanctions but also peaceful and comprehensive solutions through dialogue. Comprehensive sanctions against North Korea have been ineffective in resolving the nuclear conflict, but only have worsened the humanitarian situation of North Koreans. Sanctions are not an end but a means. Sanctions on North Korea should be eased to improve the humanitarian situation and promote inter-Korean cooperation and peace negotiations.

Third, the fundamental way to solve the conflict on the Korean Peninsula is to resolve the hostile relations. Complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is impossible unless the unstable ceasefire is ended, hostile relations are converted into general diplomatic relations, mutual trust is established, and military threats are resolved. Yet, this will become more and more impossible as time goes by. Peace negotiations should begin, dealing comprehensively and effectively with the conclusion of peace agreements, improvement of the DPRK-US and the DPRK-Japan relations, and denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. And denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula cannot be achieved solely by the ‘CVID of North Korea.’ The policy of relying on nuclear weapons including the US nuclear umbrella, upon which South Korea and Japan depend, must also end. These steps would create the conditions for establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Northeast Asia and all states in the region joining the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). This is the way to protect the safety of all residents of the Korean Peninsula and East Asia.

Fourth, international efforts are needed to prevent armed conflicts in Northeast Asia and disarmament. Tensions are rising throughout Northeast Asia, and some regions are at high risk of leading to armed conflict. We need to resolve conflicts peacefully through dialogue and preventive diplomacy. Especially, regular dialogue and mechanisms should be created to control the deepening arms race between the US and China, including modernizing nuclear weapons, missile defense, autonomous weapon systems, militarizing space, and so on. Northeast Asia is an area where regional approaches have not developed and there is no regional security cooperation system. It should be noted that national security is deeply interdependent with other nations. As an alternative to resolving the deepening bilateral conflict, efforts are needed for regional security cooperation and dialogue. In addition, cooperation on the common goal of combating climate change must also continue regardless of the political and military situation. Because there is no peace without climate justice, and there is no climate justice without peace.

One Voice to End the Korean War, Korea Peace Appeal Campaign 

South Korea’s nationwide civil society organizations, seven major religious orders, and international organizations have been conducting the global signature campaign of the Korea Peace Appeal calling for an end to the Korean War and peace agreement since 2020. It is to end the vicious cycle of arms race on the Korean Peninsula, create a world without nuclear weapons and establish peace through dialogue and cooperation.

Year 2023 marks the 70th anniversary of the Korean War Armistice Agreement. Next year, Korea Peace Appeal Campaign plans to extend our campaign in various ways. Ahead of the signing date of the Armistice Agreement on July 27, the Global Action for Korea Peace in 100 different cities around the world, large scale rallies and marches in Seoul, and international conferences will be held in July. Detailed ways to participate will be updated to everyone next year. I hope that you and peace folks around the world will join with us to bring peace on the Korean Peninsula. 

The world we are facing now may not be the ‘Post War’ but the ‘Pre War’ era. The word ‘war’ feels closer than ever. We must continue to call for peace, disarmament, and cooperation against militarism and blocization. The higher the risk of war and armed conflict, the more people will want peace. The role of the peace movement is to connect and amplify the voices of such people as one, and to tell the world that “peace is possible.”

For the 70th anniversary of the armistice of the Korean War, let’s go together for peace on the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia, and for world peace.

Sign the Korea Peace Appeal: https://endthekoreanwar.net

Climate & The Military: How Global Militarization Is Costing Us The Earth

By Alessandra Fontanella, Assistant Coordinator (IPB)

New Reports Show the Extent of Military Pollution on our Planet

Recent data from reports published by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR)and the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS), as well as from the Transnational Institute (TNI), Stop Wapenhandel, and Tipping Point North South (TPNS) demonstrate the overwhelmingly negative impact of global military activities on our climate.

The 2022 SGR report estimates that the world’s militaries contribute to 5.5 per cent of global greenhouse gas  (GHG) emissions. It also finds that if the world’s militaries were a country, it would have the 4th largest national carbon footprint in the world. To illustrate these findings further, if global militaries were combined they would be the world’s 29th top oil consumer, ahead of Venezuela and Poland.  SGR and CEOBS estimate the annual military carbon footprint of the US at 205 million tonnes, and 11 million tonnes for the UK.

Despite the new methodology that has enabled scientists to approximate the level of military carbon pollution, their estimations are limited. A lack of clear and consistent reporting of data by governments has made it difficult to provide accurate estimations of military greenhouse gas emissions – under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, governments are not obligated to report their emissions data to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). Further, collaborative research by between CEOBS and Concrete Impacts: militaryemissions.org shows no yearly improvements on voluntary reporting by governments. It is also difficult for researchers to measure emissions from damage to buildings, eco-systems and reconstructions efforts post-conflict leading to significant data gaps.

Despite these limitations, the existing data is alarming and highlights the need for dialogue between governments, international organisations and civil society to work towards a global plan. Civil society can play a crucial role in advocating for the redirection of finance from the military towards funding climate change. The richest countries (annex II in the UN Climate Talks) have a military expenditure 30 times greater than what they allocate to climate finance for vulnerable countries and have failed to meet their obligation of providing $100bn a year to the most climate-vulnerable countries in the world. The redistribution of just one year’s military spending by the top 10 military countries towards climate finance would provide 15 years  (US $100bn) of the promised funding.

Moreover, a thorough set of data protocols should be put in place to enhance transparency and pave the way for more comprehensive and accurate data on global military emissions, as suggested by SGR. We must demand greater transparency and accountability from governments, and promote the dissemination of information about military emissions to increase public attention on governments’ military spending and activities.  Collective action in the peace and climate movements  is necessary to bring about a  reduction of military carbon emissions, and the redirection of spending in this sector towards mitigative action for our climate.

The best way to reduce military pollution on our planet is to reduce war. The International Peace Bureau is committed to promoting positive peace and justice, below we outline several recent actions that IPB has taken:

  • IPB’s year round campaign – Global Campaign on Military Spending (GCOMS) raises awareness of excessive military spending and aims to reduce global military expenditures.
  • IPB Council member Tyson Smith Berry Jr. hosted the panel “Climate Change & Common Security: challenges and solutions in Africa and the world at large” at the conference : From Conflict to Beloved Communities – A Series of International Gatherings on Peace, Justice and Non-Violence on November 8 in Juba, South Sudan.
  • For the COP 27 which recently took place in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, the IPB alongside the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) and World BEYOND War (WBW)sent two open letters addressed to the UNFCC and Green Climate.
  • Visit IPB’s Youtube Channel to watch our broadcast updates from COP27 – focused on the events and activists that brought together the themes of peace and climate.

IPB Christmas Peace Appeal

IPB is calling for a ceasefire in Ukraine for Christmas 2022/2023, from the 25 December to the 7 January, as a sign of our shared humanity, reconciliation and peace.

To be a part of our appeal for peace and negotiations, please sign our petition on the Christmas appeal website.

The Christmas Peace Appeal is available in seven different languages available on the website, where you can also learn about the history of the 1914 Christmas Truce. If your language is not covered by our translations and you would like us to add it to our website, send a translation to: ipb@info-office.berlin.

IPB has put together a collection of proposals and possibilities for a ceasefire and resolution to the conflicts between Russia and Ukraine. The document is available here.

Publication of the report “NATO, Building Global Insecurity”

On the 25th 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 53th 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 or visit Centre Delàs’ website.­­