Violence has seeped into our
culture and it permeates our lives in ways that have changed us as a people. We must address
this predilection for violence because it has now become our solace
of first, rather than last resort, and we are becoming a country
where the military - not diplomacy - guides our foreign
policy. From Barbara
Lee's book Renegade for Peace and Justice. Pg 203
"For every thousand pages published on the causes of
wars, there is less than one page directly on the causes of peace."
Geoffrey Blainey
Democracy
didn't come across on the Mayflower. Indeed not. Nor with the Niña nor
Santa Maria. Certainly not. Democracy was here. It was in full flower.
It was rampant. It was all over. All nations were free, and that
includes the buffalo nation, that includes the fish nations and the
nations of trees. They were all free. That's what was here. Not to say
that people always got along. That's why we had great councils to keep
the peace. And that's what the Haudenosauneeshone leadership is about.
We are not actually chiefs. Chief is an English word. We are hoyaneh,
which means the peacemakers. We keep the peace. That's what the
leadership is about. That's our work, that's our job. To keep the peace
and promote peace. I think people wonder about Native leaders and what
we do. Some of the activities we're involved in carry us to many places
in the world, and our leaders have always been on the move.Oren
Lyons - the ice is melting.
And today, JFK's great concerns seem more relevant
than ever: the dangers of nuclear proliferation, the notion that empire is
inconsistent with a republic and that corporate domination of our
democracy at home is the partner of imperial policies abroad. He
understood the perils to our Constitution from a national-security
state and mistrusted zealots and ideologues. He thought other nations
ought to fight their own civil wars and choose their own governments
and not ask the U.S. to do it for them. Yet the world he imagined and
fought for has receded so far below the horizon that it's no longer
even part of the permissible narrative inside the Beltway or in the
mainstream press. Critics who endeavor to debate the survival of
American democracy within the national-security state risk
marginalization as crackpots and kooks. His greatest, most heroic
aspirations for a peaceful, demilitarized foreign policy are the
forbidden debates of the modern political era. RFK
Jr in the December 5th, 2013 issue of Rolling Stone.
Except for Kucinich, who was pretty much marginalized, none of
the major Presidential candidates are so much for peace that they
would cut the military budget. Instead we are building an empire, a new generation of H bombs, spending
wildly on the incredibly stupid, provocative 'Star
Wars' missile defense, and continuing to
expand a military that exceeds in cost
the rest of the world combined. Remember...what you prepare for
will surely come to pass.
That is the 'character' that Republicans
have brought to US government. (also torture, disappearances, assassinations, regime changes
(including our own), massive military expenses, and the permanent
war. The last time the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty came before
the Senate in 1999, all but two Republicans
voted against it.
It is time we recognise that the international community
should assume the burden of preventing pre-emptive war by nation states
and of policing independent terrorist operations. Pre-emptive war, such as in Iraq, is a war crime.
Medieval religions
that provoke war should lose their tax-exempt status. If they are terrorists their
assets should be seized.
Although there was considerable discussion
whether this
document was legitimate or a hoax, the question it poses is valid.
... what problems would occur if the United States entered a
state of lasting peace ?...The heavily footnoted report concluded that peace
was not in the interest of a stable society, that even if lasting peace
"could be achieved, it would almost certainly not be in the best
interests of society to achieve it." War was a part of the economy.
Therefore, it was necessary to conceive a state of war for a stable
economy. The government, the group theorized, would not exist without
war, and nation states existed in order to wage war. War also served a
vital function of diverting collective aggression. They recommended
that bodies be created to emulate the economic functions of war. They
also recommended "blood games" and that the government create
alternative foes that would scare the people with reports of alien
life-forms and out-of-control pollution. Another proposal was the
reinstitution of slavery. (taken from Wikipeda's
entry on the Report from Iron Mountain
Annual global military spending now stands at US
$1,339 billion, according to the
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute figures for 2007.
This corresponds to 2.5% of world gross domestic product (GDP) and
$202 per head of population worldwide. Of this total, the USA
accounts for around 45%.
Protesting
Power: War, Resistance and Law: Francis Boyle.
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., forthcoming:
Since the Reagan Administration’s
ascent to power in 1981, hundreds of thousands of Americans
citizens have engaged in various forms of non-violent civil
resistance activities in order to protest against distinct elements
of U.S. foreign affairs, defense, and counter-terrorism policies
that violate basic principles of international law, the United
States Constitution, and human rights. These citizen protests have
led to numerous arrests and prosecutions by federal, state, and
local governments around the country. For the past twenty-five
years, the author has given advice, counsel, and assistance to
individuals and groups who have engaged in non-violent civil
resistance to stop illegal, unconstitutional, and criminal behavior
by the U. S. government around the world. This book has been
written to be used by concerned citizens, activists, NGOs, civil
resisters, their supporters and their lawyers as well as by the
American peace movement in order to inform themselves on the best
legal and constitutional arguments in support of such civil
resistance activities. This book contains extensive materials
analyzing the illegality and unconstitutionality of the Trident II
nuclear weapons system deployed by the United States and the United
Kingdom; the Bush Sr. administration’s 1991 war against Iraq;
the Clinton administration’s 1994 invasion of Haiti; and the
Bush Jr. administration’s ongoing war against Iraq. It is the
only book in print to explain how to use international law, the
U.S. Constitution and the laws of war to defend civil resisters in
criminal cases.
"I must frankly confess that the foreign policy of the
United States since the termination of hostilities has reminded me,
some times irresistibly, of the attitude of Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm
II, and I know that, independent of me, this analogy has most
painfully occurred to others as well. It is characteristic of the
military mentality that non-human factors (atom bombs, strategic
bases, weapons of all sorts, the possession of raw materials, etc.)
are held essential, while the human being, his desires and
thoughts—in short, the psychological factors—are
considered as unimportant and secondary. Herein lies a certain
resemblance to Marxism, at least insofar as its theoretical side
alone is kept in view. The individual is degraded to a mere
instrument; he be comes “human materiel.” The normal
ends of human aspiration vanish with such a viewpoint. Instead, the
military mentality raises “naked power” as a goal in
itself—one of the strangest illusions to which men can
succumb.
In our time the military mentality is still more dangerous
than formerly because the offensive weapons have become much more
powerful than the defensive ones. Therefore it leads, by necessity,
to preventive war. The general insecurity that goes hand in hand
with this results in the sacrifice of the citizen’s civil
rights to the supposed welfare of the state. Political
witch-hunting, controls of all sorts (e.g., control of teaching and
research, of the press, and so forth) appear inevitable, and for
this reason do not encounter that popular resistance, which, were
it not for the military mentality, would provide a protection. A
reappraisal of all values gradually takes place insofar as
everything that does not clearly serve the utopian ends is regarded
and treated as inferior.
I see no other way
out of prevailing conditions than a far-seeing, honest and
courageous policy with the aim of establishing security on
supranational foundations. Let us hope that men will be found,
sufficient in number and moral force, to guide the nation on this
path so long as a leading role is imposed on her by external
circumstances. Then problems such as have been discussed here will
cease to exist." (1947) Einstein on Politics, Rowe and
Schulmann.
Why Can't We Talk about Peace in Public?
It has been a long time since there has been a serious discussion in the
media about a path to peace. The US is unquestionably the leading
possessor of WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). With the exception of North Korea, there are no credible
state threats to the US, yet the military remains the largest in the world.
With an election looming, and always seeking to foster more
cooperation among activist groups, the Peace Team at http://www.peaceteam.net brings
you this message from CodePink, to join in signing their "Give Peace A
Vote" Pledge.
I was at a concert this weekend in California to raise money for
the National Veterans Foundation. I'm an Air Force veteran,
and I have great respect for the military. I like to support
the soldiers whenever I can. But I don't support this war in
Iraq.
I was against the war before it started. I always thought it
was a terrible decision, badly thought out, badly planned, and then
horribly executed.
I want to see our troops come home right away, and so do most
Americans. Unfortunately, too many politicians in both
parties refuse to listen.
So when will the troops come home? When we won't put up with
it anymore --- when we change our government. And how will we
do that? By voting the bastards out! On November 7, you
should vote for anyone who's against the war and vote against
anyone who's for the war. It's that simple.
When I wrote the song "Whatever Happened to Peace on Earth" at
Christmastime in 2003, a lot of people were for the war, a lot of
people didn't know the facts or the truth. But people are
waking up now. They're learning that they were lied to about
the war. They're feeling lied to about this Mark Foley
scandal in terms of who knew what and when. They're
questioning the leadership in this country.
And that gives us new possibilities for November 7th. If we
all go out and vote for peace candidates and get our friends to
vote, and if our votes are really counted, it's no contest.
There'll be a change in the Congress, and then we'll just have to
keep building so we can get a president who won't send our soldiers
to fight a war based on lies.
We should have thrown the bastards out years ago. Let's do it
now! Please Give Peace A Vote and sign CODEPINK's petition by
clicking on
The CD Report is a weekly reporting service on the Conference on Disarmament, the sole
international forum for negotiating disarmament treaties. It
is produced by the Reaching Critical Will project of the
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.
This and other reporting services from RCW cannot continue without
your financial support. If you find the CD Report useful,
please consider making a donation today. Visit
our website or
contact the RCW Project
Associate for more information on
how you can support the Reaching Critical Will
project.
The
Conference on Disarmament (CD)
continued its focused debate on Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space at
its June 13 plenary session, with a focus on Transparency and
Confidence Building Measures (TCBMs). Presumably responding to
Russia's June 8 call to states with military space technology
“to refrain from any practical activities aimed to place
weapon systems in outer space while the international agreement on
non-weaponization of outer space is being elaborated,” the United States
openly declared its right to continue to develop such weapons in
the session. Pakistan, Cuba, China, Belarus, Italy, Ireland, Brazil, France, Russia, United States, Argentina, Sweden and
Australia also took the floor.
“Full
Spectrum Dominance”
The United States
sent a State Department official to the CD to make its most overt
defense of its right to develop space weapons to date. ”The
high value of space systems has led the United States to study the
potential of space-related weapons to protect our satellites from
potential future attacks, whether from the surface or from other
spacecraft. As long as the potential for such attacks remains, our
Government will continue to consider the possible role that
space-related weapons may play in protecting out assets,”
said Deputy Office Director of Multilateral Nuclear and Security
Affairs Division of the Department of State John
Mohanco.
Although it
continues to support the negotiation of its top priority, a Fissile Materials
Cut-off Treaty, the United States was “more convinced
than ever that issues relating to the supposed weaponization of
space definitely do NOT have consensus” in the
CD.
Cuba noted
that this lack of consensus may not be terribly strong, as only the
United States and Israel voted against the resolution on PAROS
adopted by the First Committee of the General Assembly
(A/RES/60/54)
in 2005. Although it usually abstains on this annual norm-building
resolution, in 2005 the US led the first ever no votes on it
against 180 states in favor. The United States was the sole no vote
on the new resolution about transparency and confidence building
measures in outer space (A/RES/60/66),
against 178 states in favor.
The US
stated that their opposition to any further arms control measures
in outer space is because ”there is no – repeat, no-
problem in outer space for arms control to solve.” They see
the inability to define space weapons as the main barrier to
discussing space weapons, although that did not prevent them from
telling the conference they do not have nor plan to build such
weapons.
Pakistan made
a clear reference to the US Space Command's Vision for
2020 when Ambassador Khan stated, ”Military
doctrines that seek full spectrum dominance projected through and
from space are counterproductive and jeopardize the security of all
humanity. Defense capability is legitimate but aspirations for
impregnable defenses tend to undermine deterrence, and lead to new
instruments of war and to arms race.”
Similar
to US views on other weapons systems, “threats to the peaceful
use of space... come not from the existence of military hardware,
but from those who would disturb the peace”. The recently
released Weapons of Mass
Destruction Report, chaired by Hans Blix and written by weapons
experts from around the world, insists weapons themselves are
dangerous, in anyone's hands.
Transparency and Confidence Building Measures
The working paper submitted by China and the Russian Federation (CD/1678) on
transparency and confidence building measures (TCBMs) was the basis
for much of the discussion.
Several
states noted the need for a step-by-step approach to transparency
and confidence building. As Sweden stated,
“an important step would be the full implementation of all
existing CBMs (confidence building measures), for example those
included in the 1975 Registration
Convention.”
Russia said,
”by its nature, confidence building is a phased
process.” China agreed
that ”TCBMs (transparency and confidence building measures)
can serve as a starting point and supplement for negotiation and
concluding an international legal instrument that prohibits the
weaponization of and an arms race in outer
space.”
Belarus
contended that ”new CBMs in outer space, in the first place,
should be aimed at further strengthening of already existing
international legal tools in the field of space
law.”
Ambassador Valery Loschinin from Russia explained the working paper in detail.
Measures to create confidence and serve as a starting point for a
future treaty include: the exchange of information about space
programs; demonstrations of technologies and launch sites;
notifications of launches and descents from orbit of outer space
objects; consultations on research and programs; and thematic
workshops on outer space research and use issues.
An expert
from the Swedish Defense Research Agency made comments and further
suggestions to the measures presented in the Chinese/Russian
working paper. “Mechanisms for consultations would serve many
essential purposes, as pointed out in the working paper. One simple
measure to facilitate such consultations would be the appointment
of national points of contact,” said Mr. Lars
Hostbeck.
Ireland
promoted the suggestions made by the recently released report of
the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission: notice of all space
launches; unilateral declarations by states of not flight-test or
deploy weapons in space; declaration of moratoria on production and
testing anti-satellite weapons; and establishing the observation of
a minimum exclusion zone around satellites. Italy, Russia, Belarus
and Cuba also urged states with extensive space capacities to
officially declare they will not be the first ones to place weapons
in outer space.
States
also discussed the step-by-step approach for verification. Russia and
China, which prioritize PAROS, admitted that verification was a
complicated issue and might be postponed. China stated, ”Due
to the complex nature of verification of outer space activities,
which bears on the security interest of all countries, as well as
to technical and financial constraints of verification, currently
it is extremely difficult to negotiate a verification provision.
For the time being, to put on hold the verification issue until
conditions are ripe, and to negotiate a treaty without verification
provisions could be a practical alternative.” Russia
concurred, ”Elaborating the treaty without verification
measures, which could be added at a later stage, might be a
preferable option. TCBMs could, for a certain period of time,
compensate for the lack of verification measures in the new
treaty.”
Brazil, Argentina and Pakistan
exemplified confidence building measures by sharing details of
their own space programs in their statements.
Cooperation
As at the
last plenary meeting, states emphasized the importance of
cooperation with other UN bodies, which was echoed today. Belarus wanted
work on confidence building measures to be carried out in
cooperation between General Assembly’s First and Fourth
Committee, Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS)
and the CD. Sweden agreed
that it is important to make sure the work among the CD, COPUOS and
other relevant bodies will be mutually reinforcing and
co-coordinated in order to avoid duplication or contradictory
approaches.
”We
believe that the dialogue between the various bodies with an
interest in outer space should be enhanced” said Ambassador
Carlo Trezza of Italy, and
suggested inviting the Chairman of COPUOS to brief the CD on
questions relevant to their work.
It would
be
useful if more states, particularly leaders, focused on cooperation
rather than dominance. However, even with aggressive stances, there
is still room for hope and some maneuvering among those working for
compromise and progress in disarmament. The US indicated in its
final paragraph that “delegations may continue to use this
plenary to conduct in-depth reviews of all issues of interest to
Member States, including outer space”.
The next
plenary meeting will be held on Thursday 15 June.
-Jennifer
Nordstrom, Reaching Critical Will and
Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern