Tag: Peace

A Confederation of Israel, Palestine & Jordan — Global Issues

Mahmoud Abbas, President of the S tate of Palestine, addresses the UN Security Council on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question. Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe
  • by Thalif Deen (united nations)
  • Inter Press Service

UNITED NATIONS, Jul 15 (IPS) – Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is “key to sustainable peace in the Middle East”, says UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, maintaining that the lack of any progress only “furthers radicalization across the region”The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which dates back to the mid-1940s, is one of the longest military confrontations defying a permanent solution – even as it continues to be on the agenda of the United Nations whose primary mandate is the maintenance of international peace and security.

But regrettably there has been no peace nor security in the long-festering battle for a Palestinian homeland.

The multiple peace plans floating around Middle Eastern and Western capitals included a proposed “one-state solution”, a “two- state solution” and the 1993 “Oslo Accords”, a peace treaty based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 aimed at fulfilling the “right of the Palestinian people to self-determination”.

But none of them really got off the ground.

Alon Ben-Meir, a retired professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU), has a new plan for an Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian confederation.

In an interview with IPS, Dr Ben-Meir said after 73 years of conflict, regardless of the many changes on the ground, the political wind that swept the region, and the intermittent violence between Israel and Palestine, the Palestinians will not, under any circumstances give up on their aspiration for statehood.

“Ultimately, the creation of an independent Palestinian state that exists side-by-side with Israel remains the only viable option to end their conflict”, argued Dr Meir, who has taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies for over 20 years.

“Given however the substantive irreversible fact that were created on the ground since 1967, an independent Palestinian state can peacefully coexist with Israel only through the establishment of an Israeli-Palestinian confederation that would subsequently be joined by Jordan,” he said.

Mahmoud Abbas, President of the S tate of Palestine, addresses the UN Security Council on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question. Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

By definition, a confederation is a “voluntary associations of independent states that, to secure some common purpose, agree to certain limitations on their freedom of action and establish some joint machinery of consultation or deliberation” .

This is necessitated by the facts and the requirement that all sides will have to fully and permanently collaborate on many levels required by the changing conditions on the ground, most of which can no longer be restored to the status quo ante, he explained.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00438200211066350.

Excerpts from the Q&A follows:

Q: What is unique about the proposed confederation—and how different is it from several of the failed peace agreements over the last 75 years?

A: What is unique about the proposed confederation is that the three countries, as independent states, would join together on issues of common interest that cannot be addressed but in full collaboration under the framework of confederation.

It is imperative for the three main players to address the following facts on the ground and their national security collectively, as they can no longer reverse them to the status quo ante. These constitute the foundation of the confederation and include:

The interspersed Israeli and Palestinian populations in the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Israel proper, which can no longer be separated and is the backbone of confederation;

The intrinsic religious connection all three states have to Jerusalem, including the fact that the Palestinians will never give up on East Jerusalem becoming the Palestinian capital; albeit Jerusalem can never be divided physically, and the border between East and West Jerusalem is only political and applicable for administrative purposes;

The intertwined national security concerns of Israelis and Palestinians; the need to continue the current cooperation in this critical area, and the need to further expand their collaboration once a Palestinian state is created: the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the majority of which will have to remain in place because under no circumstance will Israel ever evacuate all the settlements; the Palestinian refugees who must be resettled and/or compensated, as the right of return has never been considered as a viable option even by the Palestinians, albeit tacitly.

Thus, given the inevitability of coexistence, whether under hostile or peaceful conditions, and the interconnectedness on all the above five levels, the establishment of a confederation as the ultimate goal would allow both sides to jointly resolve and manage their differences.

The above facts must be factored in as they are not subject to a dramatic shift and are central to reaching a sustainable peace agreement.

Q: Has the proposed plan been endorsed or supported by either the Israeli government or the Palestinian Authority? And what about Hamas? Any reactions from any of these warring parties?

A: The proposed Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian confederation plan has been discussed with former and current officials and scholars from all three countries. It has been acknowledged and has largely been received well.

They admit (albeit not officially) that given the prevailing conditions—that is, the inter-connectedness between the three parties from the perspectives of territorial contiguity, national security, and economic development—they have little choice but to fully collaborate without compromising their independence as defined by the concept of confederation.

Although publicly Hamas rejects Israel’s right to exist, privately it admits that Israel is there to stay and has no choice but to cooperate with Israel on many levels.

Under the proposed confederation, the interaction between Hamas and Israel will only increase by virtue of Gaza’s location and the need of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank to connect and transact with one another, which can be done largely through Israel on land.

Q: Do you plan to submit your proposal to the five veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council—the US, UK, France, Russia and China?

A: Our hope is that once the three countries conclude that there is really no other viable option that will bring about an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and recognize the inevitability of co-existence, the proposal will certainly be endorsed by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council—the US, UK, France, Russia, and China.

We should bear in mind, however, that once the three countries agree to form a confederation, the Security Council need only to recognize Palestinian independence, which will not be vetoed by any of the five veto-wielding powers because they all support the establishment of a Palestinian state under conditions of peace. Beyond that, the UNSC will have no say about the formation of the confederation.

Q: Depending on the reactions of the Israelis and the Palestinians, would you amend or revise the proposal?

A: Any peace proposal, regardless of its merits, will be subject to modifications to meet some specific nuances that are of special concern to the parties involved. That said, the concept of the confederation itself will not change because it takes into consideration the many facts on the ground that are not subject to change and because it is designed to largely meet the needs and the aspirations of the three countries.

Having said that, there are still issues over which there is no consensus. Jerusalem is a case in point; the Israelis vehemently oppose the surrendering of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians and it becoming the capital of the Palestinian state.

The proposal offers a solution whereby the city will remain physically undivided while respecting each other’s inherent affinity and religious connection to the holy sites.

Moreover, both Israeli and Palestinian residents will continue to move freely between the two parts of the city without any restriction, which is exactly the case at the present.

Q: Are you planning to submit the proposal to the UN Secretary-General?

A: I believe that if the UN Secretary General is to look at the proposal, he will more than likely endorse it as it is consistent with his and the majority view of the General Assembly (GA) that the Palestinians are entitled to an independent state of their own.

We are trying now to share it with as many entities—academic and political—to engender greater receptivity. In fact, the entire proposal was published in the Spring issue of World Affairs Journal, and the Journal will have an issue in December dedicated entirely to the proposal.

We will soon seek channels to convey it directly to the Secretary General in the hope that he would formally share it with all the parties involved directly and indirectly.

This includes obviously the Palestinian Authority, Israel, and Jordan, and with the US, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Germany, who will by playing critical roles in various capacities.

Q: If the proposal is eventually accepted by the parties, do you think it would be prudent to seek ratification by the 193-member General Assembly and the 15-member Security Council, both of which have been involved with the Palestinian issue since its inception?

A: To the best of my knowledge once the proposal is accepted by the three parties it does not need a formal ratification by the General Assembly (GA). Indecently, the GA has already granted Palestine observer status. That said, a full endorsement of the proposal by the GA will enhance both its legitimacy and scope.

As to the UNSC, given that any new application for membership in the UN must be approved by the Security Council, the 15 member states may well have to vote to grant the Palestinians the status of full member state of the UN, which will be a given under the framework of the agreed-upon confederation.

IPS UN Bureau Report


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

More Weapons than Ever. And a Hunger Crisis Like No Other — Global Issues

Conflict is still the biggest driver of hunger, with 60 percent of the world’s hungry living in areas affected by war and violence. Credit: Isaiah Esipisu/IPS
  • by Baher Kamal (madrid)
  • Inter Press Service

MADRID, Jul 01 (IPS) – While the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Summit ended in Madrid on 30 June with net commitments to double spending on weapons and to increase by eight-fold the number of troops in Europe, the total of hungry people worldwide now marks an unprecedented record.

As advanced by IPS in its: NATO Summit Set to Further Militarise Europe, Expand in Africa? The Western military Alliance Declaration states that its member countries continue to face distinct threats from “all strategic directions.”

“The Russian Federation is the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area.”

Militarising migration policies?

Furthermore, the NATO Summit Declaration emphasises that terrorism, “in all its forms and manifestations, continues to pose a direct threat to the security of our populations, and to international stability and prosperity.”

The Summit, therefore, decided to increase its military deployment in Southern Europe, in particular in Spain and upon its request, as a way to prevent and combat terrorism.

The decision was adopted by NATO leaders just four days after the massive entry of migrants to the Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla, both located in the North of Morocco, which was brutally stopped, killing around thirty migrants.

“Instability beyond our borders is also contributing to irregular migration and human trafficking,” says the Declaration.

In short, NATO has opted for further militarising its US, Canada and European countries’ migration policies, which they continue to claim that are based on international laws and human rights, etcetera.

Cyber, space threats?

The Madrid Declaration also says that NATO members “are confronted by cyber, space, and hybrid and other asymmetric threats, and by the malicious use of emerging and disruptive technologies.”

As expected, the NATO Declaration emphasises that the Russian Federation “is the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area.”

At the same time, NATO leaders have made a clear reference to China.

“We face systemic competition from those, including the People’s Republic of China, who challenge our interests, security, and values and seek to undermine the rules-based international order.”

Any mention of hunger?

Unless hunger has been dealt with by the Western military Alliance as a “top secret, confidential” topic, the NATO Declaration makes no clear mention of the current unprecedented hunger crisis. Perhaps NATO includes the deadly hunger as part of its package of “threats” to their safety and security?

The fact is that right now 811 million people go to bed hungry every night, the Peace Nobel Laureate World Food Programme (WFP) warns.

The number of those facing acute food insecurity has soared – from 135 million to 345 million – since 2019. A total of 50 million people in 45 countries are teetering on the edge of famine.

Money for weapons, not for saving lives

While needs are sky-high, resources have hit rock bottom, warns WFP, while emphasising that it requires 22.2 billion US dollars to immediately reach 137 million people in 2022.

“However, with the global economy reeling from the COVID-19 pandemic, the gap between needs and funding is bigger than ever before.”

The urgently needed funding to face the pressing need to save lives is hard to be met. In its Nuclear-Armed Powers Squander $156.000 Per Minute on Their ‘MAD’ Policy, IPS reported on how nine nuclear-armed states spent 82.4 billion US dollars in just one year, prior to the unfolding war in Europe, on these weapons of mass destruction.

Now in view of the NATO Summit decision to further increase military spending to face not only Russia but also to more heavily spending on deadly arms to challenge what they now consider as the Chinese threat, there will be little chance to address the devastating hunger.

Why is the world hungrier than ever?

WPF mentions four causes of hunger and famine. This seismic hunger crisis, it explains, has been caused by a deadly combination of four factors:

  • Conflict is still the biggest driver of hunger, with 60 percent of the world’s hungry living in areas affected by war and violence. Events unfolding in Ukraine are further proof of how conflict feeds hunger, forcing people out of their homes and wiping out their sources of income.
  • Climate shocks destroy lives, crops and livelihoods, and undermine people’s ability to feed themselves.
  • The economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic are driving hunger to unprecedented levels.
  • And, last but not least, the cost of reaching people in need is rising: the price WFP is paying for food is up 30 percent compared to 2019, an additional US$42 million a month.

 

Hunger hotspots: a ring of fire

By the way, none of these factors has been caused by any of these millions of hungry humans.

According to the Rome-based WFP, from the Central American Dry Corridor and Haiti, through the Sahel, Central African Republic, South Sudan and then eastwards to the Horn of Africa, Syria, Yemen and all the way to Afghanistan, there is a ring of fire stretching around the world where conflict and climate shocks are driving millions of people to the brink of starvation.

In countries like Nigeria, South Sudan and Yemen, WFP is already faced with hard decisions, including cutting rations to be able to reach more people. This is tantamount to taking from the hungry to feed the starving.

“The consequences of not investing in resilience activities will reverberate across borders. If communities are not empowered to withstand the shocks and stresses they are exposed to, this could result in increased migration and possible destabilisation and conflict.”

Is this why NATO leaders talk about pouring more billions and even trillions into their fight against “destabilisation and terrorism”?

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

The Urgency to Ban All Wars — Global Issues

  • Opinion by Riccardo Petrella (brussels)
  • Inter Press Service

BRUSSELS, Jun 30 (IPS) – The writer is Professor Emeritus of the Catholic University of LouvainOn Sunday 19 June, we gathered in Sezano, municipality of Verona (VR), at the Monastery of the Common Good to affirm the need and urgency to ban war, all wars, and build peace without yes or no buts.

To the powerful world leaders who want to continue the war in Ukraine (USA, Russia, NATO member states, the European Union which has become a war front, Ukraine) we say STOP your new world war for world domination, of which the one in Ukraine is a dramatic expression.

Why do you still need tens of thousands of dead in the war camps you call liberation camps and tens of millions of people starving to death because of your economic sanctions (countersanctions, retaliations) that only benefit the profits of your big global corporations?

Enough of Putin, Biden, Stoltenberg, Von der Leyen….the world does not need your war in Ukraine. Stop spending over 2.1 trillion dollars on armaments under the hypocritical pretence of saving the peace.

For 70 years, the United States has been at permanent war on every continent with some 800 military bases of occupation in hundreds of countries around the world– and, following the collapse of the Soviet Union– trying to establish themselves in Ukraine as well.

China has only one military base abroad and Russia has only three!

One must know how to lose the victory to know how to build peace.
Because war has never solved problems, it is pure destruction.
War itself is a crime– and if you keep proposing wars, you are a criminal.

The greatest victory is to make peace, because the right to life is a universal right, for everyone and because it shows that you want and know how to live with others. and do not want to dominate others, but live together in the present to promote a future ever more just and united, in common.

Because the world emergency is to put an end to the profits and enrichment of the strongest and collaborate in building hospitals (not tanks), schools (not fighter planes), food production (not fighter planes), to the production of food (not missiles), of drinking water (not toxic gases), to the toxic gases), to the promotion of fraternity (not arms trade).

We must Stop All Wars that are currently martyring and killing people in Syria, Yemen, Congo, Palestine, Western Sahara, Kurdistan, among others.

The cynical silence of the West on the new military invasions by Erdogan’s Turkey in northern Iraq and north-eastern Syria inhabited by Kurdish populations is intolerable.

Inhabitants of the Earth, defend peace and the rights of all! Denunciation is necessary. Building peace, starting with an immediate cessation of hostilities, is even more necessary and positive for all.

Listen to the Intergovernmental Panel on United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which predicts that global warming is three and a half years away to exceed 1.5 degrees.

Do not listen to the US, Russia, France, Britain, China, North Korea, Israel,
India and Pakistan who are building nuclear weapons. Listen to the 130 UN countries that support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Signed in from:
Brussels, Verona, Palermo, Rome, Montreal, Trois Rivières, Coyahique (Patagonia CL), Rosario, Rio de Janeiro, Bahia, Clermont-Ferrand, Paris, Poitou Charentes, Neuchâtel, Dakar, Beirut, Lisbon, Toronto, Vancouver…

For further information, please contact [email protected] or the Agora ‘s site agora-humanité.org Riccardo Petrella is president of the association.

IPS UN Bureau


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

NATO Summit Set to Further Militarise Europe, Expand in Africa? — Global Issues

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. Credit: NATO.
  • by Baher Kamal (madrid)
  • Inter Press Service

MADRID, Jun 28 (IPS) – The three-day North Atlantic Treaty Organisation-NATO Summit in Madrid (28,29, 30 June 2022) is expected to agree to considerably increase Europe’s military power, heavily weaponise Russia’s border, and further expand its presence in Africa, according to a diplomatic source.

Taking advantage of the ongoing Russian “Special Operation” in Ukraine, the NATO leaders are also expected to agree on multiplying by up to five-fold its troops and military potential in Europa, including nuclear weapons, long-range missiles, cyber-attacks and the robotisation of arms, the source told IPS on condition of anonymity.

According to this information, the NATO Summit would plan to especially strengthen the presence of troops and weapons in East Europe and also in South Europe, i.e the Alliance’s Mediterranean countries.

Plans to massively increase the number of forces “at high readiness”.

“Nato has announced plans to massively increase the number of its forces at high readiness to over 300,000 troops,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said as quoted by the BBC.

“The bloc’s rapid reaction force currently has 40,000 troops at its disposal, with many of those based along the alliance’s eastern flank.“

Middle East and Africa

Furthermore, it is also expected that NATO Summit agrees on further expanding the Alliance military deployment to the Middle East and Africa, with a special focus on its Northern region, allegdging that this aims at preventing and combating terrorism.

According to the source, NATO clearly intends to “neutralise” Russia as a rival, so that it can focus its strategy towards what the leaders for now agree to call the “Chinese challenge.”

Three of NATO’s member states: the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, not only possess “nukes” -which are considered weapons of mass destruction” and the “most destructive arms ever created,” but they also continue to modernise their nuclear arsenals with the most advanced technologies.

Nuclear stockpiles

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) on 13 June 2022 launched the findings of its Yearbook 2022: of the total inventory of an estimated 12.705 warheads at the start of 2022, about 9.440 were in military stockpiles “for potential use.”

Of those, an estimated 3.732 warheads were deployed with missiles and aircrafts, and around 2000—nearly all of which belonged to Russia or the USA—were kept in a state of “high operational alert,” according to SIPRI’s 2022 Yearbook Global nuclear arsenals are expected to grow as states continue to modernise.

The robotisation of weapons

Of special concern is the fact that the growing use of state-of-the-art technologies in operating weapons, including nuclear arms, involves further dangers to the possibility of “human miscalculation.”

“Cyber attacks could manipulate the information decision-makers get to launch nuclear weapons, and interfere with the operation of nuclear weapons themselves,” warns the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).

According to this 2017 Nobel Peace Laureate’s report Squandered: 2021 Global Nuclear Weapons Spending, the increased application of advanced machine learning in defence systems can speed up warfare – giving decision-makers even less time to consider whether or not to launch nuclear weapons.

Countries may be eager to apply new artificial intelligence technologies before they understand the full implications of these technologies, adds ICAN.

“It is impossible to eliminate the risk of core nuclear weapons systems being hacked or compromised without eliminating nuclear weapons.”

Multiplying military spending amidst crisis

According to NATO critics, who marched in thousands in Madrid streets, the ‘feared’ results of the NATO Summit will bring only heavy negative consequences for European citizens.

In fact, both the gas and oil prices, as well as those of commodities and basic food, have marked a sharp rise in European countries, leading to record-high inflation averaging nearly 9% in most of the ‘old continent.’

The expected militarisation of European national budgets will further undermine the already decreasing spending on public health, public education, social services, and unemployment, which were already impacted by the COVID-19 pandemia, according to the critics.

NATO expected plans… in diplomatic words

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg set out his priorities for the Madrid Summit during a speech on 22 June 2022. Speaking at an event organised by Politico, Stoltenberg said: “We will take decisions to strengthen our Alliance, and keep it agile in this more dangerous world.”

The Secretary-General explained that NATO would strengthen its defences, agree a new Strategic Concept, and strengthen its support to Ukraine and other partners at risk.

Stoltenberg said that in Madrid, Allies would recommit to the pledge made in 2014 to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence.

He highlighted the progress that had been made with greater burden-sharing across the whole Alliance: “We must continue to invest more. And invest more together in NATO.” Read NATO Secretary General’s full remarks

Peace, security and safety

In spite of the expected military plans, both NATO sources and those of the European Commission as well as of the national governments of the Alliance member countries, have been emphasising that the sole aim is to strengthen their “defence, peace, security and safety” of their citizens.

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Nuclear-Armed Powers Squander $156.000 Every Minute on Their ‘MAD’ Policy — Global Issues

Credit: US government
  • by Baher Kamal (madrid)
  • Inter Press Service

MADRID, Jun 24 (IPS) – They call it MAD: Mutual Assured Destruction. It is about the nuclear-armed powers’ doctrine of military strategy and national security policy. And they spent on their MAD policy more than 156.000 US dollars, every single minute, in just one year–2021.

According to their MAD doctrine a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by an attacker on a nuclear-armed defender, with second-strike capabilities, would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.

Nine countries are classified as nuclear-armed powers, with the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France ranking at the top of the list. Others: India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea.

Already before the war now unfolding in Europe

In its report “Squandered: 2021 Global Nuclear Weapons Spending,” the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) reveals that in 2021 –the year before the Russian invasion of Ukraine– nine nuclear-armed states spent 82.4 billion US dollars on these weapons of mass destruction, that’s more than 156,000 US dollars… per minute.

Specifically, the United States spent three times more than the next in line- a whopping 44.2 billion US dollars, reports ICAN. China was the only other country crossing the ten billion mark, spending 11.7 billion US dollars.

Russia had the third-highest spending at 8.6 billion US dollars, though the United Kingdom’s 6.8 billion US dollars, and the French 5.9 billion, weren’t so far behind. ICAN adds that India, Israel and Pakistan also each spent over a billion on their arsenals, while North Korea spent 642 million US dollars, according to the 2017 Nobel Peace laureate: ICAN.

Arsenals expected to grow

Another prestigious global peace research body, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) on 13 June 2022 launched the findings of its Yearbook 2022, which assesses the current state of armaments, disarmament and international security.

One key finding is that despite a marginal decrease in the number of nuclear warheads in 2021, nuclear arsenals are expected to grow over the coming decade.

The nine nuclear-armed states—the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea —continue to modernise their nuclear arsenals and although the total number of nuclear weapons declined slightly between January 2021 and January 2022, the number will probably increase in the next decade, SIPRI reports.

90% of all nukes, in the hands of Russia and the U.S.

Russia and the USA together possess over 90% of all nuclear weapons.

Of the total inventory of an estimated 12.705 warheads at the start of 2022, about 9.440 were in military stockpiles for potential use.

Of those, an estimated 3.732 warheads were deployed with missiles and aircraft, and around 2000—nearly all of which belonged to Russia or the USA—were kept in a state of “high operational alert,” according to SIPRI’s 2022 Yearbook Global nuclear arsenals are expected to grow as states continue to modernise.

Technology adds greater risks

The study Emerging technologies and nuclear weapon risks explains that the specific risks posed by advancements in cyber operations and artificial intelligence are still being discovered, but some risks include:

  • Cyber attacks could manipulate the information decision-makers get to launch nuclear weapons, and interfere with the operation of nuclear weapons themselves;
  • The increased application of advanced machine learning in defence systems can speed up warfare – giving decision-makers even less time to consider whether or not to launch nuclear weapons;
  • Countries may be eager to apply new artificial intelligence technologies before they understand the full implications of these technologies;
  • It is impossible to eliminate the risk of core nuclear weapons systems being hacked or compromised without eliminating nuclear weapons.

‘Eliminate nuclear weapons before they eliminate us’

“These weapons offer false promises of security and deterrence – while guaranteeing only destruction, death, and endless brinkmanship,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres said on 20 June 2022 in a video message to the First Meeting of States Parties to the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, in Vienna, Austria.

“Let’s eliminate these weapons before they eliminate us.”

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons prohibits a full range of nuclear-weapon-related activities, such as undertaking to develop, test, produce, manufacture, acquire, or stockpile nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices.

It was adopted in July 2017 and entered into force in January 2021.

‘Recipe for annihilation’

The UN chief also said that the “terrifying lessons” of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are fading from memory, referring to the atomic bombing of these two major Japanese cities during the Second World War.

However, with more than 13,000 nuclear weapons still held across the globe, “the once unthinkable prospect of nuclear conflict is now back within the realm of possibility.”

“In a world rife with geopolitical tensions and mistrust, this is a recipe for annihilation. We cannot allow the nuclear weapons wielded by a handful of States to jeopardise all life on our planet. We must stop knocking at Doomsday’s door.”

The most destructive instruments of mass murder ever created

ICAN has been repeatedly warning that nuclear weapons are the most destructive, inhumane and indiscriminate instruments of mass murder ever created.

The term “catastrophic humanitarian consequences” describes their unique and horrifying effects on people, including lethal harm to those who are not part of the conflicts in which they are used.

The world at Doom’s doorstep

While the past year offered glimmers of hope that humankind might reverse its march toward global catastrophe, the Doomsday Clock was set at just 100 seconds to midnight, on 20 January 2022 warned the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

The time is based on continuing and dangerous threats posed by nuclear weapons, climate change, disruptive technologies, and COVID-19.

“All of these factors were exacerbated by “a corrupted information ecosphere that undermines rational decision making.”

“US relations with Russia and China remain tense, with all three countries engaged in an array of nuclear modernization and expansion efforts—including China’s apparent large-scale program to increase its deployment of silo-based long-range nuclear missiles; the push by Russia, China, and the United States to develop hypersonic missiles; and the continued testing of anti-satellite weapons by many nations.”

Founded in 1945 by Albert Einstein and University of Chicago scientists who helped develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created the Doomsday Clock two years later, using the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero) to convey threats to humanity and the planet.

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

US President Biden Refuses to Mention Worsening Dangers of Nuclear War While Media & Congress Enable His Silence — Global Issues

  • Opinion by Norman Solomon (san francisco, usa)
  • Inter Press Service

SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Jun 10 (IPS) – I’ve just finished going through the more than 60 presidential statements, documents and communiques about the war in Ukraine that the White House has released and posted on its website since Joe Biden’s State of the Union address in early March.

They all share with that speech one stunning characteristic — the complete absence of any mention of nuclear weapons or nuclear war dangers. Yet we’re now living in a time when those dangers are the worst they’ve been since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

You might think that the risks of global nuclear annihilation would merit at least a few of the more than 25,000 words officially released on Biden’s behalf during the 100 days since his dramatic speech to a joint session of Congress.

But an evasive pattern began from the outset. While devoting much of that speech to the Ukraine conflict, Biden said nothing at all about the heightened risks that it might trigger the use of nuclear weapons.

A leader interested in informing the American people rather than infantilizing them would have something to say about the need to prevent nuclear war at a time of escalating tensions between the world’s two nuclear superpowers.

A CBS News poll this spring found that the war in Ukraine had caused 70 percent of adults in the U.S. to be worried that it could lead to nuclear warfare.

But rather than publicly address such fears, Biden has dodged the public — unwilling to combine his justifiable denunciations of Russia’s horrific war on Ukraine with even the slightest cautionary mention about the upward spike in nuclear-war risks.

Biden has used silence to gaslight the body politic with major help from mass media and top Democrats. While occasional mainstream news pieces have noted the increase in nuclear-war worries and dangers, Biden has not been called to account for refusing to address them.

As for Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, party loyalties have taken precedence over ethical responsibilities. What’s overdue is a willingness to insist that Biden forthrightly speak about a subject that involves the entire future of humanity.

Giving the president and congressional leaders the benefit of doubts has been a chronic and tragic problem throughout the nuclear age. Even some organizations that should know better have often succumbed to the temptation to serve as enablers.

In her roles as House minority leader and speaker, Nancy Pelosi has championed one bloated Pentagon budget increase after another, including huge outlays for new nuclear weapons systems.

Yet she continues to enjoy warm and sometimes even fawning treatment from well-heeled groups with arms-control and disarmament orientations.

And so it was, days ago, when the Ploughshares Fund sent supporters a promotional email about its annual “Chain Reaction” event — trumpeting that “Speaker Pelosi will join our illustrious list of previously announced speakers to explore current opportunities to build a movement to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons once and for all.”

The claim that Pelosi would be an apt person to guide listeners on how to “build a movement” with such goals was nothing short of absurd. For good measure, the announcement made the same claim for another speaker, Fiona Hill, a hawkish former senior director for Europe and Russia at the National Security Council.

Bizarre as it is, the notion that Pelosi and Hill are fit to explain how to “build a movement to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons” is in sync with a submissive assumption — that there’s no need to challenge Biden’s refusal to address nuclear-war dangers.

The president has a responsibility to engage with journalists and the public about nuclear weapons and the threat they pose to human survival on this planet. Urgently, Biden should be pushed toward genuine diplomacy including arms-control negotiations with Russia. Members of Congress, organizations and constituents should be demanding that he acknowledge the growing dangers of nuclear war and specify what he intends to do to diminish instead of fuel those dangers.

Such demands can gain momentum and have political impact as a result of grassroots activism rather than beneficent elitism. That’s why this Sunday, nearly 100 organizations are co-sponsoring a “Defuse Nuclear War” live stream — marking the 40th anniversary of the day when 1 million people gathered in New York’s Central Park, on June 12, 1982, to call for an end to the nuclear arms race.

That massive protest was in the spirit of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964: “I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction.”

In 2022, the real possibility of such a hell for the entire world has become unmentionable for the president and his enablers. But refusing to talk about the dangers of thermonuclear destruction makes it more likely.

Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and the author of a dozen books including Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America’s Warfare State, published this year in a new edition as a free e-book. His other books include War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 and 2020 Democratic National Conventions. Solomon is also the founder and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.

IPS UN Bureau


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Animal Farm, Ukrainian Resistance and Russian Propaganda — Global Issues

  • Opinion by Jan Lundius (stockholm)
  • Inter Press Service

STOCKHOLM, Jun 03 (IPS) – What I have most wanted to do… is to make political writing into an art.

                                                                                        George OrwellWarfare and misinformation are intimately connected. The 29th of May was globally observed as The Day of Communication and due to the ongoing war in Ukraine it was difficult to avoid thinking of affiliated propaganda campaigns, carried out by warring factions and far from indifferent bystanders.

Not only news reporting, but fabrications like movies, novels, fables and legends are part of a web of global communication and just as the broadcasting of news they might provide insights and alternative perspectives to reality, as well as being used as means of deception. One example is George Orwell’s novella Animal Farm.

I was reminded of this when I some weeks ago watched the Polish director Agnieszka Holland’s 2019 film Mr Jones, a co-production between Polish and Ukrainian media companies. In Ukrainian the film was named ???? ??????, The Price of Truth. It tells the story of Gareth Jones, an ambitious young Welsh journalist who in 1933, after gaining some fame for an exclusive interview with Adolf Hitler, was able to obtain permission to enter the Soviet Union. A privilege mostly due to the fact that Jones had served as secretary to former British prime minister Lloyd George. Jones’s intention to interview Joseph Stalin could not be realized, though he was offered an exclusive guided tour to pre-selected industries in Donbas. On his way there, Jones double-crossed his “handler”, jumped off the train in the Ukrainian countryside and became a shocked witness to the Ukrainian Holodomor, the catastrophic famine that resulted in at least 3 million deaths.

Gareth Jones documented empty villages, starving people, cannibalism and the enforced collection of grain. On his return to Britain, he struggled to get his story taken seriously and finally succeeded in having his articles published by The Manchester Guardian and New York Evening Post, thus revealing the conceit of the Soviet propaganda machine, which had hidden and covered up the enormous scope of the catastrophe and the Soviet Government’s guilt for its origin and development. The film ends by recording how Jones two years after his revelations was murdered while reporting in Inner Mongolia, betrayed by a guide clandestinely connected to the Soviet secret service.

The film Mr Jones emphasised the relevance of a misguided, or even corrupted, journalist corps, foremost among them The New York Times’ Walter Duranty, who from his privileged and pampered existence in Moscow served as a mouthpiece for Stalin’s terror regime. For his “unbiased and well-written” articles, Duranty was in 1932 awarded the U.S. prestigious Pulitzer Prize.

While watching the movie, I became somewhat bewildered by several cameos presenting George Orwell writing his Animal Farm. The film seems to indicate that Orwell met with Gareth Jones and that his Animal Farm was inspired by Jones’s work. To my knowledge Jones and Orwell never met, though this fact does not hinder the possibility of Orwell having read his articles and that the Animal Farm has had a crucial role in Ukrainian politics.

Famines and governments’ occasional efforts to cover them up is an essential feature in Orwell’s fable. It is hunger that triggers the farm-animals’ revolt. However, when their work and freedom are used to benefit the dictatorial pig Napoleon’s selfish well-being, hunger and suffering return to harass the animals. The megalomaniac Napoleon and his acolytes hide embarrassing facts from a global environment, which the mighty pig manipulates and makes business with:

    Starvation seemed to stare them in the face. It was vitally necessary to conceal this fact from the outside world. Napoleon was well aware of the bad results that might follow if the real facts of the food situation were known, and he decided to make use of Mr Whymper to spread a contrary impression.

Orwell wrote Animal Farm between November 1943 and February 1944, when Britain was in alliance with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany. Since the Allies did not want to offend the Stalinists, the manuscript was rejected by British and American publishers. After much hesitation a small book publisher issued the novel by the end of the war in 1945. After Allied relations with the Soviet Union turned into hostilities Animal Farm became a great commercial success.

The novel’s harsh criticism of the Soviet State is obvious to everyone – it is a fable telling the story of talking and thinking farm animals who rebel against their human farmer, with a hope to end hunger and slavery and create a society where all animals are equal, free, and happy. Wistfully, the revolution is betrayed by infighting and self-interest among its leaders – the intellectual pigs. The still food producing farm is by the hard-working animals proudly declared as The Animal Farm, with its own hymns, insignia, myths and slogans, but it eventually ends up in a state of repression and violence just as bad, or even worse, as it was before. The omnipotent pig Napoleon (whose name in the French translation was changed to “Caesar”), is without doubt a caricature of Stalin, with his scared and lying acolytes, fierce watchdogs brought up by himself, show trials, political persecution, murders, Stakhanovites/Super Workers, and ethnic clensing. A nightmarish world Orwell developed further in his next novel – 1984. With its Big Brother watching your every move and where citizens are brainwashed through torture, doublethink, thought-crimes, and newspeak:

    The Ministry of Truth — Minitrue, in Newspeak… was startlingly different from any other object in sight. It was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace after terrace, 300 metres into the air. on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

It was as a volunteer during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) Orwell obtained his dislike for Stalinism, loathing of Fascism, and anger over “Western indifference”:

    The most baffling thing in the Spanish war was the behaviour of the great powers. The war was actually won for Franco by the Germans and Italians, whose motives were obvious enough. The motives of France and Britain are less easy to understand. In 1936 it was clear to everyone that if Britain would only help the Spanish Government, even to the extent of a few million pounds’ worth of arms, Franco would collapse and German strategy would be severely dislocated.

In his preface to the Ukrainian edition of Animal Farm Orwell wrote that after the Stalinists had gained partial control of the Spanish Government they had begun hunting down and execute socialists with different opinions. Man-hunts which went on at the same time as the great purges in the USSR:

    It taught me how easily totalitarian propaganda can control the opinion of enlightened people in democratic countries ”the mutability of the past”. Falsification, airbrushing, rewriting history: in short, the memory hole. And so for the last ten years, I have been convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted a revival of the socialist movement.

The English edition of Animal Farm reached refugee camps, where soldiers that had been drafted by the Soviet Army and several civilians occasionally killed themselves, rather than returning to the Soviet Union. 24-year-old Ihor Šev?enko, a refugee of Ukrainian origin was part of a movement for Ukraine’s independence. After having learned English from listening to the BBC he translated Animal Farm into Ukrainian and it was spread in handwritten copies, or read aloud, in refugee camps. In April 11, 1946, Šev?enko wrote to Orwell asking if he could publish his novel in Ukrainian. Orwell agreed to write a preface and refused any royalties.

The translation was published in Munich and shipments of the book were quietly delivered to the refugee camps. Its Ukrainian title was Kolhosp Tvaryn, A Collective Farm of Animals, an obvious reference to Stalin’s forced collectivization implemented by the terror famine. However, only 2,000 copies were distributed; a truck from Munich was stopped and searched by American soldiers, and a shipment of an estimated 1,500 to 5,000 copies was seized and handed over to Soviet repatriation authorities and destroyed.

It was first some years later the Ukrainian translation of Animal Farm became appreciated by Western covert operation organizations and was secretley distributed into Ukraine as anti-Soviet propaganda. It is still generally read and in high regard within an Ukraine liberated from Soviet/Russian repression.

If the novel is read today it is easy to discern affinities between the dictatorial pig Napoleon and the current Russian warlord Vladimir Putin. Like Napoleon, Putin appears to want to turn the clock back to an imagined Russian imperial heyday, or as in the title of Masha Gessen’s study of Putin’s Russia, The Future is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia. In Animal Farm Napoleon starts to walk upright on his hind-legs, dresses in human festive clothes and declares that the name Animal Farm has been abolished:

    Henceforward the farm was to be known as the Manor Farm – which he believed, was its correct and original name.

Sources: George Orwell – Animal Farm: A Fairy Story, Also Including in Two Appendices Orwell´s Proposed Preface and the Preface to the Ukrainian Edition. London: Penguin Classics 2004, Nineteen Eighty-Four, 1984. London: Penguin Classics 2015.

IPS UN Bureau


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

UN System, Too Complex & Fragmented, is in Urgent Need of Reform — Global Issues

The UN Resident Coordinator in Thailand, Gita Sabharwal (3rd from right), talks to migrants in Tak province on the impact of COVID-19. Credit: UNSDG/Build back better: UN Thailand’s COVID-19 strategy.
  • Opinion by Simone Galimberti (kathmandu, nepal)
  • Inter Press Service

KATHMANDU, Nepal, Jun 03 (IPS) – Few deny the huge role the United Nation plays in global multilateral system especially in the area of poverty eradication, sustainability and climate change.

As enabler of the Agenda 2030, the UN system has the ability, stemming from its extraordinary convening powers, to bring around the table global leaders and key stakeholders for the most consequential decisions humanity must take.

Its agencies and programs do make a difference, uplifting millions of people out of poverty.

Yet, at the same time there is no doubt that the system is too complex and fragmented with too many overlaps and duplications that often make its work, using a development jargon, not of much “value for money”.

Short of a complete overhaul that would revolutionize its governance and shut down many of its operations around the world, including the merging of many of its agencies and programs, there is an ongoing attempt of reforming the system from the inside.

Recognizing the urgency for improvements but unable to undertake this needed drastic shift, Secretary General Antonio Guterres is doing what he can.

The focus is on better cooperation and coordination among the agencies and programs around the world and, while not as ambitious as the situation would require, it is still a mammoth operation that has been tasked to UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina J. Mohammed.

Based on Resolution 75/233, adapted on 21 December 2020, the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system, this is the formal name of the ongoing efforts, is attempting to create a new working culture within the UN.

Such change is desperately needed. The focus is going to be on ensuring a “new generation of United Nations country teams working more collaboratively and according to a clearer division of labor, driving greater alignment with country needs and priorities”.

Some key updates on the progress being made, the so-called Report of the Chair of the UNSDG on the Development Coordination Office and the Report of the Secretary-General on Implementation of General Assembly resolution 75/233 on the quadrennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system, are offering some perspectives on what being achieved and what is still missing.

The UN Resident Coordinator in Thailand, Gita Sabharwal (3rd from right), talks to migrants in Tak province on the impact of COVID-19. Credit: UNSDG/Build back better: UN Thailand’s COVID-19 strategy.

At the center of this broad reform is the revitalization of the role of the UN Resident Coordinators, now full-time positions on their own and no more tied to job of the UNDP Representatives.

The idea is to enable and empower a “primus inter pares” figure, someone who has the authority to also look after and monitor the work being done by each single agencies and programs whose work, so far, has been infamously uncoordinated.

As a consequence, planning mechanisms like the United Nations Development Assistance Framework, UNDAF, the planning matrix listing all the contributions of each single UN entity in a given country, has been turned into a stronger tool, the Country Cooperation Framework.

The name shift from ‘assistance’ to “cooperation” is symbolically indicative of the different role the UN system aims playing: an enabler and facilitator rather than a static, top down “bossy” partner.

There is also a new common assessment, the UN Common Country Analysis (CCA), “an integrated, forward-looking, and evidence-based analysis of the country context for sustainable development”.

Now, the Resident Coordinators have a stand-alone structure supporting their tasks, including different advisors, economists, data specialists and very importantly, partnerships and communication experts.

Technically, their job now also foresees “supporting governments mobilize financing for the SDGs”, as they are going to be “focused on innovative SDG financing approaches with Governments and key partners”.

The ambitious goal is to turn the Resident Coordinators in connectors and to some extent, “fund raisers” for the local governments they are supporting.

With also a new Accountability Framework in place, the common vision is as self- evident as much required but as daunting to achieve as it can be: create a “path forward for the system to work collaboratively under robust and impartial leadership, building on the strengths of each entity but moving away from the ‘lowest common denominator’ that prevailed in the previous architecture”.

The new approach is based on the much needed “dual reporting model in which, at least on the paper, the Resident Coordinators have a role in monitoring and assessing the work of each head of agencies/programs and the latter, on their end, would also asses the work of the Resident Coordinators.

That such system, far from being revolutionary, was never put in place earlier, clearly tells of the substantial ineffectiveness and lack of coordination that stymied the UN System for decades.

Having stronger coordination system makes total sense especially if the empowered Resident Coordinators, of whom, positively, now fifty-three per cent are women, can truly scale up joint pooled funding, bringing together different agencies and programs.

It is already happening but it would be really a game changer if most of the programs supported by the UN would be implemented through this modality.

In this regard the Joint SDG Fund, “an inter-agency, pooled mechanism for integrated policy support and strategic financing that acts as a bridge”, can be promising and if wholly embraced, truly transformative.

Mechanisms like the Joint SDG Fund should become the standard working modality at country levels with more and more power centered on the Office of Resident Coordinators.

Such development would mean much leaner agencies and programs in the country offices because otherwise the risk is to create another coordinating structure without simplifying and “slimming down” the system on the ground.

The scale of work to accomplish in this reform is still significant.

An internal survey, part of official report of the SG General, is emblematic.

Answering to “what extent have the following measures improved the UN Country Team’s offer to the country in the last year”, among the respondents, there was still a considerable percentage indicating that only “moderate change” had occurred so far.

Therefore, there is not only the risk that the well-intentioned reforms being pursued are simply not up to the gigantic needs of change that the UN must achieve but that it will take lots of time and energies to even bring around minimum change at country level.

Moreover, a stronger and better UN system on the ground means also a UN able to do a much better job at engaging and working with the people and civil society.

Being mandated with working with and supporting national governments does not imply as it happened so far, that the UN keeps insulate itself from the society.

You will always read about tokenistic measures that make appear like the UN is always open for collaborations and always striving to reach out the commoners but the reality is very different.

All this means one thing: the revamped offices of the Resident Coordinators have a huge role in enabling a transformation in mindsets and working culture inside the UN.

The report of the Secretary General could not have been clearer on this aspect.

“We must continue our efforts to ensure the reform of the United Nations development system brings about the changes in behavior, culture and mindsets that can maximize the collective offer of the United Nations”.

The Author, is the Co-Founder of ENGAGE, a not for profit in Nepal. He writes on volunteerism, social inclusion, youth development and regional integration as an engine to improve people’s lives.

IPS UN Bureau


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Gun Control at the Pentagon? Dont Even Think About It — Global Issues

  • Opinion by Norman Solomon (san francisco, usa)
  • Inter Press Service

SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Jun 01 (IPS) – New outcries for gun control have followed the horrible tragedies of mass shootings in Uvalde and Buffalo. “Evil came to that elementary school classroom in Texas, to that grocery store in New York, to far too many places where innocents have died,” President Biden declared over the weekend during a university commencement address.

As he has said, a badly needed step is gun control — which, it’s clear from evidence in many countries, would sharply reduce gun-related deaths.

But what about “gun control” at the Pentagon?

The concept of curtailing the U.S. military’s arsenal is such a nonstarter that it doesn’t even get mentioned. Yet the annual number of deadly shootings in the United States — 19,384 at last count — is comparable to the average yearly number of documented civilian deaths directly caused by the Pentagon’s warfare in the last two decades. And such figures on war deaths are underestimates.

From high-tech rifles and automatic weapons to drones, long-range missiles and gravity bombs, the U.S. military’s weaponry has inflicted carnage in numerous countries. How many people have been directly killed by the “War on Terror” violence?

An average of 45,000 human beings each year — more than two-fifths of them innocent civilians — since the terror war began, as documented by the Costs of War project at Brown University.

The mindset of U.S. mass media and mainstream politics is so militarized that such realities are routinely not accorded a second thought, or even any thought. Meanwhile, the Pentagon budget keeps ballooning year after year, with President Biden now proposing $813 billion for fiscal year 2023.

Liberals and others frequently denounce how gun manufacturers are making a killing from sales of handguns and semiautomatic rifles in the United States, while weapons sales to the Pentagon continue to spike upward for corporate war mega-profiteers.

As William Hartung showed in his Profits of War report last fall, “Pentagon spending has totaled over $14 trillion since the start of the war in Afghanistan, with one-third to one-half of the total going to military contractors.

A large portion of these contracts — one-quarter to one-third of all Pentagon contracts in recent years — have gone to just five major corporations: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman.”

What’s more, the United States is the world’s leading arms exporter, accounting for 35 percent of total weapons sales — more than Russia and China combined. The U.S. arms exports have huge consequences.

Pointing out that the Saudi-led war and blockade on Yemen “has helped cause the deaths of nearly half a million people,” a letter to Congress from 60 organizations in late April said that “the United States must cease supplying weapons, spare parts, maintenance services, and logistical support to Saudi Arabia.”

How is it that countless anguished commentators and concerned individuals across the USA can express justified fury at gun marketers and gun-related murders when a mass shooting occurs inside U.S. borders, while remaining silent about the need for meaningful gun control at the Pentagon?

The civilians who have died — and are continuing to die — from use of U.S. military weapons don’t appear on American TV screens. Many lose their lives due to military operations that are unreported by U.S. news media, either because mainline journalists don’t bother to cover the story or because those operations are kept secret by the U.S. government. As a practical matter, the actual system treats certain war victims as “unworthy” of notice.

Whatever the causal mix might be — in whatever proportions of conscious or unconscious nationalism, jingoism, chauvinism, racism and flat-out eagerness to believe whatever comforting fairy tale is repeatedly told by media and government officials — the resulting concoction is a dire refusal to acknowledge key realities of U.S. society and foreign policy.

To heighten the routine deception, we’ve been drilled into calling the nation’s military budget a “defense” budget — while Congress devotes half of all discretionary spending to the military, the USA spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined (most of them allies), the Pentagon operates 750 military bases overseas, and the United States is now conducting military operations in 85 countries.

Yes, gun control is a great idea. For the small guns. And the big ones.

Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and the author of a dozen books including Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America’s Warfare State, published this year in a new edition as a free e-book. His other books include War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 and 2020 Democratic National Conventions. Solomon is the founder and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.

IPS UN Bureau


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Food Banks are Early Warning Systems for Emerging Food Crises, but also a Key Solution — Global Issues

Community members in Sowripalayam, outside Coimbatore, receive a meal from No Food Waste, a GFN-supported food bank in India. Credit: The Global Food Banking Network/Narayana Swamy Subbaraman
  • Opinion by Lisa Moon (chicago, usa)
  • Inter Press Service

CHICAGO, USA, May 27 (IPS) – For months, the specter of a global hunger crisis has been looming. The war in Ukraine is a compounding factor, blocking key value chains for food and fertilizer just as the world reckons with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on global hunger.

Add the pervasive effects of climate change to the mix, and the result is what the United Nations is calling a “perfect storm” that risks one-fifth of the global population – as many as 1.7 billion people – falling into poverty and hunger.

This number feels so large that it is almost inconceivable, never mind possible to accept. And of course, the mounting global food crisis will not affect everyone equally.

Recent feedback from food bank leaders all over the world already echoes the reality ahead. Because food banks, especially across emerging and developing markets, are the first (or sometimes only) port-of-call for those facing hunger, they offer a window into understanding the full extent of the coming food crisis: an early warning system of the strains on our food systems.

Daily wage workers stand in line to receive a meal prepared by No Food Waste, a GFN-supported food bank in India. Credit: No Food Waste

The Global Food Banking Network works with member food banks in 44 countries, and many of them in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are already reporting that higher food prices are contributing to an increase in demand for emergency food assistance.

For example, a partner food bank in Ecuador, Banco de Alimentos Quito, has reported a 50 percent increase in demand for services, while another partner, India Food Banking Network, has warned the number of people requesting food has doubled recently.

If more is not done – and done quickly – these numbers will be just the tip of the iceberg. Tragically, as while demand at many food banks is increasing, supplies donated to food banks are often diminishing.

These food banks in Ecuador and India—and others across the Network—are reporting decreases in product donations of up to 50 percent. Banco de Alimentos Quito and Banco de Alimentos Honduras, both of which regularly recover fresh produce directly from farmers to distribute to people facing hunger, are flagging that planting schedules have been thrown off because farmers cannot get key inputs.

In short, less produce is available to donate because of the rise in need and smaller, less reliable yields.

A volunteer organizes food donations in Banco de Alimentos Quito’s warehouse in Ecuador. Credit: The Global Food Banking Network/Ana María Buitron

With the recent World Economic Forum in Davos and the G7 Summit, there are already calls on governments and business leaders to invest more in hunger relief and food aid. This is a crucial first step, but investment will only be as effective as the implementation mechanisms in place to deliver them.

This is also where food banks can step in effectively and immediately. Because food banks address community food needs even in less precarious times, they are already well positioned to respond to crises by scaling up in times of scarcity and distributing food when conventional supply chains are undermined.

The COVID-19 pandemic is already a case in point, with global food banks serving 40 million people in 2020, a 132 percent increase from the prior year. And because food banks are community-based and community-led, they can understand and adapt to local needs quite quickly, acting as frontline responders when a crisis hits.

Responses to the global hunger crisis must include recognition for the critical role food banks play. They will step up and play a crucial role in meeting the sharp increase in demand for food relief in the coming months.

However, if the global community steps forward and supports the value of these assets further, food banks’ impact can become outsized. And an outsized response is exactly what this coming crisis will require.

IPS UN Bureau


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Exit mobile version