NEWS FROM THE FRONT OF THE ECONOMIC WAR

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

In last month’s blog, I discussed news about the Ukraine War, how it is being sustained not only on one side by Russia, but also, on the other side, by the American Empire, the US, Europe (NATO) and their allies such as Canada, Japan and Australia, while the rest of the world refuses to take sides.

The American support and escalation of the Ukraine War is central to the politics of the Biden administration and its NEOCON strategists who are trying to maintain American hegemony over the entire world. Ukraine is a pawn in the strategy of attacking Russia who is considered the principal enemies of that hegemony along with China. This strategy is not new but was central to the Obama administration and its Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well as the Bush and Clinton administrations that preceded Biden.

This month, I wish to discuss the news from the deeper war, the Economic War of the American Empire against the rest of the world.

The Economic War goes back to 1962 when the US imposed economic sanctions against Cuba because Fidel sided with the American enemy that was Russia.

Since then economic sanctions have been imposed on many other countries. As of a recent listing, at least 40 countries face these sanctions.

We quote the Venezuelan ambassador to the United Nations, Samuel Moncada, speaking to the XVIII Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement held in Baku, Azerbaijan, Oct. 26, 2019. Addressing the 120 countries represented, he denounced the imposition of arbitrary measures, called “sanctions” by the U.S., as “economic terrorism, which affects a third of humanity with more than 8,000 measures. This terrorism,” he said, “constitutes a “threat to the entire system of international relations and is the greatest violation of human rights in the world.”

Cuba and Venezuela, along with Iran, Zimbabwe, Nicaragua and Syria, are among the countries where the people have been greatly hurt by sanctions.

And now the Americans and their NATO allies continue to increase economic sanctions against Russia. The Russian people suffer doubly: from the sanctions; and from the diversion of government resources to the Ukraine War.

But, as in any war, there is another side which is bolstering its defense.

The central actor on the other side is the BRICS Coalition of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Argentina and Iran have recently requested to join the Coalition.

What is the lates news from the front of this Economic War?

The recent decision of Iran and Saudi Arabia to re-establish diplomatic relations was brokered by China, and it resonates with news that Saudi Arabia, like Iran, is interested to join the BRICS Coalition. Also interested, it seems, are Turkey and Egypt.

The recent announcement by Brazil and Argentina to establish a monetary system independent of the US dollar resonates with their BRICS involvement. Also, over the past two decades, China has become the biggest trading partner, overcoming the United States, in nine Latin American countries  (Cuba, Paraguay, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Peru, Bolivia and Venezuela).

As for the sanctions imposed against Russia, they are forcing the Russians to increase their trade with the BRICS countries, especially China and India, and with the potential BRICS countries of Iran and Saudi Arabia.

One of the results of the Russian sanctions, as we noted in last month’s CPNN bulletin, is that the IMF growth projections place the BRICS countries ahead with India at 6.8%, China at 4.5% and Russia, despite the sanctions, at 2.1%, On the other hand, the projections for the American Empire are less: 1.6% for the 27 countries in Europe, 1.0% for the United States and 0.9% for Japan.

Looking further into the future, the Chinese now lead the world’s investment in most of the scientific and technological research areas necessary for development. This includes drones, machine learning, electric batteries, nuclear energy, photovoltaics, quantum sensors and critical minerals extraction. China’s dominance in some fields is so entrenched that all of the world’s top 10 leading research institutions for certain technologies are located in the country, according to a study by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

The recent news of the SVB bank failure in the United States and its repercussions in American trading partners could contribute to an economic recession in these countries, which would increase further the gap between them and the BRICS countries.

Also related to these news is that the United States is planning the greatest military budget in history. It would take more than half of the discretionary spending of the US government, putting further pressure on the lack of services for education, and healthcare in the United States which has contributed to political discontent, as expressed in the support for Donald Trump and the January 6 attack on the American capitol.

As we described in the blog of February this year, the continued growth of the gap between rich and poor in the American Empire has led some analysts to say that the political discontent may be followed by “a chaos far greater” than the January 6 attack. For the moment that discontent has not led to civil war but has been channeled instead into political power, since the Republican Party managed to take control of the lower house of the Congress in last fall’s election and hopes to be attain full power in the 2024 election. But the underlying discontent shows no sign of diminishing.

A key indicator of the Economic War is the place of the US dollar in the global economy. In this regard, this January at the Davos meetings of world capitalists, Saudi Arabia announced that it is open to discussing oil trade settlements in currencies other than the U.S. dollar.

According to analysts on some sources, such as the website zerohedge, the Saudi announcement is “the beginning of the end of the dollar, (since) the dollar’s world reserve status is largely dependent on its petro-status . . . The consequences of the loss of reserve status will be devastating to the US economy. . . This dynamic is already in play, as foreign holders of US debt and dollars have been dumping them at record pace since 2017.. The effects of the decline of the dollar may not be immediately felt, or become obvious for another year or two. What will happen is consistent inflation on top of the high prices we are already dealing with.”

This blog last June predicted the collapse of the US dollar. For the time being, despite the Saudi announcement. the US dollar is holding up. But how long can this last? In any case, as the blog quoted Bob Dylan, “the times they are a-changin’”

* * * * *

NOUVELLES DU FRONT DE LA GUERRE ECONOMIQUE

Dans le blog du mois dernier, j’ai discuté des nouvelles de la guerre d’Ukraine, comment elle est soutenue non seulement d’un côté par la Russie, mais aussi, de l’autre côté, par l’Empire américain, les États-Unis, l’Europe (OTAN) et leurs alliés tels que le Canada, Japon et Australie, tandis que le reste du monde refuse de prendre parti.

Le soutien américain et l’escalade de la guerre d’Ukraine sont au cœur de la politique de l’administration Biden et de ses stratèges NEOCON qui tentent de maintenir l’hégémonie américaine sur le monde entier. L’Ukraine est un pion dans la stratégie d’attaque contre la Russie considérée comme le principal ennemi de cette hégémonie avec la Chine. Cette stratégie n’est pas nouvelle mais était au cœur de l’administration Obama et de sa secrétaire d’État Hillary Clinton, ainsi que des administrations Bush et Clinton qui ont précédé Biden.

Ce mois-ci, je souhaite discuter des nouvelles de la guerre plus profonde, la guerre économique de l’Empire américain contre le reste du monde.

La guerre économique remonte à 1962, lorsque les États-Unis ont imposé des sanctions économiques contre Cuba parce que Fidel Castro s’était rangé du côté de l’ennemi américain qu’était la Russie.

Depuis lors, des sanctions économiques ont été imposées à de nombreux autres pays. Selon une liste récente, au moins 40 pays font face à ces sanctions.

Nous citons l’ambassadeur du Venezuela auprès des Nations Unies, Samuel Moncada, s’exprimant lors du XVIIIe Sommet du Mouvement des non-alignés tenu à Bakou, en Azerbaïdjan, le 26 octobre 2019. S’adressant aux 120 pays représentés, il a dénoncé l’imposition de mesures arbitraires, appelées “sanctions” par les États-Unis, comme “le terrorisme économique, qui touche un tiers de l’humanité avec plus de 8 000 mesures”. Ce terrorisme”, a-t-il dit, “constitue une “menace pour l’ensemble du système des relations internationales et est la plus grande violation des droits de l’Homme dans le monde”.

Cuba et le Venezuela, ainsi que l’Iran, le Zimbabwe, le Nicaragua et la Syrie, font partie des pays où les populations ont été durement touchées par les sanctions.

Et maintenant, les Américains et leurs alliés de l’OTAN continuent d’augmenter les sanctions économiques contre la Russie. Le peuple russe souffre doublement : des sanctions ; et du détournement des ressources gouvernementales vers la guerre d’Ukraine.

Mais, comme dans toute guerre, il y a un autre camp qui renforce sa défense.

L’acteur central de l’autre camp est la coalition BRICS du Brésil, de la Russie, de l’Inde, de la Chine et de l’Afrique du Sud. L’Argentine et l’Iran ont récemment demandé à rejoindre la Coalition.

Quelles sont les dernières nouvelles du front de cette guerre économique ?

La récente décision de l’Iran et de l’Arabie saoudite de rétablir des relations diplomatiques a été négociée par la Chine, et elle résonne avec des nouvelles selon lesquelles l’Arabie saoudite, comme l’Iran, est intéressée à rejoindre la coalition BRICS. Sont également intéressés, semble-t-il, la Turquie et l’Egypte.

L’annonce récente du Brésil et de l’Argentine d’établir un système monétaire indépendant du dollar américain fait écho à leur implication dans les BRICS. De plus, au cours des deux dernières décennies, la Chine est devenue le plus grand partenaire commercial, dépassant les États-Unis, dans neuf pays d’Amérique latine (Cuba, Paraguay, Argentine, Chili, Brésil, Uruguay, Pérou, Bolivie et Venezuela).

Quant aux sanctions imposées à la Russie, elles obligent les Russes à accroître leurs échanges avec les pays BRICS, en particulier la Chine et l’Inde, et avec les pays BRICS potentiels que sont l’Iran et l’Arabie saoudite.

L’un des résultats des sanctions russes, comme nous l’avons noté dans le bulletin CPNN du mois dernier, est que les projections de croissance du FMI placent les pays BRICS en tête avec l’Inde à 6,8 %, la Chine à 4,5 % et la Russie, malgré les sanctions, à 2,1 %, En revanche, les projections pour l’Empire américain sont moindres : 1,6 % pour les 27 pays d’Europe, 1,0 % pour les États-Unis et 0,9 % pour le Japon.

En se projetant plus loin dans l’avenir, les Chinois sont désormais en tête des investissements mondiaux dans la plupart des domaines de recherche scientifique et technologique nécessaires au développement. Cela comprend les drones, l’apprentissage automatique, les batteries électriques, l’énergie nucléaire, le photovoltaïque, les capteurs quantiques et l’extraction de minéraux critiques. La domination de la Chine dans certains domaines est tellement ancrée que les 10 principaux instituts de recherche mondiaux pour certaines technologies sont situés dans le pays, selonune étude de l’Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

La récente nouvelle de la faillite de la banque SVB aux États-Unis et ses répercussions sur les partenaires commerciaux américains pourraient contribuer à une récession économique dans ces pays, ce qui creuserait encore l’écart entre eux et les pays BRICS.

Également lié à ces nouvelles, les États-Unis prévoient le plus gros budget militaire de l’Histoire. Cela prendrait plus de la moitié des dépenses discrétionnaires du gouvernement américain, diminuant les services d’éducation et de santé, qui a contribué au mécontentement politique, exprimé dans le soutien à Donald Trump et le janvier 6 attaque contre la capitale américaine.

Comme nous l’avons décrit dans le blog de février de cette année, la croissance de l’écart entre les riches et les pauvres dans l’Empire américain a conduit certains analystes à dire que le mécontentement politique pourrait être suivi d’un “chaos bien plus grand” que l’attaque du 6 janvier. . Pour le moment, ce mécontentement n’a pas conduit à la guerre civile mais a été canalisé vers le pouvoir politique, puisque le Parti républicain a réussi à prendre le contrôle de la chambre basse du Congrès lors des élections de l’automne dernier et espère atteindre le plein pouvoir lors des élections de 2024. . Mais le mécontentement sous-jacent ne montre aucun signe de diminution.

Un indicateur clé de la guerre économique est la place du dollar américain dans l’économie mondiale. À cet égard, en janvier dernier, lors des réunions de Davos des capitalistes mondiaux, l’Arabie saoudite a annoncé qu’elle était disposée à discuter de règlements commerciaux pétroliers dans des devises autres que le dollar américain.

Selon des analystes de certaines sources, comme le site web zerohedge, l’annonce saoudienne est “le début de la fin du dollar, (puisque) le statut de réserve mondiale du dollar dépend largement de son statut de pétro-dollar… Les conséquences de la la perte du statut de réserve sera dévastatrice pour l’économie américaine… Cette dynamique est déjà en jeu, car les détenteurs étrangers de la dette américaine et des dollars les ont vidangés à un rythme record depuis 2017. Les effets de la baisse du dollar pourraient ne pas être immédiatement ressenti, ou devenir évident pendant encore un an ou deux. Ce qui va se passer, c’est une inflation constante en plus des prix élevés auxquels nous sommes déjà confrontés.”

En juin dernier, j’ai consacré ce blog à l’effondrement du dollar américain. Pour l’instant, malgré l’annonce saoudienne. le dollar américain se maintient. Mais combien de temps cela peut-il durer ? En tout cas, comme le blog citait Bob Dylan,”les temps, ils sont en train de changer”

SLEEPWALKING TO ARMAGEDDON : WORLD DIVIDES OVER THE UKRAINE WAR

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

As the US, NATO and Russia escalate the war in the Ukraine, the risk increases for a global nuclear war that could destroy most life on the planet, corresponding to the mythical battle of Armageddon mentioned in the Bible as marking the end of the world.

Our world is at risk, and it is urgent to seek a solution. For this reason, this month we have devoted not one, but two bulletins of CPNN to the issue: Sleepwalking to Armageddon and the World Divides over the Ukraine War
.

The phrase “Sleepwalking to Armageddon” is the title of a recent book by Helen Caldicott, and the word “sleepwalking” reappears in the comments of the Portuguese authority Boaventura de Sousa Santos : “One hundred years after World War I, Europe’s leaders are sleepwalking toward a new, all-out war” and in the comments of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres: “The chances of further escalation and bloodshed keep growing. I fear the world is not sleepwalking into a wider war. I fear it is doing so with its eyes wide open.” 

Sp far the major mass media of Europe, North America and their allies in Japan and Australia have been “obedient” to the escalation politics of their governments and have applauded the arms shipments to Ukraine, pouring gasoline on the fire. Meanwhile, Russia has warned that NATO is entering the war and that the Russian nuclear arsenal is ready for use if they feel they are threatened.

Media and countries in the rest of the world, the Global South, do not obey the American line. In the second CPNN bulletin, we link to publications critical of the US/NATO escalation as well as the Russian threats, in major media of India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Korea, Lebanon, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Mali, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Costa Rica, Argentina and Turkey. Most of them were among the 101 countries that did not yield to the pressure of the US and Europe to vote against the amendment to the UN resolution on Ukraine that would stop arms shipments to the war.

Media from Indonesia, Korea and Jordan blame the neo-conservatives and the arms industry of the United States for having provoked the war and for sabotaging peace initiatives that could end it.

Media from Bangladesh, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates, Costa Rica, Argentina and Turkey fear that Western escalation may lead to the Third World War and perhaps the destruction of all life on the planet.

Media from Egypt and India say that their countries side with Russia because they are profiting from their economic relations.

Media from Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, say that the American escalation of the war may lead to the subjugation or destruction of Europe

Media from Kenya and Nigeria blame the escalation of the war by the West for blocking African supplies of food and fuel and for shipping arms that end up by the black market in the hands of African terrorists.

CPNN joins with media of the Global South and with the alternative media and peace movements in Europe and North America to provide an alternative to the obedient mass media of the NATO countries. We agree with the peace movement: in the US,”Peace in Ukraine – No weapons, no money for the Ukraine War” ; in the UK, “Peace talks now – Stop the war in Ukraine”; and in France, demanding all parties involved in the conflict to act decisively for a ceasefire and to take steps to negotiate a long-term peace. And we agree with the peace movement in the United States, that their country should not only stop fueling the war in Ukraine, but also should sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Hopefully, thanks to the pressure from the rest of the world and from the peace movements in Europe and North America, a ceasefire can be achieved in Ukraine and we can avoid a nuclear war. As for the Russian side of the war, we can hope that the massive opposition to the war, as we have documented in CPNN, can resist its government’s repression and put pressure on their side to end the war agains their brothers in Ukraine.

Even if we can thus avoid a Third World War, unfortunately the poor Ukraine and its people have suffered so much damage that it will take decades to recover, much like Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan, not to mention Yemen, Palestine and the war zones of Africa.

Our world is at risk. Let us cultivate a culture of peace!

* * * * *

SOMNAMBULES VERS ARMAGEDDON : LE MONDE SE DIVISE SUR L’UKRAINE

Alors que les États-Unis, l’OTAN et la Russie intensifient la guerre en Ukraine, le risque augmente d’une guerre nucléaire mondiale qui pourrait détruire la plupart des vies sur la planète, correspondant à la mythique bataille d’Armageddon dans la Bible qui marque la fin du monde.

Notre monde est en danger et il est urgent de chercher une solution. Pour cette raison, ce mois-ci, nous avons consacré non pas un, mais deux bulletins de CPNN à la question : SOMNAMBULES VERS ARMAGEDDON et LE MONDE SE DIVISE SUR L’UKRAINE.

L’expression “somnambules vers armageddon” est le titre d’un livre récent d’Helen Caldicott, et le mot “somnambules” réapparaît dans les propos de l’autorité portugaise, Boaventura de Sousa Santos : “Cent ans après la Première Guerre mondiale, les dirigeants européens sont somnambules vers une nouvelle, guerre totale » et dans les commentaires du secrétaire général de l’ONU, Antonio Guterres : « Les risques d’une nouvelle escalade et d’un bain de sang ne cessent de croître. Je crains que le monde ne soit pas somnambule dans une guerre plus large. Je crains qu’il ne le fasse les yeux grands ouverts.”

Jusqu’à présent, les principaux médias d’Europe, d’Amérique du Nord et leurs alliés au Japon et en Australie ont été “obéissants” à la politique d’escalade de leurs gouvernements et ont applaudi les livraisons d’armes à l’Ukraine, versant de l’huile sur le feu. Pendant ce temps, la Russie a averti que l’OTAN est entrée dans la guerre et que l’arsenal nucléaire russe est prêt à être utilisé s’ils se sentent menacés.

Les médias et les pays du reste du monde, le Sud Global, ne sont pas d’accord. Dans le deuxième bulletin du CPNN, nous renvoyons à des publications critiquant l’escalade US/OTAN ainsi que les menaces russes, dans les principaux médias de l’Inde, de l’Indonésie, du Bangladesh, de la Corée, du Liban, du Koweït, des Émirats arabes unis, de la Jordanie, de l’Arabie saoudite, de l’Égypte, Mali, Kenya, Nigéria, Afrique du Sud, Costa Rica, Argentine et Turquie. La plupart d’entre eux faisaient partie des 101 pays qui n’ont pas cédé à la pression des États-Unis et de l’Europe pour voter contre l’amendement à la résolution de l’ONU sur l’Ukraine qui arrêterait les livraisons d’armes à la guerre.

Les médias d’Indonésie, de Corée et de Jordanie accusent les néo-conservateurs et l’industrie de l’armement des États-Unis d’avoir provoqué la guerre et d’avoir saboté les initiatives de paix qui pourraient y mettre fin.

Les médias du Bangladesh, du Liban, des Émirats arabes unis, du Costa Rica, d’Argentine et de Turquie craignent que l’escalade occidentale ne conduise à la Troisième Guerre mondiale et peut-être à la destruction de toute vie sur la planète.

Les médias égyptiens et indiens disent que leurs pays se rangent du côté de la Russie parce qu’ils profitent de leurs relations économiques.

Les médias du Koweït et des Émirats arabes unis affirment que l’escalade américaine de la guerre pourrait conduire à l’assujettissement ou à la destruction de l’Europe

Les médias du Kenya et du Nigeria accusent l’escalade de la guerre par l’Occident de bloquer les approvisionnements africains en nourriture et en carburant et d’expédier des armes qui finissent par le marché noir entre les mains de terroristes africains.

CPNN se joint aux médias des pays du Sud Global et aux médias alternatifs et aux mouvements pacifistes d’Europe et d’Amérique du Nord pour fournir une alternative aux médias de masse qui sont obéissants des pays de l’OTAN. Nous sommes d’accord avec le mouvement pacifiste : aux États-Unis, « Paix en Ukraine – Pas d’armes, pas d’argent pour la guerre d’Ukraine » ; au Royaume-Uni, « Peace talks now – Stop the war in Ukraine » ; et en France, demandant à toutes les parties impliquées dans le conflit d’agir de manière décisive pour un cessez-le-feu et de prendre des mesures pour négocier une paix à long terme. Et nous sommes d’accord avec le mouvement pour la paix aux États-Unis, que leur pays devrait non seulement cesser d’alimenter la guerre en Ukraine, mais devrait également signer le Traité sur l’interdiction des armes nucléaires.

Avec un peu de chance, grâce à la pression du reste du monde et des mouvements pacifistes en Europe et en Amérique du Nord, un cessez-le-feu pourra être obtenu en Ukraine et nous pourrons éviter une guerre nucléaire. Quant au côté russe de la guerre, nous pouvons espérer que l’opposition massive à la guerre, comme nous l’avons documenté dans CPNN, pourra échapper à la répression de son gouvernement et faire pression sur lui pour mettre fin à la guerre contre ses frères en Ukraine.

Même si nous pouvons ainsi éviter une troisième guerre mondiale, malheureusement l’Ukraine a tellement souffert qu’il lui faudra des décennies pour s’en remettre, tout comme le Vietnam, l’Irak, la Libye, la Syrie et l’Afghanistan, sans parler du Yémen, de la Palestine et des zones de guerre d’Afrique.

Notre monde est en danger. Cultivons une culture de la paix !

THE ANALYSIS IS SIMPLE; IT IS ECONOMIC

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

For a profound analysis of our political situation, the answer is simple: it is economic

I wrote the following back in my blog of May 2017:

“What is the appeal of Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen? Why have they able to get so many votes? A superficial response is easy: Voters are angry and fed up with the present political system and they will vote for whoever best shares their anger and damns the present political system. . . . But a more profound response requires that we analyze why voters are angry and fed up. One cause is their economic hardships. The average wages of a worker continue to decrease year after year. More and more families are forced to work two or three jobs just to survive. And they understand, to some extent, that the problem is due to government policies that support capitalist exploitation, enabling the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.”

This month two new articles were published that update and provide details for my analysis of 2017.

The first article comes from Oxfam in their presentation to the Davos World Economic Forum:

“Billionaires have seen extraordinary increases in their wealth. During the pandemic and cost-of-living crisis years since 2020, $26 trillion (63 percent) of all new wealth was captured by the richest 1 percent, while $16 trillion (37 percent) went to the rest of the world put together. A billionaire gained roughly $1.7 million for every $1 of new global wealth earned by a person in the bottom 90 percent. Billionaire fortunes have increased by $2.7 billion a day. This comes on top of a decade of historic gains —the number and wealth of billionaires having doubled over the last ten years. 

“At the same time, at least 1.7 billion workers now live in countries where inflation is outpacing wages, and over 820 million people —roughly one in ten people on Earth— are going hungry. Women and girls often eat least and last, and make up nearly 60 percent of the world’s hungry population. The World Bank says we are likely seeing the biggest increase in global inequality and poverty since WW2. Entire countries are facing bankruptcy, with the poorest countries now spending four times more repaying debts to rich creditors than on healthcare. Three-quarters of the world’s governments are planning austerity-driven public sector spending cuts —including on healthcare and education— by $7.8 trillion over the next five years.”

The second article is written by Nobel Laureate in Economics Joseph Stiglitz and published by CNN.

After citing the attacks on democracy in Washington two years ago and Brasilia a few weeks ago, Stiglitz writes, “Over half the world’s population lives under authoritarian regimes, and movements that clearly call individual and public freedoms into question and foster xenophobia persist at the ballot box. There are many reasons for this, but among them is a near-universal sense of grievance. So many citizens around the world suffer from economic hardship while a sliver of the population — the wealthy and the corporations they own and control — is doing extremely well . . .

“politicians have systematically cut virtually every tax that fell on the wealthy, from high-end income taxes and investment taxes, to estate and corporate taxes, to inheritance taxes, claiming the whole economy would benefit. You know the rest: Inequality in the US and countries around the world soared, working-class wages stagnated, working conditions deteriorated, and debts ballooned. As for the richest, they have done amazingly well, but they are the only ones. The same pattern has been repeated all over the world, with political consequences we are seeing in action.”

Both Oxfam and Stiglitz, in their articles, demand a big increase in taxes on the rich. Stiglitz concludes that “To refuse this solution is to force states to institute austerity programs, cutting public services and retirement benefits. This is a recipe for a chaos far greater than what we saw in Washington, D.C. and Brasilia. And that is a price too steep for the world to pay.”

It is good that the Oxfam analysis was presented to Davos where the rich were gathered for their annual meeting, and it is good that the Stiglitz analysis was published by CNN which reaches a wide audience. But that is not enough. Without profound and universal taxation of the rich, we are headed for what Stiglitz calls “a chaos far greater than what we saw in Washington, D.C. and Brasilia”.

It’s not clear what form this chaos will take, if we will survive it and if we will be able to find the way to a more humane world. But at least we should understand, with Oxfam and Stiglitz, its profound cause which is economic.

* * * * *

L’ANALYSE EST SIMPLE ; C’EST ECONOMIQUE
Pour une analyse approfondie de notre situation politique, la réponse est simple : c’est économique.

J’ai écrit ce qui suit dans mon blog de mai 2017 :

“Quel est l’attrait de Donald Trump et de Marine Le Pen ? Pourquoi ont-ils pu obtenir autant de voix ? Une réponse superficielle est facile : les électeurs sont en colère et en ont assez du système politique actuel, et ils voteront pour celui qui partage le mieux leur colère. et damne le système politique actuel. . . . Mais une réponse plus profonde exige que nous analysions pourquoi les électeurs sont en colère et en ont assez. L’une des causes est leurs difficultés économiques. Le salaire moyen d’un travailleur continue de baisser d’année en année. De plus en plus les familles sont obligées de travailler dans deux ou trois emplois juste pour survivre. Et elles comprennent, dans une certaine mesure, que le problème est dû aux politiques gouvernementales qui soutiennent l’exploitation capitaliste, permettant aux riches de s’enrichir et aux pauvres de s’appauvrir.”

Ce mois-ci, deux nouveaux articles ont été publiés qui mettent à jour et fournissent des détails completant mon analyse de 2017.

Le premier article vient d’Oxfam dans sa présentation au Forum économique mondial de Davos :

“Les milliardaires ont vu leur richesse augmenter de manière extraordinaire. Pendant les années de pandémie et de crise du coût de la vie depuis 2020, 26 000 milliards de dollars (63 %) de toutes les nouvelles richesses ont été capturés par les 1 % les plus riches, tandis que 16 000 milliards de dollars (37 %) sont allés au reste du monde réuni. Un milliardaire a gagné environ 1,7 million de dollars pour chaque dollar de nouvelle richesse mondiale gagné par une personne appartenant aux 90 % les plus pauvres. Les fortunes des milliardaires ont augmenté de 2,7 milliards de dollars par jour. Cela s’ajoute à une décennie de gains historiques — le nombre et la richesse des milliardaires ayant doublé au cours des dix dernières années.

“Dans le même temps, au moins 1,7 milliard de travailleurs vivent désormais dans des pays où l’inflation dépasse les salaires, et plus de 820 millions de personnes – soit environ une personne sur dix sur Terre – ont faim. Les femmes et les filles mangent souvent moins et en dernier, et elles sont près de 60 % de la population mondiale souffrant de la faim. La Banque mondiale affirme que nous assistons probablement à la plus forte augmentation des inégalités et de la pauvreté dans le monde depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Des pays entiers sont menacés de faillite, les pays les plus pauvres dépensant désormais quatre fois plus pour rembourser leurs dettes aux riches créanciers que sur les soins de santé. Les trois quarts des gouvernements du monde prévoient des réductions des dépenses du secteur public motivées par l’austérité – y compris dans les soins de santé et l’éducation – de 7,8 billions de dollars au cours des cinq prochaines années.”

Le deuxième article vient du lauréat du prix Nobel d’économie Joseph Stiglitz qui a été publié par CNN.

Après avoir cité les attaques contre la démocratie à Washington il y a deux ans et à Brasilia il y a quelques semaines, Stiglitz écrit : “Plus de la moitié de la population mondiale vit sous des régimes autoritaires, et des mouvements qui remettent clairement en question les libertés individuelles et publiques et encouragent la xénophobie persistent au scrutin encadré. Il y a de nombreuses raisons à cela, mais parmi elles se trouve un sentiment de grief quasi universel. Tant de citoyens à travers le monde souffrent de difficultés économiques tandis qu’une fraction de la population – les riches et les sociétés qu’ils possèdent et contrôlent – vivement extrêmement bien . . .

“Les politiciens ont systématiquement réduit pratiquement tous les impôts qui pesaient sur les riches, des impôts sur le revenu haut de gamme et des impôts sur l’investissement, aux impôts sur les successions et les sociétés, en passant par les droits de succession, affirmant que l’ensemble de l’économie en bénéficierait. Vous connaissez la suite : l’inégalité aux États-Unis et les pays du monde entier ont grimpé en flèche, les salaires de la classe ouvrière ont stagné, les conditions de travail se sont détériorées et les dettes ont explosé. Quant aux plus riches, ils ont étonnamment bien réussi, mais ils sont les seuls. Le même schéma s’est répété partout dans le monde, avec les conséquences politiques que nous voyons en action.”

Oxfam et Stiglitz, dans leurs articles, exigent une forte augmentation des impôts sur les riches. Stiglitz conclut que “Refuser cette solution, c’est obliger les États à instituer des programmes d’austérité, réduisant les services publics et les prestations de retraite. C’est la recette d’un chaos bien plus grand que ce que nous avons vu à Washington, D.C. et Brasilia. Et c’est un prix trop raide pour le monde à payer.”

C’est bien que l’analyse d’Oxfam ait été présentée à Davos où les riches étaient réunis pour leur réunion annuelle, et c’est bien que l’analyse Stiglitz ait été publiée par CNN qui touche un large public. Mais ce n’est pas assez. Sans taxation profonde et universelle des riches, nous nous dirigeons vers ce que Stiglitz appelle “un chaos bien plus grand que ce que nous avons vu à Washington, D.C. et Brasilia”

On ne sait pas quelle forme pourrait prendre ce chaos, si nous y survivrions et si nous pourrons trouver la voie vers un monde plus humain. Mais au moins faut-il comprendre, avec Oxfam et Stiglitz, sa cause profonde de notre situation qui est économique.

LULA AND THE CULTURE OF PEACE

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

Editor’s note: In the blogs of last August and September , the hope was expressed that Lula de Silva would be elected and that Brazil would take a leadership role for the culture of peace. Following his victory in the October elections, I asked the CPNN representative in Brazil, Herbert Lima, to comment on this. Here is his assessment.

The first and second terms of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula) in Brazil, from 2002 to 2010, were marked by a strong campaign to build a culture of peace in the country. Lula and his Workers’ Party (PT) defended the idea that building a more just and egalitarian society would be fundamental for building a culture of peace.

During his term, Lula implemented policies aimed at reducing poverty and social inequality, such as the Bolsa Família program and raising the minimum wage. These measures had a significant impact on improving the living conditions of millions of Brazilians, contributing to the construction of a fairer and more balanced society.

In addition, Lula also stood out on the international level, seeking to build relations of cooperation and dialogue with countries in Latin America and the world. This posture contributed to the reduction of international tensions and to the promotion of a culture of peace.

Since the end of Lula’s term in 2010, the culture of peace in Brazil has faced difficulty. The subsequent government of Bolsonaro did not prioritize policies aimed at reducing poverty and social inequality, which contributed to increased social tensions and increased violence. In addition, there was an increase in hate speech and intolerance, which threaten the construction of a fairer and more inclusive society.

There was also a change in the country’s international posture, with a distancing from relations of cooperation and dialogue with other countries in Latin America and the world, which may have contributed to the increase in international tensions.

However, it is important to highlight that building a culture of peace is a continuous and challenging process, which requires the action of different sectors of society, and does not depend only on the government. Civil society plays a fundamental role in building a culture of peace, through campaigns and actions aimed at promoting tolerance, solidarity and inclusion, and during this period it did its part, opposing the Bolsonaro government and its policies of dismantling of the institutions of the Lula government.

It is still difficult to accurately predict how the future of the culture of peace in Brazil will be in the coming years, as there is a clear division and political polarization in the current congress. However, it is possible to evaluate the proposals and speeches of the Workers’ Party (PT) and Lula to assess expectations about the culture of peace in the country. (See CPNN article of January 9.)

In general, it is expected that, if Lula has political capital in Congress, he and the PT will again prioritize policies aimed at reducing poverty and social inequality, such as the Bolsa Família program and raising the minimum wage. These measures have the potential to improve the living conditions of the most vulnerable Brazilians and, thus, contribute to building a fairer and more balanced society, fundamental to a culture of peace.

In addition, Lula and the PT are expected to seek to strengthen cooperation and dialogue relations with other countries in Latin America and the world, which may contribute to the reduction of international tensions and to the promotion of a culture of peace. (See CPNN article of January 7.)

However, it is important to remember that building a culture of peace is a complex and challenging process, and that government action is just one of the many pieces of this puzzle. Civil society also plays a fundamental role in this process, through campaigns and actions aimed at promoting tolerance, solidarity and inclusion.

* * * * *

LULA ET LA CULTURE DE LA PAIX

Note de l’éditeur : Dans les blogs d’août et de septembre derniers, nous exprimions l’espoir que Lula de Silva serait élu et que le Brésil assumerait un rôle de leadership pour la culture de la paix. Après sa victoire aux élections d’octobre, j’ai demandé au représentant du CPNN au Brésil, Herbert Lima, de commenter cela. Voici son évaluation.

Les premier et deuxième mandats du président Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula) au Brésil, de 2002 à 2010, ont été marqués par une forte campagne pour construire une culture de la paix dans le pays. Lula et son Parti des travailleurs (PT) ont défendu l’idée que la construction d’une société plus juste et égalitaire serait fondamentale pour construire une culture de la paix.

Pendant son mandat, Lula a mis en œuvre des politiques visant à réduire la pauvreté et les inégalités sociales, telles que le programme Bolsa Família et l’augmentation du salaire minimum. Ces mesures ont eu un impact significatif sur l’amélioration des conditions de vie de millions de Brésiliens, contribuant à la construction d’une société plus juste et plus équilibrée.

En outre, Lula s’est également distingué au niveau international, cherchant à établir des relations de coopération et de dialogue avec les pays d’Amérique latine et du monde. Cette posture a contribué à la réduction des tensions internationales et à la promotion d’une culture de la paix.

Depuis la fin du mandat de Lula en 2010, la culture de la paix au Brésil est en difficulté. Le gouvernement Bolsonaro qui a suivi n’a pas donné la priorité aux politiques visant à réduire la pauvreté et les inégalités sociales, ce qui a contribué à accroître les tensions sociales et l’augmentation de la violence. De plus, il y a eu une augmentation des discours de haine et d’intolérance, qui menacent la construction d’une société plus juste et plus inclusive.

Il y a également eu un changement dans la posture internationale du pays, avec un éloignement des relations de coopération et de dialogue avec les autres pays d’Amérique latine et du monde, ce qui a pu contribuer à l’augmentation des tensions internationales.

Cependant, il est important de souligner que la construction d’une culture de la paix est un processus continu et difficile, qui nécessite l’action de différents secteurs de la société et ne dépend pas uniquement du gouvernement. La société civile joue un rôle fondamental dans la construction d’une culture de la paix, à travers des campagnes et des actions visant à promouvoir la tolérance, la solidarité et l’inclusion, et pendant cette période, elle a fait sa part, s’opposant au gouvernement Bolsonaro et à ses politiques de démantèlement des institutions de gouvernement de Lula.

Il est encore difficile de prédire avec précision comment sera l’avenir de la culture de la paix au Brésil dans les années à venir, car il existe une division et une polarisation politiques au sein du congrès actuel. Cependant, il est possible d’évaluer les propositions et les discours du Parti des travailleurs (PT) et de Lula pour évaluer les attentes concernant la culture de la paix dans le pays. (Voir article CPNN du 9 janvier.)

En général, on s’attend à ce que, si Lula a un capital politique au Congrès, lui et le PT donneront à nouveau la priorité aux politiques visant à réduire la pauvreté et les inégalités sociales, telles que le programme Bolsa Família et l’augmentation du salaire minimum. Ces mesures ont le potentiel d’améliorer les conditions de vie des Brésiliens les plus vulnérables et, ainsi, de contribuer à la construction d’une société plus juste et plus équilibrée, fondamentale pour une culture de la paix.

En outre, Lula et le PT devraient chercher à renforcer les relations de coopération et de dialogue avec d’autres pays d’Amérique latine et du monde, ce qui peut contribuer à la réduction des tensions internationales et à la promotion d’une culture de paix. (Voir article CPNN du 7 janvier.)

Cependant, il est important de se rappeler que la construction d’une culture de la paix est un processus complexe et difficile, et que l’action gouvernementale n’est qu’une des nombreuses pièces de ce puzzle. La société civile joue également un rôle fondamental dans ce processus, à travers des campagnes et des actions visant à promouvoir la tolérance, la solidarité et l’inclusion.

LOOKING FORWARD TO 2023

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

Before looking forward to 2023, let’s look back at 2022 from the perspective of the culture of peace.

In general, we must admit that the culture of war was more dominant than ever. The trap set by the American Empire, including NATO, in the Ukraine was a “success” for the Neocons. They drew Putin’s Russia into the trap and began a covert war with Russia, using the poor Ukraine as bait. And now they are fighting Russia “to the last Ukrainian.”

I realize that this analysis is the opposite of what you will find in the American and European mass media, so I recommend, if you have not done so, to recall the following blogs that I wrote last year providing the historical background necessary to understand the Ukraine War.

DID THE U.S. AND NATO PROMISE NOT TO THREATEN RUSSIA BY MOVING THE MILITARY FORCES OF NATO TO ITS BORDERS?

HOW THE UNITED STATES CREATED VLADIMIR PUTIN

THE UKRAINE WAR COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED

WE CAN FIND THE TRUTH, BUT WHERE CAN WE FIND HOPE?

HUMAN RIGHTS HYPOCRISY

While being fixed on the Ukraine War, we should not forget the more than one hundred armed conflicts elsewhere in the world, many of which are armed by the American Empire and NATO.

In general, it seems that the culture of peace was losing last year.

But let us not ignore the peace movement. Last year the North American and European peace movements mobilized against the war in the Ukraine and other wars, as we described in the December bulletin of CPNN.

In Latin America and Africa the culture of peace continued to be promoted as we describe in this month’s CPNN bulletin. While the peace movements of North America and Europe are minority movements in opposition to the state’s culture of war, the culture of peace in Latin Ameica is promoted by cities, towns and regions and and in Africa by the African Union. In these continents, it is a movement that represents the majority of citizens, often in harmony with the politics of the state.
`
And we should not ignore the few eloquent voices for peace in the Ukraine, and the miliions of Russians who publicly opposed the Ukraine War before they were suppressed by the Putin administration.

Under the present circumstances, it does not seem likely that the peace movements, North or South, can succeed in the task of transformation from the culture of war to the culture of peace in 2023. The movements of Europe and North America remain a small minority. And as for Latin America and Africa, these continents are more victims than actors on the world stage.

But the present circumstances are not permanent, and 2023 could mark a turning point in world history. One thing is sure: history proceeds by surprising and abrupt changes, even revolutionary changes.

As I insisted in last month’s blog, PREPARE FOR A NEW WORLD ORDER, the engine of historical change is economic. Since the economy becomes more globalized every year, that means that an economic crash can no longer be localized. If there is an economic crash, it will effect all the economies of the world.

2023 could be the year that we see the COLLAPSE OF THE US DOLLAR? The fact that the Americans continue to pour most of their government money into military instead of civilian production makes it more and more likely. In this regard, nothing has changed since I wrote BAD NEWS FOR 2021

When there is an economic crash, its is followed by a political crash. That is how Marx described the dynamics of history, and that is what I witnessed in the old Soviet Union at the end of the 1980’s.

Already, we see political cracks developing in the American Empire: from the inside, as I described here last year in the blog, WAR ABROAD, WAR AT HOME.

If we are to profit from a global economic and political crash to move from the culture of war to a culture of peace, we must prepare in advance. Otherwise, the opportunity may be lost!

Of course, there is another possible crash, one that is so terrible that we usually avoid thinking about it: the possibility of a World War III that involves nuclear weapons, a possibility that has been threatened more than ever by the war in the Ukraine. Such a war could even mark the end of human civilization. For this reason, it is ever more important to arrive at peace in the Ukraine (see my blog, LET THE CHILDREN MAKE PEACE) and to develop a GLOBAL MOVEMENT FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT.

Whether or not 2023 is the year of the crash of the dollar, we have much work to do!

* * * * *

DANS L’ATTENTE DE 2023

Avant d’envisager 2023, regardons 2022 du point de vue de la culture de la paix.

En général, il semble que la culture de la guerre ait été plus dominante que jamais. Le piège tendu par l’Empire américain, y compris l’OTAN, à l’Ukraine a été un “succès” pour les néocons. Ils ont attiré la Russie de Poutine dans le piège et ont commencé une guerre cachée avec la Russie, utilisant la pauvre Ukraine comme appât. Et maintenant, ils combattent la Russie “jusqu’au dernier Ukrainien”.

Je me rends compte que cette analyse est à l’opposé de ce que vous trouverez dans les médias de masse américains et européens. Pour cela, je vous recommande, si vous ne l’avez pas encore fait, de lire les blogs suivants que j’ai écrits l’année dernière et qui fournissent le contexte historique nécessaire pour comprendre la guerre d’Ukraine.

LES ÉTATS-UNIS ET L’OTAN ONT-ILS PROMIS DE NE PAS MENACER LA RUSSIE EN DÉPLACEANT LES FORCES MILITAIRES DE L’OTAN VERS SES FRONTIÈRES ?

COMMENT LES ÉTATS-UNIS ONT CRÉÉ VLADIMIR POUTINE

LA GUERRE D’UKRAINE AURAIT PU ÊTRE ÉVITÉE

NOUS POUVONS TROUVER LA VÉRITÉ, MAIS OÙ POUVONS-NOUS TROUVER L’ESPOIR ?

HYPOCRISIE À PROPOS DES DROITS HUMAINS

Tout en étant fixé sur la guerre d’Ukraine, nous ne devons pas oublier le plus d’une centaine de conflits armés ailleurs dans le monde, dont beaucoup sont armés par l’Empire américain et l’OTAN.

En général, il semble que la culture de la paix ait perdu l’année dernière.

Mais n’ignorons pas le mouvement pour la paix. L’année dernière, les mouvements pacifistes nord-américains et européens se sont mobilisés contre la guerre de Ukraine et d’autres guerres, comme nous l’avons décrit dans le bulletin de décembre du CPNN.

En Amérique latine et en Afrique, la culture de la paix a continué à être promue, comme nous le décrivons dans le bulletin CPNN de ce mois. Alors que les mouvements pacifistes d’Amérique du Nord et d’Europe sont des mouvements minoritaires opposés à la culture de guerre de l’État, la culture de la paix en L’Amérique latine se reprend par les villes, villages et les régions et en Afrique par l’Union Africaine. Dans ces continents, c’est un mouvement qui représente la majorité des citoyens, souvent en harmonie avec la politique de l’État.
`
Et nous ne devons pas ignorer les quelques voix éloquentes pour la paix en Ukraine, et les millions de Russes qui se sont publiquement opposés à la guerre d’Ukraine avant qu’ils ne soient réprimés par l’administration Poutine.

Dans les circonstances actuelles, il semble peu probable que les mouvements pacifistes, du Nord ou du Sud, puissent réussir la tâche de transformation de la culture de guerre à la culture de paix en 2023. Les mouvements d’Europe et d’Amérique du Nord restent une petite minorité . Et en ce qui concerne l’Amérique latine et l’Afrique, ces continents sont plus victimes qu’acteurs sur la scène mondiale.

Mais les circonstances actuelles ne sont pas permanentes, et 2023 pourrait marquer un tournant dans l’histoire mondiale. Une chose est sûre : l’histoire procède par changements surprenants et brusques, voire révolutionnaires.

Comme j’ai insisté dans le blog du mois dernier, PRÉPARONS-NOUS POUR UN NOUVEL ORDRE MONDIAL, le moteur du changement historique est économique. Étant donné que l’économie se mondialise de plus en plus chaque année, cela signifie qu’un krach économique ne peut plus être localisé. S’il y a un crash économique, cela affectera toutes les économies du monde.

2023 pourrait être l’année où l’on verra l’EFFONDREMENT DU DOLLAR AMÉRICAIN ? Le fait que le gouvernement Américain continue de consacrer la majeure partie de l’argent de leur gouvernement à la production militaire plutôt qu’à la production civile rend cela de plus en plus probable. À cet égard, rien n’a changé depuis que j’ai écrit MAUVAISES NOUVELLES POUR 2021

Quand il y a un krach économique, il est suivi d’un krach politique. C’est ainsi que Marx a décrit la dynamique de l’histoire, et c’est ce que j’ai vu dans l’ancienne Union soviétique à la fin des années 1980.

Déjà, on voit se développer des fissures politiques dans l’Empire américain : comme je l’ai décrit l’année dernière dans le blog, GUERRE À L’ÉTRANGER, GUERRE DANS LA MÉTROPOLE.

Si nous voulons profiter d’un krach économique et politique mondial pour passer de la culture de guerre à une culture de paix, nous devons nous préparer à l’avance. Sinon, l’occasion peut être perdue!

Bien sûr, il y a un autre crash possible, si terrible qu’on évite généralement d’y penser : la possibilité d’une troisième guerre mondiale impliquant des armes nucléaires, une possibilité plus que jamais menacée par la guerre en Ukraine. Une telle guerre pourrait même marquer la fin de la civilisation humaine. Pour cette raison, il est d’autant plus important d’arriver à la paix en Ukraine (voir mon blog, LAISSEZ LES ENFANTS FAIRE LA PAIX) et de développer un MOUVEMENT MONDIAL POUR LE DÉSARMEMENT NUCLÉAIRE .

Que 2023 soit ou non l’année du krach du dollar, nous avons beaucoup de travail à faire !

PREPARE FOR A NEW WORLD ORDER

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

(Note: The following is adapted from my remarks to the National Congress of Mouvement de la Paix.)

This month’s CPNN is dedicated to the developments of peace movements in Europe and North America. This reflects a growing consciousness around the world that we must move from the culture of war to a culture of peace. We see this growing peace consciousness each year with the celebration of the International Day of Peace, and we saw it during the International Year for the Culture of Peace when 75 million people signed the Manifesto 2000 promising to work for a culture of peace.

But consciousness is not enough by itself. The culture of war is so firmly established, especially in the modern state, that it will take a revolutionary change in global governance if we are to move towards a culture of peace.

To understand the nature of revolutionary change, I turn to that old expert, Karl Marx.

In his brief analysis of the dynamics of history, Marx says that social revolution doesn’t begin until contradictions in the economic relations of production become so great that the entire economic foundation is transformed. It is at this point that consciousness becomes key. To quote Marx, at this point the people become conscious of the conflict and fight it out to establish a new order.

We saw how this works at the end of the 1980’s when the Soviet economy collapsed. As a result, then the entire political structure collapsed as well. At UNESCO we took advantage of this to launch programs for a culture of peace and to draft the United Nations Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace with its eight action areas that provides us with a framework for the actions to be done.

At that point in the 1990’s, NATO should have been abolished, but the military-industrial complex of the United States continued to support it and Europe agreed. At UNESCO, the United States and Europe failed to support the culture of peace programs. The UN Declaration and Programme of Action was adopted despite their opposition. The world was not yet ready for a culture of peace.

Why did the Soviet economy collapse? The reason is simple. While the West put half of its resources into the military, the Soviet Union put 80 or 90% of its economy into the military in order to match the West. That left almost nothing for the needs of the people. Marx could have been talking about military spending when he said “The impact of war is self-evident, since economically it is exactly the same as if the nation were to drop a part of its capital into the ocean.”

i believe that we are approaching another such economic collapse, providing us with another window of opportunity for radical change (See blogs on Collapse of the US dollar and on Bad News for 2021. The United States government is putting most of its resources into the military, leaving little for the needs of its people. Now half of America has no medical insurance and the government does not support education, leaving the burden on cities and towns that are going bankrupt. Half of the United States is ready to launch a civil war.

Will we be prepared to establish a new world order when the American empire collapses?

Can the anti-war consciousness that has been developing over the years be harnessed into effective action? Can this be accomplished before the historic window of opportunity closes and new culture of war empires arise?

Can we reform the United Nations to become an effective agency for peace?

For example, we will need a United Nations Security Council that is no longer run by the nuclear powers. We should begin now to plan for this? Why not plan for a Security Council run by the mayors of the world who have no interest in the culture of war? Already Mayors for Peace includes thousands of cities around the world that demand nuclear disarmament. I have asked them to establish a group of mayors to issue regular press releases saying what they would be doing if they were in charge.

Consciousness is important, but it needs to be prepared for concrete actions when the window of opportunity arrives. We need specific goals to achieve when the time is ripe.

* * * * *

PRÉPARONS-NOUS POUR UN NOUVEL ORDRE MONDIAL

(Note : Ce qui suit est issu de mes remarques au Congrès national du Mouvement de la paix.)

Le CPNN de ce mois-ci est consacré aux développements des mouvements pacifistes en Europe et en Amérique du Nord. Cela reflète une prise de conscience croissante dans le monde afin de passer d’une culture de guerre à une culture de paix. Nous avons vu cette prise de conscience croissante de la paix chaque année avec la célébration de la Journée internationale de la paix, et nous l’avons vu lors de l’Année internationale de la culture de la paix lorsque 75 millions de personnes ont signé le Manifesto 2000 promettant de travailler pour une culture de la paix.

Mais la conscience ne suffit pas à elle-même. La culture de la guerre est si fermement établie, en particulier dans l’État moderne, qu’une culture de la paix ne peut être achèvée qu’avec un changement radical dans la gouvernance mondiale.

Pour comprendre la nature du changement radical, je me tourne vers ce vieil expert, Karl Marx.

Dans sa brève analyse de la dynamique de l’Histoire, Marx dit que la révolution sociale ne commence que lorsque les contradictions dans les rapports économiques de production deviennent si grandes que la base économique est complètement transformée. C’est à ce stade que la conscience devient la clé. Pour citer Marx, à ce stade, le peuple prend conscience du conflit et le combat pour établir un nouvel ordre.

Nous avons vu comment cela fonctionnait à la fin des années 1980 lorsque l’économie soviétique s’est effondrée. En conséquence, toute la structure politique s’est également effondrée. A l’UNESCO, nous avons profité de cette fenêtre d’opportunité pour lancer des programmes en faveur d’une culture de la paix et pour rédiger la Déclaration et le Programme d’action des Nations Unies sur une culture de la paix avec ses huit domaines d’action qui nous donne un cadre pour les actions à entreprendre comme utilise toujours le Mouvement de la Paix.

Avec le crash de l’empire soviétique, l’OTAN aurait dû être abolie, mais le complexe militaro-industriel des États-Unis a continué à la soutenir et l’Europe l’a accepté. Aussi à l’UNESCO, les États-Unis et l’Europe n’ont pas soutenu les programmes de culture de la paix. La Déclaration et le Programme d’action des Nations Unies ont été adoptées malgré leur opposition. Le monde n’était pas encore prêt pour une culture de la paix.

Pourquoi l’économie soviétique s’est-elle effondrée ? La raison est simple. Alors que l’Occident a mis la moitié de ses ressources dans les militaires, l’Union soviétique a mis 80 ou 90% de son économie dans les militaires afin d’égaler l’Occident. Cela ne laissait presque rien pour les besoins du peuple. Marx aurait pu parler de dépenses militaires lorsqu’il a dit : « L’impact de la guerre est évident, puisque économiquement c’est exactement la même chose que si la nation lançait une partie de son capital dans l’océan.

Je crois que nous approchons d’un autre effondrement économique qui va nous offrir une nouvelle fenêtre d’opportunité pour un changement radical. Il s’agit de l’empire Americain. (Voir les blogs Effondrement du Dollar Américain et Mauvaises Nouvelles pour 2021. Le gouvernement des États-Unis met la plupart de ses ressources dans le budget militaire, laissant peu de place aux besoins de son peuple. Aujourd’hui, la moitié de l’Amérique n’a pas d’assurance médicale et le gouvernement ne soutient pas l’éducation, laissant le fardeau aux villes et villages qui sont obligés d’imposer des lourds impôts à leurs citoyens.. En colère et équipé d’armes militaires, la moitié des États-Unis est prête à déclencher une guerre civile.

Serons-nous prêts à établir un nouvel ordre mondial lorsque l’empire américain s’effondrera ?

La conscience anti-guerre qui s’est développée au fil des années peut-elle être mise au service d’une action efficace avant que la fenêtre d’opportunité historique se ferme et qu’un nouvel empire de culture de guerre apparaisse ?

Pouvons-nous réformer l’ONU pour qu’elle devienne une agence efficace pour la paix ?

Pour être concret,, nous aurions besoin d’un Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies qui ne soit plus dirigé par les puissances nucléaires. Nous devrions commencer maintenant à planifier cela ! Pourquoi ne pas prévoir un Conseil de sécurité dirigé par des représentants des maires du monde qui n’ont aucun intérêt dans la culture de guerre ?

Étant donné que l’organisation Maires pour la Paix comprend déjà des milliers de villes à travers le monde demandant le désarmement nucléaire, je leur ai demandé de créer un groupe de maires pour publier des communiqués de presse réguliers indiquant ce qu’ils feraient s’ils étaient aux commandes.

Dans cette façon, nous pourions développer la conscience qu’un Conseil de sécurité complètement différent soit possible.

La conscience anti-guerre est importante, mais elle doit être préparée à des actions concrètes lorsque la fenêtre d’opportunité se présente. Nous avons besoin d’objectifs précis à atteindre quand le moment arrive.

Travaillons ensemble à cette tâche, en comprenant qu’un autre monde est possible.

HUMAN RIGHTS HYPOCRISY

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one of the great documents of history.

With that in mind, it is especially ironic and unfortunate when human rights is used by the culture of war as part of its weaponry.

During the Cold War from the 1950’s through the 1980’s, the United States and its allies used accusations of their human rights violations as a way to justify labelling the Soviet Union as the enemy.

After all; the culture of war cannot function without an enemy. It is not enough to claim that the enemy is arming in order to attack us, but it is necessary to add that the enemy is barbaric and against our values such as the values of human rights. This requires government control of information which has become the principal arm of the culture of war.

Of course, the Soviet Union was not innocent of human rights violations. They were abundantly documented by writers such as Solzhenitsyn. But the West’s accusations were hypocritical. There were political prisoners in the USA as well as the Soviet Union. The West’s exploitation and intervenions in Africa and Latin America were, if anything, worse than the exploitation and interventions by the Soviet Union in its allied countries.

Ironically, the Soviet Union ratified the economic and social part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, guaranteeing housing, employment and medical care to its citizens, whereas the United States has never ratified this, and continues to have high levels of homelessness, unemployment and millions of people without medical care.

The Nobel Peace Prize this year returns us to the use of human rights hypocrisy as a weapon of the culture of war. It was awarded to those who accuse Russia and its allies of human rights violations, and even includes one organization funded and following the pro-war line of the American government. There is no attempt to criticise the abundant human rights violations of the West or mention the serious human rights violations of Ukraine.

Human rights hypocrisy is not confined to the new Cold War against Russia. It applies also to the the new Cold War against China. As described in this blog last year, the commercial media decries Chjnese human rights violations in camps of the Uighur people of Mongolia. But the media sources are funded by the CiA. And to add to the hypocrisy, the camps were establlshed by China in response to CIA-funded terrorist operations. When the UN Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet returned from a fact-finding mission to visit the Uighur people without documenting these claims, she was denounced by Americans and their allies.

Earlier this year, Russia was expelled from the UN Human Rights Commission, again on the demand of the US and its allies. The vote was far from unanimous, however, as it was not supported by over 70 countries of the South. Another recent UN vote provides similar results: 66 countries called for negotiations to end the war in the Ukraine, almost all of them coming from the South.

The commercial media in Europe and North America is almost unanimous in supporting the claims of the West against Russia and China and ignoring human rights violations in the West, while much of the media in the rest of the world are not following this line.

We return to the question of government control of information. To what extent is the Western media infiltrated by CIA agents? Difficult to know since CIA actions are top secret. However, we should recall the US Senate hearings after the Vietnam War which considered this question. Few people would know about these hearings were it not for an article by the reporter Carl Bernstein. Bernstein’s report was not accepted for publication by “main-line” media and he was only able to publish it in the alternative press, the Rolling Stone Magazine . The Bernstein article reveals that the Church Committee found extensive secret CIA infiltration of the mass media, including the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc. The data revealed by Bernstein and the Church Committee were only the tip of the iceberg, however. As Bernstein explains, the Committee was blocked from going further with its investigation.

The human rights hypocrisy of the Americans, Europeans and their military allies adds to the growing gulf between the North and South. As shown by the UN votes mentioned above, many countries of the South do not agree with their human rights hypocrisy. Many of them have also come under similar attacks, not to mention economic sanctions, exploitation and in some cases assassinations or military interventions. Important countries of the South such as India, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina are joining the BRICS countries looking for an alternative to the domination of the US dollar.

To quote the World Social Forum, another world is possible.

* * * * *

HYPOCRISIE À PROPOS DES DROITS HUMAINS

La Déclaration universelle des droits de l’Homme est l’un des grands documents de l’histoire.

Dans cet esprit, il est particulièrement ironique et malheureux que les droits de l’Homme soient utilisés par la culture de la guerre comme faisant partie de son armement.

Pendant la guerre froide, des années 1950 aux années 1980, les États-Unis et leurs alliés ont utilisé les accusations de violations des droits de l’Homme par l’Union sovietique pour justifier celle-ci comme l’ennemi.

Après tout; la culture de guerre ne peut fonctionner sans ennemi. Il ne suffit pas de prétendre que l’ennemi s’arme pour nous attaquer, mais il faut ajouter que l’ennemi est barbare et contre nos valeurs telles que celles des droits de l’Homme. Cela nécessite un contrôle gouvernemental de l’information qui est devenu l’arme principale de la culture de guerre.

Bien sûr, l’Union soviétique n’était pas innocente des violations des droits de l’Homme. Elles ont été abondamment documentées par des écrivains comme Soljenitsyne. Mais les accusations de l’Occident étaient hypocrites. Il y avait des prisonniers politiques aux États-Unis comme en Union soviétique. L’exploitation et les interventions de l’Occident en Afrique et en Amérique latine étaient, en tout cas, pires que l’exploitation et les interventions de l’Union soviétique dans ses pays alliés.

Ironiquement, l’Union soviétique a ratifié la partie économique et sociale de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’Homme, garantissant le logement, l’emploi et les soins médicaux à ses citoyens, alors que les États-Unis ne l’ont jamais ratifiée et continuent d’avoir des niveaux élevés de sans-abris, de chômage et de des millions de personnes sans soins médicaux.

Le prix Nobel de la paix de cette année nous ramène à l’utilisation de l’hypocrisie des droits de l’Homme comme arme de la culture de guerre. Il a été décerné à ceux qui accusent la Russie et ses alliés de violations des droits de l’Homme, et comprend même une organisation financée par le gouvernement américain pour suivre une ligne pro-guerre. Il n’y a aucune tentative à critiquer les nombreuses violations des droits de l’Homme de l’Occident ou de mentionner les graves violations des droits de l’Homme de l’Ukraine.

L’hypocrisie des droits de l’homme ne se limite pas à la nouvelle guerre froide contre la Russie. Cela s’applique également à la nouvelle guerre froide contre la Chine. Comme décrit dans ce blog l’année dernière, les médias commerciaux dénoncent les violations des droits de l’Homme en Chine dans les camps du peuple Ouïghour de Mongolie. Mais les sources médiatiques sont financées par la CiA. Et pour ajouter à l’hypocrisie, les camps ont été établis par la Chine en réponse aux opérations terroristes financées par la CIA. Lorsque la commissaire de Droits de l’Homme de l’ONU, Michelle Bachelet, est revenue d’une mission d’enquête pour visiter le peuple Ouïghour sans documenter ces allégations, elle a été dénoncée par les Américains et leurs alliés.

Plus tôt cette année, la Russie a été expulsée de la Commission des droits de l’Homme de l’ONU, toujours à la demande des États-Unis et de ses alliés. Le vote était cependant loin d’être unanime, car il n’était pas soutenu par plus de 70 pays du Sud. Un autre vote récent de l’ONU donne des résultats similaires : 66 pays ont appelé à des négociations pour mettre fin à la guerre en Ukraine, presque tous venant du Sud.

Les médias commerciaux d’Europe et d’Amérique du Nord sont presque unanimes à soutenir les revendications de l’Occident contre la Russie et la Chine et à ignorer les violations des droits de l’Homme en Occident, alors que la plupart des médias du reste du monde ne suivent pas cette ligne.

Nous revenons à la question du contrôle gouvernemental de l’information. Dans quelle mesure les médias occidentaux sont-ils infiltrés par des agents de la CIA ? Difficile à savoir puisque les actions de la CIA sont top secrètes. Cependant, rappelons-nous les audiences du Sénat américain après la guerre du Vietnam qui ont examiné cette question. Peu de gens seraient au courant de ces audiences sans un article du journaliste Carl Bernstein. Le rapport de Bernstein n’a pas été accepté pour publication par les médias « principaux » et il n’a pu le publier que dans la presse alternative, le Rolling Stone Magazine. L’article de Bernstein révèle que le comité du Sénat a découvert une vaste infiltration secrète de la CIA dans les médias de masse, y compris le New York Times, CBS et Time Inc. Les données révélées par Bernstein et le comité du Sénat n’étaient cependant que la pointe de l’iceberg. Comme l’explique Bernstein, le Comité a été empêché d’aller plus loin dans son enquête.

L’hypocrisie des droits de l’Homme des Américains, des Européens et de leurs alliés militaires ajoute au fossé grandissant entre le Nord et le Sud. Comme le montrent les votes de l’ONU mentionnés ci-dessus, de nombreux pays du Sud ne sont pas d’accord avec leur hypocrisie en matière de droits de l’Homme. Beaucoup d’entre eux ont également subi des attaques similaires, sans parler des sanctions économiques, de l’exploitation et, dans certains cas, des assassinats ou des interventions militaires.

Etant donné que d’importants pays du Sud tels que l’Inde, l’Afrique du Sud, le Brésil et l’Argentine rejoignent le groupe des a href=”https://decade-culture-of-peace.org/blog/?p=1448″pays BRICS à la recherche d’une alternative à la domination du dollar américain, le fossé entre Nord et Sud devient non seulement politique, mais aussi économique. Pour citer le Forum social mondial, un autre monde est possible.

LET THE CHILDREN MAKE PEACE

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

Two years ago, in 2020, I wrote in this blog:
`
“On the International Day of Peace there was an enormous mobilization of school children to celebrate peace in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. It seems that the parents and teachers in these countries, much more than what we found in our survey from the rest of the world, are raising the children to be partisans of peace and to oppose the culture of war. This approach is not evident in the political leadership of those countries, but perhaps it means that there is a deep popular sentiment that the leadership of their countries should turn towards peace. In the case of the Ukraine, the celebrations were often coupled with an explicit call for an end to the armed conflict in that country.

“The mobilizations for peace with children in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are no doubt a legacy from the rhetoric of the Soviet Union from which they split one generation ago. That rhetoric was dismissed by the West during the Cold War, but its resurgence now shows that, contrary to Western propaganda, there was a genuine longing for peace to be conveyed to future generations. Going back one or two generations further, we can see that it was the result of the terrible suffering of these countries during World War II.”

Today, in 2022, I wrote in the CPNN bulletin:

Participation in the International Day of Peace in the Ukraine and the Russian Federation are a special case since they are at war. Despite this, there were 61 events from Ukraine and 45 from the Russian Federation, which is especially remarkable since, according to UNICEF, half of the children of Ukraine are out of school because of the war. Most of the events involved school children. On both sides of the war, they drew or cut out paper doves and wrote their wishes for peace on them. Often they sent them into the sky on balloons. Their actions were especially heart-wrenching this year. Has there ever been such a time when the children on both sides of a war could express and publish for the world to see their wishes for peace?

It seems that if we could give the decision to the children in the Ukraine and the Russian Federation, they would end this terrible war and find a way to a peaceful resolution. In a few cases the children baked cupcakes or collected clothes to support the soldiers of their country or called for victory. But in the vast majority, they simply regretted the suffering and called for peace, as described above, often writing their wishes on paper doves and even sending them into the sky on balloons. It is worth reading their comments in detail.

Children in the Ukraine and Russia sing the same song:
May there always be sunshine,
May there always be blue skies,
May there always be mama,
May there always be me!

Is it just an idle dream that the children could bring peace to the Ukraine and Russian Federation? Or will the moment arrive when it can be possible?

Already, the Russians are calling for a ceasefire as their military campaign has failed. As for the Ukraine, were it not for the pressure from the United States to defeat Russia and the arms being sent to them for this reason, it would be reasonable for them to end the suffering of their people and agree to a ceasefire. At that point, would it not be wise for them, on both sides, to give the microphone to the children and to listen to their peaceful wishes, using that as the pretext for their work towards a peaceful solution?

* * * * *

LAISSEZ LES ENFANTS FAIRE LA PAIX

Il y a deux ans, en 2020, j’écrivais dans ce blog :

“Lors de la Journée internationale de la paix, il y a eu une énorme mobilisation des écoliers pour célébrer la paix en Russie, en Ukraine et au Bélarus. Il semble que les parents et les enseignants de ces pays, bien plus que ce que nous avons trouvé dans notre enquête dans le reste du monde, élèvent les enfants à être des partisans de la paix et à s’opposer à la culture de la guerre. Cette approche n’est pas évidente dans la direction politique de ces pays, mais cela signifie peut-être qu’il existe un profond sentiment populaire selon lequel les dirigeants de leur pays devraient se tourner vers la paix. Dans le cas de l’Ukraine, les célébrations se sont souvent accompagnées d’un appel explicite à la fin du conflit armé dans ce pays.

Les mobilisations pour la paix avec les enfants en Russie, en Ukraine et au Bélarus sont sans aucun doute un héritage de la rhétorique de l’Union soviétique dont ils se sont séparés il y a une génération. Cette rhétorique a été rejetée par l’Occident pendant la guerre froide, mais sa résurgence montre maintenant que, contrairement à la propagande occidentale, il y avait un véritable désir de paix à transmettre aux générations futures. En remontant une ou deux générations plus loin, nous pouvons voir que c’était le résultat des terribles souffrances de ces pays pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale.

Aujourd’hui, en 2022, j’écrivais dans le bulletin du CPNN :

La participation à la Journée internationale de la paix en Ukraine et en Fédération de Russie est un cas particulier puisqu’elles sont en guerre. Malgré cela, il y a eu 61 événements dans l’Ukraine et 45 dans la Fédération de Russie, ce qui est d’autant plus remarquable que, selon l’UNICEF, la moitié des enfants ukrainiens ne sont pas à l’école à cause de la guerre. La plupart des événements impliquaient des écoliers. Des deux côtés de la guerre, ils dessinaient ou découpaient des colombes en papier et y inscrivaient leurs souhaits de paix. Souvent, ils les envoyaient dans le ciel sur des ballons. Leurs actions ont été particulièrement déchirantes cette année. Y a-t-il jamais eu une telle époque où les enfants des deux côtés d’une guerre pouvaient exprimer et publier pour que le monde entier peut lire et voir leurs souhaits de paix ?

Il semble que si l’on pouvait donner la décision aux enfants d’Ukraine et de la Fédération de Russie, ils mettraient fin à cette terrible guerre et trouveraient une voie vers une résolution pacifique. Dans quelques cas ci-dessus, les enfants ont préparé des petits gâteaux ou collecté des vêtements pour soutenir les soldats de leur pays ou ont appelé à la victoire. Mais dans la grande majorité, ils ont simplement regretté la souffrance et appelé à la paix, comme décrit ci-dessus, écrivant souvent leurs souhaits sur des colombes en papier et même les envoyant dans le ciel sur des ballons. Cela vaut la peine de lire leurs commentaires en détail.

Les enfants de Ukraine et de Russie chantent le meme chanson:
Qu’il y ait toujours du soleil,
qu’il y ait toujours un ciel bleu,
qu’il y ait toujours maman,
qu’il y ait toujours moi.

Est-ce juste un vain rêve que les enfants puissent ramener la paix en Ukraine et en Fédération de Russie ? Ou le moment arrivera-t-il quand cela sera possible ?

Déjà, les Russes appellent à un cessez-le-feu car leur campagne militaire a échoué. Quant à l’Ukraine, s’il n’y avait pas eu la pression des États-Unis pour vaincre la Russie et les armes qui lui étaient envoyées à cette fin, il serait raisonnable qu’elle mette fin aux souffrances de son peuple et accepte un cessez-le-feu. À ce moment-là, ne serait-il pas plus sage pour eux, des deux côtés, de donner la parole aux enfants avec leurs souhaits pacifiques et de s’en servir comme con prétexte pour qu’ils travaillent à une solution pacifique ?

MEDIATION AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN LATIN AMERICA

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

Latin America continues to advance towards a culture of peace. Last month we reviewed progressive results of elections in Mexico, Chile, Peru and Colombia and recalled that progressive government has returned to Bolivia following the coup d’etat against Evo Morales, and that Lula da Silva is favored to win the presidency of Brazil in next month’s election.

Latin America has been the leading edge in the transition to a culture of peace as we have remarked in this blog since 2013.

Recalling that an earlier wave of progressive governments in Latin America was suppressed by North American imperialism in collaboration with right-wing forces, I remarked that even if this new “Latin American spring” is suppressed, that is not the last word.  As I wrote eight years ago  during a similar “progressive wave, “even if Latin America is blocked from installing a culture of peace at national levels in its own zone, its attempts to move in this direction will have a lasting effect on the consciousness of its citizens and we may be confident that it is there, in consciousness, that history will ultimately be determined.”

This month we consider the progress towards a culture of peace on another level. The progress at a local level in mediation and restorative justice adds to this analysis of Latin America and to the possibility that it can achieve a culture of peace.

Mediation: The Eighth World Mediation Congress took place in Sucre, Bolivia. More than 2,000 people came from Germany, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Spain, France, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Portugal and Uruguay.

Restorative justice: This plays a major role in the peace process of Colombia. Former guerrillas, victims and public forces have created dialogue tables and worked together on local projects that provide reparation for the damages caused by the war. This month we see the results of a model program that has taken place in Viotá (Cundinamarca).

Latin America has been the world leader in these local peace processes for many years now. In CPNN since 2015, 27 of the 35 articles about mediation have come from Latin America and since 2016, 17 or the 19 articles about restorative justice have come from Latin America. In addition to the initiatves listed above from Bolivia and Colombia, here is a list of those from Latin America in the past year alone.

July 12, 2022: Honduras: “Mesas de seguridad ciudadana” in 298 municipalities

January 18, 2022: Centers for Mediation, Conciliation and Restorative Justice in the State of Mexico

January 18, 2022: Argentina : Federal Network of Centers for Community Mediation and Training in School Mediation with an Example from Province of Buenos Aires

January 18, 2022: Panama : Management results in 2021 of the Coordination Office of the Community Mediation Program

January 8, 2022: Brazil: Practices that promote a culture of peace at Funase had good results in 2021

January 8, 2022: Dominican Republic: 11 Thousand People Train in Conflict Resolution and Culture of Peace in 2021

November 18, 2021:Mexico: Municipal Mediation Unit of the City of Merida to promote a Culture of Peace

November 18, 2021: Petrópolis, Brazil : III International Restorative Justice Week will open next Monday

In the preceding years, initiatives in mediation and restorative justice were also recorded from Jamaica:, Peru and Guatemala.

In the case of Brazil, as we have followed in CPNN, the practice of restorative justice has been established throughout the entire judicial system.

In many of these cases we see that the local initiatives are linked to other initiatives of mediation and restorative justice both nationally and internationally. We have noted above that the recent mediation congress in Bolivia attracted participants from 8 Latin American countries. Similarly, the Latin Alerican Congress of Restorative Justice in June 2021 attracted virtual exhibitors from Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, Peru, Honduras, Uruguay, Bolivia, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic.

In conclusion, a culture of peace needs to be anchored at the local level and linked internationally, in order to survive the interventions of the global culture of war, headed by the American empire, that will not allow the establishment of culture of peace at any national level. For example, in an earlier blog, Advice to Colombia for the Peace Process , I recalled the local peace process developed in South Africa after the peace accords in that country and remarked that a similar local network was needed in Colombia. The development of restorative justice in Colombia contributes to this.

Considering all the above, Latin America continues to be the leading edge in the transition to a culture of peace.

* * * * *

MÉDIATION ET JUSTICE RESTAURATRICE EN AMÉRIQUE LATINE

L’Amérique latine continue de progresser vers une culture de la paix. Le mois dernier, nous avons passé en revue les résultats progressistes des élections au Mexique, au Chili, au Pérou et en Colombie et rappelé que le gouvernement progressiste est revenu en Bolivie après le coup d’État contre Evo Morales, et que Lula da Silva est favori pour remporter la présidence du Brésil au cours de la prochaine l’élection du mois.

L’Amérique latine a été à l’avant-garde de la transition vers une culture de la paix, comme nous le remarquons dans ce blog depuis 2013.

Rappelant qu’une précédente vague de gouvernements progressistes en Amérique latine a été supprimée par l’impérialisme nord-américain en collaboration avec les forces de droite, j’ai fait remarquer que même si ce nouveau « printemps latino-américain » est supprimé, ce n’est pas le dernier mot. Comme je l’écrivais il y a huit ans lors d’une “vague progressiste” similaire, “même si l’Amérique latine est empêchée d’installer une culture de paix au niveau national dans sa propre zone, ses tentatives d’aller dans cette direction auront un effet durable sur la conscience de ses citoyens et nous pouvons être sûrs que c’est là, dans la conscience, que l’histoire sera finalement déterminée.

Ce mois-ci, nous examinons les progrès vers une culture de la paix à un autre niveau. Les progrès au niveau local dans la médiation et la justice réparatrice ajoutent à cette analyse de l’Amérique latine et à la possibilité qu’elle puisse atteindre une culture de la paix.

Médiation : Le huitième Congrès mondial de la médiation a eu lieu à Sucre, en Bolivie. Plus de 2 000 personnes sont venues d’Allemagne, d’Argentine, de Colombie, du Chili, d’Espagne, de France, du Mexique, du Nicaragua, du Pérou, du Portugal et d’Uruguay.

Justice réparatrice : Celle-ci joue un rôle majeur dans le processus de paix en Colombie. Anciens maquisards, victimes et forces publiques ont créé des tables de dialogue et ont travaillé ensemble sur des projets locaux qui permettent de réparer les dégâts causés par la guerre. Ce mois-ci, nous voyons les résultats d’un programme modèle qui a eu lieu à Viotá (Cundinamarca).

L’Amérique latine est depuis de nombreuses années le leader mondial de ces processus de paix locaux. Dans CPNN depuis 2015, 27 des 35 articles sur la médiation proviennent d’Amérique latine et depuis 2016, 17 ou 19 articles sur la justice restaurative proviennent d’Amérique latine. En plus des initiatives énumérées ci-dessus de Bolivie et de Colombie, voici une liste de celles d’Amérique latine au cours de la dernière année seulement.

12 juillet 2022 : Honduras : « Mesas de seguridad ciudadana » dans 298 municipalités

18 janvier 2022 : Centres de médiation, de conciliation et de justice réparatrice dans l’État de Mexico

18 janvier 2022 : Argentine : Réseau fédéral de centres de médiation communautaire et de formation à la médiation scolaire avec un exemple de la province de Buenos Aires

18 janvier 2022 : Panama : Résultats de la gestion en 2021 du Bureau de Coordination du Programme de Médiation Communautaire

8 janvier 2022 : Brésil : Les pratiques qui promeuvent une culture de la paix à Funase ont eu de bons résultats en 2021

8 janvier 2022 : République dominicaine : 11 000 personnes se forment à la résolution des conflits et à la culture de la paix en 2021

18 novembre 2021 : Mexique : Unité municipale de médiation de la ville de Mérida pour promouvoir une culture de la paix

18 novembre 2021 : Petrópolis, Brésil : La IIIe Semaine internationale de la justice réparatrice s’ouvrira lundi prochain

Au cours des années précédentes, des initiatives de médiation et de justice réparatrice ont également été enregistrées de Jamaïque:, Pérou and Guatemala.

Dans le cas du Brésil, comme nous l’avons suivi dans CPNN, la pratique de la justice réparatrice s’est établie dans tout le système judiciaire.

Dans nombre de ces cas, nous constatons que les initiatives locales sont liées à d’autres initiatives de médiation et de justice réparatrice tant au niveau national qu’international. Nous avons noté plus haut que le récent congrès de médiation en Bolivie a attiré des participants de 8 pays d’Amérique latine. De même, le Congrès latino-alérican de la justice réparatrice en juin 2021 a attiré des exposants virtuels d’Argentine, du Chili, de Colombie, du Mexique, du Brésil, du Pérou, du Honduras, d’Uruguay, de Bolivie, du Guatemala et de la République dominicaine.

En conclusion, une culture de paix doit être ancrée au niveau local et liée au niveau international, afin de survivre aux interventions de la culture de guerre mondiale, dirigée par l’empire américain, qui ne permettra à aucun moment l’établissement d’une culture de paix. niveau national. Par exemple, dans un blog précédent, Conseils à la Colombie pour le processus de paix, j’ai rappelé le processus de paix local développé en Afrique du Sud après les accords de paix dans ce pays et j’ai fait remarquer qu’un réseau local similaire était nécessaire en Colombie. Le développement de la justice réparatrice en Colombie y contribue.

Compte tenu de tout ce qui précède, l’Amérique latine continue d’être à l’avant-garde de la transition vers une culture de la paix.

ARAB SPRING, RUSSIAN SPRING, LATIN AMERICA SPRING?

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

A few years ago I was encouraged by the movement of the Arab Spring, writing in this blog that “the Arab spring and the ongoing democratic revolutions in the Arab countries are providing an important new momentum towards a culture of peace.”

And in the spring of this year I was encourged by the anti-war movement in the Russian Federation, writing here that “Tens of thousands of Russians are protesting the war and their voices cannot be silenced.”

Unfortunately, both the Arab Spring and the “Russian Spring” were effectively suppressed by the forces of the culture of war.

This month in CPNN, I describe another regional movement for the culture of peace, taking place throughout Latin America? Can it survive?

The role of Lula da Silva is especially important in the “Latin American spring”. He is leading in the polls for the Presidential election to take place in October. But Brazil has a history of military coup d’etats, kangaroo courts and assassinations, and already one of the candidates alongside Lula has been assassinated. His political party, the Workers Party of Brazil, is resisting the menace, even providing workshops on the culture of peace, but will they succeed?

However, even if the “Latin American spring” is suppressed, that is not the last word. As I wrote eight years ago during a similar “progressive wave” in Latin America, “even if Latin America is blocked from installing a culture of peace at national levels in its own zone, its attempts to move in this direction will have a lasting effect on the consciousness of its citizens and we may be confident that it is there, in consciousness, that history will ultimately be determined.”

Movements can be suppressed, but the people that have been mobilized do not disappear.

For example, when we started the culture of peace program at UNESCO in the 1990’s, there was a meeting in which those of us most involved recalled how we had all been inspired by our participation in the movement of the 60’s against the war iin Vietnam. As an American, I had experienced 1968 while living in Italy. Two of my colleagues from Latin America had experienced 1968 while living in Europe.

Consciousness is not easy to measure, but it becomes a determining factor at certain moments of history when the dominant regime (i.e. the culture of war) collapses from its own contradictions. This occurred in the 60’s with the war in Vietnam, at the end of the 80’s with the collapse of the Soviet Empire.

As we approach another such moment, with the imminent collapse of the American Empire, we should call upon the veterans of the Arab Spring, the Russian Spring, and now a Latin American Spring to take up again their activism and work for the transition to a culture of peace.

Returning to that moment when we started the Culture of Peace initiative at UNESCO, perhaps we can learn from that experience.

It was a special moment in history because the Soviet Empire had recently collapsed and it seemed that peace was possible. I wrote the following words for the 1989 meeting in Yamoussoukro, Cote d’Ivoire that launched the culture of peace at UNESCO:

The time has come to abolish violence
and to create a culture of peace,
to re-order the world economy,
to harmonize our relation to nature.`

The ground is ready
and the first sign of change can be seen.
Disarmament is no longer the image of a dream,
but it is shown as a scene on the evening news
and carried as a fact to the furthest village.

Two elements were key: we were working at UNESCO, a global international organization dedicated to “peace in the minds of men”; and the new Director-General of UNESCO, Federico Mayor, was a man of wisdom and courage who dared to demand that UNESCO fulfill its mandate for peace.

When the American Empire collapses, there will be a similar window of opportunity. I hope that there will be a new Director-General of UNESCO who has participated in the Arab, Russian or Latin American spring.

* * * * *

PRINTEMPS ARABE, PRINTEMPS RUSSE, PRINTEMPS LATINO-AMÉRICAIN ?

Il y a dix ans, j’ai été encouragé par le mouvement du Printemps arabe, écrivant que “le printemps arabe et les révolutions démocratiques en cours dans les pays arabes fournissent un nouvel élan important vers une culture de la paix”.

Et au printemps de cette année, j’ai été encouragé par le mouvement anti-guerre dans la Fédération de Russie, écrivant que “des dizaines de milliers de Russes protestent contre la guerre et leurs voix ne peuvent être réduites au silence”.

Malheureusement, le printemps arabe et le « printemps russe » ont été étoufféés par les forces de la culture de guerre.

Ce mois-ci dans CPNN, je décris un autre mouvement régional pour la culture de la paix, qui se déroule dans toute l’Amérique latine ? Peut-il survivre ?

Le rôle de Lula da Silva est particulièrement important dans le “printemps latino-américain”. Il est en tête des sondages pour l’élection présidentielle qui aura lieu en octobre. Mais le Brésil a une histoire de coups d’État militaires, de tribunaux fantoches et d’assassinats, et déjà l’un des candidats aux côtés de Lula a été assassiné. Son parti politique, le Parti des travailleurs du Brésil, résiste à la menace, proposant même des ateliers sur la culture de la paix, mais réussiront-ils ?

Cependant, même si le “printemps latino-américain” est supprimé, ce n’est pas le dernier mot. Comme je l’écrivais il y a huit ans lors d’une “vague progressiste” similaire en Amérique latine, “même si l’Amérique latine est empêchée d’installer une culture de la paix au niveau national dans sa propre zone, ses tentatives d’aller dans cette direction auront un effet durable sur la conscience de ses citoyens et nous pouvons être sûrs que c’est là, dans la conscience, que l’histoire sera finalement déterminée.”

Les mouvements peuvent être réprimés, mais les personnes mobilisées ne disparaissent pas.

Lorsque nous avons lancé le programme de culture de la paix à l’UNESCO dans les années 1990, il y a eu une réunion au cours de laquelle les plus impliqués d’entre nous ont rappelé comment nous avions tous été inspirés par notre participation au mouvement des années 60 contre la guerre au Vietnam. En tant qu’Américain, j’avais vécu 1968 en vivant en Italie. Deux de mes collègues d’Amérique latine avaient vécu 1968 alors qu’ils vivaient en Europe.

Fondamentalement, ce qui est essentiel pour le progrès historique, c’est la conscience des militants sociaux. La conscience n’est pas facile à mesurer, mais elle devient un facteur déterminant à certains moments de l’histoire où le régime dominant (c’est-à-dire la culture de la guerre) s’effondre de ses propres contradictions. Cela s’est passé dans les années 60 avec la guerre du Vietnam, à la fin des années 80 avec l’effondrement de l’empire soviétique.

Alors que nous approchons d’un autre moment de ce genre, avec l’effondrement imminent de l’empire américain, nous devrions appeler les vétérans du printemps arabe, du printemps russe et maintenant du printemps latino-américain à reprendre leur activisme et à travailler pour la transition vers un culture de la paix.

Revenant au moment où nous avons lancé l’initiative Culture de la paix à l’UNESCO, nous pouvons peut-être apprendre de cette expérience.

C’était un moment spécial de l’histoire; l’Empire soviétique s’était récemment effondré et il semblait que la paix était possible. J’ai écrit les mots suivants pour la réunion de 1989 à Yamoussoukro, en Côte d’Ivoire, qui a lancé la culture de la paix à l’UNESCO :

Le temps est venu d’abolir la violence
et de créer une culture de paix,
de réordonner l’économie mondiale,
de mettre en harmonie notre rapport à la nature.

Le terrain es prêt
et les premiers signes de changement sont visibles.
Le désarmement n’est plus l’image d’un rêve,
mais apparaît comme une scène au informations du soir
qui se déploie comme un fait dans le village le plus reculé.

Deux éléments étaient essentiels : nous travaillions à l’UNESCO, une organisation internationale mondiale dédiée à « la paix dans l’esprit des hommes » ; et le nouveau Directeur général de l’UNESCO, Federico Mayor, était un homme de sagesse et de courage qui a osé exiger que l’UNESCO remplisse son mandat pour la paix.

Lorsque l’Empire américain s’effondrera, il y aura une fenêtre d’opportunité similaire. J’espère qu’il y aura un nouveau Directeur-général de l’UNESCO qui a participé au printemps arabe, russe ou latino-américain.

NEEDED: A GLOBAL MOVEMENT FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

The world faces many dangers at this moment of history, famines, global warming, wars in the Ukraine, Yemen, Syria, mass migrations, increasing electoral tendencies towards fascism. But all these are pale in comparison to the danger of a nuclear World War III which could put an end to all of these problems by a suicidal destruction of all human civilization.

As UN Secretary-General recently said, referring to the confrontation between NATO and Russia in the Ukraine, “The once unthinkable prospect of nuclear conflict is now back within the realm of possibility.”

If we look for a solution from the nuclear powers, it seems hopeless. According to the new SIPRI report, the nine nuclear-armed states—the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea —continue to modernize their nuclear arsenals. There is no sign that any of them are even considering the possibility of eliminating their nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, the non-nuclear countries are developing a strategy for nuclear disarmament. As described in this month’s bulletin of CPNN, the meeting this month in Ulaanbaatar for nuclear-free zones (NWFZ) and the meeting in Vienna of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) both proposed contributions to this strategy.

There are now five nuclear-free zones with 116 states that have committed to ban the manufacture, deployment and transit of nuclear weapons through their territories preventing thus proliferation of nuclear weapons in those concrete regions. Currently the idea of establishing of a Middle East NWFZ is under consideration. Informal exchanges of views and ideas to establish a Northeast Asian NWFZ and a zone in the Arctic are also being discussed.

At their meeting in Vienna, the States Parties to the TPNW welcomed Cabo Verde, Grenada, and Timor-Leste who deposited their instruments of ratification, which brings the number of TPNW states parties to 65. Eight more states told the meeting that they were in the process of ratifying the treaty: Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Ghana, Indonesia, Mozambique, Nepal and Niger.

The Vienna meeting adopted an Action Plan with 50 specific actions for taking forward the mission of the Treaty, including the establishment of a Scientific Advisory Group to advance research on nuclear weapon risks, their humanitarian consequences, and nuclear disarmament, and to address the scientific and technical challenges involved in effectively implementing the Treaty, and provide advice to states parties.

In addition to the initiatives of the NWFZ and TPNW countries, there continue to be initiatives by cities around the world. Of special importance last month were calls for nuclear disarmament by cities in the the United States and in Western Europe, including the nuclear-armed countries of France and the United Kingdom.

Can the initiatives of the NWFZ and TPNW countries be combined with those of cities in the nuclear-armed countries of the US and Europe? Can movements develop for nuclear disarmament in the other nuclear states of Russia, China, India, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea? The first three of these states are involved in the development of economic links (BRICS) free from the domination of the American Empire. Can the non-nuclear states of BRICS (Brazil and South Africa) add the issue of nuclear disarmament to their agenda?

The biggest obstacle to nuclear disarmament is the UN Security Counci which is completely dominated by nuclear-armed states with their powers of veto. How can it be reformed to escape from this nuclear domination?

The increased spending on the military by all of the nuclear powers, greatest in the case of the United States, runs the risk of their economic and political collapse; could this provide a window of opportunity for such a UN reform?

As I have previously suggested, can we develop a virtual alternative security council composed of mayors from around the world to issue press releases and raise consciousness that a nuclear-free world is possible. Perhaps, a variant of this proposal could be developed that involves the NWFZ and TPNW countries.

All of these questions should be on the agenda of a global movement for nuclear disarmament. There is nothing more important for the future of our species and our planet.

* * * * *

NÉCESSITÉ DE CREER: UN MOUVEMENT MONDIAL POUR LE DÉSARMEMENT NUCLÉAIRE

Le monde est confronté à de nombreux dangers en ce moment de l’Histoire: famines, réchauffement climatique, guerres en Ukraine, au Yémen, en Syrie, migrations massives, tendances électorales croissantes vers le fascisme. Mais tout cela est pâle en comparaison du danger d’une troisième guerre mondiale qui sera nucléaire et pourrait mettre fin à tous ces problèmes par une destruction suicidaire de toute la civilisation humaine.

Comme l’a récemment déclaré le Secrétaire général de l’ONU, se référant à la confrontation entre l’OTAN et la Russie en Ukraine, “la perspective autrefois impensable d’un conflit nucléaire est maintenant de retour dans le domaine du possible”.

Si nous cherchons une solution de la part des puissances nucléaires, cela semble sans espoir. Selon le nouveau rapport du SIPRI, les neuf États dotés d’armes nucléaires – les États-Unis, la Russie, le Royaume-Uni, la France, la Chine, l’Inde, le Pakistan, Israël et la République populaire démocratique de Corée – continuent de moderniser leurs arsenaux nucléaires. Rien n’indique que l’un d’entre eux envisage même la possibilité d’éliminer ses armes nucléaires.

D’autre part, les pays non nucléaires élaborent une stratégie de désarmement nucléaire. Comme décrit dans le bulletin de ce mois-ci de CPNN, la réunion de ce mois-ci à Oulan-Bator pour les zones dénucléarisées (ZEAN) et la réunion à Vienne des États parties au Traité sur l’interdiction des armes nucléaires (TIAN) ont toutes deux proposé des contributions à cette stratégie.

Il y a maintenant cinq zones exemptes d’armes nucléaires avec 116 États qui se sont engagés à interdire la fabrication, le déploiement et le transit d’armes nucléaires à travers leurs territoires, en empêchant ainsi la prolifération dans ces régions concrètes. Actuellement, l’idée d’établir une ZEAN au Moyen-Orient est à l’étude. Des échanges informels de vues et d’idées pour établir une ZEAN d’Asie du Nord-Est et une zone dans l’Arctique sont également en cours de discussion.

Lors de leur réunion à Vienne, les États parties au TIAN ont accueilli le Cabo Verde, la Grenade et le Timor-Leste qui ont déposé leurs instruments de ratification, ce qui porte à 65 le nombre d’États parties au Traité. Huit autres États ont déclaré à la réunion qu’ils étaient dans le processus de ratification du Traité : Brésil, République démocratique du Congo, République dominicaine, Ghana, Indonésie, Mozambique, Népal et Niger.

La réunion de Vienne a adopté un plan d’action avec 50 actions spécifiques pour faire avancer la mission du Traité, y compris la création d’un groupe consultatif scientifique pour faire avancer la recherche sur les risques liés aux armes nucléaires, leurs conséquences humanitaires et le désarmement nucléaire, et pour répondre aux besoins scientifiques et défis techniques liés à la mise en œuvre efficace du Traité et fournir des conseils aux États parties.

En plus des initiatives des pays ZEAN et TIAN, il y a toujours des initiatives de villes à travers le monde. Le mois dernier, les appels au désarmement nucléaire lancés par des villes des États-Unis et d’Europe occidentale, y compris les pays dotés d’armes nucléaires que sont la France et le Royaume-Uni, revêtent une importance particulière.

Les initiatives des pays ZEAN et TIAN peuvent-elles être combinées avec celles des villes des pays dotés d’armes nucléaires des États-Unis et d’Europe ? Des mouvements pour le désarmement nucléaire peuvent-ils se développer dans les autres États nucléaires que sont la Russie, la Chine, l’Inde, Israël, le Pakistan, la Corée du Nord ? Les trois premiers de ces États sont impliqués dans le développement de liens économiques (BRICS) libres de la domination de l’Empire américain. Les États non nucléaires des BRICS (Brésil et Afrique du Sud) peuvent-ils ajouter la question du désarmement nucléaire à leur ordre du jour ?

Le plus grand obstacle au désarmement nucléaire est le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU qui est complètement dominé par les États dotés d’armes nucléaires avec leur droit de veto. Comment se réformer l’ONU pour échapper à cette domination nucléaire ?

L’augmentation des dépenses militaires de toutes les puissances nucléaires, la plus importante dans le cas des États-Unis, fait courir le risque de leur effondrement économique et politique ; cela pourrait-il offrir une fenêtre d’opportunité pour une telle réforme de l’ONU ?

Comme je l’ai suggéré précédemment, pouvons-nous développer un conseil de sécurité alternatif virtuel composé de maires du monde entier pour publier des communiqués de presse et faire prendre conscience qu’un monde sans nucléaire est possible. Peut-être qu’une variante de cette proposition pourrait être développée qui implique les pays ZEAN et TIAN.

Toutes ces questions devraient être à l’ordre du jour d’un mouvement mondial pour le désarmement nucléaire. Il n’y a rien de plus important pour l’avenir de notre espèce et de notre planète.

COLLAPSE OF THE US DOLLAR

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

Two years ago in this blog, I wrote that the dollar will lose its global role and be devalued. Among the reasons were the bloated military budget and bloated national debt to pay for it, the blow-back effect of American sanctions imposed on other countries, and the reaction of countries such as Russia, China, Turkey and India to trade their dollars for gold.

According to the internet site called zero hedge this trend has intensified. The site fails to mention the continued increase in military spending, but it does refer to the bloated national debt, the blowback from sanctions and the trading of dollars for gold among their “five warning signs the end of dollar hegemony is near:”

Warning Sign #1: Russia Sanctions Prove Dollar Reserves “Aren’t Really Money”

Warning Sign #2: Rubles, Gold, and Bitcoin for Gas, Oil, and Other Commodities

Warning Sign #3: The Petrodollar System Flirts With Collapse

Warning Sign #4: Out of Control Money Printing and Record Price Increases

Warning Sign #5: Fed Chair Admits Dollar Supremacy Is Dead

The zero hedge article is worth reading reading in detail, as I found the data to be convincing.

It reminds me of the brief theory of history described by Karl Marx a century and a half ago:

“At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production . . . From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense (legal and political) superstructure.”

The end of dollar hegemony around the world corresponds to the economic changes foreseen by Marx. The US dollar, hitherto the universal relation of production is turning into a fetter that constrains the material productive forces.

Russia and China are basing their currency on gold and abandoning the dollar, and the BRICS countries, Brazil, India, and South Africa may follow suit. As for Brazil, Lula has announced that if he is elected, he will develop a South American currency independent of the dollar.

Ironically, the US sanctions against Russia have provided an important impetus to this change. US sanctions that have been used for decades to disable the economies of Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela, are now turned against the economy of the US itself.

Marx predicts that there will be revolutionary political changes as a result of this radical economic change. Will a drastic fall in the standard of living of American citizens give fuel to civil war? Can the US continue to maintain hundreds of military bases around the world? Can the US continue to maintain Israel with its enormous subsidies? Can Europe avoid economic catastrophe with a loss of its links to the dollar? Can citizens around the world avoid attempts of their rich to survive by imposing fascism?

On the other hand, with the collapse of the American Empire, will it be possible to make a radical reform of the United Nations so that it can lead the world towards a culture of peace?

Recalling Bob Dylan,
“The order is rapidly fadin’
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'”

* * * * *

EFFONDREMENT DU DOLLAR AMÉRICAIN

Il y a deux ans dans ce blog, j’écrivais que le dollar allait perdre son rôle mondial et être dévalué. Parmi les raisons figuraient le budget militaire gonflé et la dette nationale gonflée pour le payer, l’effet de retour des sanctions américaines imposées à d’autres pays et la réaction de pays comme la Russie, la Chine, la Turquie et l’Inde qui sont en train d’échanger leurs dollars contre de l’or. .

Selon le site Internet appelé zerohedge cette tendance s’est intensifiée. Le site omet de mentionner l’augmentation continue des dépenses militaires, mais il fait référence à la dette nationale gonflée, au retour des sanctions et à l’échange de dollars contre de l’or parmi leurs “cinq signes avant-coureurs indiquant que la fin de l’hégémonie du dollar est proche”:

1 : les sanctions russes prouvent que les réserves en dollars « ne sont pas vraiment de l’argent »

2 : roubles, or et bitcoin pour le gaz, le pétrole et d’autres matières premières

3 : Le système du pétrodollar flirte avec l’effondrement

4 : impression de dollars hors de contrôle et augmentation record des prix

5 : le président de la Fed admet que la suprématie du dollar est morte

L’article sur zerohedge vaut la peine d’être lu en détail, car j’ai trouvé ses données convaincantes.

Cela me rappelle la brève théorie de l’histoire décrite par Karl Marx il y a un siècle et demi :

« A un certain stade de développement, les forces productives matérielles de la société entrent en conflit avec les rapports de production existants… De formes de développement des forces productives, ces rapports deviennent leurs fers. Alors commence une ère de révolution sociale. les changements dans les fondements économiques conduisent tôt ou tard à la transformation de toute l’immense superstructure (juridique et politique). »

La fin de l’hégémonie du dollar dans le monde correspond aux changements économiques prévus par Marx. Le dollar américain, jusqu’ici le rapport de production universel, se transforme en une entrave qui contraint les forces productives matérielles.

La Russie et la Chine sont en train de baser leur monnaie sur l’or et abandonnent le dollar, et les pays BRICS, le Brésil, l’Inde et l’Afrique du Sud pourraient suivre. Quant au Brésil, Lula a annoncé que s’il est élu, il développera une monnaie sud-américaine indépendante du dollar.

Ironiquement, les sanctions américaines contre la Russie ont donné une impulsion importante à ce changement. Les sanctions américaines qui ont été utilisées pendant des décennies pour paralyser les économies de Cuba, de l’Iran et du Venezuela, se retournent maintenant contre l’économie des États-Unis elle-même.

Marx prédit qu’il en résultera des changements politiques révolutionnaires. La chute drastique du niveau de vie des citoyens américains alimentera-t-elle une guerre civile ? Les États-Unis peuvent-ils continuer à maintenir des centaines de bases militaires partout dans le monde ? Les États-Unis peuvent-ils continuer à maintenir Israël avec ses énormes subventions ? L’Europe peut-elle éviter une catastrophe économique en perdant ses liens avec le dollar ? Les citoyens du monde entier peuvent-ils éviter les tentatives de leurs riches de survivre en imposant le fascisme ?

De l’autre côté, avec l’effondrement de l’empire américain, sera-t-il possible de réformer radicalement l’ONU pour qu’elle puisse conduire le monde vers une culture de la paix ?

Citant Bob Dylan:
“L’ordre actuel est en train de disparaître,
Et le premier d’aujourd’hui sera demain le dernier
Car les temps, ils sont en train de changer”

WE CAN FIND THE TRUTH, BUT WHERE CAN WE FIND HOPE?

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

This month’s CPNN bulletin is devoted to the courageous individuals who dare to seek and publish the truth in the face of the censorship and outright lies of the information war between NATO and Russia.

I add the following taken from the April 22 entry on the Facebook page of Jan Oberg. He is a tireless fighter for the truth, and is director at the Transcend News Service that provides links to many of the articles we republish in CPNN.

“Denmark’s foreign policy is today reduced to what can be done with weapons, soldiers, barbed wire, Defense Intelligence agents, etc. And then more weapons – that ‘the Danes can be proud of’.

“Has one single initiative taken from the Danish side – alone or with others or from the EU – for mediation, negotiations and demilitarization? Of course not because:

“Of course, the purpose is not primarily to support Ukraine, but to satisfy the US/NATO’s desire to make the war in Ukraine so long that it undermines Russia knowing that at the same time it makes Ukraine bleed even more.

“Mette “Kogeplade” Frederiksen knows how to do that and at the same time get some photo opportunities.

“Imagine that in this terrible, destructive war of occupation – as it is produced – that it would be possible for all possible leaders of state to visit Ukraine.

“One has to wonder why they didn’t visit the targets during the NATO and the US wars – Belgrade, Baghdad, Damascus, Tripoli – but it was many times harder. And the attackers were our friends.

“In Denmark, this is called value-based foreign policy.
I would call it worthless, unprincipled, and thoughtless. And in relation to NATO expansion: shameless.”

Oberg’s analysis of April 22 was confirmed by the the remarks of US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin on April 25 following his visit to the Ukraine when he said that the goal was defeat Russia so decisively on the battlefield that it will be deterred from launching such an attack ever again.

Although, as Oberg describes, Denmark, like the rest of the European Union supports the role of the US and NATO, fortunately most of the countries of Africa and Asia do not agree, and a few countries in Latin America also have the courage to say “no” or abstain.

But where are we headed?

I suppose it will lead to a divided Ukraine like North and South Korea, with enormous human suffering and armaments on both sides that will be always poised to explode again into war. And with new expansions of NATO making it even more menacing to Russia.

Europe which gave us World War I and II, now seems preparing to give us World War III. Responding to the remarks quoted above by the US Secretary of Defense, the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, Sergey Lavrov said that the conflict in Ukraine risked escalating into a third world war and that NATO was “in essence” engaged in a proxy war with Moscow by supplying Kyiv with weapons.

As both sides pour their resources into armaments, there is little left for health care, for education, and for other human needs. Their economies, already strained by the COVID pandemic, continue down the path towards a total crash, first economic then political.

And what about human hopes and dreams? Can our children and grandchildren still hope for a culture of peace? Can they still sing for peace and write their dreams and send them aloft on balloons for the International Day of Peace, not only in English, but also in Russian and Ukrainian?

Or are they and we completely swallowed up in the rush to war?

We can find the truth, but how can we find hope? Can we still dream of the promised land of peace?

* * * * *

NOUS POUVONS TROUVER LA VÉRITÉ, MAIS OÙ POUVONS-NOUS TROUVER L’ESPOIR ?

Le bulletin CPNN de ce mois-ci est consacré aux individus courageux qui osent rechercher et publier la vérité face à la censure et aux mensonges éhontés de la guerre de l’information entre l’OTAN et la Russie.

J’ajoute ce qui suit extrait de la page Facebook de Jan Oberg du 22 avril. Oberg est un combattant infatigable pour la vérité. Il est directeur au Transcend News Service qui fournit des liens vers de nombreux articles que nous republiions dans CPNN.

“La politique étrangère du Danemark est aujourd’hui réduite à ce qui peut être fait avec des armes, des soldats, des barbelés, des agents du renseignement de défense, etc. Et puis plus d’armes – dont ‘les Danois peuvent être fiers’.

“Y a-t-il une seule initiative prise du côté danois – seul ou avec d’autres ou de l’UE – pour la médiation, les négociations et la démilitarisation ? Bien sûr que non parce que :

“Le but n’est pas principalement de soutenir l’Ukraine, mais de satisfaire au désir des USA/OTAN de faire la guerre en Ukraine assez longtemps pour qu’elle sape la Russie sachant qu’en même temps elle saigne encore plus l’Ukraine.

“Mette “Kogeplade” Frederiksen sait comment faire cela et en même temps obtenir des reportages photos “opportuns”.

“Imaginez que dans cette guerre d’occupation terrible et destructrice – telle qu’elle se produit – il soit possible pour tous les chefs d’État de visiter l’Ukraine.

“On peut se demander pourquoi ils n’ont pas visité les cibles pendant les guerres de l’OTAN et des États-Unis – Belgrade, Bagdad, Damas, Tripoli – c’était bien plus difficile, car les assaillants étaient nos amis.

“Au Danemark, cela s’appelle une politique étrangère basée sur les valeurs.

“Je dirais que c’est sans valeur, sans principes et irréfléchi. Et par rapport à l’élargissement de l’OTAN : sans vergogne.”

L’analyse d’Oberg du 22 avril a été confirmée par les remarques du secrétaire américain de la Défense Lloyd Austin le 25 avril après sa visite en Ukraine lorsqu’il a déclaré que l’objectif était de vaincre la Russie de manière si décisive sur le champ de bataille qu’elle serait dissuadée de lancer une telle attaque plus jamais.

Meme si, comme decrit Oberg, le Danemark et la reste de l’europe soutiennent le rôle des États-Unis et de l’OTAN, heureusement, la plupart des pays d’Afrique et d’Asie ne sont pas d’accord, et quelques pays d’Amérique latine ont également le courage de dire “non” ou s’abstenir.

Mais où allons-nous?

Je suppose que cela conduira à une Ukraine divisée comme la Corée du Nord et la Corée du Sud, avec d’énormes souffrances humaines et des armements des deux côtés qui seront toujours prêts à exploser à nouveau dans la guerre. Et avec de nouvelles expansions de l’OTAN qui la rendent encore plus menaçante pour la Russie.

L’Europe qui nous a donné la Première et la Seconde Guerre mondiale, semble maintenant se préparer à nous donner la Troisième Guerre mondiale. Répondant aux propos cités ci-dessus par le secrétaire américain à la Défense, le ministre des Affaires étrangères de la Fédération de Russie, Sergueï Lavrov a déclaré que le conflit en Ukraine risquait de dégénérer en une troisième guerre mondiale et que l’OTAN était « essentiellement » engagée dans une guerre par procuration avec Moscou en fournissant des armes à Kiev.

Alors que les deux parties investissent leurs ressources dans les armements, il reste peu pour les soins de santé, l’éducation et les autres besoins humains. Leurs économies, déjà mises à rude épreuve par la pandémie de COVID, poursuivent leur chemin vers un krach total, d’abord économique puis politique.

Et qu’en est-il des espoirs et des rêves humains ? Nos enfants et petits-enfants peuvent-ils encore espérer une culture de la paix ? Peuvent-ils encore chanter pour la paix et écrire leurs rêves et les envoyer dans des ballons pour la Journée internationale de la paix, non seulement en anglais, mais aussi en russe et en ukrainien ?

Ou sont-ils et sommes-nous complètement engloutis dans la course à la guerre ?

Nous pouvons trouver la vérité, mais où trouver l’espoir ? Pouvons-nous encore rêver de la terre promise de la paix
?

THE UKRAINE WAR COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

As described in the first blog for this month, the Ukraine war is the result of mistaken policy decisions by the United States and NATO in 1997 which led to the expansion of NATO up to the borders of Russia.

Already, back in 1997, when I was working for UNESCO, we were warned that the eastward expansion of NATO was a serious mistake.

On my mission for UNESCO to Moscow at that time in order to develop a national culture of peace program in Russia, our team was told by the President of the Duma, as well as others with whom we spoke, that this would unleash a “typhoon”, restarting the Cold War and creating an overwhelming demand by the Russian people for rearmament instead of social programs.

All this could have been avoided. In my 1997 mission report to the UNESCO Director-General I proposed the following solution.

UNESCO should propose, as an example of the new concept of security, that NATO itself be “converted” to an organization primarily concerned with economic conversion from military to civilian industrial production. UNESCO’s responsibility for the role of science for peace gives it a special Constitutional role in this matter, since scientists should take the lead in this process.

Such a solution would have satisfied Russian demands by removing the military threat posed by the expansion of NATO at the same time as helping them with the problem of economic conversion which requires major capital investment. At the same time, it would allow NATO to be kept intact as an institution with an enlargement of its member states. The key was to convince Western Europe and the United States that in this era, the new concept of security consists of economic conversion rather than increased armament. This is a central tenet of the culture of peace.

Certain aspects of this conversion were already in place. NATO already had a “third dimension” programme involving scientists in disarmament technology, conversion of high technology for peaceful uses, and environmental security. I learned about this in discussions with one of NATO scientists involved, Dr Paul Rambaut, at the forum of the Olof Palme Foundation in 1995. Furthermore, the UNESCO Venice office, working with the Landau Network in Physics (Moscow and Como, Italy), were engaged in technical work on economic conversion and discussing how this can be related effectively to the culture of peace.

The proposed culture of peace program in the Russian Federation could have provided a synergistic contribution to economic conversion. As indicated in our meeting with Academician Petrov, Russian natural scientists are ready to contribute to peace and could do so in this way. In addition, my own experience with economic conversion in the USA from 1989-1992 before coming to UNESCO, demonstrated that the key is participation by all parties in the local communities involved – and therefore this could be one of the essential “action components” of the proposed National Culture of Peace Program.

(Unfortunately, the proposal for the conversion of NATO was never adopted, and the Russian National Culture of Peace Program was abandoned after a few years. The Ukraine war could have been avoided.)

* * * * *

LA GUERRE D’UKRAINE AURAIT PU ÊTRE ÉVITÉE

Comme décrit dans un autre blog de ce mois-ci, la guerre en Ukraine est le résultat de décisions politiques erronées des États-Unis et de l’OTAN en 1997 qui ont conduit à l’expansion de l’OTAN jusqu’aux frontières de la Russie.

Déjà, en 1997, lorsque je travaillais pour l’UNESCO, on nous avait prévenus que l’élargissement vers l’Est de l’OTAN était une grave erreur.

Lors de ma mission pour l’UNESCO à Moscou à l’époque afin de développer un programme national de culture de la paix en Russie, notre équipe a été informée par le président de la Douma, ainsi que par d’autres avec qui nous avons parlé, que cela déclencherait un « typhon », relançant la guerre froide et créant une écrasante demande de la part du peuple russe pour un réarmement au lieu de programmes sociaux.

Tout cela aurait pu être évité. Dans mon rapport de mission de 1997 au Directeur général de l’UNESCO, j’ai proposé la solution suivante.

L’UNESCO devrait proposer, comme exemple du nouveau concept de sécurité, que l’OTAN elle-même soit « convertie » en une organisation principalement concernée par la conversion économique de la production industrielle militaire à la production industrielle civile. La responsabilité de l’UNESCO quant au rôle de la science au service de la paix lui confère un rôle constitutionnel particulier en la matière, puisque les scientifiques doivent prendre la tête de ce processus.

Une telle solution aurait satisfait les exigences russes en supprimant la menace militaire posée par l’élargissement de l’OTAN tout en les aidant à résoudre le problème de la reconversion économique qui nécessite d’importants investissements en capital. En même temps, cela permettrait à l’OTAN de rester intacte en tant qu’institution avec un élargissement de ses États membres. L’essentiel était de convaincre l’Europe de l’Ouest et les États-Unis qu’à cette époque, le nouveau concept de sécurité consiste en une conversion économique plutôt qu’en un accroissement de l’armement. C’est un principe central de la culture de la paix.

Certains aspects de cette conversion étaient déjà en place. L’OTAN avait déjà un programme de « troisième dimension » impliquant des scientifiques dans les technologies de désarmement, la conversion de la haute technologie à des fins pacifiques et la sécurité environnementale. J’ai appris cela lors de discussions avec l’un des scientifiques de l’OTAN impliqués, le Dr Paul Rambaut, lors du forum de la Fondation Olof Palme en 1995. En outre, le bureau de l’UNESCO à Venise, en collaboration avec le réseau Landau en physique (Moscou et Côme, Italie), ont été engagés dans un travail technique sur la conversion économique et ont discuté de la manière dont cela peut être efficacement lié à la culture de la paix.

Le programme proposé pour la culture de la paix dans la Fédération de Russie aurait pu apporter une contribution synergique à la reconversion économique. Comme indiqué lors de notre rencontre avec l’académicien Petrov, les naturalistes russes sont prêts à contribuer à la paix et pourraient le faire de cette manière. De plus, ma propre expérience de reconversion économique aux États-Unis de 1989 à 1992 avant de venir à l’UNESCO, a démontré que la clé est la participation des communautés locales concernées – et donc cela pourrait être l’une des “composantes d’action” essentielles de le programme national proposé pour la culture de la paix.

(Malheureusement, la proposition de conversion de l’OTAN n’a jamais été adoptée et le programme russe de culture de la paix a été abandonné après quelques années. La guerre en Ukraine aurait pu être évitée.)

HOW THE UNITED STATES CREATED VLADIMIR PUTIN

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

This is the first of two blogs for April, 2022. The other one is entitled THE UKRAINE WAR COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED

The title of this blog comes from a speech by Vladimir Posner at Yale Sept 27, 2018. Posner was the spokesman for Mikhail Gorbachev in the latter years of the 1980’s and has continued over the years to provide independent, informed journalism from his base in Russia.

In addition to providing an important background for the present war in the Ukraine, Posner illustrates two of the most important conclusions of the studies that led to my publication of the History of the Culture of War.

First, the culture of war needs an enemy, and will invent one if necessary, in order to justify the profits of the military-industrial complex and its exploitation of workers and countries of the global South. Without an enemy, the culture of war cannot obtain the consent of its voters.`

Second, the control of information has become the main arm of the culture of war, as it is needed to convince people they have an enemy.

Here are excerpts from Posner’s speech with explanatory additions in brackets.

“We are at an extremely dangerous moment. . . . At the height of the Cold War the Russians were not anti-American. . . But today Russians are anti-American at the grassroots level. . . And neither side seems to be afraid of using nuclear weapons.”

“Why are we at the point where we are today?”

[Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in February 1992, Russian president] Yeltsin came to the United States and he addressed a joint session of Congress. And he said the people of Russia are offering their hand to the people of the United States in friendship, to build a better world, a world without war, and this was exactly what the vast majority of Russians wanted. And I would even say that today, the vast majority of Russians would like to have, if not a friendship with the United States, at least a partnership. There’s no doubt to my mind that that’s the case. . . And what kind of response did he get? What kind of response did Russia get?” [Nothing.]

[When Gorbachev was asked about reuniting Germany at the end of the Cold War,] “he was told by the US Secretary of State James Baker, if this happens, NATO will not move one inch eastward [See February blog]. . . . But it’s not only Baker who said that to him, there were several people there, including the West German leadership . . . And NATO stayed put in those days. It stayed put under Bush Senior. It stayed put during the first four years of Clinton. But in the next four years, in 1996, approximately, a decision was taken to enlarge NATO to three countries, Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary.”

[May 2, 1998. NY Times interview by Thomas Friedman with George Kennan] “He called him up and asked him what did he think about this decision to enlarge NATO? ‘I think it is the beginning of a new Cold War, ” said Mr Kennan from his Princeton home. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely, and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. . . . That’s where it all began, because the Russian reaction . . . was ‘you promised not to do this. So, how do we trust you, if you make a promise?'”

[During the 22 years from Gorbachev until Putin in 2007] “Nothing, not one thing during that period” was done by the Soviet Union or Russia to justify such a decision.

[In the year 2000, Vladimir Putin became President.] And one of the first things he does is to ask for Russia to become a member of NATO. Why not be a member of NATO? NATO was created to defend Europe and perhaps not only Europe from Soviet aggression, from a country that you couldn’t predict. But there is no more Soviet Union and there is no more Warsaw Pact. ‘Why can’t we create an organization where we are part of it,’ said Mr. Putin, “and act together to protect from some kind of aggression?’ He was told, basically, go take a walk!”

“As soon as 911 happens Putin calls up Bush Jr and offers his help. And yes, and does help in Afghanistan. . . .we want to fight terrorism together. . . . And he gets nothing in exchange.”

“So finally in February 10, 2007, in Munich speaking to the group of 20, Putin says this, ‘I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurance or our Western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? I would like to quote the speech of General Secretary Mr. Berner of Brussels on May 17, 1990. He said at the time, quote, the fact that we are not ready to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee.’ Where are these guarantees? And you know what the answer was? The answer was ‘Yes, but those were guarantees given to the Soviet Union, and you’re Russia.”

“Last year, I think it was, making a foreign policy speech, Putin said, ‘Our mistake was that we trusted you too much. And your mistake was that you tried to take advantage of that.” That is the situation today. Now it may seem to you that I’m blaming the United States, I don’t want the word blame used. It was a mistaken political decision. . . . that’s why I say that US policy created Putin the way he is today. . . . So now we are in a new arms race, which is terrible. We are in a new Cold War which threatens all of us. . . . ”

“And finally, as someone who works in media, I would like to say that Russian mainstream media paints America black. Russian mainstream media, controlled directly or indirectly by the government, shows an extremely negative picture of the United States, US policy and so on. And much to my surprise, mainstream American media does exactly the same thing vis-a-vis Russia. Which to me is amazing because this is supposed to be a free media that’s differing from the Russian one. As someone who works in Russian media, I can say it’s hard to call it a free media. There are some opposition newspapers and radio, but that’s not mainstream. They address a very small number of people. So there we are, I think people who call themselves journalists, in my book they’re not journalists. But those people have played and are playing a destructive role in creating the fear, the dislike, the distrust that the people in both countries have vis-a-vis each other. And the fact that we don’t seem to question our media is really quite interesting. But there it is, nonetheless, we just take it.”

“So I’d like to wind up with a quote from . . . Herman Goering . . . Hitler’s right hand man . . . interviewed by an American journalist shortly before he committed suicide. Here’s what he said, and I think this is something that we should all remember. ‘Naturally, the common people don’t want war. Neither in Russia nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for a lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country,’ said Mr Goering and I think he was absolutely right. And we are being led by our media, by our politicians, in that direction in both countries. . . . We’re being manipulated.”

* * * * *

COMMENT LES ÉTATS-UNIS ONT CRÉÉ VLADIMIR POUTINE

Ceci est le premier de deux blogs pour avril 2022. L’autre s’intitule LA GUERRE D’UKRAINE AURAIT PU ÊTRE ÉVITÉE

Le titre de ce blog vient d’un discours de Vladimir Posner à Yale le 27 septembre 2018. Posner était le porte-parole de Mikhaïl Gorbatchev dans les dernières années des années 1980 et a continué au fil des ans à fournir un journalisme indépendant et informé depuis sa base en Russie. .

En plus de fournir un contexte important pour la guerre actuelle en Ukraine, Posner illustre deux des conclusions les plus importantes des études qui ont conduit à ma publication de l’Histoire de la culture de la guerre.

Premièrement, la culture de guerre a besoin d’un ennemi, et s’en inventera si nécessaire, pour justifier les profits du complexe militaro-industriel et son exploitation des travailleurs et des pays du Sud global. Sans ennemi, la culture de la guerre ne peut obtenir le consentement de ses électeurs.

Deuxièmement, le contrôle de l’information est devenu l’arme principale de la culture de guerre, car il est nécessaire pour convaincre les gens qu’ils ont un ennemi.

Voici des extraits du discours de Posner avec des ajouts explicatifs entre parenthèses.

“Nous sommes à un moment extrêmement dangereux… Au plus fort de la guerre froide, les Russes n’étaient pas anti-américains… Mais aujourd’hui, les Russes sont anti-américains au niveau de la base… Et aucune des deux parties ne semble avoir peur d’utiliser des armes nucléaires.”

« Pourquoi en sommes-nous au point où nous en sommes aujourd’hui ? »

[Après la dissolution de l’Union soviétique en février 1992, le président russe] Eltsine est venu aux États-Unis et il s’est adressé à une session du Congrès. Et il a dit que le peuple russe tendait la main au peuple des États-Unis dans l’amitié, pour construire un monde meilleur, un monde sans guerre, et c’était exactement ce que voulait la grande majorité des Russes. Et je dirais même qu’aujourd’hui, la grande majorité des Russes aimeraient avoir, sinon une amitié avec les États-Unis, du moins un partenariat. Il ne fait aucun doute dans mon esprit que c’est le cas. . . Et quel genre de réponse Eltsine a-t-il reçu ? Quel genre de réponse la Russie a-t-elle reçue?” [Rien.]

[Lorsque Gorbatchev a été interrogé sur la réunification de l’Allemagne à la fin de la guerre froide] “, le secrétaire d’État américain James Baker lui a dit que si cela se produisait, l’OTAN ne se déplacerait pas d’un pouce vers l’est [voir blog de fevrier]. . . Mais ce n’est pas seulement Baker qui lui a dit cela, il y avait plusieurs personnes là-bas, y compris les dirigeants ouest-allemands… Et l’OTAN est restée en place à cette époque. Elle est restée en place sous Bush père. Elle est restée en place pendant les quatre premières années de Clinton. Mais au cours des quatre années suivantes, en 1996 environ, la décision a été prise d’élargir l’OTAN à trois pays, la Pologne, la République tchèque et la Hongrie.

[2 mai 1998. Interview du NY Times par Thomas Friedman avec George Kennan] “Il l’a appelé et lui a demandé ce qu’il pensait de cette décision d’élargir l’OTAN ? ‘Je pense que c’est le début d’une nouvelle guerre froide’, a déclaré M. Kennan de sa maison de Princeton. “Je pense que les Russes vont progressivement réagir assez négativement, et cela affectera leur politique. Je pense que c’est une erreur tragique. Il n’y avait aucune raison à cela ». . . . C’est là que tout a commencé, car la réaction russe . . . était ‘vous avez promis de ne pas faire cela. Alors, comment pouvons-nous vous faire confiance, si vous faites une promesse ? »

[Pendant les 22 années de Gorbatchev jusqu’à Poutine en 2007] “Rien, pas une seule chose pendant cette période” n’a été fait par l’Union soviétique ou la Russie pour justifier une telle décision.

[En l’an 2000, Vladimir Poutine est devenu président.] Et l’une des premières choses qu’il fait est de demander à la Russie de devenir membre de l’OTAN. Pourquoi ne pas être membre de l’OTAN ? L’OTAN a été créée pour défendre l’Europe et peut-être pas seulement l’Europe de l’agression soviétique, d’un pays que vous ne pouviez pas prévoir. Mais il n’y a plus d’Union soviétique et il n’y a plus de Pacte de Varsovie. “Pourquoi ne pouvons-nous pas créer une organisation dont nous faisons partie”, a déclaré M. Poutine, “et agir ensemble pour nous protéger d’une sorte d’agression?” On lui a dit, en gros, va faire un tour !”

“Après les attentats du World Trade Center en 2001, Poutine appelle Bush Jr et offre son aide. Et oui, et aide en Afghanistan. . . . nous voulons combattre le terrorisme ensemble. . . . Et il n’obtient rien en échange.”

“Donc, finalement, le 10 février 2007, à Munich, s’adressant au groupe des 20, Poutine a déclaré ceci : ‘Je pense qu’il est évident que l’élargissement de l’OTAN n’a aucun rapport avec la modernisation de l’Alliance elle-même ou avec la garantie de la sécurité en Europe. Au contraire, il représente une grave provocation qui réduit le niveau de confiance mutuelle. Et nous sommes en droit de nous demander contre qui est destiné cet élargissement ? Et qu’est-il advenu de l’assurance de nos partenaires occidentaux après la dissolution du Pacte de Varsovie ? Où sont ces déclarations aujourd’hui? Je voudrais citer le discours du secrétaire général, M. Berner, de Bruxelles, le 17 mai 1990. Il a dit à l’époque, je cite, le fait que nous ne sommes pas prêts à placer une armée de l’OTAN en dehors de l’Allemagne doit donner à l’Union soviétique une garantie de sécurité ferme. Où sont ces garanties ? Et vous savez quelle était la réponse ? La réponse a été “Oui, mais c’étaient des garanties données à l’Union soviétique, et vous êtes la Russie”.

« L’année dernière, je pense que c’était le cas, lors d’un discours de politique étrangère, Poutine a déclaré : “Notre erreur a été que nous vous faisions trop confiance. Et votre erreur a été que vous avez essayé d’en profiter.” Telle est la situation aujourd’hui. Maintenant, il peut vous sembler que je blâme les États-Unis, je ne veux pas que le mot blâme soit utilisé. C’était une décision politique erronée. . . . c’est pourquoi je dis que la politique américaine a créé Poutine tel qu’il est aujourd’hui. . . . Nous sommes donc maintenant dans une nouvelle course aux armements, ce qui est terrible. Nous sommes dans une nouvelle guerre froide qui nous menace tous. . . . ”

“Et enfin, en tant que personne qui travaille dans les médias, je voudrais dire que les grands médias russes peignent l’Amérique en noir. Les grands médias russes, contrôlés directement ou indirectement par le gouvernement, montrent une image extrêmement négative des États-Unis, de la politique américaine, etc. Et à ma grande surprise, les grands médias américains font exactement la même chose vis-à-vis de la Russie. Ce qui pour moi est incroyable parce que c’est censé être un média libre qui diffère du média russe. En tant que personne qui travaille en russe médias, je peux dire que c’est difficile d’appeler cela un média libre. Il y a des journaux et des radios d’opposition, mais ce n’est pas grand public. Ils s’adressent à un très petit nombre de personnes. Donc voilà, je pense que des gens qui se disent journalistes, dans mon livre, ce ne sont pas des journalistes. Mais ces gens ont joué et jouent un rôle destructeur en créant la peur, l’aversion, la méfiance que les gens des deux pays ont l’un envers l’autre. Et le fait que nous ne contestions pas nos médias est vraiment très curieux. Mais c’est ainsi, néanmoins, nous acceptons ce qu’ils disent.”

“Donc, j’aimerais conclure avec une citation de… Herman Goering… le bras droit d’Hitler… interviewé par un journaliste américain peu de temps avant qu’il ne se suicide. Voici ce qu’il a dit, et je pense que c’est quelque chose que nous devrions tous nous rappeler. “Naturellement, les gens du commun ne veulent pas la guerre. Ni en Russie ni en Angleterre, ni d’ailleurs en Allemagne. C’est entendu. Mais après tout, ce sont les dirigeants du pays qui le déterminent, qu’il s’agisse d’une démocratie ou d’une dictature fasciste, d’un parlement ou d’une dictature communiste. Voix ou non voix, le peuple peut toujours être amené aux ordres des dirigeants. . C’est facile. Tout ce que vous avez à faire, c’est de leur dire qu’ils sont attaqués et de dénoncer les artisans de la paix pour leur manque de patriotisme et leur mise en danger du pays. Cela fonctionne de la même manière dans n’importe quel pays”, a déclaré M. Goering et je pense qu’il avait tout à fait raison. Et nous sommes guidés par nos médias, par o nos politiciens, dans cette direction dans les deux pays. . . . Nous sommes manipulés.”

THE FALL OF PUTIN – A DEJA VU

Featured

(To read the discussion, click on title and scroll down to the end of the topic.)

(Une version française suit en dessous)

Deja vu – I’ve seen it before.

I worked on and off in the Soviet Union during the 1970’s and 1980’s and I watched the crash of the Soviet Empire – from inside.

There were three main causes of the crash: the loss of value of the ruble, the loss of the war in Afghanistan and the loss of confidence of the people.

The value of the ruble fell because the economy was over-militarized. Those who had money had to import their television sets and good clothes from Western Europe because all of the good electronics went to the military and you could not buy a good television made in Russia. Similarly all of the leather went into military boots and the shoes available to Russian consumers were made of cardboard. I couldn’t outfit a lab with good electronics, while a friend was able to equip his lab because “I have friends in the military.”

The war in Afghanistan was lost, well for the same reasons that the British lost in Afghanistan in the 19th Century and the United States lost in the 21st Century.

And the people’s confidence was lost because the Russian government tried unsuccessfully to control information. Russians used to tell me “you can find the truth anywhere but in Pravda and the news anywhere except in Izvestia” (Pravda, one of the two main Russian newspapers at the time, means truth in Russian, Izvestia, the other one, means news.) Realizing that these newspapers were heavily censored, people listened to the clandestine broadcasts of Radio Free Europe controlled by the American culture of war.

Putin is repeating history.

The war against Ukraine has cut off a failing Russian economy from all trade with the West and the ruble is crashing.

The war in Ukraine will bog down the Russian military as it was bogged down in Afghanistan. It is not a winnable war.

And now the Russian government is trying to control information and once again, this is bound to fail. Media that dare to challenge the war in the Ukraine are labeled as foreign agents. And the official announcement of censorship is patently ridiculous; prohibiting “information about the shelling of Ukrainian cities and the death of civilians in Ukraine as a result of the actions of the Russian Army, as well as content in which the ongoing operation is called an attack, invasion or a declaration of war.”

Tens of thousands of Russians are protesting the war and their voices cannot be silenced. We have recently published on CPNN thousands of signatures on anti-war petitions by Russian scientists, by Russian cultural figures, and by other Russian activists. (As of March 4 this list is expanded to include IT workers, teachers, the directors of LUKOIL, the largest private company in Russia, mathematicians and chess champions.)

Putin’s days are numbered with a crashing economy, an unwinnable war and the loss of confidence of the Russian people.

I continue to believe that the American empire will crash soon because of its over-militarization of the economy and the entire American culture. But it seems that Putin’s rule in Russia will crash even sooner.

The day of reckoning of the culture of war is arriving.

* * * * *

LA CHUTE DE POUTINE – UN DÉJÀ-VU

J’ai travaillé par intermittence en Union soviétique dans les années 1970 et 1980 et j’ai observé le crash de l’Empire soviétique – de l’intérieur.

Il y avait trois causes principales du crash : la perte de valeur du rouble, la perte de la guerre en Afghanistan et la perte de confiance du peuple.

La valeur du rouble a chuté parce que l’économie était trop militarisée. Ceux qui avaient de l’argent devaient importer leurs téléviseurs et leurs bons vêtements d’Europe occidentale parce que tous les bons appareils électroniques allaient à l’armée et qu’on ne pouvait pas acheter un bon téléviseur fabriqué en Russie. De même, tout le cuir est entré dans les bottes militaires et les chaussures disponibles pour les consommateurs russes étaient en carton. Je ne pouvais pas équiper un labo avec une bonne électronique, alors qu’un ami a pu équiper son labo parce que “j’ai des amis dans l’armée”.

La guerre en Afghanistan a été perdue, bien pour les mêmes raisons que les Britanniques ont perdues en Afghanistan au 19e siècle et que les États-Unis ont perdues au 21e siècle.

Et la confiance du peuple a été perdue parce que le gouvernement a essayé sans succès de contrôler l’information. Les Russes me disaient “vous pouvez trouver la vérité partout sauf dans la Pravda et les nouvelles partout sauf dans l’Izvestia” (Pravda, l’un des deux principaux journaux russes de l’époque, signifie vérité en russe; Izvestia, l’autre, signifie nouvelles .) Réalisant que ces journaux étaient fortement censurés, les gens ont écouté les émissions clandestines de Radio Free Europe contrôlées par la culture de guerre américaine.

Poutine répète l’histoire.

La guerre contre l’Ukraine a coupé une économie russe défaillante de tout commerce avec l’Occident et le rouble s’effondre.

La guerre en Ukraine va enliser l’armée russe comme elle s’enlisait en Afghanistan. Ce n’est pas une guerre gagnable.

Et maintenant, le gouvernement russe essaie de contrôler l’information et encore une fois, cela est voué à l’échec. Les médias qui osent contester la guerre en Ukraine sont qualifiés d’agents étrangers. Et l’annonce officielle de la censure est manifestement ridicule ; interdisant “les informations sur le bombardement de villes ukrainiennes et la mort de civils en Ukraine à la suite des actions de l’armée russe, ainsi que les contenus dans lesquels l’opération en cours est qualifiée d’attaque, d’invasion ou de déclaration de guerre”.

Des dizaines de milliers de Russes protestent contre la guerre et leurs voix ne peuvent être réduites au silence. Nous avons récemment publié sur CPNN des milliers de signatures sur des pétitions anti-guerre par des
scientifiques russes, par des artistes russes , et par d’autres militants russes. (Depuis le 4 mars, cette liste est élargie pour inclure des informaticiens, des enseignants, les directeurs de LUKOIL, la plus grande entreprise privée de Russie, des mathématiciens et des champions d’échecs.)

Les jours de Poutine sont comptés avec une économie qui s’effondre, une guerre impossible à gagner et la perte de confiance du peuple russe.

Je continue de croire que l’empire américain s’effondrera bientôt à cause de sa sur-militarisation de l’économie et de toute la culture américaine. Mais il semble que le règne de Poutine en Russie s’effondrera encore plus vite.

La crise de la culture de guerre arrive.

DID THE U.S. AND NATO PROMISE NOT TO THREATEN RUSSIA BY MOVING THE MILITARY FORCES OF NATO TO ITS BORDERS?

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

We continue to be threatened by the culture of war, which, as usual in recent history, is monopolized by the nation states.

Russia has massed military forces around the borders of Ukraine in the ancient tradition of the culture of war. Russia links this to insistence that Ukraine should not be brought into the military alliance of NATO.

Peace activists from all of the countries concerned, US, Russia, Ukraine, UK, France and Germany have denounced the military preparations by Russia, Ukraine and NATO and have supported the claim of Russia that the West promised not to move NATO to its frontiers in Eastern Europe at the end of the Cold War.

Is this claim true or not?

The mainstream media says it is not true. But you can’t believe the mainstream mass media on this question, because it is being controllled by United States and its allies, using control of information as the modern weapon of the culture of war.

So we must search elsewhere for the truth.

Here are key excerpts from the website of the National Security Archives.

“Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner.”

“The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher . . . . [ said] with a major public speech  at Tutzing, in Bavaria . . . .”that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.”

“Having met with Genscher on his way into discussions with the Soviets, [US Secretary-of-state] Baker repeated exactly the Genscher formulation in his meeting with Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze on February 9, 1990, (see Document 4); and even more importantly, face to face with Gorbachev. Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”

And here are excerpts from a second article from the website of the National Security Archives.

“Declassified documents from U.S. and Russian archives show that U.S. officials led Russian President Boris Yeltsin to believe in 1993 that the Partnership for Peace was [an] alternative to NATO expansion . . . . [ although they were] simultaneously planning for expansion after Yeltsin’s re-election bid in 1996 and telling the Russians repeatedly that the future European security system would include, not exclude, Russia.”

The declassified U.S. account of one key conversation on October 22, 1993, (Document 8) shows Secretary of State Warren Christopher assuring Yeltsin in Moscow that the Partnership for Peace was about including Russia together with all European countries, not creating a new membership list of just some European countries for NATO; and Yeltsin responding, “this is genius!”

“Christopher later claimed in his memoir that Yeltsin misunderstood – perhaps from being drunk – the real message that the Partnership for Peace would in fact “lead to gradual expansion of NATO”; but the actual American-written cable reporting the conversation supports subsequent Russian complaints about being misled.”

There are suggestions that the result of all this will be an increase in the culture of war and the risk of a World War III that could destroy all human civilization. Russia may decide to threaten the United States with nearby military bases like those that have been installed or threatened by the West against Russia. In this regard it has recently upgraded its military alliances with Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua.

It was the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 when I was 23 years old that first convinced me that I devote my life to working for peace. Its been almost 60 years since then, and I am once again convinced that we must do something to stop this madness.

* * * * *

LES ÉTATS-UNIS ET L’OTAN ONT-ILS PROMIS DE NE PAS MENACER LA RUSSIE EN DÉPLACEANT LES FORCES MILITAIRES DE L’OTAN VERS SES FRONTIÈRES ?

Nous continuons d’être menacés par la culture de la guerre qui, comme d’habitude dans l’histoire récente, est monopolisée par les États-nations.

La Russie a massé des forces militaires autour des frontières de l’Ukraine dans l’ancienne tradition de la culture de la guerre. La Russie lie cela à l’insistance que l’Ukraine ne devrait pas être invité dans l’alliance militaire de l’OTAN.

Des militants pacifistes de tous les pays concernés, États-Unis, Russie, Ukraine, Royaume-Uni, France et Allemagne, ont dénoncé les préparatifs militaires de la Russie, de l’Ukraine et de l’OTAN et ont soutenu l’affirmation de la Russie selon laquelle l’Occident avait promis de ne pas pousser l’OTAN à ses frontières en L’Europe de l’Est à la fin de la guerre froide.

Cette affirmation est-elle vraie ou non ?

Les grands médias disent que ce n’est pas vrai. Mais vous ne pouvez pas croire les grands médias sur cette question, car elle est contrôlée par les États-Unis et ses alliés , utilisant le contrôle de l’information comme l’arme moderne de la culture de guerre.

Il faut donc chercher la verité ailleurs.

Voici des extraits clés du site Web des Archives de la sécurité nationale.

“Des documents déclassifiés montrent des garanties de sécurité contre l’expansion de l’OTAN aux dirigeants soviétiques de Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major et Woerner.”

“Les premières assurances concrètes des dirigeants occidentaux sur l’OTAN ont commencé le 31 janvier 1990, lorsque le ministre ouest-allemand des Affaires étrangères Hans-Dietrich Genscher… [a déclaré] dans un important discours public à Tutzing, en Bavière… “que les changements en Europe de l’Est et le processus d’unification allemande ne doivent pas conduire à une “atteinte aux intérêts de sécurité soviétiques”. Par conséquent, l’OTAN devrait exclure une “expansion de son territoire vers l’est, c’est-à-dire le rapprocher des frontières soviétiques”.

“Ayant rencontré Genscher alors qu’il entamait des discussions avec les Soviétiques, [le secrétaire d’État américain] Baker a répété exactement la formulation de Genscher lors de sa rencontre avec le ministre des Affaires étrangères Edouard Chevardnadze le 9 février 1990 (voir document 4); et même plus important encore, face à face avec Gorbatchev. Pas une fois, mais trois fois, Baker a essayé la formule “pas un pouce vers l’est” avec Gorbatchev lors de la réunion du 9 février 1990. Il était d’accord avec la déclaration de Gorbatchev en réponse aux assurances que ” L’élargissement de l’OTAN est inacceptable. Baker a assuré à Gorbatchev que “ni le président ni moi n’avons l’intention de tirer des avantages unilatéraux des processus en cours”, et que les Américains ont compris que “non seulement pour l’Union soviétique, mais aussi pour les autres pays européens, il est important d’avoir garantit que si les États-Unis maintiennent leur présence en Allemagne dans le cadre de l’OTAN, pas un pouce de la juridiction militaire actuelle de l’OTAN ne s’étendra vers l’Est.”

Et voici des extraits d’un deuxième article du site Web des archives de la sécurité nationale.

“Des documents déclassifiés provenant d’archives américaines et russes montrent que des responsables américains ont amené le président russe Boris Eltsine à croire en 1993 que le Partenariat pour la paix était [une] alternative à l’élargissement de l’OTAN . . . [ même si ils ont planifié] simultanément son expansion après la réélection d’Eltsine. candidature en 1996 et en disant à plusieurs reprises aux Russes que le futur système de sécurité européen inclurait, et non exclurait, la Russie.”

Le récit américain déclassifié d’une conversation clé du 22 octobre 1993 (document 8) montre le secrétaire d’État Warren Christopher assurant Eltsine à Moscou que le Partenariat pour la paix visait à inclure la Russie avec tous les pays européens, et non à créer une nouvelle liste de membres. juste quelques pays européens pour l’OTAN ; et Eltsine répondant, “c’est du génie!”

“Christopher a affirmé plus tard dans ses mémoires qu’Eltsine avait mal compris – peut-être parce qu’il était ivre – le véritable message selon lequel le Partenariat pour la paix “conduirait en fait à une expansion progressive de l’OTAN” ; mais le véritable câble écrit par les États-Unis rapportant la conversation soutient les plaintes russes d’avoir été induites en erreur.”

Il y a des suggestions que le résultat de tout cela sera une augmentation de la culture de la guerre et le risque d’une troisième guerre mondiale qui pourrait détruire toute la civilisation humaine. La Russie pourrait décider d’entourer les États-Unis de bases militaires comme celles installées et menacées par l’Occident contre la Russie. À cet égard, il a récemment renforcé ses alliances militaires avec Cuba, le Venezuela et le Nicaragua.

C’est la crise des missiles de Cuba en 1962, alors que j’avais 23 ans, qui m’a d’abord convaincu que je consacrerais ma vie à travailler pour la paix. Cela fait presque 60 ans depuis lors, et je suis une fois de plus convaincu que nous devons faire quelque chose pour arrêter cette folie !

WAR ABROAD, WAR AT HOME

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

The is an old expression that “the chickens have come home to roost.” The wars that the American Empire waged abroad have come to the continental USA. For more than a century the US has waged war, overtly or covertly throughout Latin America. And in recent decades throughout the Middle East. Not to mention its so-called Cold Wars with Russia and now China. But now the invasion of the Capitol one year ago has signalled the beginning of a second civil war at home.`

This new, second civil war is now being widely recognized in the media. See, for example, the article in the Guardian : “The next US civil war is already here – we just refuse to see it.”

But most of the analyses in the media these days is superficial. For the most part they fail to explain the causal relationship between the wars abroad and this new war at home. It’s far too superficial to blame the situation on Donald Trump or the Republican Party.

In recent blogs I have shown many maps of the United States showing the battle lines of the states that are lining up for this second civil war. In fact, there is some resemblance to the lineup of the first, extremey bloody, civil war of 1860-1865; The South is one side and the Northeast on the other. But the USA is much larger now. The South is joined by the Midwest, while the Northeast is joined on the other side by the Far West. And the immediate cause is not longer the defense of slavery, although the South remains quite racist. The cause is related to wealth, but the sides are reversed. In 1860 the South was wealthier than the North, thanks to slavery, while now the South and its allies in the Midwest are exploited and impoverished in comparison to the Northeast and the Far West which hold the headquarters of the exploiters, Wall Street and Silicon Valley.

But the analysis needs to go deeper than regional differences in wealth.

In fact, all regions of the US suffer from the fact that the government of the United States no longer serves the needs of the people in health care or education or good job creation. Instead, government resources are poured down the rat-hole of military spending, as it tries, more and more desperately, to maintain its foreign wars, overt and covert, its miiitary allies (i:e. customers for its weapons sales) and its hundreds of foreign military bases. To justify this military priority the Biden administration is going back to the Cold War with Russia and China, raising the risks of a catastrophic world war. (See article “US Must Take Russia’s Security Concerns Seriously“)( compare also the 1997 film “Wag the Dog“).

When I was a young American, I shared the belief of my generation that each American generation would have better education, better housing and better jobs than its preceding generation. That is no longer the case. Americans know they are going downhill. Of course, we did not realize that our increasing wealth at the time was coming from the foreign exploitation of natural resources and sales of Coca Cola and computers, and that our empire, like all previous empires, had reached its peak and could only go down. And we did not realize, as the saying goes that with the federal budget “you can’t have both guns and butter.”

As for education, instead of training teachers and health care workers, the US government continues to fund the training of young people to kill, if not in hand-to-hand combat, then with computer-guided drones.` Back in 1996, Colonel David Grossman closed his book, “On Killing“, with a warning about future violence in America caused by the methods he used when he was in charge of US military training: “high-body-count movies, television violence (both news and entertainment), and interactive point-and-shoot video games.”

Many thought at the time that the weapons of war being stockpiled by veterans and their friends were in defense of American Democracy and the Constitution with its Second Amendment. Now we see that the arms can be used in a civil war. Will it have battle lines like the first civil war. Probaly not. According to the recent analysis of Barbara Walter, it is more likely to look more like guerilla warfare.

20 months ago I wrote that there was still hope to avoid a crash of the country and its empire: “America can escape from its disastrous medical, social and economic situation. It can convert the military budget to a vast program of rebuilding America’s failing infrastructure, starting with its medical infrastructure and extending, like Roosevelt’s WPA, to all sectors of the domestic economy, thus putting everyone back to work, above all those who have been excluded by racism. . . . to save the country. Its military bases around the world must be dismantled and the soldiers brought home and put to useful work.”

President Biden wants to rebuild America’s failing infrastructure, but his military budget is larger than ever and militarism continues to dictate his policies. American voters don’t understand. And the media is not helping. Time is running out.

Over the past few years I have argued that the crash of the American Empire could provide a window of opportunity to convert the United Nations into a agency for the culture of peace. But there has been no progress in preparing for this. Again, time is running out.

* * * * *

GUERRE À L’ÉTRANGER, GUERRE DANS LA MÉTROPOLE

C’est une vieille expression selon laquelle “les poulets sont rentrés chez eux pour se percher”. Les guerres que l’Empire américain a menées à l’étranger arrivent aux États-Unis sur son propre territorire ! Pendant plus d’un siècle, les États-Unis ont fait la guerre, ouvertement ou secrètement, dans toute l’Amérique latine. Et ces dernières décennies dans tout le Moyen-Orient. Sans parler de ses soi-disant guerres froides avec la Russie et maintenant la Chine. Mais maintenant, l’invasion du Capitole il y a un an a marqué le début d’une seconde guerre civile dans la métropole.

Cette nouvelle, seconde guerre civile qui s’annonce est maintenant largement reconnue dans les médias. Voir, par exemple, l’article du Guardian : “ La prochaine guerre civile américaine est déjà là – nous refusons simplement de la voir.

Mais la plupart des analyses dans les médias ces jours-ci sont superficielles. Pour la plupart, ils ne parviennent pas à expliquer la relation causale entre les guerres à l’étranger et cette nouvelle guerre à l’intérieur. Il est beaucoup trop superficiel de mettre la responsabilité de la situation sur Donald Trump ou le Parti républicain.

Dans mes blogs récents, j’ai montré de nombreuses cartes des États-Unis montrant les lignes de bataille des États de cette seconde guerre civile. En fait, il y a une certaine ressemblance avec la carte de la première guerre civile extrêmement sanglante de 1860-1865 ; Le Sud est d’un côté et le Nord-Est de l’autre. Mais les États-Unis sont beaucoup plus grands maintenant. Le Sud est rejoint par le Midwest, tandis que le Nord-Est est rejoint de l’autre côté par le Far West. Et la cause immédiate n’est plus la défense de l’esclavage, même si le Sud reste assez raciste. La cause est liée à la richesse, mais les deux côtés sont inversés. En 1860, le Sud était plus riche que le Nord, grâce à l’esclavage, alors que maintenant le Sud et ses alliés du Midwest sont exploités et appauvris par rapport au Nord-Est et au Far West qui détiennent le siège des exploiteurs, Wall Street et Silicon Valley .

Mais l’analyse doit aller plus loin que les différences régionales de richesse.

En fait, toutes les régions des États-Unis souffrent du fait que le gouvernement des États-Unis ne répond plus aux besoins de la population en matière de soins de santé, d’éducation ou de création d’emplois de qualité. Au lieu de cela, les ressources du gouvernement sont versées dans le trou des dépenses militaires, alors qu’il essaie, de plus en plus désespérément, de maintenir ses guerres étrangères, ouvertes ou secrètes, ses alliés militaires (c’est-à-dire les clients pour ses ventes d’armes) et ses centaines de bases militaires étrangères. Pour justifier cette priorité militaire, l’administration Biden revient à la guerre froide avec la Russie et la Chine, prenant les risques d’une guerre mondiale qui serait catastrophique ! (Voir article “US Must Take Russia’s Security Concerns Seriously“) (Comparez aussi le film de 1997, “Wag the Dog“).

Quand j’étais un jeune Américain, je partageais la conviction de ma génération que chaque génération américaine aurait une meilleure éducation, un meilleur logement et de meilleurs emplois que la génération précédente. Ce n’est plus le cas. Les Américains comprennent que le système s’écroule. Bien sûr, nous ne nous rendions pas compte que notre richesse croissante à l’époque provenait de l’exploitation étrangère des ressources naturelles et des ventes de Coca Cola et d’ordinateurs, alors que notre empire, comme tous les empires précédents, avait atteint son apogée et ne pouvait que s’effondrer . Et on ne s’en est pas rendu compte, comme dit le proverbe qu’avec le budget fédéral « on ne peut pas avoir à la fois le beurre et l’argent du beurre.».

Quant à l’éducation, au lieu de former des enseignants et des travailleurs de la santé, le gouvernement américain prefère financer la formation de jeunes tueurs, même avec des drones guidés par ordinateur. » En 1996, le colonel David Grossman a clôturé son livre, “On Killing“, avec un avertissement sur la violence future en Amérique causée par les méthodes qu’il a utilisées lorsqu’il était en charge de l’entraînement militaire américain : “les films à grand nombre de morts, la violence à la télévision (à la fois dans les informations et dans le divertissement ) et les jeux de tir. »

Beaucoup pensaient à l’époque que les armes de guerre stockées par les vétérans et leurs amis défendaient la démocratie américaine et la Constitution avec son deuxième amendement. Nous voyons maintenant que les armes peuvent être utilisées dans une guerre civile. Y aura-t-il des lignes de bataille comme lors de la première guerre civile? Probablement pas. Selon la récente analyse de Barbara Walter, cela risquera de ressembler davantage à une guérilla.

Il y a 20 mois, j’écrivais qu’il y avait encore de l’espoir d’éviter un crash du pays et de son empire : « L’Amérique peut sortir de sa situation désastreuse. Elle peut convertir le budget militaire en un vaste programme de reconstruction des infrastructures défaillantes de l’Amérique. En commençant par son infrastructure médicale et en s’étendant, comme le WPA de Roosevelt, à tous les secteurs de l’économie nationale, elle remetterait ainsi tout le monde au travail, surtout ceux qui ont été exclus par le racisme… pour sauver le pays. Ses bases militaires autour le monde doivent être démantelées et les soldats ramenés à la maison et mis au travail utile.”

Le président Biden veut reconstruire l’infrastructure défaillante de l’Amérique, mais son budget militaire est plus gonflé que jamais et le militarisme continue de dicter sa politique. Les électeurs américains ne comprennent pas. Et les médias n’aident pas. Le temps presse.

Au cours des dernières années, j’ai soutenu que l’effondrement de l’Empire américain pourrait offrir une fenêtre d’opportunité pour transformer les Nations Unies en une agence pour la culture de la paix. Mais il n’y a eu aucun progrès dans la préparation de cela. Encore une fois, le temps presse.

THE BIENNALE OF LUANDA: PAST AND FUTURE OF THE CULTURE OF PEACE IN AFRICA

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

The Biennale of Luanda, as described in this month’s CPNN bulletin, is a process unique in the world.

Nowhere else on earth can you imagine a process that involves all of the countries of a continent in collaboration with the United Nations working together with a coordinating state to develop a culture of peace.

As for the past of this process, I was privileged to take part on December 20 in a video conference to celebrate its architect, Enzo Fazzino, as he took his retirement from UNESCO.

In one sense, it was the end of an era that began with the Culture of Peace Progamme of UNESCO. Taking part in the programme was Federico Mayor, who was Director-General of UNESCO from 1987 to 1999. Early in his mandate, he directed the Conference of 1989 in Yamoussoukro, Côte d’Ivoire that first called for a culture of peace at UNESCO. One can say that the culture of peace was born in Africa. Then in 1993, Mayor established the UNESCO Culture of Peace Programme.

Taking part in the video conference on December 20 was Firmin Edouard Matoko, now Assistant Director-General of UNESCO for Priority Africa and External Relations. Along with Leslie Atherley and myself, he was named to the first senior staff of the Culture of Peace Programme which developed national programmes from 1993 to 1999.

One of the first national programmes was in Africa.

Taking part in the December 20 programme was Ana Elisa Santana Afonso who was the UNESCO liaison officer with the African Union before her retirement. She was the director of the National Commision for UNESCO in Mozambique when I worked on the national culture of peace programme there from 1994 to 1996. Our boss at that time, the President of the National Commission of UNESCO, was none other than Graça Machel.
.
Enzo and I began to work together when were named by Mayor to develop the United Nations International Year for the Culture of Peace for the year 2000. We mobilized 75 million people to sign the Manifesto 2000 for the culture of peace. The first country to collect one million signatures was in Africa, Algeria, where the Manifesto was sung from the Mosques while signatures were collected on the streets by the scout movement.

Enzo went on to work for UNESCO in Africa where he developed the Biennale process.

Chairing the videoconference was Salah Khaled the UNESCO regional director for Central Africa. It was he who worked most closely with Enzo to establish the Biennale process.

Speaking eloquently about Enzo’s leadership was Yvonne Matuturu, who was in charge of the development of the Biennale youth engagement.

The results of their work, the 2021 Luanda Biennale – Pan-African Forum for the Culture of Peace, is described in this month’s CPNN. It is a work in progress as the next Biennale is scheduled to take place in 2023.

Enzo and his colleagues had the foresight to organize this year’s Biennale as an inter-generational dialogue, including 118 young leaders from Africa and the Diaspora, as described in another CPNN article.

As for the future, there was a young woman who was present at the video conference on December 20, but who did not speak while I was listening. Her name is Irene Aragona. Along with another young woman named Mariana Serrano Silvério, she is working on the followup to the youth programme that was developed for the Biennale with the goal of promoting youth-led, multi-level pan-African movements for a culture of peace.

I had the privilege to speak with Irene and Mariana in another video conference on December 19, in which they explained the challenge they are facing. Yes, there are 118 young leaders who took part in the Biennale, but how can their involvement become youth-led, multi-level pan-African movements for a culture of peace?

UNESCO, the African Union, and Angola have agreed to continue the Biennale process (see their speeches at the Biennale as reprinted in CPNN). They should support the youth to give substance to this process.

The movement for a Pan-African Culture of Peace has a rich history going back to 1897 and the work of W.E.B. Dubois in the Pan-African Congresses of the 1920’s and 1945, as well as the establishment by Dubois under Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana of the Africana Encyclopedia in 1962.

Now the future of the Pan-African Culture of Peace is where it should be, in the hands of the youth of Africa and the Diaspora. A new day is dawning. It needs our support.

* * * * *

LA BIENNALE DE LUANDA : PASSÉ ET AVENIR DE LA CULTURE DE LA PAIX EN AFRIQUE

La Biennale de Luanda, telle que décrite dans le bulletin CPNN de ce mois-ci, est un processus unique au monde.

Nulle part ailleurs sur terre, vous ne pouvez imaginer un processus impliquant tous les pays du continent en collaboration avec les Nations Unies et un seul État parrain travaillant ensemble pour une culture de la paix.

Quant à son passé, j’ai eu le privilège de participer le 20 décembre à une visioconférence pour célébrer l’architecte de ce processus, Enzo Fazzino, alors qu’il prenait sa retraite de l’UNESCO.

Dans un sens, c’était la fin d’une ère qui a commencé avec le programme Culture de la paix de l’UNESCO. Au visioconférence figurait Federico Mayor, directeur général de l’UNESCO de 1987 à 1999. Au début de son mandat, il a dirigé la Conférence de Yamoussoukro de 1989 qui a d’abord appelé à une culture de la paix à l’UNESCO. On peut dire que la culture de la paix a été née en Afrique. Puis, en 1993, Mayor a créé le programme Culture de la paix de l’UNESCO.

Le 20 décembre, Firmin Edouard Matoko, aujourd’hui Sous-Directeur général de l’UNESCO pour la Priorité Afrique et Relations extérieures, a participé à la visioconférence. Avec Leslie Atherley et moi-même, il a été nommé parmi les premiers cadres supérieurs du programme Culture de la paix qui a développé des programmes nationaux de 1993 à 1999.

L’un des premiers programmes nationaux a eu lieu en Afrique.

Ana Elisa Santana Afonso, ancien liaison de l’UNESCO avec l’Union africaine, a participé au programme du 20 décembre. Elle était directrice de la Commission nationale pour l’UNESCO au Mozambique lorsque j’y ai travaillé sur le programme national de culture de la paix de 1994 à 1996. Notre patron à l’époque, la présidente de la Commission nationale de l’UNESCO, n’était autre que Graça Machel.
.
Enzo et moi avons commencé à travailler ensemble lorsque nous avons été nommés par Mayor pour développer l’Année internationale des Nations Unies pour la culture de la paix pour l’an 2000. Nous avons mobilisé 75 millions de personnes pour signer le Manifeste 2000 pour la culture de la paix. Le premier pays à recueillir un million de signatures a été en Afrique, l’Algérie, où le Manifeste a été chanté depuis les mosquées tandis que les signatures ont été recueillies dans les rues par le mouvement scout.

Enzo a ensuite travaillé pour l’UNESCO en Afrique où il a développé le processus de la Biennale.

La visioconférence était présidée par Salah Khaled, directeur régional de l’UNESCO pour l’Afrique centrale. C’est lui qui a le plus collaboré avec Enzo pour mettre en place le processus de la Biennale.

Yvonne Matuturu, qui était en charge du développement de l’engagement des jeunes, a parlé avec éloquence du leadership d’Enzo.

Les résultats de leur travail, la Biennale de Luanda 2021 – Forum panafricain pour la culture de la paix, sont décrits dans le CPNN de ce mois-ci. C’est un travail en cours puisque la prochaine Biennale est prévue en 2023.

Enzo et ses collègues ont eu la prévoyance d’organiser la Biennale de cette année comme un dialogue intergénérationnel, comprenant 118 jeunes leaders d’Afrique et de la diaspora, comme décrit dans un autre article de CPNN.

Quant à l’avenir, il y avait une jeune femme qui était présente à la visioconférence le 20 décembre, mais qui n’a pas pris la parole pendant que j’écoutais. Elle s’appelle Irène Aragona. Avec une autre jeune femme nommée Mariana Serrano Silvério, elle travaille dans le suivi du programme jeunesse développé pour la Biennale à promouvoir des mouvements panafricains à plusieurs niveaux dirigés par des jeunes pour une culture de la paix.

J’ai eu le privilège de parler avec Irene et Mariana lors d’une autre vidéoconférence le 19 décembre, au cours de laquelle elles ont expliqué le défi auquel elles sont confrontées. Oui, il y a 118 jeunes leaders qui ont participé à la Biennale, mais comment leur implication peut-elle devenir des mouvements panafricains multi-niveaux dirigés par des jeunes pour une culture de la paix?

L’UNESCO, l’Union africaine et l’Angola ont convenu de poursuivre le processus de la Biennale (voir leurs discours à la Biennale tels que réimprimés dans CPNN). Ils doivent accompagner les jeunes pour donner corps à ce processus.

Le mouvement pour une culture panafricaine de la paix a une riche histoire remontant à 1897 et les travaux de W.E.B. Dubois dans les congrès panafricains des années 1920 et 1945, ainsi que la création par Dubois sous Kwame Nkrumah au Ghana de l’Africana Encyclopedia en 1962.

Maintenant, l’avenir de la culture panafricaine de la paix est là où il devrait être, entre les mains de la jeunesse africaine et de la diaspora. Un nouveau jour se lève. Il a besoin de notre soutien.

UPDATING DIRE WARNINGS

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

A little over a year ago, I wrote in this blog that we are at a turning point in human history, that the American Empire is crashing and that there is a serious risk of a new American Civil War. The blog was illustrated by automatic weapons being accumulated by millions of American citizens and by the following map of the United States showing the states in red expected to vote for Trump and those in blue to vote against him. The results turned out to be more or less as predicted.


I pointed out in a later blog that the map corresponds, for the most part to the division between urban and rural.


Trump supporters feel, with good reason that rural areas are impoverished by rich capitalists. As I stated in the blog, in the United States, as in the rest of the capitalist world, “the modern capitalist state also serves the interests of industrial agriculture instead of the small farmer, despite the fact that small farms still produce the majority of the food on the planet. For almost a century now, the small farmer continues to be driven out of business by industrial agriculture. The people in rural areas that should gain a good living from agriculture continue to work hard for ever-decreasing income, while those who profit from industrial agriculture sit behind the desks in banks and bribe the legislatures to pass laws in their favor.”

Factors continue to develop that may lead to the crash of the American Empire. In particular, the US government, now led by Democrats, continues to pour its resources down the rat-hole of military spending (see January blog this year) and raise tensions that could lead to wars with China, Russia, Iran, etc. And the impoverishment of rural areas continues.

Civil war did not break out on January 6 of this year when Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol and the Empire has not yet crashed. But the tensions between the different regions of the United States that I described at that time continue to develop, as shown by the following new maps.

First is a map of states, showing in red those that are likely to ban abortion if the US Supreme Court decides next summer, as expected, to allow the states to do so. Those needing an abortion in those states, if they have enough money, will have to move to another state in order to get an abortion. Note the resemblance to the maps above.


Second is a map of states showing the blue and purple those with many weapons possessed by citizens. Again, those who voted for Trump are more likely to have accumulated weapons that could be used in a civil war.


In another blog, written one months later than the one mentioned above, I wrote that “in the face of pessimistic predictions for the United States, to the point of civil war, there are many progressive initiatives advancing.” I mentioned progressive initiatives by trade unions, universities, civil rights organizations, climate activists, peace activists, city governments and progressive members of congress. These also continue to develop.

It’s the dialectics of history in action, raising hopes that the crash of the empire will have a soft landing.

Where is all this leading? Only time will tell.

* * * * *

MISE À JOUR DES AVERTISSEMENTS

Il y a un peu plus d’un an, j’écrivais dans ce blog que nous étions à un tournant de l’Histoire de l’humanité, que l’empire américain s’effonderait et qu’il existe un risque sérieux d’une nouvelle guerre civile aux USA. Le blog était illustré par les armes automatiques accumulées par des millions de citoyens américains et par la carte suivante des États-Unis montrant les États (en rouge) censés voter pour Trump et ceux( en bleu) pour voter contre lui.


J’ai fait remarquer dans un blog ultérieur que la carte correspondait, pour l’essentiel, à la division entre l’espaces urbains et la ruralité.


Les partisans de Trump estiment, à juste titre, que les zones rurales sont appauvries par les riches capitalistes. Aux États-Unis, comme dans le reste du monde capitaliste, « l’État capitaliste moderne sert les intérêts de l’agriculture industrielle au lieu de celles du petit agriculteur, malgré le fait que les petites fermes produisent toujours la majorité de la nourriture sur la planète. Depuis près d’un siècle maintenant, le petit agriculteur continue d’être chassé des affaires par l’agriculture industrielle. Les habitants des zones rurales, qui devraient bien vivre de l’agriculture, continuent à travailler dur pour obtenir des revenus en baisse constante, tandis que ceux qui profitent de l’agriculture industrielle s’assoient derrière les bureaux des banques et soudoient les législateurs pour qu’ils adoptent des lois en leur faveur..”

Ces facteurs continuent à se développer et pourraient conduire à l’effondrement de l’empire américain. En particulier, le gouvernement américain, désormais dirigé par les démocrates, continue de déverser ses ressources dans le gouffre des dépenses militaires (voir le blog de janvier cet année) et de faire monter des tensions qui pourraient conduire à des guerres avec la Chine, la Russie, l’Iran, etc. Et pendant ce temps, l’appauvrissement des zones rurales se poursuit.

La guerre civile n’a pas éclaté le 6 janvier de cette année lorsque les partisans de Trump ont pris d’assaut le Capitole américain. Et l’Empire ne s’est pas encore écrasé. Mais les tensions entre les différentes régions des États-Unis que j’ai décrites à l’époque continuent de se développer, comme le montrent les nouvelles cartes suivantes.

La première est une carte des États, montrant en rouge ceux qui sont susceptibles d’interdire l’avortement si la Cour suprême des États-Unis décide l’été prochain, comme prévu, d’autoriser les États à le faire. Celles qui ont besoin d’un avortement dans ces États, si elles ont assez d’argent, devront se rendre dans un autre État pour se faire avorter. Notez la ressemblance avec les cartes ci-dessus.


Deuxièmement, une carte des États montrent en bleu et en violet, ceux ou les citoyens. possèdent de nombreuses armes. Les États qui ont voté pour Trump sont plus susceptibles d’avoir accumulé des armes qui pourraient être utilisées dans une guerre civile.


Dans un autre blog, écrit un mois plus tard que celui mentionné ci-dessus, j’ai écrit que “face aux prédictions pessimistes pour les États-Unis, pouvant arriver à la guerre civile, de nombreuses initiatives progressistes avancent”. J’ai mentionné les initiatives progressistes des syndicats, des universités, des organisations de défense des droits civiques, des militants pour le climat, des militants pour la paix, des gouvernements municipaux et des membres progressistes du congrès. Ceux-ci continuent également à se développer.

C’est la dialectique de l’Histoire en action, faisant naître l’espoir que le krach de l’empire aura un atterrissage en douceur.

Où tout cela mènera-t-il ? Seul le temps nous le dira.

Speech to Mayors for Peace

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

Here is the text that I provided to first national forum of the AFCDRP (Association of Mayors for Peace, France) that took place October 13 in Montpelier.

First of all, I would like to thank Loréna Schlicht who invited me here and who has done a tremendous work to organize this conference.

Back in the year 2000, I was responsible, with Enzo Fazzino, who has just spoken, for the organization of the United Nations International Year for the Culture of Peace. We mobilized seventy-five million people to sign the Manifesto 2000 with the commitment to work for a culture of peace in family, work, community and country. So we were responsible for writing the Declaration and Program of Action on a Culture of Peace which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.

`The Declaration provided a definition of the culture of peace which lays a basis for everything we do in this regard.

1) strengthening a culture of peace through education;
2) promote sustainable economic and social development;
3) promote respect for all human rights;
4) advance understanding, tolerance and solidarity;
5) ensure equality between women and men;
6) promote democratic participation;
7) support participatory communication and the free flow of information and knowledge;
8) promote international peace and security.

But the 1999 declaration is not enough. It has taken for granted the current structure of world governance, that is, power in the hands of the Great Powers, the countries that run the United Nations Security Council. At that time we could not expect that a declaration by the United Nations could call into question its own structure.

Today, the Great Powers continue to cling to the nuclear weapons that threaten the existence of mankind and their decisions in the Security Council continue to support the culture of war, continuing to profit from the sale of armaments.

Now it is clear that we cannot make the transition to a culture of peace with this system of global governance. We need another structure.

The ideal would be a new democratically elected structure. This is our project: The United Nations and its Security Council made up of representatives of mayors from all regions of the world. Mayors and their cities do not have a culture of war. No interest in nuclear weapons. They have no enemies, no army, no military-industrial complex, no borders to defend. They are elected to promote education, health, respect for human rights, and the security of all citizens on an equal basis, that is, a culture of peace !

With this perspective, we have proposed a new Declaration, the Declaration for the Transition to a Culture of Peace in the 21st Century.

According to the Declaration, the role of cities is key. They can and should:

Promote and support peace education projects in public institutions and in non-formal contexts. Share with communities and neighborhoods, the history of world cultures and their actions in favor of peace, recognizing our unity with other peoples; knowing their symbols; and creating new shared symbols that promote the acceptance of others, solidarity, respect and cooperation.

Promote transparency and the free flow of information: avoiding the secrecy of the State; promoting, supporting and giving freedom to the imagination and the creation of new vocabularies, languages and narratives about peace; and transforming the negative and violent portrayal of conflict in the mass media.

Publicize the knowledge and actions of organized civil society: enabling participatory democracy; training citizens, teachers, journalists, activists, social and religious leaders, policemen, students, professionals, politicians and scientists to participate in the exercise of their human rights, monitoring guarantees of all human rights including housing, health, sanitation, education and public safety.

Establish spaces for reflection, listening and dialogue between people of different ages, different physical, affective, cognitive and socioeconomic needs, and different ethnic, linguistic and gender identities, and welcome with generosity and fraternity the refugees and immigrants who have fled wars and injustices for which we are all responsible.

Promote democratic participation through equitable representation mechanisms for ethnic and gender diversities, free from the influence of military industry, financial monopoly corporations, and institutions that influence national politics.

Prioritize agriculture, manufacturing, consumption, local and sustainable development that depend less on oil and corporate monopolies, that respect the diversity of regional species to help combat climate change and environmental problems, and that promote the creation of cooperatives that work for a social and solidarity economy focused on fair trade and the well-being of the families and groups that comprise them.

Ensure equality between women and men through the integration of a gender perspective in the application of all economic, social and political decision-making; through measures for the elimination of all forms of discrimination and violence against women; and through support and assistance to women who are victims of all forms of violence.

Guarantee the peace and security of citizens by the control of firearms, by public institutions for conflict resolution and restorative justice and by local police forces trained in these procedures.

The city can become a vector of the culture of peace by institutionalizing and disseminating these actions. It can and should establish a city culture of peace commission that measures and reports on progress in each of these areas. It can and should share this process with other cities through networks such as Mayors for Peace, through twinning with cities from other continents and through advocacy for the role of cities at the United Nations.

The invitation to become partners with the Biennale of Luanda – “Pan-African Forum for the Culture of Peace” is a golden opportunity to implement this approach. Yes ! it would be a big step forward for Africa. But at the same time it would be a big step forward for France and the rest of the world who are in dire need of hope and vision in this time of turmoil.

As the Declaration for the Transition to a Culture of Peace in the 21st Century concludes:

We hold that history is in our hands and that another world is possible.

A global culture of peace is possible.

Let’s not mourn, but organize!

* * * * *

DISCOURS POUR L’ASSOCIATION “MAIRES POUR LA PAIX”

Tout d’abord, je veux remercier Loréna Schlicht qui m’a invitée ici et qui a fait un travail formidable pour organiser cette conférence.

Il y a longtemps, en l’an 2000, j’étais responsable, avec Enzo Fazzino, qui vient de parler, de l’organisation de l’Année internationale des Nations Unies pour la culture de la paix. Nous avons mobilisé soixante-quinze millions de personne pour signer le Manifeste 2000 avec l’engagement de travailler pour une culture de la paix dans la famille, le travail, la communauté et le pays. Aussi nous étions résponsable d’écrire la Déclaration et Programme d’action sur une culture de la paix qui a été adoptée par l’Assemblee générale des Nations Unies.

`La Declaration a donné une definition de la culture de la paix qui pose une base pour tout que nous faisons à cet égard.

1) renforcer une culture de la paix par l’éducation;
2) promouvoir le développement économique et social durable;
3) promouvoir le respect de tous les droits de l’Homme;
4) faire progresser la compréhension, la tolérance et la solidarité;
5) assurer l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes;
6) favoriser la participation démocratique;
7) soutenir la communication participative et la libre circulation de l’information et des connaissances;
8) promouvoir la paix et la sécurité internationales.

Mais la declaration de 1999 ne suffit pas. Elle a pris pour acquis la structure actuelle de la gouvernance mondiale, c’est à dire, le pouvoir dans les mains des pays de grande puissance, les pays qui dirige la Conseil de Securité des Nations Unis. À cette époque nous n’avons pas pu éviter qu’une déclaration par les Nations Unis ne remette pas en question sa propre structure.

Aujourd’hui, les Grandes Puissances continuent de s’accrocher aux armes nucléaires qui menacent l’existence de l’humanité et leur décisions au Conseil de Sécurité continuent d’appuyer la culture de la guerre, en continuant les ventes d’armes.

Maintenant il est clair que nous ne pouvons pas faire la transition vers une culture de la paix avec ce systeme de gouvernance globale. Nous avons besoin d’une autre structure.

L’ideal serait une nouvelle structure elue democratiquement. Voilà notre projet : Des Nations Unis et son Conseil de Securité composée des representants des maires des toutes les regions de monde. Les maires et leurs villes n’ont pas de culture de la guerre. Pas interêt dans les armes nucléaires. Ils n’ont pas d’enemies, pas d’armeé, pas de complex militairo-industriel, pas de frontières à défendre. Ils sont élus pour promouvoir l’éducation, la santé, le respect des droits de l’Homme, et la sécurité de tous les citoyens et ciyoyennes en égalité, c’est à dire une culture de la paix !

Avec cette perspective, nous avons proposé une nouvelle Déclaration, la Déclaration pour la Transition vers une Culture de la Paix au XXI Siècle.

Selon la Déclaration, le rôle des villes est clé. Elles peuvent et doivent :
Promouvoir et soutenir des projets d’éducation à la paix dans les institutions publiques et dans des contextes non formels. Partager avec les communautés et les quartiers, l’histoire des cultures du monde et de leurs actions en faveur de la paix, pour se reconnaître dans les actions des autres, pour connaître leurs symboles et pour créer de nouveaux symboles communs qui favorisent l’acceptation des autres, la solidarité, le respect et la coopération.

Promouvoir la transparence et la libre circulation de l’information pour éviter le secret de l’État et pour favoriser, soutenir et donner la liberté à l’imagination et à la création de nouveaux vocabulaires, langues et récits faisant référence à la paix et changer la manière morbide dont sont relatés les conflits dans les médias de masse.

Prendre en compte les connaissances et les actions de la société civile organisée, pour permettre à tout le monde de participer à l’exercice de leur droits de l’Homme, dans l’évaluation des progrès de la culture de la paix dans leur communauté et dans le suivi des garanties, telles que le logement, la santé, l’assainissement, l’éducation et la sécurité publique.

Créer des espaces de réflexion, d’écoute et de dialogue pour la tolerance et la solidarité entre des personnes d’âges différents, de besoins physiques, émotionnels, cognitifs et socio-économiques différents et d’identités ethniques, linguistiques et de genre différents et acceuillir avec generosité et fraternité les réfugiés et immigrés qui ont fuit des guerres et des injustices dont nous sommes tous responsables.

Promouvoir la participation démocratique grâce à des mécanismes de représentation équitable pour les diversités ethniques et de genre, loin de l’influence de l’industrie militaire, des sociétés de monopole financier et des institutions qui influencent la politique nationale.

Donner la priorité à une agriculture, une fabrication, un consommation, un developpement local et durable qui dépendent de moins en moins du pétrole et des monopoles d’entreprises, qui respectent la diversité des espèces régionales pour aider à lutter contre le changement climatique et les problèmes environnementaux, et qui favorisent la création de coopératives travaillant pour un économie sociale et solidaire axée sur le commerce équitable et le bien-être des familles et des groupes qui les composent.

Assurer l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes par l’intégration d’une perspective sexospécifique dans l’application de toutes les prises de décisions économiques, sociales et politiques; par les mesures pour l’élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination et de violence contre les femmes; et par un appui et une aide aux femmes qui sont victimes de toutes les formes de violence.

Garantir la paix et la sécurité des citoyens et des citoyennes par le contrôle des armes à feu, par des institutions publiques de résolution des conflits et de justice réparatrice et par des polices de proximité formées à ces procédures.

La ville peut devenir un vecteur de la culture de la paix en institutionnalisant et en diffusant ces actions. Elle peut et doit établir une commission de la culture de la paix de la ville qui mesure et publie les progrès dans chacun de ces domaines. Elle peut et doit partager ce processus avec d’autres villes par le moyen des réseaux tels que Maires pour la paix, par des jumelages avec des villes d’autres continents et par le plaidoyer pour le rôle des villes aux Nations Unies.

L’invitation de devenir partenaires avec le Biennale of Luanda – “Pan-African Forum for the Culture of Peace” est est une occasion en or de mettre en œuvre cette approche. Oui ! cela serait un grand pas en avant pour l’Afrique. Mais en même temps ce serait un grand pas en avant pour la France et le reste du monde qui ont grand besoin d’espoir et de vision en cette période de troubles.

Comme conclut la Déclaration pour la Transition vers une Culture de la Paix au XXI Siècle :

Nous sommes convaincus que l’histoire est entre nos mains et qu’un autre monde est possible.

Une culture mondiale de la paix est possible.

Pas de lamentation, organisons-nous!

THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE SHOULD HAVE GONE TO JULIAN ASSANGE

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

To some extent one must applaud the choice of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to two journalists that have dared to defy government pressure.  It is correct that the free flow of information is essential for peace, as we have maintained in this blog.  In fact, it has become the highest priority because, as we have stressed here, the culture of war now uses the manipulation of information as its primary means of defense.

And the journalists who were chosen, Maria Ressa and Dmitry Muratov, certainly merit the distinction.

But there is another journalist who is even more deserving. And his recognition would have contributed far more to the cause of world peace. That is Julian Assange.

As Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire said in 2019 when she nominated Assange for the Prize, “Julian Assange meets all criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize.  Through his release of hidden information to the public we are no longer naïve to the atrocities of war, neither oblivious to the connections between big business and the acquisition of resources and spoils of war. As his human rights and freedom are in jeopardy, the Nobel Peace Prize would afford Julian much greater protection from governments’ forces.”

His recognition would have contributed far more to the cause of world peace because Assange revealed the secrets of the American Empire, which is the primary force in the culture of war. Those who received the prize this year attacked countries that are secondary: the Philippines and Russia. To be sure these countries are also part of the culture of war, but they are not responsible for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya, for military bases throughout the world, for the systematic overthrow of anyone who is elected to head a country that does not support the American Empire, and for the support of the worst dictatorships and warmongers responsible for wars like that in Yemen.

Assange revealed the American atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan and the involvement of the CIA in covert warfare around the world.

And because of his courageous journalism he continues to be under attack by the American Empire, to the point that it was recently revealed that the CIA asked permission from President Trump to assassinate him.

Ironically, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Obama at a time when he was initiating the prosecution of Assange and when his administration was beginning the secret warfare of drones, perhaps the most dangerous advance of the culture of war. And Assange was revealing the secrets of the Obama administration.

In fact, as long as we are suggesting who should have won the prize, why not add Edward Snowden who is also being sought by the United States for revealing its culture of war secrets? And Daniel Ellsberg who was the first whistle-blower, revealing the secrets of the Vietnam War, and who continues to speak out in favor of Snowden and Assange? And why not add Mordecai Vanunu, imprisoned for 18 years after revealing the secret of Israel’s nuclear arms, and who continues to be harassed by the Israeli government? And Daniel Hale, recently imprisoned for revealing the secrets of America’s drone warfare?

By revealing the secrets of America’s culture of war, all of these whistle-blowers are making a great contribution to the world’s anti-war consciousness which is a key component of the developments that can eventually produce a transition to the culture of peace.

* * * * *

LE PRIX NOBEL DE LA PAIX AURAIT DU ÊTRE ATTRIBUÉ À JULIAN ASSANGE

Dans une certaine mesure, il faut applaudir le choix du prix Nobel de la paix de cette année à deux journalistes qui ont osé défier la pression gouvernementale. Il est exact que la libre circulation de l’information est essentielle pour la paix, comme nous l’avons soutenu dans ce blog. En fait, c’est devenu la plus haute priorité parce que la culture de la guerre utilise désormais la manipulation de l’information comme principal moyen de défense.

Et les journalistes choisis, Maria Ressa et Dmitry Muratov, méritaient certainement la distinction.

Mais il y a un autre journaliste qui le mérite encore plus. Et sa reconnaissance aurait contribué beaucoup plus à la cause de la paix mondiale. C’est Julian Assange.

Comme l’a déclaré la lauréate du prix Nobel de la paix Mairead Maguire en 2019 lorsqu’elle a nominé Assange pour le prix, “Julian Assange remplit tous les critères pour le prix Nobel de la paix.   Grâce à sa divulgation d’informations cachées au public, nous ne sommes plus naïfs face aux atrocités de la guerre, ni inconscients des liens entre les grandes entreprises et l’acquisition de ressources et de butin de guerre. Comme ses droits humains et sa liberté sont en danger, le prix Nobel de la paix offrirait à Julian une protection beaucoup plus grande contre les forces gouvernementales.”

Sa reconnaissance aurait beaucoup plus contribué à la cause de la paix mondiale car Assange a révélé les secrets de l’Empire américain, qui est la force principale de la culture de la guerre. Ceux qui ont reçu le prix cette année ont attaqué des pays secondaires : les Philippines et la Russie. Certes, ces pays font aussi partie de la culture de la guerre, mais ils ne sont pas responsables des guerres en Irak, en Afghanistan, en Syrie et en Libye, des bases militaires à travers le monde, du renversement systématique de quiconque est élu à la tête un pays qui ne soutient pas l’Empire américain, et pour le soutien des pires dictatures et bellicistes responsables de guerres comme celle du Yémen.

Assange a révélé les atrocités américaines en Irak et en Afghanistan et l’implication de la CIA dans des guerres secrètes à travers le monde.

Et à cause de son journalisme courageux, il continue d’être attaqué par l’Empire américain, au point qu’il a été récemment révélé que la CIA avait demandé la permission au président Trump de l’assassiner.

Ironiquement, le prix Nobel de la paix a été décerné au président Obama à un moment où il engageait les poursuites contre Assange et où son administration commençait la guerre secrète des drones, peut-être l’avancée la plus dangereuse de la culture de la guerre. Et Assange révélait les secrets de l’administration Obama.

En fait, tant que nous suggérons qui aurait dû remporter le prix, pourquoi ne pas ajouter Edward Snowden qui est également recherché par les États-Unis pour avoir révélé leur culture des secrets de guerre ? Et Daniel Ellsberg qui fut le premier lanceur d’alerte, révélant les secrets de la guerre du Vietnam, et qui continue de se prononcer en faveur de Snowden et Assange? Et pourquoi ne pas ajouter Mordecai Vanunu, emprisonné pendant 18 ans après avoir révélé le secret des armes nucléaires d’Israël, et qui continue d’être harcelé par le gouvernement israélien? Et Daniel Hale, récemment emprisonné pour avoir révélé les secrets de la guerre des drones américains?

Tous ces dénonciateurs qui ont révélé les secrets de la culture de guerre américaine et de ses alliés, apportent une grande contribution à la conscience anti-guerre du monde qui est un élément clé des développements qui peuvent éventuellement produire une transition vers la culture de la paix.

AFGHANISTAN IS NOT THE END

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

The loss of the war of the war launched by the Americans in Afghanistan is the latest in a long list beginning with the loss of Germany and Japan in World War II and extending through the failure of the American wars in Korea and Vietnam. It is no longer profitable to launch a war.

Times have changed since the middle of the 20th Century. Before then, with the exception of World War I, war was a profitable business. It provided the colonies that enriched the European countries and ensured the neo-colonial domination of the United States over Latin America. The violence by which the colonial powers subjugated their colonies was so one-sided that they were not even recognized as wars.

In my previous blog, entiled Update on the Culture of War, I pointed out that the culture of war is now on the defensive. The progress of democracy and the rejection of war by the citizenry has forced countries, especially the American Empire, to avoid open warfare and to attack other countries by secret means or after invented and false provocations.

But Afghanistan is not the end. the culture of war continues to dominate human history. The great powers continue to increase their military spending, establish foreign military bases and prepare for nuclear war that risks the total destruction of the planet.

Can this be sustained?

It certainly cannot be sustained if there is a nuclear war: As Albert Einstein warned us in 1946, The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.

But even if there is not a nuclear war, it cannot be sustained forever. As Karl Marx put it, spending money on the military is like throwing money into the sea. It produces nothing of value. And eventually an economy that produces nothing of value will crash from its own internal contradiction. This is the contradiction that produced the crash of the Soviet Empire in 1989. And this is one of the contradictions that led Johan Galtung to predict the end of the American Empire in the year 2020.

The crash of the global system in World War I set the stage for the first attempt at a new system of governance in the League of Nations.`

The crash of World War II set the stage for another attempt in the United Nations.

A crash of nuclear war would produced “unparalleled catastrophe.”

But a global economic crash would prepare a window of opportunity to produce a new system of global governance capable of promoting a culture of peace.

The window of opportunity may be very brief, so we must prepare now to take advantage of it.

The Declaration for the Transition to a Culture of Peace in the XXI Century is a first step in the preparation that is needed. It is being disseminated widely in Latin America and we need to extend this to the rest of the world.

Go here for more information and to add your signature.

* * * * *

L’AFGHANISTAN N’EST PAS LA FIN

La perte de la guerre lancées par les Américains en Afghanistan est la dernière d’une longue à commençer par celles à l’initiative de l’Allemagne et du Japon, lors de la Seconde Guerre mondiale et se prolongeant par l’échec américain en Corée et au Vietnam. Il n’est plus rentable de financer une guerre !

Les temps ont changé depuis le milieu du 20e siècle. Avant cela, à l’exception de la Première Guerre mondiale, la guerre était une entreprise rentable. Elle a fourni les colonies qui ont enrichi les pays européens et assuré la domination néo-coloniale des États-Unis sur l’Amérique latine. La violence par laquelle les puissances coloniales ont soumis leurs colonies était si unilatérale qu’elles n’étaient même pas reconnues comme des guerres !

Dans mon précédent blog, intitulé Mise à jour sur la culture de la guerre, j’ai souligné que la culture de la guerre est désormais sur la défensive. Les progrès de la démocratie et le rejet de la guerre par les citoyens ont contraint des pays, en particulier l’Empire américain, à éviter la guerre ouverte et à attaquer d’autres pays par des moyens secrets ou après de fausses provocations inventées.

Mais l’Afghanistan n’est pas la fin. la culture de la guerre continue de dominer l’histoire humaine. Les grandes puissances continuent d’augmenter leurs dépenses militaires, d’établir des bases militaires étrangères et à se préparer à une guerre nucléaire qui risque la destruction totale de la planète.

Cela peut-il continuer ?

Certainement pas s’il y a une guerre nucléaire !! Comme nous l’avait prévenu Albert Einstein en 1946, la puissance déchaînée de l’atome a tout changé, sauf nos modes de pensée et nous dérivons ainsi vers une catastrophe sans précédent.

Mais même s’il n’y a pas de guerre nucléaire, elle ne peut pas continuer indéfiniment. Comme l’a dit Karl Marx, dépenser de l’argent pour l’armée, c’est comme jeter de l’argent à la mer. Il ne produit pas de valeur. Et finalement, une économie qui ne produit pas de valeur s’effondrera à cause de sa propre contradiction interne. C’est la contradiction qui a produit le krach de l’empire soviétique en 1989. Et c’est l’une des contradictions qui ont conduit Johan Galtung à prédire la fin de l’empire américain en 2020.

L’effondrement du système mondial pendant la Première Guerre mondiale a ouvert la voie à la première tentative d’un nouveau système de gouvernance au sein de la Société des Nations.

Le crash de la Seconde Guerre mondiale a ouvert la voie à une autre tentative aux Nations Unies.

Un effondrement de la guerre nucléaire produirait une “catastrophe sans précédent”.

Mais un krach économique mondial préparerait une fenêtre d’opportunité pour produire un nouveau système de gouvernance mondiale capable de promouvoir une culture de la paix.

La fenêtre d’opportunité peut être très brève, nous devons donc nous préparer dès maintenant à en profiter.

La Déclaration pour la transition vers une culture de la paix au XXIe siècle est un premier pas dans la préparation qui s’impose. Il est largement diffusé en Amérique latine et nous devons l’étendre au reste du monde.

Allez ici pour plus d’informations et pour ajouter votre signature.

CULTURE OF WAR UPDATE

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

Two years ago in this blog, I wrote the following:

“There has been so much advance in both democracy and anti-war consciousness over the past few centuries that the state has found it increasingly difficult to get popular support for its wars, overt and covert, and its threats of war. People no longer will vote for this. To get around this problem and to continue its culture of war, the state has increasingly resorted to secret war, secret threats, and outright lies in order to justify its overt warfare. The war against Vietnam was justified by an invented attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. The war against Iraq was justified by the invented “weapons of mass destruction.” The control of information has become a crucial means for the culture of war – without this control it cannot be sustained.”

Recent events confirm this analysis. Their presentation in the commercial mass media has been controlled to mask the covert warfare of the American empire.

Cuba. As described on the website of FAIR: “A wave of protests in Cuba became the somewhat unlikely focus of global attention earlier this week, the events becoming the worldwide No. 1 trend on Twitter for over 24 hours, as celebrities, politicians and even the president of the United States weighed in on the action. . . . However, while giving the protests a great deal of coverage, the corporate press across the political spectrum consistently downplayed one of the primary causes of unrest: the increasingly punitive US blockade.” In other words, the US carries out an economic war against Cuba and then uses the press to justify it.

Nicaragua. A similar covert war has been carried out against Nicaragua. Here is the description reported in Prensa Latina: “The Cuban ambassador to Nicaragua, Juan Carlos Hernández), said today that Sunday’s events in his country follow the same script as what happened in Nicaragua with the failed coup attempt in 2018. We are in the presence of a preconceived script that Nicaragua is not strange to, such as the use of vandalism by the ‘Protesters’, the diplomat stated in his appearance in Live magazine of Channel Four on Nicaraguan television. He explained the use of social networks from abroad to encourage violence and take advantage of the difficult conditions imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic in order to provoke protests.”

Venezuela: Two years ago we reprinted an article in CPNN concerning the US economic war against Venezuela and the control of media reports in order to justify the aggression. The author,  Eric Zuesse, writing in Transcend Media Service compared this to many other similar interventions by the US: “Over the past sixty years, non-conventional economic wars have been waged against Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua, the Syrian Arab Republic and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in order to make their economies fail, facilitate regime change and impose a neo-liberal socioeconomic model. In order to discredit selected governments, failures in the field of human rights are maximized so as to make violent overthrow more palatable. . . . . Other than readers of that single newspaper, where has the public been able to find these facts? If the public can have these facts hidden from them, then how much trust should the public reasonably have in the government, and in the news-media?”

Bolivia: More recently in another article by Eric Zuesse reprinted in CPNN , he states that “Without a doubt, the coup d’état in Bolivia is part of the tradition of the old military coups sponsored by the United States since the end of World War II. However, this practice dates back even further, as the history books show us. That means that the soft coup that was applied against Manuel Zelaya in Honduras, Lugo in Paraguay and Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, has been abandoned and the old formulas have returned. In Bolivia, the old formulas were applied, because in reality there was no possible propagandistic basis for the coup.”

A recent revelation supports the American role in the coup in Bolivia. It is reported by the website TV Mundus: “The coup general who demanded the resignation of President Evo Morales went to live in the United States. Just 72 hours after the coup, Williams Kaliman went to live in the United States without knowing exactly in which state he will hide after having collected a million dollars. The Charge d’Affaires of the US Embassy in La Paz was in charge of giving one million dollars to each military chief and five hundred thousand of the same currency to each police chief. Between the mutiny of the policemen that allowed the vindictive chaos against the socialists and indigenous people and the inaction of the Army, the coup was implemented. . . . . Kaliman was immediately replaced by the self-proclaimed President Janine Añez and in this way, together with the other military chiefs, they left for the United States, safe from any immediate investigation by the local and international community.” This information, like other analyses of the Bolivian coup, has never been reprinted by the mainstream media.

Brazil: The arrest and jailing of former Brazilian President Lula da Silva in April 2018 opened the door to far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro, who came to power with the support of the United States and powerful corporate interests. New information indicates that the US was involved as in the countries listed above. According to an article in the Brazil Wire Newsletter, in 2019 the US Department of Justice attempted to pay the Lava Jato task force a $682 million dollar kickback. This was the task force that produced the false evidence used to convict Lula. As they remark, “Over the past 4 years, as most Anglo media completely ignored the issue, Brasil Wire has extensively covered US government involvement in the Lava Jato corruption investigation.”

Syria. American secret wars and media control is not confined to Latin America. In Syria, the United States and its allies funded the White Helmets organization which provided false propaganda to justify US military intervention against the Syrian government. This was exposed by Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, but the mainstream media continued to carry the White Helmets propaganda.

Xinjiang, China. The most recent example of secret intervention and media control comes in the context of Biden’s renewal of a Cold War with China. As described on the website Yilan, “Recently, there has been a flood of posts on various other social media platforms, decrying outrage over alleged abuse of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang. These posts claim that Uyghur Muslims are being skinned alive, tortured, starved, and raped in Nazi Germany style concentration camps. According to these posts, the camps seek to indoctrinate Uyghur Muslims into abandoning their Uyghur and Muslim culture. Essentially, these posts are stating that China is engaging in a genocide of Uyghur Muslims.”

Indeed, Uyghur Muslims have been relocated to camps in Xinjiang. But why? Here is where the media fails to give full information. For a long time, the Central Intelligence Agency has financed an organization called ETIM to promote Uyghur independence from China. This is important in the context of the new Cold War because Xinjiang is a key transportation region for the Chinese economic venture, the belt and road initiative, for trade with the Middle East and Europe. The Uyghur camps have been established in response to the CIA-funded terrorist operations.

As described in Yilan, “The ETIM is designated a terrorist organization by many countries for good reason. To quote from a report by the United Nations Security Council, ‘In recent years, ETIM has set up bases outside China to train terrorists and has dispatched its members to China to plot and execute terrorist acts including bombing buses, cinemas, department stores, markets and hotels.” There have been fewer attacks since the camps were established by the Chinese government as a response to these interventions.

As for the media coverage, according to Yilan, “The two main sources that are pushing the narrative of these centers being torture sites include Radio Free Asia, which is unsurprisingly also funded by the CIA, and a man named Adrien Zenz.” (See this analysis of Zenz).

None of this is to defend violations of human rights in the context of the culture of war by the opponents of the United States, but at the present time, it is the American empire that is dominating the culture of war.

That is the bad news, but there is good news as well. Returning to our point of departure, it is “the advance in both democracy and anti-war consciousness over the past few centuries that [explains why] the state has found it increasingly difficult to get popular support for its wars.”

In fact, by disseminating the above information, we contribute to further democracy and further increase in anti-war consciousness.

It does not seem likely that the advance in democracy and anti-war consciousness can overthrow the American Empire and its culture of war, but this empire, like its predecessor, the Soviet Empire, will eventually collapse from its own contradictions. At that point, there will be a window of opportunity. And at that point, the development of democracy and anti-war consciousness will be essential if we are to make a radical change in global governance, a United Nations based directly on the people and promoting a culture of peace.

* * * * *

MISE À JOUR SUR LA CULTURE DE LA GUERRE

Il y a deux ans dans ce blog, j’ai écrit ce qui suit :

“Il y a eu tellement de progrès dans la démocratie et la conscience anti-guerre au cours des derniers siècles que l’État a de plus en plus de mal à obtenir le soutien populaire pour ses guerres, ouvertes et secrètes, et ses menaces de guerre. Les gens ne le feront plus votez pour cela. Pour contourner ce problème et pour continuer sa culture de guerre, l’État a de plus en plus recours à la guerre secrète, aux menaces secrètes et au mensonge pur et simple afin de justifier sa guerre ouverte. La guerre contre le Vietnam a été justifiée par une attaque inventée dans le golfe du Tonkin. La guerre contre l’Irak a été justifiée par les “armes de destruction massive” inventées. Le contrôle de l’information est devenu un moyen crucial pour la culture de la guerre – sans ce contrôle, il ne peut pas être maintenu”.

Les événements récents confirment cette analyse. Leur présentation dans les médias commerciaux a été contrôlée pour masquer la guerre secrète de l’empire américain.

Cuba. Comme décrit sur le site Web de FAIR : « Une vague de manifestations à Cuba est devenue le centre d’attention mondial cette semaine, les événements devenant la tendance n ° 1 sur Twitter pendant plus de 24 heures; célébrités, politiciens et même le président des États-Unis ont pesé sur l’action. . . Cependant, tout en donnant une large couverture aux manifestations, la presse commerciale à travers l’éventail politique ,a constamment minimisé l’une des principales causes de troubles : le blocus américain de plus en plus punitif. » En d’autres termes, les États-Unis mènent une guerre économique contre Cuba et utilisent ensuite la presse pour la justifier.

Nicaragua. Une guerre secrète similaire a été menée contre le Nicaragua. Voici la description rapportée dans Prensa Latina : « L’ambassadeur de Cuba au Nicaragua, Juan Carlos Hernández, a déclaré aujourd’hui que les événements de dimanche dans son pays suivent le même scénario que ce qui s’est passé au Nicaragua avec la tentative de coup d’État ratée en 2018. Nous sommes dans le présence d’un scénario préconçu auquel le Nicaragua n’est pas étranger, comme l’utilisation du vandalisme par les « manifestants », a déclaré le diplomate lors de son apparition dans le magazine Live de Channel Four à la télévision nicaraguayenne. Il a expliqué l’utilisation des réseaux sociaux de l’étranger pour encourager la violence et profiter des conditions difficiles imposées par la pandémie de Covid-19 pour provoquer des protestations. »

Venezuela : Il y a deux ans, nous avons réimprimé un article dans CPNN concernant la guerre économique des États-Unis contre le Venezuela et le contrôle des reportages des médias afin de justifier l’agression. L’auteur, Eric Zuesse, écrivant dans Transcend Media Service, a comparé cela à de nombreuses autres interventions similaires des États-Unis : « Au cours des soixante dernières années, des guerres économiques non conventionnelles ont été menées contre Cuba, le Chili, le Nicaragua, la République arabe syrienne et le République bolivarienne du Venezuela afin de faire échouer leur économie, de faciliter le changement de régime et d’imposer un modèle socio-économique néolibéral. Afin de discréditer certains gouvernements, les échecs dans le domaine des droits de l’Homme sont maximisés afin de rendre les renversements violents plus acceptables. . (…) À part les lecteurs de ce seul journal, où le public a-t-il pu trouver ces faits ? Si les faits peuvent être cachés du public, alors quelle confiance le public devrait-il raisonnablement avoir dans le gouvernement et dans les médias?”

Bolivie : Plus récemment, dans un autre article d’Eric Zuesse réimprimé dans CPNN, il déclare que « Sans aucun doute, le coup d’État en Bolivie fait partie de la tradition des vieux coups d’État militaires parrainés par les États-Unis depuis la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Cependant, cette pratique remonte encore plus loin, comme nous le montrent les livres d’histoire. Cela signifie que le coup d’État en douceur qui a été appliqué contre Manuel Zelaya au Honduras, Lugo au Paraguay et Dilma Rousseff au Brésil, a été abandonné et les anciennes formules sont revenues. En Bolivie, les anciennes formules ont été appliquées, car en réalité il n’y avait aucune base propagandiste possible pour un coup d’État. »

Une révélation récente soutient le rôle américain dans le coup d’État en Bolivie. Il est rapporté par le site TV Mundus : « Le leader du coup d’État qui a demandé la démission du président Evo Morales est parti aux États-Unis. 72 heures seulement après. Williams Kaliman, c’est son nom, est allé vivre aux États-Unis sans savoir exactement dans quel état il allait pouvoir se cacher après avoir collecté un million de dollars! Le chargé d’affaires de l’ambassade des États-Unis à La Paz était chargé de remettre un million de dollars à chaque chef militaire et cinq cent mille de la même monnaie à chaque chef de police. Entre le mutinerie des policiers qui a permis le chaos vindicatif contre les socialistes et les indigènes et l’inaction de l’armée, le coup d’État a pu être mis en œuvre. . . . . Kaliman a été immédiatement remplacé par la présidente autoproclamée Janine Añez et ainsi, avec les autres chefs militaires, ils sont partis pour les États-Unis, à l’abri de toute enquête immédiate de la communauté locale et internationale.” Cette information, comme d’autres analyses du coup d’État bolivien, n’a jamais été réimprimée par les médias grand public.

Brésil : L’arrestation et l’emprisonnement de l’ancien président brésilien Lula da Silva en avril 2018 ont ouvert la porte au candidat d’extrême droite Jair Bolsonaro, arrivé au pouvoir avec le soutien des États-Unis et de puissants intérêts commerciaux. De nouvelles informations indiquent que les États-Unis étaient impliqués comme dans les pays énumérés ci-dessus. Selon un article du Brazil Wire Newsletter en 2019, le ministère américain de la Justice a tenté de payer au groupe de travail Lava Jato un pot-de-vin de 682 millions de dollars. C’est le groupe de travail qui a produit les fausses preuves utilisées pour condamner Lula. Comme ils le font remarquer, “Au cours des 4 dernières années, comme la plupart des médias anglophones qui ont complètement ignoré le problème, Brasil Wire a largement couvert l’implication du gouvernement américain dans l’enquête sur la corruption de Lava Jato.”

Syrie. Les guerres secrètes américaines et le contrôle des médias ne se limitent pas à l’Amérique latine. En Syrie, les États-Unis et leurs alliés ont financé l’organisation des Casques blancs qui a fourni une fausse propagande pour justifier l’intervention militaire américaine contre le gouvernement syrien. Cela a été révélé par Médecins suédois pour les droits de l’Homme, mais les médias grand public ont continué à diffuser la propagande des Casques blancs.

Xinjiang, Chine. L’exemple le plus récent d’intervention secrète et de contrôle des médias survient dans le contexte du renouvellement par Biden d’une guerre froide avec la Chine. Comme décrit sur le site Web Yilan, « Récemment, il y a eu un flot de messages sur diverses autres plateformes de médias sociaux, décriant l’indignation face aux allégations d’abus de musulmans ouïghours au Xinjiang. et violées dans des camps de concentration de style allemand nazi. Selon ces messages, les camps cherchent à endoctriner les musulmans ouïghours pour qu’ils abandonnent leur culture ouïghoure et musulmane. Essentiellement, ces messages déclarent que la Chine se livre à un génocide des musulmans ouïghours. ”

En effet, les musulmans ouïghours ont été relogés dans des camps au Xinjiang. Mais pourquoi? C’est ici que les médias ne parviennent pas à donner des informations complètes. Pendant longtemps, la Central Intelligence Agency a financé une organisation appelée ETIM pour promouvoir l’indépendance des Ouïghours vis-à-vis de la Chine. Ceci est important dans le contexte de la nouvelle guerre froide, car le Xinjiang est une région de transport clé pour l’entreprise économique Chinoise, l’initiative  « Une ceinture, une route », pour le commerce Chinois avec le Moyen-Orient et l’Europe. Les camps ouïghours ont été créés en réponse aux opérations terroristes financées par la CIA.

Comme décrit dans Yilan, « L’ETIM est désignée organisation terroriste par de nombreux pays pour une bonne raison. Pour citer un rapport du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies, « Ces dernières années, l’ETIM a établi des bases en dehors de la Chine pour former des terroristes et a envoyé ses membres en Chine pour comploter et exécuter des actes terroristes, notamment des attentats à la bombe dans des bus, des cinémas, des grands magasins, des marchés et des hôtels. » Il y a eu moins d’attaques depuis que les camps ont été créés par le gouvernement Chinois en réponse à ces interventions.

Quant à la couverture médiatique, selon Yilan, “Les deux principales sources qui poussent le récit de ces centres comme des sites de torture sont Radio Free Asia, qui est sans surprise également financée par la CIA, et un homme nommé Adrien Zenz.” (Voir cette analyse de Zenz).

Rien de tout cela n’est pour défendre les violations des droits de l’Homme dans le cadre de la culture de la guerre par les opposants aux États-Unis, mais à l’heure actuelle, c’est l’empire américain qui domine la culture de la guerre.

C’est une mauvaise nouvelle, mais il y a aussi une bonne nouvelle. Pour en revenir à notre point de départ, c’est « l’avancée de la démocratie et de la conscience anti-guerre au cours des derniers siècles qui [explique pourquoi] l’État a de plus en plus de mal à obtenir le soutien populaire pour ses guerres ».

En fait, en diffusant les informations ci-dessus, nous contribuons à faire avancer la démocratie et à accroître encore la conscience anti-guerre.

Il ne semble pas probable que l’avancée de la démocratie et de la conscience anti-guerre puisse renverser l’empire américain et sa culture de guerre, mais cet empire, comme son prédécesseur, l’empire soviétique, finira par s’effondrer à cause de ses propres contradictions. Il y aura une fenêtre d’opportunité. Et à ce point lá, le développement de la démocratie et de la conscience anti-guerre sera essentiel si on peut faire un changement radical dans la gouvernance mondiale, une Organisation des Nations Unies basée directement sur le peuple et promouvant une culture de paix.

UN SECURITY COUNCIL: KEY REFORM FOR A CULTURE OF PEACE

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

In last month’s blog, we presented a utopian vision for Jerusalam as a turning point in the transition to a culture of peace. It was taken from my novella, “I have seen the promised land.”

Looking further into the novella, we find a second turning point in the transition, the achievement of universal nuclear disarmament.

And the key to both of these turning points is the reform of the United Nations Security Council, which, at the present time, is controlled by the nuclear powers and unable to act in the Middle East because of alliances with the State of Israel.

Here is how the novella imagines the reform of the Security Council, as of the year 2026:

“When we all got started on the Transition a few years ago . . . the United Nations was still a disaster. It is hard to overestimate the extent to which the UN was paralyzed following the Crash of ’20 and the Davos Coup. Its stock, like that of Wall Street, had fallen to the point that it was essentially worthless. Many said that its day was over, like that of its predecessor, the League of Nations. The old order, established after World War II, that the “Allies” should run the Security Council, had been disintegrating for many years since the turn of the Century, but all attempts at reform were unsuccessful. . . .

The first breakthrough here in New York came when the permanent members of the Security Council, Britain, France, US, China and Russia, agreed to stand down and to suspend, at least temporarily, the functions of the Council. This enabled negotiations to go forward for a new representational system in the Council. We will probably never know all the details of the negotiations that went on between the Nobel Group and the five great powers. . . . .

It was the Nobel Peace Laureates who cut the Gordian Knot, and they did it through a year of mediation, not by a single stroke of the sword. To me this symbolizes in a single image the transition to a culture of peace! It cannot be achieved overnight. There is no single decisive battle, but only the long patient process of dialogue, listening, and negotiation. As my African friends have always said, “A culture of peace is not built. It is cultivated.”

In the end, the agreement was reached. Those regional organizations previously based on state power, that could reorganize themselves on the basis of local and provincial representation were granted a seat in the new Security Council. . . .

In a few weeks, we will mark the first anniversary of the Transition Security Council, and what a year it has been! In only one year, the Transition Council has revitalized the disarmament process. Already, the International Atomic Energy Commission has announced a schedule of nuclear disarmament that should be completed within the year. And, most dramatic of all, they have succeeded where a Century of efforts by the nation-states failed; they have brought a viable peace plan to the Middle East. It was one thing when the Wall came down in 2021, but that was only a beginning. In a few months we will have the reunification of Jerusalem, and it will be cause for great celebration. The culture of peace has come of age!”

The preceding vision of a reformed Security Council has led me in recent years to call for the establishment of a new initiative, an alternative Security Council, independent of the nation-states.

At the present time, the Security Council of the United Nations does not not represent the interests of ordinary people, but rather the influence of lobbies, such as arms manufacturing companies, that determine the policies of the nation-states. On the other hand, a new institution should represent the people more directly. It should be democratically elected and should be close to the interests of the people.

For this reason, a good option is to establish a Mayors Security Council, composed of a rotating group of democratically-elected mayors from all the regions of the world. They tend to be close to the interests of ordinary citizens, concerned with the day-to-day problems of education, with citizen safety, and quality of life in general. Cities have no enemies, no need to prepare for war !

Mayors have no use for nuclear weapons and a Mayors Security Council would quickly decide to take serious steps towards their abolition.

Mayors have no reason to intervene in the Middle East, unlike the interventions by the United States and its allies in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. And probably they would agree on effective steps towards peace between Israel and Palestine.

At first, such a Council would not have any power of action, but it would publish regular press-releases about what they would do if they were faced with the questions before the actual UN Security Council. The press releases would help develop the consciousness that “another world is possible”.

And, if some of us are correct that the world is on the verge of radical transformations, the time may come when a Mayors Security Council can become the real United Nations Security Council.

In any case, what we have now is not promoting a culture of peace. What we need is radical change, and the UN Security Council is a key point to be changed.

* * * * *

CONSEIL DE SÉCURITÉ DE L’ONU : UNE RÉFORME CLÉ POUR UNE CULTURE DE LA PAIX

Dans le blog du mois dernier, nous avons présenté une vision utopique de Jérusalem comme un point tournant dans la transition vers une culture de paix. Il a été tiré de ma nouvelle, “J’ai vu la terre promise.”

En lisant la nouvelle, nous trouvons un deuxième tournant dans la transition, la réalisation du désarmement nucléaire universel.

Et la clé de ces deux points tournants est la réforme du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies, qui, à l’heure actuelle, est contrôlé par les puissances nucléaires et incapable d’agir au Moyen-Orient en raison d’alliances avec l’État d’Israël.

Voici comment la nouvelle imagine la réforme du Conseil de sécurité, à partir de l’année 2026 :

Quand on s’est lancé sur la Transition il y a quelques années . . . “les Nations Unies restaient un désastre. Il est difficile d’estimer la mesure dans laquelle elles ont été paralysées après la crise de 2020 et le coup d’État de Davos. Leur stock, comme celui de Wall Street, avait tellement baissé qu’il n’avait pratiquement aucune valeur. Beaucoup ont dit que ses jours étaient révolus, comme ceux de son prédécesseur, la Ligue des Nations . Le vieil ordre, établi après la Seconde Guerre mondiale et dans lequel les “alliés” devaient diriger le Conseil de sécurité, avait été désintégré bien des années auparavant, au début du siècle, mais toutes les tentatives de réforme ont échoué.. . . .

La première percée est survenue à New York lorsque les membres permanents du Conseil de sécurité, la Grande-Bretagne, la France, les États-Unis, la Chine et la Russie, ont convenu de réduire et de suspendre, au moins temporairement, les fonctions du Conseil. Cela a permis aux négociations d’avancer vers un nouveau système de représentation. Nous ne connaîtrons probablement jamais tous les détails des négociations entre le groupe Nobel et les cinq grandes puissances.. . . . .

Ce sont les lauréats du prix Nobel de la paix qui ont coupé le nœud gordien, et s’ils l’ont fait pendant une année de médiation ce ne fut pas d’un seul coup d’épée. Pour moi, cela symbolise une image de la transition vers une Culture de la Paix! Cela ne peut pas se faire du jour au lendemain. Il n’y a pas de bataille décisive, mais seulement le long et patient processus de dialogue, d’écoute et de négociation. Comme mes amis africains me l’ont toujours dit, “une culture de paix ne se construit pas, elle se cultive.”

En fin de compte, un accord a été conclu: les organisations régionales, auparavant basées sur un pouvoir d’État qui pouvait se réorganiser sur la base d’une représentation locale et provinciale, ont obtenu un siège au nouveau Conseil de sécurité. . . . .

Dans quelques semaines, nous marquerons le premier anniversaire du Conseil de sécurité de la transition, et quelle année cela a été ! Un an seulement, depuis que le Conseil de transition a relancé le processus de désarmement. Déjà, la Commission internationale de l’énergie atomique a annoncé un calendrier de désarmement nucléaire qui devrait être achevé dans l’année. Et, le plus remarquable, c’est d’avoir réussi là où un siècle d’efforts des états-nations a échoué; ils ont apporté un plan de paix viable au Moyen-Orient. La chute du mur en 2021 était un événement, mais ce n’était que le début. Dans quelques mois, nous verrons la réunification de Jérusalem et ce sera une grande fête. L’ère de la culture de la paix est arrivée!”

La vision précédente d’un Conseil de sécurité réformé m’a conduit ces dernières années à appeler à la mise en place d’une nouvelle initiative, un Conseil de sécurité alternatif, indépendant des États-nations.

Actuellement le Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies ne représente pas les intérêts des citoyens et citoyennes du monde, mais plutôt l’influence de lobbies, tels que les entreprises de fabrication d’armes, qui déterminent les politiques des États-nation. Par contre, une nouvelle institution devrait représenter les intérêts des des peuples. Il doit être élu démocratiquement et doit être proche du peuple.

Pour cette raison, une bonne option consisterait à établir un Conseil de sécurité des maires, composé d’un groupe tournant de maires élus démocratiquement, de toutes les régions du monde. Ces maires seraient plus proches des intérêts des citoyens, soucieux des problèmes quotidiens liés à l’éducation, à la sécurité, et à la qualité de vie en général. Les villes n’ont pas d’ennemis, donc pas besoin de se préparer à la guerre !

En effet, ils n’ont aucun interêt pour les armes nucléaires et un Conseil de sécurité des maires déciderait rapidement de prendre des mesures sérieuses en vue de leur abolition.

Ils n’ont donc aucune raison à intervenir au Moyen-Orient, contrairement aux interventions des états, les États-Unis et leurs alliés en Irak, en Syrie, en Afghanistan, en Libye, etc. Et ils seraient probablement d’accord sur des mesures efficaces vers la paix entre Israël et la Palestine.

Dans un premier temps, un tel Conseil n’aurait aucun pouvoir d’action, mais publierait des communiqués de presse réguliers sur ce qu’ils feraient s’ils étaient confrontés aux questions soumises au Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU. Les communiqués de presse aideraient à développer la conscience qu’un “autre monde est possible”.

Si certains d’entre nous ont raison de dire que le monde est au bord de transformations radicales, peut-être qu’un Conseil de sécurité des maires pourrait, dans un second temps, pourrait devenir le véritable Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies.

En tout cas, ce que nous avons maintenant, ce n’est pas la promotion d’une culture de la paix. Ce dont nous avons besoin, c’est d’un changement radical, et le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU est un point clé à changer.

A UTOPIAN VISION FOR JERUSALEM

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

We have over five years remaining before the events I imagined as follows in my novella, “I have seen the promised land.” More than ever, I think that this is an essential turning point in the road we need to follow to achieve the transition from the culture of war to a culture of peace.

January 1, 2027

I can’t remember the last time that I stayed up all night for something. But that’s what we did last night at the assembly hall of the University for Peace. And there were millions of others like us who did the same in their churches and their meeting halls and in their homes. The broadcast was live from Jerusalem where the hour is 7 hours ahead of us.

Jerusalem is now a City of Peace. The ceremony was incredible!

Everyone was there. The Pope, the highest rabbis of the Jewish faith, the leaders from all Islamic orders, the Copts, the Russian Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox, dozens of different Protestant leaders, the Baha’i, even the Georgian Christians, all in their colorful robes and gowns. Even Buddhists and other Eastern religions and indigenous shamans got their turn to speak. Never before in history has there been such a gathering of all religions. I did not even see a single policeman or soldier in evidence, at least not on the Internet projection screen.

For me the most amazing moment was the appearance of Desmond Tutu, now 96 years old! It was he who first declared that the Palestinians were victims of Apartheid and that like the South Africans, they would eventually gain their freedom. Over the years he has come to symbolize, perhaps more than anyone else, the nonviolent struggle for a solution in the Middle East, and now the new Jerusalem is its shining symbol! He spoke for only a moment, but the old sparkle was still in his eye as he gave up a prayer of thanks. Around the world, our eyes were filled with tears.

Then came the dancing and singing. As if they had been dammed up over the years and now burst forth in an explosion of rhythm and color! I was proud of the role of the Culture of Peace Tourism Board, which has worked for decades now behind the scenes to produce the agreement, understanding that Jerusalem is part of our common human heritage, regardless of religion, and that it will be the greatest of all tourist attractions now that it is shared in peace. And I am proud of the new United Nations, without which this would never have been possible!

Last night was the first time that the mass media has given priority to the culture of peace. I had thought that all the internet publicity over the past few years would have forced the media to talk about it sooner. But it took the Jerusalem accords and the ceremonies last night to finally get their full attention.

* * * * *

Is this vision realistic? It is utopian, but it is possible, as indicated by the title of my books translated into Spanish, “Cultura de paz: una utopía posible“. For one thing, within the next five years, we can expect to see the crash of the American empire, of which Israel has been one of its most important outposts, sustained annually by billions of American dollars, American weapons and American vetoes in the UN Security Council.

But most important, the recent Israeli war against the Palestinians has united the Palestinian people and increased support for them around the world, as indicated in this month’s CPNN bulletin. Just as South African apartheid was defeated by a combination of struggle within the country and support from the international community, so, too, the Israeli apartheid can be overcome. Let us hope that the Palestinians will have their equivalent of Nelson Mandela to lead the way to peace.

* * * * *

UNE VISION UTOPIQUE POUR JÉRUSALEM

Il nous reste cinq ans avant les événements que j’imaginais dans ma nouvelle, “j’ai vu la terre promise.” Plus que jamais, je pense qu’il s’agit d’un tournant essentiel dans la voie que nous devons suivre pour passer de la culture de la guerre à une culture de la paix.

1 janvier 2027

Je ne me souviens pas de la dernière fois où je suis resté debout toute la nuit pour quelque chose. Mais c’est ce que nous avons fait hier soir dans la salle de réunion de l’Université pour la paix. Et il y avait des millions d’autres comme nous qui ont fait de même dans leur église et leur salle de réunion et dans leur maison. L’émission était en direct de Jérusalem où le décalage horaire est de 7 heures.
 
Jérusalem est maintenant une ville de paix ! La cérémonie a été incroyable !

Tout le monde était là. Le pape, les plus hauts rabbins de la foi juive, les chefs de tous les ordres islamiques, les coptes, les orthodoxes russes, les grecs orthodoxes, des dizaines de chefs protestants différents, les baha’is, même les chrétiens géorgiens, tous dans leurs robes et costumes colorés. Même les bouddhistes et autres religions orientales et les chamans indigènes ont eu leur temps de parole. Jamais auparavant dans l’Histoire il n’y a eu un tel rassemblement de toutes les religions. Je n’ai même pas vu un seul policier ou soldat, au moins pas sur l’écran de projection Internet.

Pour moi, le moment le plus étonnant a été l’apparition de Desmond Tutu, maintenant âgé de 96 ans! C’est lui qui a déclaré pour la première fois que les Palestiniens étaient victimes de l’apartheid et que, comme les Sud-Africains, ils finiraient par gagner leur liberté. Au fil des ans, il est venu pour symboliser, peut-être plus que quiconque, la lutte non violente pour une solution au Moyen-Orient, et maintenant la nouvelle Jérusalem est son symbole brillant ! Il parla brièvement, mais l’étincelle était toujours dans son œil lorsqu’il offrit une prière de remerciement. Nos yeux se sont remplis de larmes à travers le monde

Sont venus ensuite les danses et les chants. Comme s’ils se retenaient depuis des années et explosaient maintenant dans des éclats de rythmes et de couleurs!

J’étais fier du rôle du Conseil du tourisme de la culture de la paix, qui travaille depuis des décennies dans les coulisses pour élaborer l’accord, sachant que Jérusalem fait partie de notre patrimoine commun de l’humanité. Quelle que soit la religion, ce sera la plus grande de toutes les attractions touristiques, maintenant que la ville est partagée en toute tranquillité. Et je suis fier des nouvelles Nations Unies, sans lesquelles cela n’aurait jamais été possible!

Hier soir, c’était la première fois que les médias commerciales accordaient la priorité à la culture de la paix. J’avais pensé que toute la publicité sur Internet au cours des dernières années les aurait forcé à en parler plus tôt. Mais il a fallu les accords de Jérusalem et les cérémonies de la nuit dernière pour enfin obtenir toute leur attention.

* * * *

Cette vision est-elle réaliste? C’est utopique, mais c’est possible, comme l’indique le titre de mes livres traduits en espagnol, “Cultura de paz: una utopía posible“. D’une part, dans les cinq prochaines années, nous pouvons attendre le crash de l’empire américain, dont Israël a été l’un des avant-postes les plus importants, soutenu chaque année par des milliards de dollars américains, des armes américaines et des veto américains au Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU.

Mais le plus important, la récente guerre israélienne contre les Palestiniens a uni le peuple palestinien et accru son soutien dans le monde entier, comme indiqué dans le bulletin de CPNN de ce mois-ci. Tout comme l’apartheid sud-africain a été vaincu par une combinaison de luttes à l’intérieur du pays et de soutien de la communauté internationale, l’apartheid israélien peut également être vaincu. Espérons que les Palestiniens auront leur équivalent de Nelson Mandela pour ouvrir la voie à la paix !

NEWS FROM PALESTINE: THE MESSENGER REFUSES TO BE KILLED

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

The Israeli government has bombed the headquarters of Associated Press and Al Jazeera in Gaza, trying to limit messages from the Palestinian people to describe their suffering.

But the messenger refuses to be killed.  Here are some of the messages I have received from people in Palestine.

*  *  *  *

It’s been two weeks since we have all been witness to what is happening in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in East Jerusalem. News agencies have been covering the news and the violence of the Israeli settlers and army there. Tens of Palestinian activists were arrested, rubber bullets and tear gas was harshly used. Why all this? Because Palestinians are demonstrating in response to the eviction (ethnic cleansing) of 28 families from their homes in order to establish a new illegal settlement. The Nakbah, (the catastrophe that started in 1948) continues until this day.

This violence has not stopped since then and has intensified since the Israeli military occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. Palestinians have been severely oppressed by the direct Israeli military occupation, home demolition policy, land confiscation, administrative detention, restrictions of movement, abuse of natural resources and denial of freedom to worshiping for Palestinian Christians and Muslims in Jerusalem. Those acts have only been condemned by the International community which have never taken any steps to put Israel accountable for the oppression.

We at Holy Land Trust believe that as Palestinians we have to shape a future vision to see lasting and just peace in the Holy Land grounded by honoring the dignity and rights of all peoples through nonviolence, to resist the Israeli oppression and occupation in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.

We truly believe that violence only brings violence and hatred, and we cannot stop the circle of violence without healing our inherited traumas and fears, as well as raising awareness within the Israeli community about the daily acts of the Israeli settlers and army in the occupied territories, and create advocacy and solidarity to push Israel to end its bitter occupation of people and lands.

Jerusalem is a sacred city to all the monotheistic religions that can symbolize peace, harmony, acceptance of the other, and a space where everyone must enjoy freedom to worship.

We at Holy Land Trust highly condemn all acts of violence towards Palestinian Christian and Muslim worshippers in Jerusalem, and all kinds of violence implemented by the settlers against the innocent people of Sheikh Jarrah.

We kindly ask all of our friends around the globe to put pressure on their governments to stop Israel and its Apartheid system in Palestine, and to work together towards building a safe future to the coming generations in this land that we all call HOLY!

  • *  *  *  *

The last barbaric act of Israel is killing an entire family is Shati’ Refugee camp, one of the most overcrowded in Gaza and a home for 103,000 people living in an area 0.7 square kilometres. Children and  women killed as they’re sleeping. Paramedic told Al-Jazeera they are trying to save as many parts as possible from these bodies so they can be buried. In this picture, only a two-month baby Omar survived. This is a massacre of defenceless population. Please act, protest, share the message, write to your local elected parliamentarian demand to stop this unprecedented aggression on young community of refugee children and women in Gaza. #GazaUnderAttack

  • *  *  *  *

In Gaza, it is challenging for parents to provide security and safety for their young children, because they themselves are feeling unsafe, unsecured and in a state of trauma. My sister, Alaa, a mother and caregiver for two little children said “As bombs continue to fall, my little one who is barely speaking cannot stop saying: Mama khaf Mama khaf (Mum I’m frightened, Mum I am frightened)

  • *  *  *  *

Today I spoke with my family in Gaza. All of them are ready to be the target of death. They said to me that last night was a terrifying and horrible experience for them, unimaginable. My sisters said it was like the sky rained with showers of bombs. Tonight, my sisters and mom are wearing several layers of clothing so they are completely covered. They are holding their small hand bags. They told me, if we die we need to die with our bodies covered.

My heart beats fast. In that moment I was silent. I don’t know what to say to them. I hear their tone of voice is the true horror of what they feel. Now the bombing is being repeated in northern Gaza where my family and friends live. Pray for them

* * * * *

NOUVELLES DE PALESTINE: LES MESSAGES PASSENT MALGRE TOUT

Le gouvernement israélien a bombardé le siège d’Associated Press et d’Al Jazeera à Gaza , essayant de limiter les messages du peuple palestinien pour décrire ses souffrances.

Mais les messages passent malgré tout. Voici quelques-uns des messages que j’ai reçus de quelques personnes en Palestine.

* * * *

“Cela fait deux semaines que nous sommes témoins de ce qui se passe dans le quartier de Sheikh Jarrah à Jérusalem-Est. Les agences de presse ont couvert les informations de la violence des colons israéliens et de l’armée là-bas. Des dizaines d’activistes palestiniens ont été arrêtés, des balles en caoutchouc et des gaz lacrymogènes ont été durement utilisés. Pourquoi tout ça? Parce que le peuple Palestinien manifeste en réponse à l’expulsion (nettoyage ethnique) de 28 familles de leur maison afin d’établir une nouvelle colonie illégale. La Nakbah, (la catastrophe qui a commencé en 1948) se poursuit jusqu’à ce jour.

Cette violence n’a pas cessé depuis lors et s’est intensifiée depuis l’occupation militaire israélienne de Jérusalem-Est, de la Cisjordanie et de Gaza en 1967. Les Palestiniens ont été sévèrement opprimés par l’occupation militaire israélienne directe, la politique de démolition de maisons, la confiscation des terres, la détention administrative, les restrictions de déplacement, l’abus des ressources naturelles et le déni de la liberté de culte pour les chrétiens et musulmans palestiniens à Jérusalem. Ces actes ont été condamnés par la communauté internationale, mais les mesures pour rendre Israël responsable de l’oppression n’ont jamais été prises.

À Holy Land Trust, nous pensons qu’en tant que Palestiniens, nous devons façonner une vision future pour voir une paix durable et juste en Terre Sainte fondée sur le respect de la dignité et des droits de tous les peuples par la non-violence, pour résister à l’oppression et à l’occupation israéliennes à Jérusalem-Est, en Cisjordanie et à Gaza.

Nous croyons sincèrement que la violence n’apporte que violence et haine, et nous ne pouvons pas arrêter le cercle de violence sans guérir nos traumatismes et nos peurs hérités, ainsi que sensibiliser la communauté israélienne aux actes quotidiens des colons et de l’armée israéliens dans les territoires occupés. Et créer ainsi un plaidoyer et une solidarité pour pousser Israël à mettre fin à son amère occupation des peuples et des terres.

Jérusalem est une ville sacrée pour toutes les religions monothéistes qui peuvent symboliser la paix, l’harmonie, l’acceptation de l’autre, et un espace où chacun doit jouir de la liberté de culte.

À Holy Land Trust, nous condamnons vivement tous les actes de violence envers les fidèles chrétiens et musulmans palestiniens à Jérusalem, ainsi que toutes les formes de violence mises en œuvre par les colons contre le peuple innocent de Sheikh Jarrah.

Nous demandons à tous nos amis du monde entier de faire pression sur leurs gouvernements pour qu’ils arrêtent Israël et son système d’apartheid en Palestine, et de travailler ensemble pour construire un avenir sûr pour les générations à venir dans cette terre que nous appelons tous SAINTE! ”

* * * *

“Le dernier acte barbare d’Israël tue une famille entière dans le camp de réfugiés de Shati’, l’un des plus surpeuplés de Gaza où 103 000 personnes vivent sur une superficie de 0,7 km2. Des enfants et des femmes ont été tués pendant leur sommeil. Les ambulanciers paramédicaux ont déclaré à Al-Jazeera qu’ils essayaient de sauver autant de morceaux” possible de ces corps afin qu’ils puissent être enterrés. Sur cette photo, seul un bébé de deux mois, Omar, a survécu. C’est un massacre de population sans défense. S’il vous plaît, agissez, protestez, partagez le message, écrivez à votre parlementaire élu local pour demander l’arrêt de cette agression sans précédent contre la jeune communauté d’enfants et de femmes réfugiés à Gaza. #GazaUnderAttack ”

* * * *
“À Gaza, il est difficile pour les parents d’assurer la sécurité et la sûreté de leurs jeunes enfants, car ils se sentent eux-mêmes en danger, sans sécurité et en état de traumatisme. Ma sœur, Alaa, mère et soignante de deux petits enfants a dit: “Alors que les bombes continuent de tomber, mon petit qui parle à peine ne peut pas s’arrêter de dire: Mama khaf Mama khaf (Maman j’ai peur, maman j’ai peur).”

* * * *
“Aujourd’hui, j’ai parlé avec ma famille à Gaza. Tous sont prêts à être la cible de la mort. Ils m’ont dit que la nuit dernière était pour eux une expérience terrifiante et horrible, inimaginable. Mes sœurs ont dit que c’était comme si le ciel pleuvait avec des averses de bombes. Ce soir, mes sœurs et ma mère portent plusieurs couches de vêtements, donc elles sont complètement couvertes. Ils tiennent leurs petits sacs à main. Ils m’ont dit que si nous mourons, nous devons mourir avec nos corps couverts.

Mon coeur bat rapidement. A cet instant, je me suis tu. Je ne sais pas quoi leur dire. J’entends que le ton de leur voix est la véritable horreur de ce qu’ils ressentent. Aujourd’hui, les bombardements se répètent dans le nord de Gaza, où vivent ma famille et mes amis. Priez pour eux.”

DECLARATION FOR THE TRANSITION TO A CULTURE OF PEACE IN THE XXI CENTURY

Featured

As we entered the year 2021, I wrote as follows to conclude the January bulletin: “a crash of the global system of governance will give us a window of opportunity for the radical change that is needed from the culture of war to a culture of peace. But such a change requires advance preparation. We need to work on this now, and I hope to address this question in my next blogs.”

I am pleased to say that we now have a new project that can help us prepare for this great challenge. It is called the DECLARATION FOR THE TRANSITION TO A CULTURE OF PEACE IN THE XXI CENTURY, prepared by Roberto Mercadillo in Mexico with inputs from myself and from Federico Mayor Zaragoza.

We will be circulating the Declaration as widely as possible for signatures and dissemination, and a website is in preparation for this.

Below is the short English version of the Declaration.

Brief versions are available on the Internet in Spanish and in French.

The full versions are also available in English, in Spanish and in French.

* * * * *

DECLARATION FOR THE TRANSITION TO A CULTURE OF PEACE IN THE XXI CENTURY

In 1997, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed the year 2000 as the International Year for the Culture of Peace. In 1999 it adopted the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace, and in the years since then the General Assembly has continued to call for its implementation. Twenty years later, we recognize that the transition from the culture of war and violence to a Culture of Peace is a possible utopia.

We also recognize that in recent decades, human beings have been able to express themselves freely, and we hope that, now, “we the peoples” will be able to participate in the consolidation of democratic multilateralism. As never before, humanity is aware that “change” is the essence of life and that, as living beings capable of reflection and change, we can and must change the course of history and that of all humanity.

We recognize that changes emanating from individuals can guide us in the search for that which links us with other humans and with all of life. But, we also recognize that individual change is not enough and that the transition to a Culture of Peace requires profound changes and reforms of institutions and policies to make possible a collective transformation.

In view of the above we propose locally. . .

A global Culture of Peace that can be cultivated locally with various expressions . . . promoted and favored by the authorities of our cities, enabling citizens around the world to organize peace education and to propose public policies that:

Guarantee budgetary investment to improve and enrich the physical and social environments of cities, so that our brains are nourished from an early age with experiences of well-being and awareness of the conditions that need to be transformed in our communities.

Promote and support peace education programs in public institutions and in non-formal settings through community initiatives that go beyond schools and universities that operate as a business.

Share broad and transdisciplinary scientific knowledge with communities and neighborhoods: so that people can question and think about the relevance of our beliefs and values; so that we become aware of our position in the world and our relationship with other species; so that we understand that biology and previous history does not determine our destiny; and so that we can learn conflict resolution based on non-violence.

Share with communities and neighborhoods the history of world cultures and their actions in favor of peace: recognizing our unity with other peoples; knowing their symbols; and creating new shared symbols that promote the acceptance of others, solidarity, respect and cooperation.

Promote transparency and the free flow of information: avoiding the secrecy of the State; promoting, supporting and giving freedom to the imagination and the creation of new vocabularies, languages ​​and narratives about peace; and transforming the negative and violent portrayal of conflict in the mass media.

Publicize the knowledge and actions of organized civil society: enabling participatory democracy; training citizens, teachers, journalists, activists, social and religious leaders, policemen, students, professionals, politicians and scientists to participate in the exercise of their human rights, monitoring guarantees of all human rights including housing, health, sanitation, education and public safety; and thus evaluating the progress of the culture of peace in their communities.

Establish spaces for reflection, listening and dialogue between people of different ages, different physical, affective, cognitive and socioeconomic needs, and different ethnic, linguistic and gender identities.

Promote democratic participation through equitable representation mechanisms for ethnic and gender diversities, free from the influence of military industry, financial monopoly corporations, and institutions that influence national politics.

Prioritize local and sustainable agriculture, manufacturing and consumption that depend less on oil and corporate monopolies, that respect the diversity of regional species to help combat climate change and environmental problems, and that promote the creation of cooperatives that work for a social and solidarity economy focused on fair trade and the well-being of the families and groups that comprise them.

… and we propose globally

The creation of a “Mayors Security Council” made up of representatives of the principal cities from all regions of the world. This Council can increase awareness that another world is possible. It can be created immediately since its formation does not require agreements or approval from the United Nations Member States. It can meet virtually through modern forms of communication and display in the press and mass media its own agreements on global security issues on the agenda of the actual Security Council, including issues that the current Security Council has failed to address, for example, the abolition of nuclear weapons.

The creation of a Council for Socioeconomic Affairs and a Council for Environmental Affairs in the United Nations, whose decisions represent the global balance of powers and favor the adoption of agreements on these matters by the Member States.

The prompt re-founding of the United Nations System, with a General Assembly composed of 50% representatives of the Member States and another 50% of institutions, academies and civil society organizations from around the world that represent “We, the peoples…”; this will allow the redirection of present policies by means of democratic multilateralism.

“The peoples” already have their own voice.

We hold that history is in our hands and that another world is possible.

A global culture of peace is possible. Let’s not mourn, but organize!

* * *
Signatories
David Adams. Director of the UNESCO task force for the International Year for the Culture of Peace.
Federico Mayor Zaragoza. President of Fundación Cultura de Paz
Roberto Emmanuele Mercadillo Caballero. Researcher at the National Council of Science and Technology, Mexico; Secretary of Transitional Justice and Peace, CSO.

LISTEN TO THE WOMEN

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

It’s been difficult this year to find positive news for the blog. One thing is for certain: that we need radical change in the world.

This month, however, the women of the world give us reason to hope for the future, as we see from the CPNN bulletin. Around the world millions of women risked the covid pandemic and took to the streets to demand radical change.

Here were some of the demands and slogans on the signs they held.

ABORTO LEGAL
HUELGA FEMINISTA
REBEL WITH A CAUSE
She is not half-world. She is the whole world.
#NeverAgain to a fascist dictatorship
#ME TOO

The following interview tells us where the change will come from. It was recorded by Alcinda Honwana with Quitéria Guirengane, a Mozambican female activist and the President of the Mozambican Young Women Leaders’ Network.

“There are many youth groups and associations, formal and informal, fighting for what they believe is a better and fair society. For me, it was important to establish closer links with those other groups or individuals, especially at district level. This led me to create the Young Women Leaders’ Network, an informal network that brings together young women from different backgrounds from all over the country; we are currently building a database of young female leaders from different fields – activists, artists, community organizers, entrepreneurs, scholars, athletes and the like . . .

“I am a member of various Pan-African networks and organizations such as: the Pan-African Youth Forum for the Promotion of a Culture of Peace in Africa; the Southern Africa Platform for Young Women Leaders; the African Network for the Right to Protest; and the Solidarity Network for Political Prisoners in Africa; and the Global Network of Young Women Leaders. Through these various continental and international networks, I have learned that well-structured continental-wide action can be very effective, when it engages the right players, defends coherent messages, values community knowledge, and stands-up for fair causes. . . .

“We keep close links with our counterparts in other African countries, such as Angola, DRC, Tunisia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. . . .

“Despite the lack of support, young Africans continue to fight. Bobi Wine continues to fight; the Angolan activists, even after spending months in prison, remain active, as do the Mozambican activists who are routinely intimidated and attacked by the authorities. I have a lot of hope in our Pan-African networks such as Afrikiki Mwinda and others.

“Change will come from within, from us. The revolution will have to be done by the African activists, by ourselves, without waiting for the support of the international community, and beyond our corrupt national institutions. All this time, we have been playing by the rules, constituting ourselves in formal organizations, getting all the permissions to protest peacefully, running for elections and putting across our ideas; but the rules of the game, as established, are fundamentally flawed and unjust.

“Every time we played by their rules, we have been duped, side-lined, maimed and sometimes killed. We are getting tired and we are saying enough! The world should not be surprised if one day young people resolve to take power by force, with violence.”

We’ve said it before and we say it again: Listen to the women !

* * * * *

ÉCOUTER LES FEMMES

Il a été difficile cette année de trouver des nouvelles positives pour le blog. Une chose est sûre: nous avons besoin d’un changement radical dans le monde.

Ce mois-ci, cependant, les femmes du monde nous donnent des raisons d’espérer pour l’avenir, comme nous le voyons dans le bulletin de CPNN. Partout dans le monde, des millions de femmes ont risqué la pandémie de covid et sont descendues dans la rue pour exiger un changement radical.

Voici quelques-unes des demandes et des slogans sur les pancartes qu’elles tenaient.

ABORTO LEGAL
HUELGA FEMINISTA
REBEL WITH A CAUSE
She is not half-world. She is the whole world.
#NeverAgain to a fascist dictatorship
#ME TOO

L’interview suivante nous dit d’où viendra le changement. Il a été enregistré par Alcinda Honwana avec Quitéria Guirengane, une militante mozambicaine et présidente du Réseau des jeunes leaders mozambicaines.

“De nombreux groupes et associations de jeunes, formels et informels, se battent pour une société meilleure et juste. Pour moi, il était important d’établir des liens plus étroits avec ces autres groupes ou individus, en particulier au niveau du district. Cela m’a conduit à créer le Young Women Leaders ‘Network, un réseau informel qui rassemble des jeunes femmes d’horizons différents de partout dans le pays; nous construisons actuellement une base de données de jeunes femmes leaders dans différents domaines : activistes, artistes, organisatrices communautaires, entrepreneures, universitaires , athlètes et autres.

“Je suis membre de divers réseaux et organisations panafricains tels que: le Forum panafricain de la jeunesse pour la promotion d’une culture de la paix en Afrique; la Plateforme d’Afrique australe pour les jeunes femmes leaders; le Réseau africain pour le droit de manifester ; le Réseau de solidarité pour les prisonnières politiques en Afrique; et le Réseau mondial des jeunes femmes leaders.

“Grâce à ces différents réseaux continentaux et internationaux, j’ai appris qu’une action bien structurée à l’échelle du continent peut être très efficace, lorsqu’elle implique les bons acteurs, qu’elle défend des messages cohérents, qu’elle valorise le savoir communautaire et qu’elle défend des causes justes.

“Nous gardons des liens étroits avec nos homologues d’autres pays africains, tels que l’Angola, la RDC, la Tunisie, l’Afrique du Sud et le Zimbabwe.

“Malgré le manque de soutien, les jeunes Africains continuent de se battre. Bobi Wine continue de se battre; les militants angolais, même après avoir passé des mois en prison, restent actifs, tout comme les militants mozambicains qui sont régulièrement intimidés et attaqués par les autorités. Il y a beaucoup d’espoir dans nos réseaux panafricains comme Afrikiki Mwinda et d’autres.

“Le changement viendra de l’intérieur, de nous. La révolution devra être faite par les militants africains, par nous-mêmes, sans attendre le soutien de la communauté internationale, et au-delà de nos institutions nationales corrompues.

“Pendant tout ce temps, nous avons respecté les règles, nous constituant en organisations formelles, obtenant toutes les autorisations pour manifester pacifiquement, nous présentant aux élections afin de faire passer nos idées. Mais les règles du jeu, comme elles sont établies actuellement, sont fondamentalement défectueuses et injustes. Chaque fois que nous avons joué selon leurs règles, nous avons été dupés, mis de côté, mutilés et parfois tués. Nous sommes fatigués et nous disons assez! Le monde ne devrait pas être surpris si un jour, les jeunes décident de prendre le pouvoir par la force, avec violence.”

Nous l’avons déjà dit et nous le répétons: écoutez les femmes!

APPEALS ARE NOT ENOUGH

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

At the end of this month’s CPNN bulletin concerning the Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, we say the following:

“Many of the organizations above make demands of the nuclear states to begin the process of nuclear disarmament. And people are invited to sign appeals to these governments such as the Appeal for a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World. But there is no indication that the nuclear powers are listening., We must do more than that.”

Here’s why appeals are not enough.

As documented in my History of the Culture of War, the governments of the nuclear powers all share in the culture of war. Nation-states have come to monopolize the culture of war over the course of many centuries and there is no indication that they will change of their own accord.

It is true that over 50 nation-states have now signed and ratified the Treaty, but none of them are among the nuclear powers. The only countries from Europe are Ireland, San Marino and Malta. Nor are there other developed countries such as Japan, Canada and South Korea. Instead, they are the countries from the Global South, Latin America, Africa and Asia-Pacific, along with Nepal, Myanmar, Thailand, Viet Nam and the State of Palestine. These countries that do not have the resources to develop nuclear weapons, even if they wanted to.

And it is true that one country has renounced nuclear weapons after having developed them. It was South Africa when President de Klerk was negotiating was Nelson Mandela. This is certainly a special case.

The problem with appeals to the nation-states, such as that mentined above, is that it gives a false sense of effective action to those who seek a nuclear-free world. Activists may be tempted to make their appeal and then sit back and say, “We’ve done all we can.”

Instead, activists in the nuclear states should mount serious campaigns in their country to force their government to undertake unilateral nuclear disarmament. Although such campaigns are not likely to be successful in the short term, in the long term they could set an important precedent.

Perhaps most important, such campaigns may force activists to recognize their government’s intransigent culture of war and they may come to the same conclusion as me, that the nation-states are hopeless with regard to nuclear disarmament.

Once having come to that point, activists should join me in working replace the nation-state in the direction of the United Nations, putting the UN in the hands of the mayors or parliaments of the world instead of the national governments.

Cities, unlike nation-states, have no vested interest in nuclear weapons.

The advantage of a United Nations run by mayors is that it could develop and implement an effective plan for multi-lateral nuclear disarmament instead of insisting on the unilateral nuclear disarmament of individual states.

To those who say that the nation-states will never give up their power at the United Nations, I say the following.

1. We may be on the verge of a global economic crash followed by a global political crash that may greatly weaken the hold of the governments of the world on the United Nations.

2. Already the great powers have to some extent abandoned the United Nations. The situation has not changed since I wrote the following in the blog back in June 2016: “1) The national governments of the world increasingly ignore the United Nations when faced with global problems. . . We first saw this trend with the global economic crisis of 2007-2008; the powerful states, meeting as the G-7, ignored the relevant financial institutions of the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and responded to the crisis with meetings of their finance ministers. Then in 2010, the powerful countries ignored the United Nations Non-proliferation conference  and met in Washington in a parallel conference  called by President Obama. Only Iran sent a head of state to the United Nations conference. Finally, even when the national governments attend a United Nations summit, the results are not adequate, as illustrated by the conferences to confront global warming in 2012 in Rio  and 2015 in Paris.”

I repeat the message at the end of last month’s blog that “a crash of the global system of governance will give us a window of opportunity for the radical change that is needed from the culture of war to a culture of peace. But such a change requires advance preparation. We need to work on this now, and I hope to address this question in my next blogs.”

* * * * *

LES APPELS NE SUFFISENT PAS

Le bulletin de CPNN ce mois-ci concernant la Traité sur l’interdiction des Armes Nucléaires arrive à la conclusion suivante : “Les organisations ci-dessus demandent aux puissances nucléaires d’entamer le processus de désarmement nucléaire. Et les individus sont invités à signer des appels à ces gouvernements tels que l’Appel pour un monde sans armes nucléaires. Mais rien n’indique que les puissances nucléaires écoutent., Nous devons faire plus que cela.”

D’après mon Histoire de la culture de la guerre, les gouvernements des puissances nucléaires partagent tous la culture de la guerre. La culture de la guerre de l’État-nation s’est développée au cours de nombreux siècles et rien n’indique que cela puisse changer.

Il est vrai que plus de 50 États-nations ont maintenant signé et ratifié le Traité, mais aucun d’entre eux ne fait partie des puissances nucléaires. Les seuls pays d’Europe sont l’Irlande, Saint-Marin et Malte. Il n’y a pas non plus d’autres pays développés tels que le Japon, le Canada et la Corée du Sud. Au lieu de cela, il s’agit des pays du Sud, d’Amérique latine, d’Afrique et d’Asie-Pacifique, ainsi que du Népal, du Myanmar, de la Thaïlande, du Viet Nam et de l’État de Palestine. Ces pays qui n’ont pas les ressources pour développer des armes nucléaires, même s’ils le voulaient.

Et il est vrai qu’un pays a renoncé aux armes nucléaires après les avoir développées. C’était l’Afrique du Sud lorsque le président de Klerk était en train de négocier avec Nelson Mandela. Il s’agit certainement d’un cas particulier.

Le problème des appels aux États-nations, comme celui mentionné ci-dessus, est qu’ils donnent un faux sentiment d’action efficace à ceux qui recherchent un monde sans nucléaire. Les militants peuvent être tentés de faire leur appel, puis de s’asseoir et de dire: «Nous avons fait tout ce que nous pouvions».

Au lieu de cela, les militants des États nucléaires devraient lancer des campagnes sérieuses dans leur pays pour forcer le gouvernement vers un désarmement nucléaire unilatéral. Bien que de telles campagnes ne réussissent pas à court terme, elles pourraient créer un précédent important à long terme.

Peut-être plus important encore, de telles campagnes peuvent forcer les activistes à reconnaître l’intransigeance de la culture de guerre de leur gouvernement, et ils peuvent arriver à la même conclusion que moi, à savoir que les États-nations sont sans espoir en ce qui concerne le désarmement nucléaire.

Une fois arrivés à ce point, les militants devraient lutter comme je propose de remplacer l’État-nation dans la direction des Nations Unies, en mettant l’ONU entre les mains des maires ou des parlements du monde plutôt que des gouvernements nationaux.

Les villes, contrairement aux États-nations, n’ont aucun intérêt direct dans les armes nucléaires.

L’avantage d’une Organisation des Nations Unies dirigée par des maires est qu’elle pourrait développer et mettre en œuvre un plan efficace de désarmement nucléaire multilatéral au lieu d’insister sur le désarmement nucléaire unilatéral de chaque État.

À ceux qui disent que les États-nations ne renonceront jamais à leur pouvoir aux Nations Unies, je réponds ceci :

1. Nous sommes peut-être au bord d’un krach économique mondial suivi d’un krach politique mondial qui pourrait considérablement affaiblir l’emprise des gouvernements du monde sur les Nations Unies.

2. Les grandes puissances ont déjà, dans une certaine mesure, abandonné l’Organisation des Nations Unies. La situation n’a pas changé depuis que j’ai écrit ce qui suit dans le blog en juin 2016: “Les gouvernements nationaux du monde ignorent de plus en plus les Nations Unies lorsqu’ils sont confrontés à des problèmes mondiaux.. Nous avons vu cette tendance pour la première fois avec la crise économique mondiale. 2007-2008; les États puissants, réunis en tant que G-7, ont ignoré les institutions financières compétentes des Nations Unies, de la Banque mondiale et du Fonds monétaire international, et ont réagi à la crise en rencontrant leurs ministres des finances. Puis en 2010 , les pays puissants ont ignoré la conférence des Nations Unies sur la non-prolifération et se sont réunis à Washington lors d’une conférence parallèle convoquée par le président Obama. Seul l’Iran a envoyé un chef d’État à la conférence des Nations Unies. Enfin, même lorsque les gouvernements nationaux participent à un sommet des Nations Unies, les résultats ne sont pas adéquats, comme l’illustrent les conférences de lutte contre le réchauffement climatique en 2012 à Rio et 2015 à Paris. ”

Je répète le message à la fin du blog du mois dernier selon lequel “un crash du système mondial de gouvernance nous donnera une fenêtre d’opportunité pour le changement radical qui est nécessaire pour la transition de la culture de guerre à une culture de paix. Mais un tel changement nécessite une préparation préalable. Nous devons travailler là-dessus maintenant, et je vais aborder cette question dans mes prochains blogs.”

BAD NEWS FOR 2021

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

The news is not good for the coming year of 2021.

During 2020, the news about the global covid pandemic and the drama of Donald Trump have over-shadowed the most dangerous trend : the ever-increasing waste of public funds in the form of military spending.

As we enter the year 2021, the United States congress has just voted the largest military budget in American history, and governments around the world have increased the arms trade by another 8.5 percent.

This comes at the same time as governments are forced to borrow massively in order to cover the increased spending in the face of the covid virus.

This is a recipe for financial disaster! It may begin with a crash of the US dollar with drastic consequences for the American empire as well as the global economy which is linked to the dollar.

Can a crash be avoided? In my June blog, I said that “Yes, America can escape from its disastrous medical, social and economic situation, if it converts the military budget to a vast program of rebuilding America’s failing infrastructure . . . like Roosevelt’s WPA . . . But no, the American empire cannot escape. The military budget must be totally converted in order to save the country. Its military bases around the world must be dismantled and the soldiers brought home and put to useful work. . .”

But there is no sign that this will happen. Incoming President Biden has never questioned the military priority any more than did his predecessors, Bush, Obama and Trump.

As I wrote in the blog last February, for me it is “dejà vu.” I’ve seen it before.

“The arms race of the Cold War destroyed the Soviet empire, not by war itself, but by bankrupting their economy. By matching the West’s military budgets ruble for dollar, but based on an economy only half as great, the Soviet Union was forced to divert almost all of its resources to the military. For example, in the West about 40% of scientists and engineers were engaged directly or indirectly with the military, but in the Soviet Union it was closer to 90%. There was nothing left for economic development or for the needs of the people. . .

I experienced this when working in a scientific lab doing brain research in Moscow. When I couldn’t get decent electronics or a good electronics engineer, I asked a Russian colleague doing cardiovascular research how he got his good equipment. “I have friends in the military,” he replied. Yes, there were lines at the stores for meat, but the longest lines I saw were to buy gold or diamonds because people feared that the ruble would crash.”

Indeed the Russians who invested in gold and diamonds were smart. In the years after the crash of the Soviet economy, the ruble was devalued by a factor of almost 10,000!

In 1991, two years after the Soviet economic crash, I wrote an analysis which is applicable now to the American empire. Quoting Shafik Jorge Handal at the time, “democracy, respect for human rights and, above all, economic developments are all incompatible with militarism.”

A crash of the global economic system would inevitably produce a crash of the system of global governance. And as I have often said in this blog (for example December 2018, a crash of the global system of governance will give us a window of opportunity for the radical change that is needed from the culture of war to a culture of peace. But such a change requires advance preparation. We need to work on this now, and I hope to address this question in my next blogs.

* * * * *

MAUVAISES NOUVELLES POUR 2021

Les nouvelles ne sont pas bonnes pour l’année à venir 2021.

En 2020, les nouvelles concernant la pandémie mondiale de covid-19 et le drame de Donald Trump ont éclipsé une tendance encore plus dangereuse: le gaspillage toujours croissant des fonds publics sous forme de dépenses militaires.

Alors que nous entrons dans l’année 2021, le Congrès américain vient de voter lle plus gros budget militaire de l’histoire américaine, et les gouvernements du monde entier ont augmenté le commerce des armes encore de 8,5%.

Cela survient en même temps que les gouvernements sont obligés d’emprunter massivement afin de couvrir l’augmentation des dépenses face au virus covid.

C’est la recette pour un désastre financier qui peut commencer par un crash du dollar américain avec des conséquences dramatiques pour l’empire américain ainsi que pour l’économie mondiale qui y est liée.

Un crash peut-il être évité? Dans mon blog de juin, j’ai dit: “Oui, l’Amérique peut sortir de sa situation médicale, sociale et économique désastreuse, si elle convertit le budget militaire en un vaste programme de reconstruction de l’infrastructure défaillante de l’Amérique… Comme le WPA de Roosevelt… Mais non! L’empire américain ne peut pas y échapper. Le budget militaire doit être totalement reconverti pour sauver le pays. Ses bases militaires dans le monde doivent être démantelées et les soldats ramenés chez eux et embauchés dans un travail utile.

Helas !! Rien n’indique que cela se produira. Le nouveau président Biden n’a jamais remis en question la priorité militaire de ses prédécesseurs, Bush, Obama et Trump.

Comme je l’ai écrit dans le blog en février dernier, pour moi c’est du “dejà vu”.

“La course aux armements de la guerre froide qui a détruit l’empire soviétique, non pas par la guerre elle-même, mais en forçant la faillite de leur économie. En faisant correspondre les budgets militaires de l’Occident au rouble pour un dollar, mais sur la base d’une économie moitié moins grande, l’Union soviétique a été obligée de détourner la quasi-totalité de ses ressources vers les forces armées. Par exemple, en Occident, environ 40% des scientifiques et ingénieurs étaient engagés directement ou indirectement dans l’armée, mais en Union soviétique, ils étaient plus proches de 90%. Il ne restait plus rien pour le développement économique ou pour les besoins de la population.

J’ai vécu cela en travaillant dans un laboratoire scientifique lors de mes recherches sur le cerveau à Moscou. Quand je ne pouvais pas obtenir d’appareils électroniques ni un bon ingénieur en électronique, je demandais à un collègue russe effectuant des recherches cardiovasculaires comment il avait obtenu son bon équipement. “J’ai des amis dans l’armée”, a-t-il répondu. Oui, il y avait des files d’attente devant les magasins pour la viande, mais les plus longues que j’ai vues étaient pour acheter de l’or ou des diamants parce que les gens craignaient que le rouble ne s’effondre.”

En effet, les Russes qui ont investi dans l’or et les diamants avaient raison. Dans les années qui ont suivi le crash de l’économie soviétique, le rouble a été dévalué d’un facteur de près de 10 000 !

En 1991, deux ans après le crash économique soviétique, j’ai rédigé une analyse que nous pouvons maintenant appliquer au cas de l’empire américain. Citant Shafik Jorge Handal à l’époque, «la démocratie, le respect des droits de l’Homme et, surtout, les développements économiques sont tous incompatibles avec le militarisme».

Un effondrement du système économique mondial entraînerait inévitablement un effondrement des systèmes de gouvernance. Et comme je l’ai souvent dit dans ce blog (par exemple en décembre 2018), un crash du système mondial de gouvernance nous donnera une fenêtre d’opportunité pour le changement radical qui est nécessaire pour la transition de la culture de guerre à une culture de paix. Mais un tel changement nécessite une préparation préalable. Nous devons travailler là-dessus maintenant, et je vais aborder cette question dans mes prochains blogs.

A new level, an historic step forward

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

We have advanced to a new level, an historic step forward, in the struggle for a culture of peace.

For the first time there are so many virtual events for the culture of peace free and open to the public that we have begun listing them on CPNN. Now there are two faces of CPNN : the old face of articles about events that have already taken place; and a new face – events that have not yet occurred in which CPNN readers can participate.

This makes possible a new step forward in the development of a global movement for the culture of peace.

In the past, activists had to travel physically to take part in meetings. This required great planning and expense. For example, the meeting in Seville that formulated the Seville Statement on Violence in 1986 took a year to plan and required fund-raising and long-range travel for the international participants. Now such a meeting can take place without great expense or travel. Of course, there is still the need for careful planning!

Another example from my experience comes to mind, the meeting sponsored in Yamoussoukro, Cote d’Ivoire in 1989 that laid the base for the Culture of Peace Program of UNESCO. In that case, the planning was done by UNESCO, under the direction of Federico Mayor and the hard work of George Kutukdjian. UNESCO was able to attract and pay for the travel of its world-wide network of contacts which made for a rich exchange of ideas, including the idea coming from Father Felipe MacGregor of Peru for a culture of peace program. Now, UNESCO and the UN are able to plan for such meetings on a global scale without the expense of past meetings. Again, of course, there is still the need for careful planning.

In the resume on CPNN of virtual meetings last month (November), we may note several important aspects that indicate the global scope of this progress.

1) The events dealt with the full range of culture of peace domains, ranging from human rights and democratic participation to sustainable development and international peace and security.

2) The events were global, coming from organizations in most regions, including the Goi Foundation in Japan, the African Union, an organization of mediators in Mexico, as well as organizations in the United States, Canada, France and Spain.

3) Several of the November virtual events were sponsored by organizations that already have a global scope, including the International Peace Bureau, the Global Campaign for Peace Education, UNFOLD ZERO, and Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, And there are upcoming events in December sponsored by the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Mayors for Peace European Chapter and ICAN, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

In addition to virtual meetings open to the public, virtual meetings may be restricted to the membership of organizations. This is necessary if the meeting is to take votes committing the organization to action. Such an example occurred this month in the annual meeting of the Global Alliance for Ministries and Infrastructures of Peace (GAMIP). Having been invited to address the meeting, I was able to propose that GAMIP work on the idea of a Mayors Security Council such as I have previously suggested in this blog.

In addition to the above two options, there are now more virtual meetings that require payment in order to participate. In my opinion this is not a good direction. It limits the range of participation to those with money and those with easy access to the currency required. And it excludes many whose participation is vitally needed at this moment of history.

We need both open and closed virtual meetings in order to advance. Open meetings can enlarge participation and encourage visitors to join the organizations involved. Closed meetings can make decisions and take action. I don’t think it’s a good idea to charge money for admission.

Of course, the closed virtual meetings have already been taking place for several years now What is new is the other side, the open meetings to enlarge participation.

As was the case in Seville and Yamoussoukro, we need to develop methods of careful planning for virtual meetings. It is obvious in the case of closed, decision-making meetings that we need a detailed agenda, adept chairing and clearly-formed propositions to be voted on. But we need good planning for the open meetings as well, if they are to succeed to educate new participants and to convince them to join in our organizations.

At CPNN we hope to advance all aspects of this progress.

In my futuristic and utopian vision for the culture of peace written in 2009, I imagined a meeting of cities from around the world coming by plane to Porto Alegre in Brazil and issuing a declaration that would lay the base for a radical reform of the United Nations. The imagined declaration begins:

When in the course of history it becomes evident that the old order has failed and it becomes possible through the development and sharing of a new vision that power be transferred from the nation-state with its culture of war to a new order based on the culture of peace, it is the right and duty of those who have been elected to represent the people on the local and regional level to take up the higher responsibility of world governance.

Now it is possible to imagine such a meeting of cities and such a declaration that does not require the participants to travel.

Yes, another world is becoming possible!

* * * * *

Un nouveau niveau, une étape historique

Nous avons atteint un nouveau niveau, une étape historique, dans la lutte pour une culture de la paix.

Pour la première fois, il y a tellement d’événements virtuels pour la culture de la paix, gratuits et ouverts au public, que nous avons commencé à les lister sur CPNN. Maintenant, CPNN a deux visages : l’ancien visage pour des articles sur des événements qui ont déjà eu lieu; et un nouveau visage – des événements qui n’ont pas encore pris place et auxquels les lecteurs de CPNN peuvent participer.

Cela rend possible un nouveau pas en avant dans le développement d’un mouvement mondial pour la culture de la paix.

Dans le passé, les militants devaient se déplacer physiquement pour participer à des réunions. Cela a nécessité une planification et des dépenses importantes. Par exemple, la réunion de Séville qui a formulé la Déclaration de Séville sur la violence en 1986 a pris un an pour planifier et a nécessité une collecte de fonds et des voyages à longue distance pour les participants internationaux. Désormais, une telle réunion peut avoir lieu sans grands frais ni déplacements. Bien sûr, il faut encore une bonne planification !

Un autre exemple me vient à l’esprit, la réunion à Yamoussoukro, en Côte d’Ivoire en 1989, qui a jeté les bases du programme Culture de paix de l’UNESCO. Dans ce cas, la planification a été réalisée par l’UNESCO, sous la direction de Federico Mayor et le travail acharné de George Kutukdjian. L’UNESCO a pu attirer et payer les voyages de son réseau mondial de contacts, ce qui a permis de riches échanges. C’est la que l’idée venant du Père Felipe MacGregor du Pérou pour un programme de culture de la paix est exprimee pour la premiere fois. Actuellement, l’UNESCO et l’ONU sont en mesure de planifier de telles réunions à l’échelle mondiale, sans les frais des réunions passées. Encore une fois, bien entendu, une bonne planification est nécessaire.

Dans le résumé sur CPNN concernant les réunions virtuelles du mois dernier (novembre), on peut noter plusieurs aspects importants qui indiquent la portée globale de ces progrès.

1) Les événements ont porté sur l’ensemble des domaines de la culture de la paix, allant des droits de l’Homme et de la participation démocratique au développement durable et à la paix et à la sécurité internationales.

2) Les événements étaient mondiaux, venant d’organisations dans la plupart des régions, y compris la Fondation Goi au Japon, l’Union africaine, une organisation de médiateurs au Mexique, ainsi que des organisations aux États-Unis, au Canada, en France et en Espagne.

3) Plusieurs des événements virtuels de novembre ont été parrainés par des organisations qui ont déjà une portée mondiale, notamment le Bureau international de la paix, la Campagne mondiale pour l’éducation à la paix, UNFOLD ZERO et les parlementaires pour la non-prolifération et le désarmement nucléaires, et il y a des événements à venir en décembre, parrainés par l’Institut de recherche des Nations Unies pour le développement social, la section européenne des maires pour la paix et l’ICAN, la Campagne internationale pour l’abolition des armes nucléaires.

En plus des réunions virtuelles ouvertes au public, elles peuvent être réservées aux membres d’organisations. Cela est nécessaire si la réunion doit prendre des decisions engageant l’organisation à agir. Un tel exemple s’est produit ce mois-ci lors de la réunion annuelle de l’Alliance mondiale pour les ministères et infrastructures de la paix (GAMIP). Ayant été invité à prendre la parole lors de la réunion, j’ai pu proposer que le GAMIP travaille sur l’idée d’un Conseil de sécurité des maires comme je l’ai suggéré précédemment dans ce blog.

En plus des deux options ci-dessus, il y a maintenant plus de réunions virtuelles qui nécessitent un paiement pour participer. À mon avis, ce n’est pas une bonne direction. Il limite la gamme de participation à ceux qui ont de l’argent et ceux qui ont un accès facile à la monnaie requise. Et cela exclut de nombreuses personnes dont la participation est vitale à ce moment de l’histoire.

Nous avons besoin de tous les deux, réunions virtuelles ouvertes et réunions virtuelles fermées pour avancer: des réunions ouvertes pour élargir la participation et encourager les visiteurs à rejoindre les organisations concernées; des réunions à huis clos pour prendre des décisions et agir. Je ne pense pas que ce soit une bonne idée de facturer de l’argent pour l’admission.

Bien entendu, les réunions virtuelles à huis clos ont déjà lieu depuis plusieurs années. Ce qui est nouveau, c’est l’autre côté, les réunions ouvertes pour élargir la participation.

Comme ce fut le cas à Séville et à Yamoussoukro, nous devons développer des méthodes de planification minutieuse de réunions virtuelles. Il est évident que dans le cas de réunions de prise de décision à huis clos, nous avons besoin d’un ordre du jour détaillé, d’une présidence habile et de propositions clairement formées pour être votées. Mais nous avons également besoin d’une bonne planification pour les réunions ouvertes, si elles veulent réussir à éduquer les nouveaux participants et à les convaincre de se joindre à nos organisations.

Au CPNN, nous espérons faire progresser tous les aspects de ces progrès.

Dans ma vision futuriste et utopique de la culture de la paix écrite en 2009, j’imaginais une réunion de villes du monde entier venant par avion à Porto Alegre au Brésil et émettant une déclaration qui jetterait les bases d’une réforme radicale des Nations Unies. La déclaration imaginée commence:

Lorsqu’au cours de l’histoire, il devient évident que l’ancien ordre a échoué et qu’il devient possible grâce au développement et au partage d’une nouvelle vision que le pouvoir soit transféré de l’État-nation avec sa culture de la guerre à un nouvel ordre basé sur la culture de paix, c’est le droit et le devoir de ceux qui ont été élus pour représenter le peuple aux niveaux local et régional, d’assumer la responsabilité supérieure de la gouvernance mondiale.

Maintenant, il est possible d’imaginer une telle réunion de villes et une telle déclaration qui n’oblige pas les participants à voyager.

Oui, un autre monde devient possible!

FURTHER ANALYSIS OF US ELECTION

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

In order to understand the deep meaning of the US election results, and to compare them to the electoral situation in France, I have downloaded a series of maps from the Internet showing the relation between voting patterns, poverty and urbanization.

Here are the maps for the United States, beginning with the electoral map showing states that voted for Trump in red. (click on maps to enlarge)



As you see, with only 4 or 5 exceptions among the 50 states, Trump won in the states that were poorer and more rural.

Having recently compared the appeal of Trump to that of Le Pen in France, I decided to make a similar set of maps for France. Here they are. (Again, click on maps to enlarge)


In the case of France, there is a relationship between the vote for Le Pen and the poverty and rural nature of the department concerned, but the relationship is overridden in the rich departments along the Mediterranean and in the traditional catholic conservative departments of Alsace Lorraine.

Of course, there are poor people in cities as well as in the countryside. However, the poor in cities are mostly Afro-Americans in the USA and the descendants of immigrants in the suburbs of French cities. Since Trump and Le Pen are racist and anti-immigrant, they do not join in the vote for them.

Without going into an analysis of the exceptions mentioned above, let us consider the meaning of the relationship between the electoral appeal of Trump and Le Pen and the poor, rural voter. As described in the earlier blog this month, their electoral appeal comes from the anger and alienation of voters who feel that their interests are not served by the national government and who believe that Trump and Le Pen are “on their side.”

Of course, the poor in cities are angry and alienated as well, which can be expressed in other ways.

In one sense, the supporters of Trump and Le Pen are correct. The modern capitalist state continues to serve the interests of the rich, and if there is one fact clear for more than a century now, the rich continue to get richer and the poor to get poorer. As Oxfam calculated earlier this year, “The world’s 2,153 billionaires have more wealth than the 4.6 billion people who make up 60 percent of the planet’s population.”

The modern capitalist state also serves the interests of industrial agriculture instead of the small farmer, despite the fact that small farms still produce the majority of the food on the planet. For almost a century now, the small farmer continues to be driven out of business by industrial agriculture. The people in rural areas that should gain a good living from agriculture continue to work hard for ever-decreasing income, while those who profit from industrial agriculture sit behind the desks in banks and bribe the legislatures to pass laws in their favor.

On this basis we can make a prediction. Even if Trump and Le Pen leave the scene, the cause of their appeal will continue to gather force. Presidents like Biden and Macron are not going to change the fundamental dynamic. The rural poor will continue to get poorer and they will vote more and more for candidates that claim to oppose the system. Of course, candidates like Trump and Le Pen have no intention to do so, but they claim they will change the system in favor of rural areas and the poor. Angry and alienated, the rural poor want to believe their rhetoric.

It is not just the days of the American empire that are numbered, as we have often stressed, but to quote Marx, by continuing to enrich the rich and impoverish the poor, capitalism continues to make the noose that will eventually hang it.

But here is the danger. 90 years ago when the economic systems collapsed in the Great Depression, powerful countries abandoned democracy and fell back on the extreme system of the culture of war – fascism. Make no mistake about it, fascism is based on force and violence first inside the country, and then preparing for external war. Indeed fascism is the culture of war in its purest manifestation. In order to avoid a repeat of the history of the 1930’s, it becomes more and more urgent to move forward on the transition from the culture of war to the culture of peace.

How to make such a transition? This blog has made proposals, such as a mayor’s security council, for several years now. The proposals have not yet obtained support, but perhaps the time is coming when we will have no choice but to move them forward.

 

* * * * *

 

ANALYSE APPROFONDIE DES ÉLECTIONS AMÉRICAINES

Afin de comprendre la signification profonde des résultats des élections américaines et de les comparer à la situation électorale en France, j’ai téléchargé une série de cartes sur Internet montrant la relation entre le choix des votes, la pauvreté et l’urbanisation.

Voici les cartes des États-Unis, en commençant par la carte électorale montrant les États qui ont voté pour Trump, en rouge. (Cliquez sur les cartes pour élargir.)



Comme vous le voyez, à seulement 4 ou 5 exceptions parmi les 50 États, Trump a gagné dans les États plus pauvres et plus ruraux.

Ayant récemment comparé l’attrait de Trump à celui de Le Pen en France, j’ai décidé de faire un jeu de cartes similaire pour la France. Les voici. (Cliquez sur les cartes pour élargir.)


Dans le cas de la France, s’il existe une relation entre le vote pour Le Pen et la pauvreté et le caractère rural du département concerné, ce constat est dépassé dans les départements riches de la Méditerranée et dans les départements conservateurs catholiques traditionnels d’Alsace Lorraine.

Bien sûr, il y a des pauvres dans les villes comme dans les campagnes. Cependant, les pauvres des villes sont majoritairement des Afro-Américains aux Etats-Unis et principalement des familles descendant d’immigrés dans les banlieues des villes françaises. Étant donné que Trump et Le Pen sont racistes et anti-immigrés, ils ne reçoivent pas leurs votes.

Sans entrer dans l’analyse des exceptions mentionnées ci-dessus, considérons la signification de la relation entre l’attrait électoral de Trump et Le Pen et l’électeur pauvre et rural. Comme décrit dans le blog précédent ce mois-ci, leur appel électoral vient de la colère et de l’aliénation des électeurs qui estiment que leurs intérêts ne sont pas servis par le gouvernement national et qui croient que Trump et Le Pen sont «de leur côté».

Bien sûr, les pauvres des villes sont également en colère et aliénés, ce qui peut s’exprimer de différentes manières.

Dans un sens, les partisans de Trump et Le Pen ont raison. L’Etat capitaliste moderne continue de servir les intérêts des riches, et s’il y a un fait clair depuis plus d’un siècle maintenant, les riches continuent de s’enrichir et les pauvres de s’appauvrir. Comme Oxfam l’a calculé plus tôt cette année, «les 2 153 milliardaires du monde ont plus de richesses que les 4,6 milliards de personnes qui représentent 60% de la population de la planète».

L’État capitaliste moderne sert également les intérêts de l’agriculture industrielle au lieu du petit agriculteur, malgré le fait que les petites fermes produisent toujours la majorité de la nourriture sur la planète. Depuis près d’un siècle maintenant, le petit agriculteur continue d’être chassé des affaires par l’agriculture industrielle. Les habitants des zones rurales qui devraient bien vivre de l’agriculture continuent de travailler dur pour obtenir des revenus en baisse constante, tandis que ceux qui profitent de l’agriculture industrielle s’assoient derrière les bureaux des banques et soudoient les législateurs pour qu’ils adoptent des lois en leur faveur.

Sur cette base, nous pouvons faire une prédiction. Même si Trump et Le Pen quittent la scène, la cause de leur appel continuera à prendre de l’ampleur. Les présidents comme Biden et Macron ne vont pas changer la dynamique fondamentale. Les ruraux pauvres continueront de s’appauvrir et ils voteront de plus en plus pour les candidats qui prétendent s’opposer au système. Bien sûr, des candidats comme Trump et Le Pen n’ont pas l’intention de le faire, mais ils affirment qu’ils changeront le système en faveur des zones rurales et des pauvres. En colère et aliénés, les ruraux pauvres veulent croire leur rhétorique.

Ce ne sont pas seulement les jours de l’empire américain qui sont comptés, comme nous l’avons souvent souligné, mais pour citer Marx, en continuant à enrichir les riches et à appauvrir les pauvres, le capitalisme continue de forger le nœud coulant pour les accrocher.

Mais voici le danger. Il y a 90 ans, lorsque les systèmes économiques se sont effondrés pendant la Grande Dépression, les pays puissants ont abandonné la démocratie et sont tournés vers le système extrême de la culture de la guerre – le fascisme. Ne vous y trompez pas, le fascisme est basé sur la force et la violence d’abord à l’intérieur du pays, puis sur la préparation à la guerre extérieure. En effet, le fascisme est la culture de la guerre dans sa plus pure manifestation. Afin d’éviter une répétition de l’histoire des années 30, il devient de plus en plus urgent de passer de la culture de la guerre à la culture de la paix.

Comment faire une telle transition? Les mensuels de ce blog font des propositions, comme un conseil de sécurité des maires, depuis plusieurs années maintenant. Les propositions n’ont pas encore obtenu de soutien, mais peut-être que le moment viendra où nous n’aurons pas d’autre choix que de les faire avancer.

SOME COMMENTS ON THE US NATIONAL ELECTION

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

I started to write a new blog reacting to the strength of Trump and the Republican party in the US election, and realized that I already wrote such a blog in 2017 and all I need to do is to make a few updates at the end of the article. Back in 2017, I compared Trump’s appeal to that of Marine Le Pen in France, Today I could also compare his appeal to many other demagogues that are thriving around the world in Brazil, Turkey, Russia, Philippines, Hungary, etc.

Here is the 2017 blog with updates at the end in italics.

What is the appeal of Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen? Why have they able to get so many votes?

A superficial response is easy: Voters are angry and fed up with the present political system and they will vote for whoever best applauds their anger and damns the present poitical system. The more the media attacks Trump, the more his US supporters are confirmed that he represents their own rejection of the system. And the more the other political parties and political elite attack Le Pen, the more the French voters are confirmed that she is allied with them against the present political system.

But a more profound response requires that we analyze why voters are angry and fed up. One cause is their economic hardships. The average wages of a worker continue to decrease year after year. More and more families are forced to work two or three jobs just to survive. And they understand, to some extent, that the problem is due to government policies that support capitalist exploitation, enabling the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. On the other hand, many are confused, misled by populists like Trump and Le Pen, who tell them that the problem is caused by imigrants who take their jobs and receive government welfare.

There is a classic term to describe the anger and frustration related to economic hardship that is blamed on the government and other institutions of the society. It is called “alienation.” The young Karl Marx devoted his doctoral thesis to this topic, describing how industrial workers, unlike handicraft workers in previous centuries, no longer had control over the products that they created. Instead, the capitlalist controlled production and took the profits from it. The more the worker toiled, the more the capitalist got richer and could exploit him even more.

Ironically, when I worked in the 70’s and 80’s in the old Soviet Union, I found that my so-called communist friends had never heard the Russian word for alienation (отчуждение), even though their economic conditions were deteriorating as their country’s economy declined under the burden of the arms race. However, they knew that the government was lying to them about the economic situation. They would say “You can find the truth anywhere except in Pravda and the news anywhere except in Izvestia.” These were the two leading state-run news media in the Soviet Union and their names are the Russian words for Truth and News.

Nowadays, Trump and Le Pen make short-term gains by criticiizing the news media. In the short-term, they gain support of many voters who have come to mistrust pronouncements by the government and the capitalist class that are repeated by the media. The voters think that Trump and Le Pen are “on their side.”

But in the long run, they are playing with fire.

In fact, it is true that the media are lying and that the government is directly or indirectly responsible for the lies. If you read Rolling Stone magazine back in the 1970’s, you would have know from Carl Bernstein’s article that all the major media were infiltrated by the CIA during the Vietnam War in order to ensure support by the American people for the war. Although the Bernstein article was simply the account of the US Senate hearings, headed by Senator Frank Church, he could not publish it anywhere except in Rolling Stone. Why? Of course, because the other media were controlled by the CIA!

The Bernstein story is not an exception. It is more and more the rule. In fact, as I conclude in The History of the Culture of War, the control of the media through secrets and lies has become the most important weapon of the culture of war.

We all know now about the big lie of weapons of mass destruction used to justify the war in Iraq. How many remember the falsified Gulf of Tonkin incident that was used to justify the war in Vietnam? Few know the reason for the war against Ghadafi in Libya: it was because he was using Libya’s oil money to strengthen the African Union to the point that the Africans began to resist exploitation by the Americans and Europeans. And unless you dig deep in the foreign media you will not know that the media reports of a poison gas attack by the Syrian government used to justify American intervention, was based on what appears to be faked videos by the White Helmets, an organization established and funded by the US and UK governments as part of their campaign in the Syrian war.

In fact, control of the media, including secrets and lies, is necessary to the culture of war if is to survive. This is due to two other general historical trends: the increase in democracy throughout the world, and the increasing anti-war sentiment throughout the world. People don’t want their country to make war. A few years ago, a political scientist at Yale got a lot of press by arguing that democracies do not make war against other democracies. When I looked at his data, I came to a different intepretation: in order to conduct a war, a democracy has to convince its people that the enemy is not a democracy or else they have to make war secretly, because otherwise the people will not support it. For example, the American wars against Cuba and Nicaragua, as well as the Cold War against Russia, were possible because they could convince the American voter that these were totalitarian countries rather than democracies. And in order to make war against Chile they had to conduct it secretly. The same process is evident today as the government (and the media) condemn Libya and Syria as totalitarian, while supporting even more authoritatian allies, especially Saudi Arabia. The new form of American warfare, the drone attacks that were greatly increased by Obama, enable the US to engage in secret wars throughout the world.

But in the end, the political and economic system of the American empire will pay a heavy price for the manipulation of the news. As it becomes more blatant and more universal and more evident, it increases the alienation of the people from their government and their media. In the short run, it opens the door to demagogues like Trump and Le Pen and perhaps even worse yet to come.

But the heaviest price will come when the economic system collapses. The people of America and Euorope may do what the Soviet people did when their economic system collapsed. The Soviets stayed in their homes and the troops stayed in their barracks, saying “good riddance!” to the Gorbachev government and the Communist Party in Russia. The system collapsed with a whimper rather than a bang!

It’s a vicious cycle. The alienation of voters makes possible the electoral victories of demagogues and fascists. In turn, these demagogues and facists increase government priorities for military spending which, eventually, will push the American empire over the same cliff as the Russian empire before it, unless of course they stumble into a world war which would be and even worse outcome.

Fortunately, since our species is resilient and our history is dialectical, there are positive reactions against the election of demagogues. As we have shown in a recent blog , there is hope for a soft landing to the American crisis.

And there is a positive fightback against the secrets and lies of governments and the commercial mass media. Thanks to modern technology, we are able to work globally in virtual meetings, and internet news systems like CPNN globally as well as many local independent news websites and low-cost local radio stations have become possible.

This month I have a personal example of this approach. I’ve been invited to address the annual meeting of the Global Alliance for Ministries and Infrastructures for Peace and I will use the occasion to talk about ways that we can take advantage of the present chaos to move the transition from the culture of war to a culture of peace.

 

* * * * *

 

QUELQUES COMMENTAIRES SUR L’ÉLECTION NATIONALE AMÉRICAINE

J’ai commencé à écrire un nouveau blog en réaction au support electoral pro Trump et au parti républicain lors des élections américaines; j’ai réalisé que j’avais déjà écrit un tel blog en 2017. Je n’ai eu qu’à faire quelques mises à jour à la fin de l’article. En 2017, j’avais comparé la base electorale de Trump à celle de Marine Le Pen en France. Aujourd’hui je pourrais également faire la comparaison à celles de nombreux autres démagogues à travers le monde: Au Brésil, en Turquie, en Russie, aux Philippines, en Hongrie, etc.

Voici le blog 2017 avec les mises à jour à la fin en italique.

Quel est l’attrait de Donald Trump et Marine Le Pen? Pourquoi sont-ils si populaires?

Une réponse superficielle est facile: les électeurs sont en colère et en ont assez du système politique actuel et ils voteront pour celui ou celle qui écoutera le mieux leur colère et condamnera le système politique actuel. Plus les médias attaquent Trump, plus ses partisans sont persuadés qu’il représente leur propre rejet du système. Et plus les autres partis politiques et l’élite politique attaquent Le Pen, plus les électeurs français sont confirmés qu’elle est alliée avec eux contre le système politique actuel.

Mais une réponse plus profonde exige que nous analysions pourquoi les électeurs sont en colère et en ont assez. L’une des causes est leurs difficultés économiques. Le salaire moyen d’un travailleur continue de baisser d’année en année. De plus en plus de familles sont obligées de travailler deux ou trois emplois pour survivre. Et ils comprennent, dans une certaine mesure, que le problème est dû aux politiques gouvernementales qui soutiennent l’exploitation capitaliste, permettant aux riches de s’enrichir d’avantage, tandis que les pauvres s’appauvrissant de plus en plus. D’un autre côté, beaucoup sont confus, manipulés par les mensonges des populistes comme Trump et Le Pen, qui leur disent que le problème est causé par des immigrés qui prennent leur emploi et reçoivent des aides publiques, ce qui est complétement faux!

Il existe un terme classique pour décrire la colère et la frustration liées aux difficultés économiques qui sont imputées au gouvernement et aux autres institutions de la société. Cela s’appelle «l’aliénation». Le jeune Karl Marx a consacré sa thèse de doctorat à ce sujet, décrivant comment les travailleurs industriels, contrairement aux artisans des siècles précédents, n’avaient plus le contrôle des produits qu’ils créaient. Au lieu de cela, les capitlalistes contrôlaient la production et en tiraient les bénéfices. Plus l’ouvrier travaillait, plus le capitaliste s’enrichissait et pouvait encore plus l’exploiter.

Ironiquement, lorsque j’ai travaillé dans les années 70 et 80 dans l’ancienne Union soviétique, j’ai découvert que mes amis soi-disant communists n’avaient jamais entendu le mot russe pour aliénation (отчуждение), même si leurs conditions économiques se détérioraient alors que l’économie de leur pays déclinait sous le fardeau de la course aux armements. Cependant, ils savaient que le gouvernement leur mentait sur la situation économique. Ils disaient “Vous pouvez trouver la vérité n’importe où sauf dans la Pravda et les nouvelles n’importe où sauf à Izvestia.” C’étaient les deux principaux médias d’information gérés par l’État en Union soviétique et leurs noms sont les mots russes pour “vérité” et “nouvelles”.

De nos jours, Trump et Le Pen font des gains à court terme en critiquant les médias d’information. À court terme, ils obtiennent le soutien de nombreux électeurs qui se méfient des déclarations du gouvernement et de la classe capitaliste qui sont répétées par les médias. Les électeurs pensent que Trump et Le Pen sont «de leur côté».

Mais à long terme, ils jouent avec le feu.

En fait, il est vrai que les médias mentent et que le gouvernement est directement ou indirectement responsable des mensonges. Si vous lisiez le magazine Rolling Stone dans les années 1970, vous auriez su d’après l’article de Carl Bernstein que tous les grands médias ont été infiltrés par la CIA pendant la guerre du Vietnam afin d’assurer le soutien du peuple américain à la guerre. Bien que l’article de Bernstein soit simplement le compte rendu des audiences du Sénat américain, dirigé par le sénateur Frank Church, il ne pouvait le publier nulle part sauf dans Rolling Stone. Pourquoi? Bien sûr, parce que les autres médias étaient contrôlés par la CIA!

L’histoire de Bernstein ne fait pas exception. C’est de plus en plus la règle. En fait, comme je le conclus dans L’histoire de la culture de la guerre, le contrôle des médias à travers les secrets et les mensonges est devenu l’arme la plus importante de la culture de la guerre.

Nous connaissons tous maintenant le grand mensonge des armes de destruction massive utilisées pour justifier la guerre en Irak. Combien se souviennent de l’incident falsifié du golfe du Tonkin qui a servi à justifier la guerre au Vietnam? Rares sont ceux qui connaissent la raison de la guerre contre Kadhafi en Libye: c’était parce qu’il utilisait l’argent du pétrole de la Libye pour renforcer l’Union africaine au point que les Africains ont commencé à résister à l’exploitation par les Américains et les Européens. Et à moins de creuser profondément dans les médias étrangers, vous ne saurez pas que les reportages des médias sur une attaque au gaz toxique par le gouvernement syrien utilisé pour justifier l’intervention américaine, étaient basés sur ce qui semble être de a href=”http://theindicter.com/swedish-doctors-for-human-rights-white-helmets-video-macabre-manipulation-of-dead-children-and-staged-chemical-weapons-attack-to-justify-a-no-fly-zone-in-syria/”>fausses vidéos des Casques blancs, une organisation établie et financé par les gouvernements américain et britannique dans le cadre de leur campagne contre le gouvernement syrien.

En fait, le contrôle des médias, y compris les secrets et les mensonges, est nécessaire à la culture de la guerre pour survivre. Cela est dû à deux autres tendances historiques générales: l’augmentation de la démocratie dans le monde et le sentiment anti-guerre croissant dans le monde. Les gens ne veulent pas que leur pays fasse la guerre. Il y a quelques années, un politologue de Yale [New Haven, CT, USA] a fait beaucoup de bruit en affirmant que les démocraties ne font pas la guerre aux autres démocraties. Quand j’ai regardé ses données, j’en suis venu à une interprétation différente: pour mener une guerre, une démocratie doit convaincre son peuple que l’ennemi n’est pas une démocratie ou bien il doit faire la guerre en secret, sinon le peuple ne le souteint pas. Par exemple, les guerres américaines contre Cuba et le Nicaragua, ainsi que la guerre froide contre la Russie, ont été possibles parce qu’elles pouvaient convaincre l’électeur américain qu’il s’agissait de pays totalitaires plutôt que de démocraties. Et pour faire la guerre au Chili, ils devaient la mener secrètement. Le même processus est évident aujourd’hui alors que le gouvernement (et les médias) condamnent la Libye et la Syrie comme totalitaires, tout en soutenant encore plus d’alliés autoritaires, en particulier l’Arabie saoudite. La nouvelle forme de guerre américaine, les attaques de drones qui ont été fortement multipliées par Obama, permettent aux États-Unis de s’engager dans des guerres secrètes à travers le monde.

Mais au final, le système politique et économique de l’empire américain paiera un lourd tribut pour la manipulation de l’actualité. Au fur et à mesure que cela devient plus flagrant, plus universel et plus évident, cela augmente l’aliénation du peuple par rapport à son gouvernement et à ses médias. À court terme, cela ouvre la porte à des démagogues comme Trump et Le Pen et peut-être même pire encore à venir.

Mais le prix le plus lourd viendra lorsque le système économique s’effondrera. Les peuples d’Amérique et d’Europe peuvent faire ce que le peuple soviétique a fait lorsque leur système économique s’est effondré. Les Soviétiques sont restés dans leurs maisons et les troupes sont restées dans leurs casernes, disant “bon débarras!” au gouvernement Gorbatchev et au Parti communiste en Russie. Le système s’est effondré avec un gémissement plutôt qu’un bang!

C’est un cercle vicieux. L’aliénation des électeurs rend possible les victoires électorales des démagogues et des fascistes. À leur tour, ces démagogues et fascistes augmentent les priorités du gouvernement en matière de dépenses militaires, ce qui, à terme, poussera l’empire américain sur la même falaise que l’empire russe avant lui, à moins bien sûr qu’ils ne tombent dans une guerre mondiale qui serait une issue encore pire.

Heureusement, puisque notre espèce est résiliente et que notre histoire est dialectique, il y a des réactions positives contre l’élection des démagogues. Il reste de l’espoir pour un atterrissage en douceur de la crise américaine, comme nous l’avons décrit dans un blog récent.

Il y a également une riposte positive contre les secrets et les mensonges des gouvernements et des médias commerciaux de masse. Grâce à la technologie moderne, nous sommes en mesure de travailler dans le monde entier à travers des réunions virtuelles, et des systèmes d’information sur Internet comme CPNN dans le monde, ainsi que de nombreux sites Web locaux et independants d’informations ainsi que des stations radio locales sont devenus possibles.

Ce mois-ci, j’ai un exemple personnel de cette approche. J’ai été invité à prendre la parole à la réunion annuelle de l’Alliance mondiale pour les ministères et infrastructures pour la paix et je profiterai de l’occasion pour parler des moyens par lesquels nous pouvons profiter du chaos actuel pour faire avancer la transition de la culture de la guerre à une culture de la paix.

Lessons from this year’s International Day of Peace

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

Looking at the results this year from our survey of the International Day of Peace, I am struck by two aspects, one long term and one short term, that bode well for the future.

The long-term aspect reflects the enormous mobilization of school children to celebrate peace in Russia, Ukraine and Belorus. It seems that the parents and teachers in these countries, much more than what we found in our survey from the rest of the world, are raising the children to be partisans of peace and to oppose the culture of war. This approach is not evident in the political leadership of those countries, but perhaps it means that there is a deep popular sentiment that the leadership of their countries should turn towards peace. In the case of the Ukraine, the celebrations were often coupled with an explicit call for an end to the armed conflict in that country.

The mobilizations for peace with children in Russia, Ukraine and Belorus are no doubt a legacy from the rhetoric of the Soviet Union from which they split one generation ago. That rhetoric was dismissed by the West during the Cold War, but its resurgence now shows that, contrary to Western propaganda, there was a genuine longing for peace to be conveyed to future generations. Going back one or two generations further, we can see that it was the result of the terrible suffering of these counries during World War II.

Some peace researchers argue that we must start with the education of young children if we are to make the transition from the culture of war to a culture of peace. If they are correct, then we shoujld learn from the example being set in these former countries of the Soviet Union and educate our children for peace. How can this be done? We made many suggestions in this regard in our last report to the United Nations for the International Year for the Culture of Peace in the Year 2000. See the document A-55-377 for details.

A short-term aspect of this year’s International Day of Peace was the greatly increased use of virtual events using the Internet. Of course, this goes along with the increased use of virtual meetings in the face of the Coronvirus pandemic.

On the one hand, virtual events lack the force of face-to-face direct contact, but on the other hand, they have the advantage of being able to involve people on a global level, and it is on a global level that we must make the transition to a culture of peace. “Act local, think global” remains the key strategy for this struggle, and if we can get more and more people thinking globally, and acting at that level, even if only by internet, then we are making progress.

Already, this advantage of increased use of the internet for meetings can be seen in the work of the United Nations. The staff of the United Nations working in field offices around the world are now, unlike previously, directly involved in most of the meetings that take place in the headquarters of the UN and its agencies. That gives the UN a more global perspective in its decision-making.

How can this advantage seen at the United Nations be replicated and used by the civil society and by local elected officials to promote the culture of peace? This is an important question to be addressed in these times of rapid and turbulent change.

* * * * *

LEÇONS TIRÉS DE LA JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE DE LA PAIX DE CETTE ANNÉE

En regardant les résultats de notre enquête sur la Journée internationale de la paix cette année, je suis frappé par deux aspects, l’un à long terme et l’autre à court terme, qui sont de bon augure pour l’avenir.

L’aspect à long terme reflète l’énorme mobilisation des écoliers pour célébrer la paix en Russie, en Ukraine et au Bélarus. Il semble que les parents et les enseignants de ces pays, bien plus que ce que nous avons trouvé dans notre enquête dans le reste du monde, élèvent les enfants à être des partisans de la paix et à s’opposer à la culture de la guerre. Cette approche n’est pas évidente dans la direction politique de ces pays, mais cela signifie peut-être qu’il existe un profond sentiment populaire selon lequel les dirigeants de leurs pays devraient se tourner vers la paix. Dans le cas de l’Ukraine, les célébrations se sont souvent accompagnées d’un appel explicite à la fin du conflit armé dans ce pays.

Les mobilisations pour la paix avec les enfants en Russie, en Ukraine et au Bélarus sont sans aucun doute un héritage de la rhétorique de l’Union soviétique dont ils se sont séparés il y a une génération. Cette rhétorique a été rejetée par l’Occident pendant la guerre froide, mais sa résurgence montre maintenant que, contrairement à la propagande occidentale, il y avait un véritable désir de paix à transmettre aux générations futures. En remontant une ou deux générations plus loin, nous pouvons voir que c’était le résultat des terribles souffrances de ces pays pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale.

Certains chercheurs sur la paix soutiennent que nous devons commencer par l’éducation des jeunes enfants si nous voulons passer de la culture de la guerre à une culture de la paix. S’ils ont raison, alors nous devrions tirer les leçons de l’exemple donné pars ces anciens pays de l’Union soviétique et éduquer nos enfants pour la paix. Comment cela peut-il être fait? Nous avons fait de nombreuses suggestions à cet égard dans notre dernier rapport aux Nations Unies pour l’Année internationale de la culture de la paix en l’an 2000. Voir le document A-55-377 pour plus de détails.

L’un des aspects à court terme de la Journée internationale de la paix de cette année a été l’utilisation considérablement accrue d’événements virtuels par l’Internet. Bien sûr, c’est lié avec l’utilisation accrue des réunions virtuelles face à la pandémie de coronvirus.

D’une part, les événements virtuels n’ont pas la force d’un contact direct d’un face à face, mais d’autre part, ils ont l’avantage de pouvoir impliquer les gens au niveau mondial, et c’est au niveau mondial qu’il faut faire la transition vers une culture de paix. «Agir localement, penser globalment» reste la stratégie clé de cette lutte, et si nous pouvons amener de plus en plus de gens à penser globalement et à agir à ce niveau, ne serait-ce que par Internet, alors nous progresserons.

Déjà, cet avantage d’une utilisation accrue de l’Internet pour les réunions se reflète dans les travaux des Nations Unies. Le personnel des Nations Unies travaillant dans les bureaux extérieurs du monde entier est désormais, contrairement à ce qu’il était auparavant, directement impliqué dans la plupart des réunions qui ont lieu au siège de l’ONU et de ses agences. Cela donne à l’ONU une perspective plus globale dans sa prise de décision.

Comment cet avantage perçu aux Nations Unies peut-il être reproduit et utilisé par la société civile et par les élus locaux pour promouvoir la culture de la paix? C’est une question importante à aborder en ces temps de changements rapides et turbulents.

Hope for a soft landing

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

This month’s CPNN bulletin shows how, in the face of pessimistic predictions for the United States, to the point of civil war, there are many progressive initiatives advancing. It’s the dialectics of history in action: “when the going gets tough, the tough get going.” And it raises the hopes that the crash of the empire could have a soft landing.

After all, there is a rich history of progressive mobilizations in the United States. The bulletin lists initiatives in the following domains of action which we may consider in terms of their historical roots.

Unionization. When times get tough, the workers organize. The extensive union drives in factories in the 1870’s and 1880’s and of the railroads in the 1890’s were crushed by police and military violence that was directed by the major capitalists of the time. But in the 1930’s, despite attempts by the capitalists to forcibly prevent them, the CIO was able to organize the national trade unions in the United States in most of the major manufacturing companies. This gave popular support to the New Deal policies that saved the country from the worst ravages of the Great Depression and gave birth to the systems of social security.

Colleges and Universities. Progressive movements have long found support in American institutions of higher education. For example, the mass movement against the Vietnam War took root primarily in college campuses.

Civil rights. The most important mobilizations in recent months have taken place in the struggle against racism. This recalls the movement for civil rights of the 1960’s which provided leadership to the movement against the Vietnam War as exemplified by Martin Luther King.

Climate activism. The youth movement demanding action to address global warming has been a second major mobilization in the past few years. The roots of this movement go back almost 30 years to the 1992 Rio Summit on Environment and Development (the “Earth Summit”). At the time I was still teaching at Wesleyan University and the students sent representatives to the Rio Summit and mobilized teach-ins when they returned.

Peace movement. American Peace Movements have taken many forms over the years, as I documented 40 years ago in my book with that title. Many of them are working together in the United National AntiWar Coalition which has issued a Call to Action. In recent years the most important mobilizations have taken place around the International Day of Peace in September, led by Campaign Nonviolence which last September held over 3,300 actions, events and marches across the USA and in 20 countries.

City governments. In recent years city governments have taken more progressive stands as documented in a series of articles in The Nation and many articles in CPNN. The US Conference of Mayors exemplies this in its many resolutions, and most recently, its “Vision for America.” New Haven has long been a good example going back at least 30 years with the formation of its City Peace Commission.

Members of congress.
Although they are a minority, there have always been a few progressive candidates elected to the US Congress. There is not enough of them to change a system that is dominated by big money interests, but they provide a voice for progressive change which has traditionally inspired other activists

If the United States is to survive the crisis in which it is now engulfed, it will need massive mobilizations in all of these domains and their unity into a single solid progressive movement. And, as we have said before, it will require the dismantling of the US military empire. The military budget must be totally converted in order to save the country. Its military bases around the world must be dismantled and the soldiers brought home and put to useful work.

* * * * *

L’espoir d’un atterrissage en douceur

Le bulletin du CPNN de ce mois montre comment, face aux prévisions pessimistes pour les États-Unis, pouvant aller jusqu’a la guerre civile, de nombreuses initiatives progressistes avancent. C’est la dialectique de l’histoire en action: «when the going gets tough, the tough get going» (quand les temps deviennent durs, les durs avancent.). Et cela fait naître l’espoir que le crash de l’empire pourrait avoir un “atterrissage en douceur.”

Après tout, il existe une riche histoire de mobilisations progressistes aux États-Unis. Le bulletin liste les initiatives dans les domaines d’action suivants que nous pouvons considérer en fonction de leurs racines historiques.

Syndicalisation. Lorsque les temps deviennent durs, les travailleurs s’organisent. Les nombreuses campagnes de syndicalisation dans les usines des années 1870 et 1880 et des chemins de fer dans les années 1890 ont été écrasées par la violence policière et militaire dirigée par les principaux capitalistes de l’époque. Mais dans les années 1930, malgré les tentatives des capitalistes pour les empêcher de force, le CIO a pu organiser les syndicats nationaux aux États-Unis dans la plupart des grandes entreprises manufacturières. Cela a donné un soutien populaire aux politiques du New Deal qui ont sauvé le pays des pires ravages de la Grande Dépression et ont donné naissance aux systèmes de sécurité sociale.

Collèges et universités. Les mouvements progressistes ont depuis longtemps trouvé un soutien dans les établissements d’enseignement supérieur américains. Par exemple, le mouvement de masse contre la guerre au Vietnam a pris racine principalement dans les campus universitaires.

Droits civils. Les mobilisations les plus importantes de ces derniers mois ont eu lieu dans la lutte contre le racisme – le mouvement “Black Lives Matter.” Cela rappelle le mouvement pour les droits civils des années 1960 qui a soutenu le mouvement contre la guerre au Vietnam , comme en témoigne Martin Luther King.

Activisme climatique. Le mouvement de jeunesse exigeant une action pour lutter contre le réchauffement climatique a été une deuxième mobilisation majeure au cours des dernières années. Les racines de ce mouvement remontent à près de 30 ans, au Sommet de Rio de 1992 sur l’environnement et le développement (le «Sommet de la Terre»). À l’époque, j’enseignais encore à l’Université Wesleyan et les étudiants ont envoyé des représentants au Sommet de Rio et mobilisé des “teach-ins” à leur retour.

Mouvement pour la paix. Les mouvements de paix américains ont pris de nombreuses formes au fil des ans, comme je l’ai documenté il y a 40 ans dans mon livre avec ce titre. Beaucoup d’entre eux travaillent ensemble au sein de la United National AntiWar Coalition, qui a lancé un appel à l’action. Ces dernières années, les mobilisations les plus importantes ont eu lieu autour de la Journée internationale de la paix en septembre, surtout par la Campaign Nonviolence qui en septembre dernier a organisé plus de 3 300 actions, événements et manifs.

Gouvernements municipaux. Ces dernières années, les conseils municipaux ont adopté des positions plus progressistes, comme le montre une série d’articles dans The Nation et de nombreux articles dans CPNN. La Conférence des maires des États-Unis en est un exemple dans ses nombreuses résolutions et, plus récemment, dans sa «Vision pour l’Amérique». New Haven est depuis longtemps un bon exemple depuis au moins 30 ans avec la formation de sa City Peace Commission.

Membres du congrès. Bien qu’ils soient minoritaires, il y a toujours eu quelques candidats progressistes élus au Congrès américain. Il n’y en a pas assez pour changer un système dominé par de gros intérêts financiers, mais ils fournissent une voix pour un changement progressif qui a traditionnellement inspiré d’autres militants.

Si les États-Unis survivront à la crise dans laquelle ils sont maintenant engloutis, ils auront besoin de mobilisations massives dans tous ces domaines et de leur unité en un seul mouvement progressiste et solide. Et, comme nous l’avons déjà dit, cela nécessitera le démantèlement de l’empire militaire américain. Le budget militaire doit être totalement converti pour sauver le pays. Ses bases militaires à travers le monde doivent être démantelées et les soldats ramenés chez eux et engagés dans un vaste programme de reconstruction des infrastructures défaillantes des États-Unis.

The crash of the American empire

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

The American empire is crashing. What will it be like. Let us look at recent precedents.

The last empire to crash was the Soviet empire 30 years ago. At the time it was led by Mikhail Gorbachev, a man of peace and harmony, its population was not seriously divided or heavily armed, and the army stayed in their barracks. As a result, there was very little physical violence when the empire collapsed, although in the ensuing years there was great economic suffering because of the devaluation of the ruble (by a factor of almost 10,000) and in subsequent years, there were armed conflicts with the Ukraine and Georgia. In the end, the oligarchs (Russian mafia, etc.) and the secret police (Putin had been head of the KGB) consolidated their power.

The American empire is dying in the hands of Donald Trump, and the situation is completely different.

In recent months, we have said that to survive the United States needs the resignation of Trump and a non-violent revolution, but that does not seem to be coming soon. Many city administrations are progressive and progressive Congressional candidates are being nominated, and some elected. However, that, by itself, will not change a system where the electoral process is mostly in the hands of big money. Progressive mayors and Congressional candidates would have to be supported by mass movements in city halls, town meetings and on the streets if the military priorities of American society can be transformed into a new national unity that puts the priorities on racial and economic equality and full employment.

What seems more likely in the short term is a risk of civil war, as discussed in this article in The Nation and this Youtube video. Here’s why this must be taken seriously.

Trump’s campaign was formally endorsed recently (July 16) by the National Rifle Association, which claims over 5 million members, and they are armed, not just with hunting rifles, but often with military-grade weapons designed to kill efficiently large numbers of people. They are mostly white males without higher education, a group that supports Trump according to the polls. I suppose it is safe to assume that they live more in rural areas than in the big cities. With increasing unemployment and impoverishment they are angy against the bankers of New York and the entrepreneurs of Silicon Valley who are gaining enormous wealth during this crisis, but they take out their anger on women, Blacks and Hispanics who are more accessible.

The American military, on the other hand, has not agreed with Trump’s attempts to engage it in his support. It is perhaps relevant that the proportion of active military personnel that is Black and Hispanic has been growing, and as of 2017 it was already 43%, not to mention a growing proportion of women. Their families are more urban than rural.

The Trump presidency has made racism a major tactic in its campaign strategy for re-election. And while Trump is trailing in the polls, there are serious suggestions circulating that he and his supporters may refuse to accept an election result that is not in his favor.

Meanwhile, the rate of unemployment and families being thrown into poverty has reached proportions in the United States not seen since the 1930’s, and it seems likely to grow further, given the continued need for shutdowns to counter the coronavirus epidemic.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, it reverted to its constituent republics where there were relatively unified cultures, nurtured over the decades by Soviet support for cultural development. There is no such history of culturally uniform states and regions in the United States. One suggestion, that of Johan Galtung, is that there will be an East-West divide with the West Coast linking to Asia and the East Coast linking to Europe. But Galtung does not consider what will happen with the rest of the country, the South and the Middle West. It is there that we may expect the greatest risk of violence, rural versus urban.

A civil war would be bloody, but hopefully not to the extent of the first American Civil War in the 1860’s when tens of thousands were slaughtered in terrible battles between two distinct armies.

Perhaps more relevant that the crash of the Soviet Empire was the crash of Syria. When a revolt broke out against the government, the Syrian military split with some supporting the government and some going to the opposition. The civil war was especially bloody because of external interventions. The opposition received major support, though covert, from the United States and several Arab States, while the government received support from the Lebanese Hezbollah, Iran and Russia.

Unlike Syria, it seems less likely that an American civil war at this moment will receive much external intervention, and it is more likely that it will be decided by the balance of forces in the US. The need for a nonviolent revolution would then become more evident than ever.

What would be the effects in the rest of the world in the face of an American civil war? Would it reinforce the idea and make possible the reformation of the United Nations into a force for the culture of peace? Or would it look more like the 1930’s with the rise of fascist governments and the threat of another World War? We are at a turning point in human history!

* * * * *

Le crash de l’empire américain

L’empire américain s’écroule. A quoi cela ressemblera-t-il?

Le dernier empire à s’effondrer était l’empire soviétique il y a 30 ans. À l’époque il était dirigé par Mikhail Gorbatchev, un homme de paix et d’harmonie, sa population n’était pas sérieusement divisée ou lourdement armée, et l’armée restait dans ses casernes. En conséquence, il y a eu très peu de violence physique lorsque l’empire s’est effondré, bien que dans les années qui ont suivi, il y ait eu de grandes souffrances économiques en raison de la dévaluation du rouble (par un facteur de près de 10000) et les années suivantes, il y a eu des conflits armés avec l’Ukraine et la Géorgie. Finalement, les oligarques (mafia russe, etc.) et la police secrète (Poutine avait été à la tête du KGB) ont consolidé leur pouvoir.

L’empire américain est en train de tomber entre les mains de Donald Trump, et la situation est complètement différente.

Dans les derniers mois, nous avions dit que pour survivre, les États-Unis avaient besoin de la démission de Trump et d’une révolution non violente, mais cela ne semble pas près d’arriver. Il y a beaucoup de conseils municipaux, ainsi que quelques membres au Congrés National et des candidates pour les elections de novembre qui sont progressistes. Cependant, cela ne changera pas un système où le processus électoral est principalement entre les mains des super-riches. Les maires progressistes et les candidats au Congrès devraient être soutenus par des mouvements de masse dans les mairies, dans les assemblées municipales et dans les rues pour que les priorités militaires de la société américaine puissent d’être transformées en une nouvelle forme d’unité nationale qui placerait les priorités sur l’égalité raciale et économique et le plein emploi .

Ce qui semble plus probable à court terme est un risque de guerre civile, comme cela est abordé dans cet article dans The Nation et cette video Youtube. Voici pourquoi cela doit être pris au sérieux.

La campagne de Trump a été officiellement approuvée récemment (16 juillet) par la National Rifle Association, qui revendique plus de 5 millions de membres, et ils sont armés, non seulement de fusils de chasse, mais souvent d’armes de qualité militaire conçues pour tuer efficacement un grand nombre de personnes. Ce sont pour la plupart des hommes blancs sans études supérieures, un groupe qui soutient Trump selon les sondages. Je suppose qu’on peut assumer qu’ils vivent davantage dans les zones rurales que dans les grandes villes. Avec l’augmentation du chômage et de l’appauvrissement, ils sont en colère contre les banquiers de New York et les entrepreneurs de la Silicon Valley qui gagnent énormément de richesse pendant cette crise, mais ils tournent cette colère contre les femmes, les Noirs et les Hispaniques les groupes les plus accessibles.

L’armée américaine, en revanche, n’a pas approuvé les tentatives de Trump de l’engager dans son soutien. Il est peut-être pertinent que la proportion du personnel militaire actif qui est noir et hispanique ait augmenté et qu’en 2017, elle était déjà de 43%, sans parler d’une proportion croissante de femmes. Leurs familles sont plus urbaines que rurales.

Le président Trump a fait du racisme une tactique majeure dans sa stratégie de campagne de réélection. Et bien que Trump perde dans les sondages, il y a de sérieuses suggestions qui circulent selon lesquelles lui et ses partisans pourraient refuser d’accepter un résultat électoral qui n’est pas en sa faveur.

Pendant ce temps, le taux de chômage et de familles jetées dans la pauvreté a atteint des proportions jamais vues aux États-Unis depuis les années 1930, et il semble susceptible de continuer à augmenter, étant donné le besoin continu de fermetures pour contrer l’épidémie de coronavirus.

Lorsque l’Union soviétique s’est effondrée, elle est revenue à ses républiques constituantes où il y avait des cultures relativement unifiées, nourries au fil des décennies par le soutien soviétique au développement culturel. Il n’existe pas d’états et de régions culturellement uniformes aux États-Unis. Une suggestion, celle de Johan Galtung, est qu’il y aura une division Est-Ouest avec la côte ouest reliant l’Asie et la côte Est reliant l’Europe. Mais Galtung ne considère pas ce qui va se passer avec le reste du pays, le Sud et le Moyen-Ouest. C’est là que l’on peut s’attendre au plus grand risque de violence, rurale versus urban.

Une guerre civile serait sanglante, mais, espérons-le, pas à la mesure de la première guerre civile américaine dans les années 1860, lorsque des dizaines de milliers de personnes ont été massacrées lors de terribles batailles entre deux armées distinctes.

Peut-être plus pertinent que le crash de l’Empire soviétique était le crash de la Syrie. Lorsqu’une révolte a éclaté contre le gouvernement, l’armée syrienne s’est séparée, certains soutenant le gouvernement et certains allant à l’opposition. La guerre civile a été particulièrement sanglante à cause des interventions extérieures. L’opposition a reçu un soutien majeur, bien que secret, des États-Unis et de plusieurs États arabes, tandis que le gouvernement a reçu le soutien du Hezbollah libanais, de l’Iran et de la Russie.

Contrairement à la Syrie, il semble moins probable qu’une guerre civile américaine en ce moment recevra beaucoup d’intervention extérieure, et il est plus probable qu’elle sera décidée par l’équilibre des forces aux États-Unis. La nécessité d’une révolution non-violente deviendrait alors plus évidente que jamais.

Quels seraient les effets dans le reste du monde face à une guerre civile américaine? Est-ce que cela renforcerait l’idée et rendrait possible la réforme de l’ONU en une force de culture de la paix? Ou est-ce que cela ressemblerait davantage aux années 1930 avec la montée des gouvernements fascistes et la menace d’une nouvelle guerre mondiale? Nous sommes à un point tournant de l’histoire humaine!

Racism and the Culture of War

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

To succeed the struggle against racism needs to be understood in the context of the struggle against the culture of war.

In my history of the culture of war, I quote Malcolm X at length: “”Book after book showed me how the white man had brought upon the world’s black, brown, red, and yellow peoples every variety of the sufferings of exploitation. I saw how since the sixteenth century, the so-called “Christian trader” white man began to ply the seas in his lust for Asian and African empires, and plunder, and power . . First, always “religiously,” he branded “heathen” and “pagan” labels upon ancient non-white cultures and civilizations. The stage thus set, he then turned upon his non-white victims his weapons of war.” As examples, he describes the British conquest of India, the African slave trade and the Opium War against China.

As Malcolm X describes, racism was used to justify the slave trade from Africa to America, to justify the economic profits gained from slavery. It was used to justify colonialism. And it was used to justify the genocide of indigenous peoples to make way for the expansion of empires.

The institution of slavery goes back to the first empires at the dawn of history. From the beginning it was an expression of the culture of war. Slavery was the fruit of warfare; the vanquished were enslaved. This is clearly described in the narratives of ancient history, for example, in the the Old Testament of the Bible.

The only reason that the African slave trade is not included in the list of wars is that the slaves were rarely able to counter-attack. The same is true for the military conquest of lands inhabited by indigenous peoples. They were wars without names. For example, when I did the research for my study of internal military intervention in the United States, I was unable to find complete records for the use of the military to suppress slave rebellions and to massacre the indigenous people of North America. These were considered so routine that they were not worthy of news articles or historical records.

Legal systems perpetuate this racism in order to protect the power and property of the rich. How else can you explain the fact that people of color are locked up in American prisons far more than their percentage of the population.

And Hollywood has done its part. As described by the great Black activist and statesman, Kwame Nkrumah, “Even the cinema stories of fabulous Hollywood are loaded. One has only to listen to the cheers of an African audience as Hollywood’s heroes slaughter red Indians or Asiatics to understand the effectiveness of this weapon. For, in the developing continents, where the colonialist heritage has left a vast majority still illiterate, even the smallest child gets the message contained in the blood and thunder stories emanating from California. And along with murder and the Wild West goes an incessant barrage of anti-socialist propaganda, in which the trade union man, the revolutionary, or the man of dark skin is generally cast as the villain, while the policeman, the gum-shoe, the Federal agent – in a word, the CIA – type spy is ever the hero.”

Progress against racism depends on whether we can make progress against its root cause, the culture of war which, in turn, is maintained to increase the wealth of the rich and to protect their property. If there is one trend that is clear over the past few centuries, it is this: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is maintained by the culture of war and its associated racism.

The recent uprisings against racist violence by the police is another step towards the radical transformation from the culture of war to a culture of peace

* * * * *

Racisme et culture de guerre

Pour réussir, la lutte contre le racisme doit être considérée dans le contexte de la lutte contre la culture de guerre.

Dans mon histoire de la culture de la guerre, je cite longuement Malcolm X : “Livre après livre m’a montré comment l’homme blanc avait amené sur les peuples noirs, bruns, rouges et jaunes du monde toutes sortes de souffrances d’exploitation. J’ai vu comment, depuis le XVIe siècle, l’homme blanc dit «marchand chrétien» a commencé à sillonner les mers dans sa soif d’empires asiatiques et africains, de pillage et de pouvoir. . Tout d’abord, toujours “religieusement”, il a marqué l’étiquette “païenne” sur les anciennes cultures et civilisations non blanches. Il a ensuite tourné vers ses victimes non blanches ses armes de guerre.” Commes exemples, Malcolm décrit la conquête britannique de l’Inde, la traite négrière africaine et la guerre de l’opium contre la Chine.

Comme il le décrit, le racisme a été utilisé pour justifier la traite des esclaves d’Afrique en Amérique, pour justifier les bénéfices économiques tirés de l’esclavage. Il a été utilisé pour justifier le colonialisme. Et il a été utilisé pour justifier le génocide des peuples autochtones pour faire place à l’expansion des empires.

L’institution de l’esclavage remonte aux premiers empires à l’aube de l’Histoire. Dès le début, c’était une expression de la culture de guerre. L’esclavage était le fruit de la guerre; les vaincus étaient asservis. Ceci est clairement décrit dans les récits de l’histoire ancienne, par exemple, dans l’Ancien Testament de la Bible.

La seule raison pour laquelle la traite des esclaves africains n’est pas incluse dans la liste des guerres est que les esclaves ont rarement pu contre-attaquer. Il en va de même pour la conquête militaire de terres habitées par des peuples autochtones. C’étaient des guerres sans noms. Par exemple, lorsque j’ai fait la recherche pour mon étude sur l’intervention militaire interne aux États-Unis, je n’ai pas pu trouver de documents complets sur l’utilisation de l’armée pour suprimer les rébellions d’esclaves et massacrer les peuples autochtones d’Amérique du Nord. Celles-ci étaient considérées comme si routinières qu’elles n’étaient pas dignes d’articles de presse ou de documents historiques.

Les systèmes juridiques perpétuent ce racisme afin de protéger le pouvoir et les biens des riches. Comment expliquer autrement le fait que les personnes de couleur sont enfermées dans des prisons américaines bien plus que leur pourcentage de la population.

Et Hollywood a fait sa part. Comme le décrit le grand activiste et homme d’État noir, Kwame Nkrumah, “Même les histoires de cinéma du fabuleux Hollywood sont chargées. Il suffit d’écouter les acclamations d’un public africain alors que les héros d’Hollywood massacrent des Indiens rouges ou des Asiatiques pour comprendre l’efficacité de cette arme. Car, dans les continents en développement, où l’héritage colonialiste a laissé une grande majorité encore analphabète, même le plus petit enfant reçoit le message contenu dans les histoires de sang et de tonnerre émanant de Californie. Et avec le meurtre et le Far West va un barrage incessant de propagande antisocialiste, dans lequel l’homme syndical, le révolutionnaire ou l’homme de peau foncée est généralement jeté comme le méchant, tandis que le policier, le détective, l’agent fédéral, l’espion de type CIA ,sont toujours le héros. ”

Les progrès contre le racisme dépendent de la possibilité de progresser contre sa cause profonde, la culture de guerre. Et la culture de guerre, à son tour, est maintenue pour accroître la richesse des riches et protéger leurs biens. S’il y a une tendance claire au cours des derniers siècles, c’est bien celle-ci: les riches s’enrichissent et les pauvres s’appauvrissent. Ceci est maintenu par la culture de la guerre et son racisme associé.

Les récents èmeutes contre la violence raciste par la police sont un autre pas vers la transformation radicale de la culture de la guerre à une culture de la paix.

Trump and America can escape, but the empire cannot

Featured

Trump is now trapped. His Republican presidential predecessor, George W. Bush, has called for the unification of America and that means that Trump has to go. The defense secretary that he named two years ago has denounced his call to militarize the response to American protests, and that means that Trump cannot call on the military to save him.

Yes, Trump can escape from his disastrous presidency. He can make the announcement that he will not seek a second term and the Republican Party should nominate someone else who promises the unify the country.

America is trapped. It is ravaged by the coronavirus with inadequate medical preparedness. It is torn apart by racist violence. And it now has an unemployment rate that rivals that of the Great Depression.

But yes, America can escape from its disastrous medical, social and economic situation. It can convert the military budget to a vast program of rebuilding America’s failing infrastructure, starting with its medical infrastructure and extending, like Roosevelt’s WPA, to all sectors of the domestic economy, thus putting everyone back to work, above all those who have been excluded by racism.

But no, the American empire cannot escape. The military budget must be totally converted in order to save the country. Its military bases around the world must be dismantled and the soldiers brought home and put to useful work.

Will this be done? And will it be done soon enough to save America if not the empire? We have entered one of those periods of history where change is accelerating (as described by dialectics). Ideas and solutions that seemed completely impossible and utopian yesterday suddenly become the orders of today.

The so-called “democratic process” of the United States is not equipped for such a change. It rests firmly in the hands of “big money” interests who pay the millions of dollars in television fees for election campaigns. Not surprisingly, these wealthy interests are almost exclusively in the hands of elderly white men, those who are least open to change. It is the youth, women and people of color who can change and who can save America.

If the American “democratic process” is not equipped, what, then is the way that America can change. Dust off the old word “revolution”. And take off the connotation of violence. Yes, nonviolent revolution is possible.

Once more we must return to the key distinction between culture of war and culture of peace. The violent revolutions of the past have been informed by and led to the culture of war. The revolutions of the future should be informed by and lead to the culture of peace. See the following website for details: SFR-21.org.

Invasion of Venezuela: Is it Operation Just Cause, Bay of Pigs or Wag the Dog?

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

On April 1 (April Fools Day) President Trump announced that the United States will send a military force to Venezuela, claiming that it was needed to stop drug trafficking by their President Maduro. He was followed by US Defense Secretary Mark Esper, who said the task force included Navy destroyers and littoral combat ships, Coast Guard Cutters, P.A. patrol aircraft, and elements of an Army security force assistance brigade. General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added that there are “thousands of sailors, Coast Guardsman, soldiers, airmen, Marines involved in this operation.”

What are the historical precedents for this?

Operation Just Cause. In 1989, the United States invaded Panama and arrested its President Noriega on drug charges, as described in detail by Wikipedia. According to a video by Telesur, over 2,000 people were killed and 20,000 displaced in the extensive military operation. Apparently there was little resistance by the Panamanian military. The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution stating that the U.S. invasion was a “flagrant violation of international law.

Bay of Pigs. In 1961, over 1400 paramilitaries invaded Cuba at a point called the Bay of Pigs. The operation, covertly financed and directed by the U.S. government, was a failure. The invading force were defeated within three days by the Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces.

Wag the Dog In 1997, the film “Wag the Dog” portrays a “war” that is fabricated inside Hollywood sets to distract voters from a presidential sex scandal and  covered by the mass media as if true. In the film the trick works and the President is re-elected as a result.

Which of these precedents most resembles the present situation?

For the moment, it would seem most similar to Wag the Dog. One month after Trump’s announcement, Venezuela captured a small gang of mercenaries led by an American that tried to invade Venezuela. It seems that the invasion attempt was not a very serious attempt in the sense that it had no chance to succeed. However, it captured the attention of the mass media as if Trump was actually attacking Venezuela. And certainly the political problems of President Donald Trump are as great or greater than those of Bill Clinton that inspired the 1997 film. Trump has even more reason to stage a fake war in order to divert attention from his failures.

If there is going to be an invasion of Venezuela like that of Operation Just Cause, we should expect the approach of the US Navy’s warships in the region, especially the Aircraft Carrier Strike Group Truman and the Amphibious Assault Ship Iwo Jima. As of this moment (end of May), according to the internet fleet tracker, they have not moved towards Venezuela, and in fact they are hampered by the potential for an epidemic of coronavirus in their crew, according to the head of the Southern Command.

But there is a long time between now and the elections scheduled for November. And the threats continue. In addition to the invasion by mercenaries mentioned above, consider the following. If you search the internet for “Vigo cocaine”, you will find many articles dating from the beginning of May about the interception of a boat off the coast of Vigo, Portugal, that was loaded with cocaine said by some sources to be coming from Venezuela. But look carefully at the sources. The articles saying that the cocaine came from Venezuela quote unnamed US sources, or, in some cases, they quote James Story, director of the Venezuela Affairs Unit at the U.S. Embassy in Colombia. This information (misinformation?) seems designed to support the Trump administration’s claim that Venezuela is heavily involved in the drug trade which is their excuse for threatening military action, despite the fact that independent studies contradict Trump’s claim.

Finally, if Trump does order an invasion of Venezuela, it may resemble the Bay of Pigs more than Operation Just Cause. The Veneuzuelan military, aided by Russian equipment and advisors, and backed, at least verbally, by China, is a force more similar to the Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces in 1961 than the Panamanian forces in 1989.

The Bay of Pigs preceded by a year the Cuban Missile Crisis which threatened a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union. As for an invasion of Venezuela at this time, could it not also threaten escalation into a nuclear war even more dangerous that a nuclear war would have been in 1962!

At CPNN, following the April 1 announcement by Trump we sent an email to our mailing list saying the following in part: “The threat of Trump to make war against Venezuela demands a special and unique response from all of us. . . . If you are in a country that is in NATO or the UN Security Council, I suggest you contact your government with a message similar to the following: Please use your influence in the [UN Security Council] [direction of NATO] to prevent Trump from starting a war with Venezuela which could lead to World War III because of the support to Venezuela from Russia and China. Trump is trying to divert attention from the medical and economic crisis but he is producing a crisis that is even more dangerous.”

We don’t yet know if this is a case of Wag the Dog, or an April Fool’s joke, but the danger still exists that this could be a repeat of Operation Just Cause or the Bay of Pigs, which demands that we do all we can to prevent it.

* * * * *

Invasion du Venezuela: est-ce l’”Opération Just Cause”, la baie des Cochons ou “Wag the Dog”?

Le 1er avril (poissons d’avril), le président Trump a annoncé que les États-Unis enverraient une force militaire au Venezuela, faisant l’accusation qu’il était nécessaire parce que le trafic de drogue est organisé par leur président Maduro. Il a été suivi par le secrétaire américain à la Défense Mark Esper, qui a déclaré que le Groupe d’attaque comprenait des destroyers de la Marine et des navires de combat littoraux, Coast Guard Cutters, des avions de patrouille et des éléments d’une brigade d’assistance des forces de sécurité de l’armée. Le général Mark Milley, président des chefs d’état-major interarmées, a ajouté que «des milliers de marins, de gardes-côtes, de soldats, d’aviateurs et de marines sont impliqués dans cette opération».

Quels sont les précédents historiques à ce sujet?

Opération Just Cause. En 1989, les États-Unis ont envahi le Panama et arrêté son président Noriega sur des accusations de drogue, comme il l’est écrit dans Wikipedia. Selon une vidéo de Telesur, plus de 2 000 personnes ont été tuées et 20 000 déplacées dans le cadre de cette vaste opération militaire. Apparemment, il y avait peu de résistance de la part des militaires panaméens. L’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies a adopté une résolution déclarant que l’invasion américaine était une “violation flagrante du droit international”.

Baie des Cochons. En 1961, plus de 1400 paramilitaires ont envahi Cuba à un endroit appelé la baie des Cochons. L’opération, secrètement financée et dirigée par le gouvernement américain, a été un échec. La force d’invasion a été vaincue en trois jours par les Forces armées révolutionnaires cubaines.

Wag the Dog. En 1997, le film “Wag the Dog” dépeint une “guerre” qui est fabriquée à l’intérieur des décors hollywoodiens pour distraire les électeurs d’un scandale sexuel présidentiel et couverte par les médias comme si elle était vraie. Dans le film, l’astuce fonctionne et le président est réélu en conséquence.

Lequel de ces précédents ressemble le plus à la situation actuelle?

Pour le moment, cela semble plus similaire à “Wag the Dog”. Un mois après l’annonce de Trump, le Venezuela a capturé une petite bande de mercenaires dirigée par un Américain qui a tenté d’envahir le Venezuela. Il semble que la tentative d’invasion n’ait pas été une tentative très sérieuse dans le sens où elle n’avait aucune chance de réussir. Cependant, cela a attiré l’attention des médias de masse comme si Trump attaquait réellement le Venezuela. Et certainement les problèmes politiques du président Donald Trump sont aussi grands ou plus grands que ceux de Bill Clinton qui a inspiré le film de 1997. Trump a encore plus de raisons de déclencher une fausse guerre afin de détourner l’attention de ses échecs.

S’il doit y avoir une invasion du Venezuela comme celle de l’Opération Just Cause, nous devons nous attendre à l’approche des navires de guerre de la marine américaine dans la région, en particulier du groupe aéronaval Truman et du navire d’assaut amphibie Iwo Jima. Selon le chef du Southern Command, ils ne se sont pas déplacés vers le Venezuela et ils sont en fait gênés par le potentiel d’une épidémie de coronavirus dans leur équipage (fin mai). .

Mais il y a beaucoup de temps entre maintenant et les élections prévues pour novembre. Et les menaces continuent. En plus de l’invasion de mercenaires mentionnée ci-dessus, considérez ce qui suit. Si vous recherchez sur Internet “Vigo cocaïne”, vous trouverez de nombreux articles datant de début mai sur l’interception d’un bateau au large de Vigo, au Portugal, qui était chargé de cocaïne qui, selon certaines sources, proviendrait du Venezuela . Mais regardez attentivement les sources. Les articles disant que la cocaïne provenait du Venezuela citent des sources américaines anonymes ou, dans certains cas, citent James Story, directeur de l’Unité des affaires du Venezuela à l’ambassade des États-Unis en Colombie. Ces informations (désinformation?) semblent conçues pour soutenir l’affirmation de l’administration Trump selon laquelle le Venezuela est fortement impliqué dans le trafic de drogue, ce qui est leur excuse pour menacer une action militaire, malgré le fait que des études indépendantes contredisent l’affirmation de Trump.

Enfin, si Trump ordonne une invasion du Venezuela, cela pourrait ressembler davantage à la baie des Cochons qu’à l’Opération Just Cause. L’armée vénézuelienne, aidée par du matériel et des conseillers russes et appuyée, au moins verbalement, par la Chine, est une force plus similaire aux Forces armées révolutionnaires cubaines en 1961 qu’aux forces panaméennes en 1989.

La baie des Cochons a précédé d’un an la crise des missiles cubains qui menaçait une guerre nucléaire entre les États-Unis et l’Union soviétique. Quant à une invasion du Venezuela en ce moment, ne pourrait-elle pas aussi menacer l’escalade vers une guerre nucléaire encore plus dangereuse qu’une guerre nucléaire l’aurait été en 1962!

À CPNN, à la suite de l’annonce faite le 1er avril par Trump, nous avons envoyé un e-mail à notre liste de diffusion disant en partie : “La menace de Trump de faire la guerre au Venezuela exige une réponse spéciale et unique de nous tous … Si vous êtes dans un pays membre de l’OTAN ou du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies, je vous suggère de contacter votre gouvernement avec un message semblable au suivant: Veuillez utiliser votre influence au [Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies] [direction de l’OTAN] pour empêcher Trump de commencer un guerre contre le Venezuela qui pourrait conduire à la troisième guerre mondiale en raison du soutien au Venezuela de la Russie et de la Chine. Trump essaie de détourner l’attention de la crise médicale et économique, mais il produit une crise encore plus dangereuse. ”

Nous ne savons pas encore s’il s’agit d’un cas de Wag the Dog ou d’un poisson d’avril, mais le danger existe toujours que ce soit une répétition de l’Opération Just Cause ou de la baie des Cochons, qui exige que nous fassions tout ce que nous pouvons pour l’empêcher.

A new chapter in the history of the culture of peace

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

It will soon be 20 years since I wrote “An early history of the culture of peace.” During these years there have been thousands of initiatives described in the reports from the culture of peace decade and reports on the culture of peace news network. However, we have not yet seen any dramatic changes in this history

And it’s been over 10 years since I wrote the novella “I have seen the promised land” which predicted a global economic crash in the year 2000 followed by the transition of the United Nations into a guiding force towards a culture of peace. In addition to the English version, the novella is now available in French, Spanish and Portuguese.

Now, with the arrival of the global economic crash, the time has come for dramatic new initiatives to write a new chapter in this history. As a readers of this blog you are invited to contribute.

You may play an online game with two options: one defining the culture of peace; and the other choosing among different routes for the transition from the culture of war to a culture of peace. The game includes a discussion forum where you are invited to share your comments and suggestions.

Thanks to the hard work of Myrian Castello and Herbert Lima in Brazil, we have a series of social media connections where you are invited to subscribe and contribute.

The first connection is an ongoing series of webinars The initial program, Peace is in our hands, is available on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Bwt6qsj2FI. It is a program of 29 minutes introduced by Myrian followed by my remarks concerning :

1) The origin of the economic crash started long before the coronavirus: the causes are financial speculation and militarization of the world’s economy.

2) A crash is also an opportunity for radical change, a change from the culture of war to a culture of peace.

3) A vision for the culture of peace was developed under Federico Mayor at UNESCO in the 1990’s, including national culture of peace programs, the Manifesto 2000 signed by 75 million people and the Declaration and Programme of Action for a Culture of Peace adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1999, despite opposition by the rich Member States.

4) The Programme of Action was based on an analysis of the 8 aspects of the culture of war and the 8 corresponding aspects of the culture of peace.

5) The opposition to the culture of peace by the rich countries showed the extent to which the nation-state has come over the course of history to monopolize the culture of war. Therefore to achieve a culture of peace, we need to reform the United Nations so that it is based directly on the people rather than the nation-states. For example, a United Nations Security Council run by representatives of the mayors of the world, a Mayors Security Council.

6) The economic crash is an opportunity to change the basis of the United Nations, because the Member States are no longer supporting or concerned with the UN.

(the following are responses to the questions and suggestions of participants)

7) The crisis shows us the great importance and potential of the internet and social media, and this can be a major tool for the radical changes that are needed.

8) The more women gain positions of authority, the more likely we are to be able to develop a culture of peace.

9) We need to develop more local political and economic initiatives to develop independence from the nation-state and the global industrialized economy. This may include local peace commissions.

10) Conclusion: think globally, act locally.

The webinar series will be continued and the next one is taking place today (May 1) at 17:00 Greenwich Mean Time. The channel is at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxL5jiQ7k6EgC4vNj0AXYbA/ . The theme is “Are human beings naturally aggressive?” Please subscibe, since we need subscribers to reach 100. We expect to produce at least two programs each month and we welcome your suggestions and participation.

A new facebook page is available: Peace is in our hands at https://www.facebook.com/peaceisinourhands.

Finally, we have a new instagram at http://www.instagram.com/peaceisinourhands..

Together, we can turn this crisis into an opportunity for progress towards a culture of peace.
 

* * * * *

Un nouveau chapitre dans l’histoire de la culture de la paix

Cela fera bientôt 20 ans depuis que j’ai écrit “Une première histoire de la culture de la paix“. Au cours de ces années, des milliers d’initiatives ont été décrites dans les rapports de la décennie de la culture de la paix et dans les rapports du reseau d’information CPNN. Cependant, nous n’avons pas encore vu de changements spectaculaires dans cette Histoire.

Et cela fait plus de 10 ans que j’ai écrit le roman “J’ai vu la terre promise” qui prédit un krach économique mondial en l’an 2000 suivi de la transition des Nations Unies en force directrice vers une culture de la paix. La nouvelle est aussi disponible en espagnol et en portugais ainsi qu’en anglais.

Maintenant, avec l’arrivée du crach économique mondial, le temps est venu pour de nouvelles initiatives dramatiques d’écrire un nouveau chapitre. En tant que lecteurs de ce blog, vous êtes invités à contribuer.

Vous pouvez jouer à un jeu en ligne avec deux options: l’une définissant la culture de la paix; et l’autre choisissant parmi différentes voies pour le passage de la culture de guerre à une culture de paix. Le jeu comprend un forum de discussion où vous êtes invité à partager vos commentaires et suggestions.

Grâce au travail acharné de Myrian Castello et Herbert Lima au Brésil, nous avons une série de connexions sur les réseaux sociaux où vous êtes invités à vous abonner et à partager vos contributions.

La première connexion est une série de webinaires en cours. Le programme initial, “La paix est entre nos mains,” est disponible sur YouTube à l’adresse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Bwt6qsj2FI. C’est un programme de 29 minutes présenté par Myrian suivi par mes remarques concernant ces points :

1) L’origine du crach économique a commencé bien avant le coronavirus: les causes sont la spéculation financière et la militarisation de l’économie mondiale.

2) Un crash est également une opportunité pour un changement radical, un changement de la culture de la guerre à une culture de la paix.

3) Une vision de la culture de la paix a été élaborée sous l’autorité de Federico Mayor à l’UNESCO dans les années 1990: y compris les programmes nationaux de culture de la paix; le Manifeste 2000 signé par 75 millions de personnes; et la Déclaration et le Programme d’action pour une culture de la paix, adoptés par le Assemblée générale des Nations Unies en 1999.

4) Le Programme d’action a été basé sur l’analyse des 8 aspects de la culture de la guerre et des 8 aspects correspondants de la culture de la paix.

5) L’opposition à la culture de la paix des pays riches a montré à quel point l’État-nation est venu au cours de l’Histoire monopoliser la culture de la guerre. Par conséquent, pour instaurer une culture de paix, nous devons réformer l’Organisation des Nations Unies afin qu’elle repose directement sur le peuple plutôt que sur les États-nations. Par exemple, un Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies dirigé par des représentants des maires du monde, un .

6) Le crach économique est l’occasion de changer la base des Nations Unies, car les États membres ne soutiennent plus ou ne se préoccupent plus de l’ONU.

(voici les réponses aux questions et suggestions des participants)

7) La crise nous montre la grande importance et le potentiel d’Internet et des médias sociaux, et cela peut être un outil majeur pour les changements nécessaires.

8) Plus les femmes obtiennent des postes d’autorité, plus nous devons être capable de développer une culture de paix.

9) Nous devons développer davantage d’initiatives politiques et économiques locales pour obtenir indépendance vis-à-vis de l’État-nation et de l’économie industrielle mondiale. Cela peut inclure des commissions de paix locales.

10) Conclusion: penser globalement, agir localement.

La série de webinaires se poursuivra et la prochaine aura lieu aujourd’hui (1er mai) à 17h00, heure de Greenwich. La chaîne se trouve à https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxL5jiQ7k6EgC4vNj0AXYbA/. Le thème est “Les êtres humains sont-ils naturellement agressifs?” Veuillez vous abonner, car nous avons besoin d’atteindre 100 abonnés. Nous prévoyons de produire au moins deux programmes chaque mois et nous apprécions votre participation et vos suggestions.

Une nouvelle page Facebook est disponible: la paix est entre nos mains sur https://www.facebook.com/peaceisinourhands/.

Enfin, nous avons un nouvel instagram sur http://www.instagram.com/peaceisinourhands.

Ensemble, nous pouvons transformer cette crise en une opportunité de progrès vers une culture de la paix.

Has the crash arrived?

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

The headlines provide abundant details about economic shutdowns in order to slow the spread of the COV-19 virus.

But behind the headlines, there is another story more important in the long run: the global economy is a house of cards based on speculation and military spending. It seems likely that the house of cards will come crashing down as a result of the global economic shutdown.

The details of how this will come about in economic terms are difficult to predict since there are so many interacting factors.

But even more important is how this can play out in political repercussions and opportunities.

Will it provide us with the opportunity to make the transition from the culture of war to a culture of peace?

In the novella that I wrote ten years ago, I foresaw a global economic crash in the year 2020, which opened the possibility for this radical transformation.

Ultimately the result depends on our coordinated strategy and tactics, but it also depends on having the necessary communication and transportation mechanisms that allow our coordination and our actions.

Will we be able to travel and meet face to face? Already there are are severe travel restructions. In the novella I wrote: “Don’t forget that in 2021, airline flights around the world were running at less than 30% of pre-crash levels, and to get a ticket under ordinary circumstances you needed to reserve six months in advance and hope that the airline would stay in business that long. “

Can we depend on internet communications as the crash develops? In the novella, I predict that internet communication will also be curtailed, and I propose that alternative electronic communication will fill the void. I am not an expert in this domain, but perhaps some who read this blog may send me suggestions.

In the novella I considered that in the first few years after the global economic crash, the priority was to mobilize millions of people to resist the attempts by the rich to impose a “fascist solution” like that imposed last century in the Great Depression. I think this priority is appropriate today, since already in recent years we are seeing signs of this danger with the rise to power of authoritarian heads of state such as Trump, Bolsonaro, Duterte, Erdogan and Orban, not to mention the moves of Putin and Xi Jinping to retain power without elections.

The turning point, according to the novella, was the declaration by representatives from cities around the world meeting in Porto Alegre, Brazil:

    When in the course of history it
    becomes evident that the old order has
    failed and it becomes possible through
    the development and sharing of a new
    vision that power be transferred from
    the nation-state with its culture of war
    to a new order based on the culture of
    peace, it is the right and duty of those
    who have been elected to represent the
    people on the local and regional level
    to take up the higher responsibility of
    world governance.

Readers of this blog will recognize here the proposal in last month’s blog for a Mayor’s Security Council.

I don’t know if it will be in Porto Alegre, but Latin America seems a logical place to start the process towards a new world order. After all, it was the World Social Forums born in Brazil that gave us our slogan: “Another world is possible.”

* * * * *

Le crash est-il arrivé?

Les titres fournissent de nombreux détails sur les fermetures économiques afin de ralentir la propagation du virus COV-19.

Mais derrière les titres, il y a une autre histoire plus importante à long terme: l’économie mondiale est un château de cartes basé sur la spéculation et les dépenses militaires. Il semble probable que ce château de cartes s’écroulera à la suite de l’arrêt économique mondial.

Les détails économiques de la façon dont cela se produira sont difficiles à prévoir car il existe de nombreux facteurs d’interaction.

Mais e plus important encore est de savoir comment cela peut se traduire par les répercussions et les opportunités politiques.

Cela nous donnera-t-il la possibilité de faire la transition de la culture de la guerre à une culture de la paix?

Dans le roman que j’ai écrit il y a dix ans , je prévoyais un krach économique mondial en 2020, qui a ouvert la possibilité de cette transformation radicale.

En fin de compte, le résultat dépend de notre stratégie et de nos tactiques coordonnées, mais il dépend également de la disponibilité des mécanismes de communication et de transport qui sont nécessaires pour notre coordination et pour nos actions.

Dans l’avenir pourrons-nous encore voyager et faire des réunions? Il y a déjà de sévères restrictions de voyage. Dans le roman, j’écrivait: “N’oubliez pas qu’en 2021, les vols des compagnies aériennes à travers le monde fonctionnaient à moins de 30% des niveaux d’avant le crash, et pour obtenir un billet dans des circonstances ordinaires, vous deviez réserver six mois à l’avance espérons que la compagnie aérienne ne soit pas en faillite.”

Pouvons-nous dépendre des communications Internet à mesure que le crash se développe? Dans la roman, je prédis que la communication sur Internet sera également réduite, et je propose que d’autres systemes de communication électronique alternative comblent le vide. Je ne suis pas un expert dans ce domaine, mais peut-être que certains qui liront ce blog pourront m’envoyer des suggestions.

Dans la roman, j’ai considéré que dans les premières années après le krach économique mondial, la priorité était de mobiliser des millions de personnes pour résister aux tentatives des riches d’imposer une “solution fasciste” comme celle imposée au siècle dernier dans la Grande Dépression. Je pense que cette priorité est appropriée aujourd’hui, car déjà au cours des dernières années, nous voyons des signes de ce danger avec la montée en puissance de chefs d’État autoritaires tels que Trump, Bolsonaro, Duterte, Erdogan et Orban, sans parler des mouvements de Poutine et de Xi Jinping à conserver le pouvoir sans élections.

Selon la roman, le tournant a été la déclaration des représentants des villes du monde entier réunis à Porto Alegre, au Brésil:

    Au cours de l’histoire,
    il devient évident que l’ancien ordre
    a échoué et il devient possible grâce
    au développement et au partage
    d’une nouvelle vision que le pouvoir soit transféré de
    l’État-nation avec sa culture de guerre
    à un nouvel ordre basé sur la culture de
    la paix; c’est le droit et le devoir de ceux
    qui ont été élus pour représenter le
    le peuple au niveau local et régional,
    de prendre la plus haute responsabilité de
    gouvernance mondiale.

Les lecteurs de ce blog reconnaîtront ici la proposition dans le blog du mois dernier d’un Conseil de sécurité des maires.

Je ne sais pas si ce sera à Porto Alegre, mais l’Amérique latine semble un endroit logique pour entamer le processus vers un nouvel ordre mondial. Après tout, ce sont les Forums sociaux mondiaux nés au Brésil qui nous ont donné notre slogan: “Un autre monde est possible”.

TOWARDS A MAYORS’ SECURITY COUNCIL

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

A proliferation of city and mayoral organizations are filling the void left by the failure of the nation-states. As stated by one of the most recent, the Strong Cities Network: “Nation states have dominated the global political arena for centuries, but with more than half of the world’s population today residing in cities, it may be time to rethink who should be at the table when it comes to decisions on how we can reduce violence.”

The latest issue of the CPNN bulletin lists recent actions by the following organizations and forums of cities and mayors contibuting to nuclear disarmament, sustainable development, reduction of international tensions and reduction of urban violence :

Mayors for Peace
Cities Appeal of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
World Urban Forum
ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability)
Global Parliament of Mayors
International Cities of Peace
Strong Cities Network (SCN)
World Forum on Cities and Territories of Peace
United Cities and Local Governments

We may suppose that this proliferation of initiatives reflects a growing realization that the system of nation states is failing as we have documented over the past couple of years in CPNN.

Sustainable development. The CPNN bulletin of January 1 this year is devoted to the Global Climate Change Conference in Madrid which failed just as the previous Conferences failed.

Nuclear disarmament. The CPNN bulletin of June 1, 2018 was devoted to the United Nationsl Disarmament Conference that never took place because of the opposition of the nuclear states.

Around the world we see the beginning of failed states, consumed by violence: Libya, Yemen, and a case can be made for Mexico. Johan Galtung has gone so far as to imagine that the United States will split into two countries as the American Empire crumbles.

The situation is so serious that UN Secretary-General Guterrres devoted his annual press conference on February 4 to the “wind of madness” sweeping the globe. ” From Libya to Yemen to Syria and beyond — escalation is back. Arms are flowing. Offensives are increasing.” And the “doomsday clock” of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has been moved to the closest to midnight of an apocalypse since the lock was first started in 1947 to warn of the dangers of nuclear war.

We may point our finger at the United Nations Security Council as the key element of the failure. The Council was established after World War II to ensure peace and stability in the post-war world. For the first half of its existence it was hobbled by the Cold War, and there were hopes that after the falll of the Soviet Empire it would be able to fulfill its function. But now, it is now evident that the nation-states are not capable of this.

The time has come to begin a process of transferring the decision-making of the UN Secuity Council from the nation-state to the city.

Cities have no interest in nuclear weapons. They are not invested in the arms race or in the polluting industries that cause global warming. They have no frontiers to defend or tarrifs to impose.

The process can be started now with a Mayors’ Security Council (MSC) similar to the Virtual Parliament recently begun by the Global Parliament of Mayors. The MSC would regularly issue press releases stating how they would vote on issues facing the UN Security Council. Immediately they would begin the process of nuclear disarmament. And they would be more serious in addressing the global climate crisis. They would raise the hope that “another world is possible.”

To survive at this point in human history, we need a new vision and a new approach. The MSC could begin this process.

* * * * *

VERS UN CONSEIL DE SÉCURITÉ DES MAIRES

Une prolifération d’organisations de villes et de maires comble le vide laissé par l’échec des États-nations. Comme l’a déclaré l’un des plus récents, le Strong Cities Network: «Les États-nations dominent l’arène politique mondiale depuis des siècles, mais avec plus de la moitié de la population mondiale résidant aujourd’hui dans les villes, il est peut-être temps de repenser qui devrait être autour de la table quand il s’agit de décisions sur la façon dont nous pouvons réduire la violence. “

Le dernier numéro du bulletin du CPNN liste les actions récentes des organisations et forums de villes et maires suivants, contribuant au désarmement nucléaire, au développement durable, à la réduction des tensions internationales et à la réduction de la violence urbaine:

Maires pour la paix,

L’appel des villes par la Campagne internationale pour l’abolition des armes nucléaires
Forum urbain mondial,

ICLEI (Gouvernements locaux pour la developpement durable),
Parlement mondial des maires,
Villes internationales de paix,
Réseau des villes fortes (SCN),
Forum mondial des villes et territoires de paix,
Cités et Gouvernements Unis

Nous pouvons supposer que cette prolifération d’initiatives reflète une prise de conscience croissante de l’échec du système des États-nations comme nous l’avons documenté au cours des deux dernières années dans CPNN.

Le développement durable. Le bulletin de CPNN du 1er janvier de cette année est consacré à la Conférence mondiale sur le changement climatique à Madrid qui a échoué tout comme les conférences précédentes ont échoué.

Le désarmement nucléaire. Le bulletin du CPNN du 1er juin 2018 était consacré à la Conférence des Nations Unies sur le désarmement qui n’a jamais eu lieu en raison de l’opposition des États nucléaires.

Partout dans le monde, nous voyons le début d’États en déroute, dévorés par la violence: la Libye, le Yémen, et peut-être le Mexique. Johan Galtung est allé jusqu’à imaginer que les États-Unis se diviseraient en deux pays lors que l’Empire américain s’effondrera.

La situation est si grave que le Secrétaire général de l’ONU, M. Guterrres, a consacré sa conférence de presse annuelle du 4 février au “vent de folie” qui balaie le monde. “De la Libye au Yémen en passant par la Syrie et au-delà – l’escalade est de retour. Les armes crachent. Les offensives augmentent.”

Et l’horloge apocalyptique du Bulletin of Atomic Scientists a été déplacée au plus près de minuit depuis son début en 1947 pour avertir des dangers de la guerre nucléaire.

Nous pouvons pointer du doigt le Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies comme l’élément clé de l’échec. Le Conseil a été créé après la Seconde Guerre mondiale pour assurer la paix et la stabilité dans le monde d’après-guerre. Pendant la première moitié de son existence, il a été entravé par la guerre froide, et il y avait l’espoir qu’après la chute de l’empire soviétique, il serait en mesure de remplir sa fonction. Mais maintenant, il semble évident que les États-nations n’en sont pas capables.

Le moment est venu d’entamer un processus de transfert de la décision du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies de l’État-nation à la ville.

Les villes n’ont aucun intérêt pour les armes nucléaires. Elles ne sont pas investies dans la course aux armements ou dans les industries polluantes qui provoquent le réchauffement climatique. Elles n’ont pas de frontières à défendre, ni de tarifs à imposer.

Le processus peut commencer dès maintenant avec un Conseil de sécurité des maires (MSC) similaire au Parlement virtuel récemment initié par le Parlement mondial des maires. Le MSC publiera régulièrement des communiqués de presse indiquant comment il votera sur les questions auxquelles le Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies est confronté. Ils entameraient immédiatement le processus de désarmement nucléaire. Et ils seraient plus sérieux dans la lutte contre la crise climatique mondiale. Ils susciteraient l’espoir qu’un “autre monde est possible”.

Pour survivre à cette période dangereuse de l’histoire humaine, nous avons besoin d’une nouvelle vision et d’une nouvelle approche. Le MSC pourrait commencer ce processus.

Click here to read comments.

Why the bloated military budget threatens to bring down the American empire

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

The continued, unchecked, expansion of the American military budget, as described in this month’s CPNN bulletin reminds me of what happened to the Soviet empire in the 1980’s.

In the beginning of the 1980’s there were three things that foreshadowed the end of the Soviet empire:

1. The arms race of the Cold War which destroyed the Soviet empire, not by war itself, but by bankrupting their economy (see note). By matching the West’s military budgets ruble for dollar, but based on an economy only half as great, the Soviet Union was forced to divert almost all of its resources to the military. For example, in the West about 40% of scientists and engineers were engaged directly or indirectly with the military, but in the Soviet Union it was closer to 90%. There was nothing left for economic development or for the needs of the people.

2. The prediction of Johan Galtung in 1980 that the Soviet Empire would collapse in 10 years.

3. I experienced this when working in a scientific lab doing brain research in Moscow. When I couldn’t get decent electronics or a good electronics engineer, I asked a Russian colleague doing cardiovascular research how he got his good equipment. “I have friends in the military,” he replied. Yes, there were lines at the stores for meat, but the longest lines I saw were to buy gold or diamonds because people feared that the ruble would crash.

They were correct, Galtung and the people buying gold. Only instead of 10 years, it took 9 years before the ruble crashed and the empire crashed as a result..

As was the case in the Soviet Union, the continued expansion of the American military budget leaves little for economic development or for the needs of the American people. But most important, as was the case for the Soviet Union, it destroys confidence in the US dollar.

The American military budget is not paid from the profits of American exports. In fact the US regularly imports more than it exports and runs a deficit which for the year 2019 was more than $1 trillion dollars. As we have seen the military budget accounts for almost 75% of this.

The deficit is covered primarily by the sale of US treasury bills, notes and bonds, much of which are bought by other countries, the most important being Japan and China. As of October 2019, Japan held $1.27 trillion in US debt and China held $1.10 trillion.

Normally it is assumed that Japan, China and other countries will continue to buy American debt because they will lose their investment if the dollar crashes. Traditionally the dollar has been considered a “safe haven” for investments.

But there are signs that this is changing. In particular it can be seen in the movement of gold from West to East. Since 2005, Russia, China, Turkey and India have bought about 80% of the world’s gold production (36,000 tons) , and recently Japan has been buying gold as well. They pay for the gold in dollars and, at least in the case of Russia, it is stated that it is a process of “de-dollarization.” This was made explicit in remarks by the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs this January 15.

During this time the US, in contrast has been selling its gold. It still claims to have 8,000 tons, but there are suspicions that this is exaggerated.

According to The Economist on January 18, the more that the US imposes financial sanctions on other countries (a favorite tactic of the Trump administration), the more countries will follow the suit of Russia and de-dollarize their economies.

According to The Economist article, in the past when there was economic turmoil countries bought dollars as a “safe haven”. But during the most recent crisis between the US and Iran, there were signs that this has changed. The Financial Times revealed on January 10 that this time there was no increased buying of the dollar.

Here are some quotes from the Financial Times:

“A more profound change to the dollar’s safe-haven status may be taking place, however, according to Zach Pandl, head of global foreign exchange strategy at Goldman Sachs. He pointed to efforts from Russia, which is expanding the use of euros and roubles for settling energy transactions, in an attempt to reduce its reliance on the US currency. . . . Mr Pandl said other countries could follow suit if geopolitical tensions persist. ‘If the tensions last just a few weeks or months, it will not be enough to get a large scale de-dollarisation effort under way,’ he said. ‘But if it were to last a longer period or to broaden in some way, it could affect aspects of the dollar’s global role.’”

Once the ruble crashed after 1989, it was all down-hill. Eventually, aided by CIA advisors sent to “advise” President Yeltsin, the ruble was devalued by 10,000 times. Imagine what will happen to the American empire and the global economy if the dollar loses its global role and has to be devalued!

* * * * * *

Note: An earlier version of this blog stated that the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union because of the arms race was a deliberate policy of the CIA. It turns out that I was wrong about this. According to interviews with CIA agents who were responsible for Russian policy in the 1980’s, they did not dare to make this prediction because the US government and military-industrial-congressional complex needed to justify their own military budget by considering the Soviet Union to be a powerful enemy.

For more details on why the Soviet Union went bankrupt, see my own article written in 1991.

* * * * * *

Pourquoi le budget militaire gonflé menace de faire tomber l’empire américain

L’expansion continue et incontrôlée du budget militaire américain, décrite dans le bulletin CPNN de ce mois-ci, me rappelle ce qui est arrivé à l’empire soviétique dans les années 80.

Au début des années 80, trois choses préfiguraient la fin de l’empire soviétique:

1. La course aux armements de la guerre froide qui a détruit l’empire soviétique, non pas par la guerre elle-même, mais en forçant la faillite de leur économie ( (voir note). En faisant correspondre les budgets militaires de l’Occident au rouble pour un dollar, mais sur la base d’une économie moitié moins grande, l’Union soviétique a été obligée de détourner la quasi-totalité de ses ressources vers les forces armées. Par exemple, en Occident, environ 40% des scientifiques et ingénieurs étaient engagés directement ou indirectement dans l’armée, mais en Union soviétique, ils étaient plus proches de 90%. Il ne restait plus rien pour le développement économique ou pour les besoins de la population.

2. La prédiction de Johan Galtung en 1980 que l’Empire soviétique s’effondrerait dans 10 ans.

3. J’ai vécu cela en travaillant dans un laboratoire scientifique lors de mes recherches sur le cerveau à Moscou. Quand je ne pouvais pas obtenir d’appareils électroniques ni un bon ingénieur en électronique, je demandais à un collègue russe effectuant des recherches cardiovasculaires comment il avait obtenu son bon équipement. “J’ai des amis dans l’armée”, a-t-il répondu. Oui, il y avait des files d’attente devant les magasins pour la viande, mais les plus longues que j’ai vues étaient pour acheter de l’or ou des diamants parce que les gens craignaient que le rouble ne s’effondre.

Ils avaient raison, Galtung et les gens qui achetaient de l’or. Seulement au lieu de 10 ans, il a fallu 9 ans avant que le rouble ne s’effondre et que l’empire tombe juste après.

Comme ce fut le cas en Union soviétique, l’expansion continue du budget militaire laisse peu de place au développement économique ou aux besoins du peuple américain. Mais le plus important, comme ce fut le cas pour l’Union soviétique, elle détruit la confiance dans le dollar américain.

Le budget militaire américain n’est pas payé par les bénéfices des exportations américaines. En fait, les États-Unis importent régulièrement plus qu’ils n’exportent et accusent un déficit qui, pour l’année 2019, était supérieur à un billion de dollars. Comme nous l’avons vu, le budget militaire en représente près de 75%.

Le déficit est principalement couvert par la vente de bons, de billets et d’obligations du Trésor américain, dont une grande partie est achetée par d’autres pays, les plus importants étant le Japon et la Chine. En octobre 2019, le Japon détenait 1,27 billion de dollars de la dette américaine et la Chine, 1,10 billion de dollars.

Normalement, on considère que le Japon, la Chine et d’autres pays continueront à acheter de la dette américaine car ils perdront leur investissement si le dollar s’effondre. Traditionnellement, le dollar a été considéré comme un “refuge” pour les investissements.

Mais il y a des signes de changement. En particulier, on peut le voir dans le mouvement de l’or d’Ouest en Est. Depuis 2005, la Russie, la Chine, la Turquie et l’Inde ont acheté environ 80% de la production mondiale d’or (36 000 tonnes), et récemment le Japon a également acheté de l’or. Ils échangent l’or en dollars et, du moins dans le cas de la Russie, il est indiqué qu’il s’agit d’un processus de «dé-dollarisation». Cela a été rendu explicite dans les remarques du ministre russe des Affaires étrangères ce 15 janvier.

Pendant ces années, les États-Unis, en revanche, ont vendu leur or. Ils prétendent toujours en avoir encore 8 000 tonnes, mais on soupçonne que cela est exagéré.

Selon The Economist du 18 janvier, plus les États-Unis imposent de sanctions financières à d’autres pays (une tactique préférée de l’administration Trump), plus les pays suivront le mouvement de la Russie et dé-dollariseront leurs économies.

Selon l’article de The Ecoomist, dans le passé, lorsque leurs pays étaient en proie à des bouleversements économiques, ils achetaient des dollars comme “refuge”. Mais lors de la dernière crise entre les États-Unis et l’Iran, il y avait des signes que cela avait changé. Le Financial Times a révélé le 10 janvier que cette fois il n’y avait pas d’augmentation des achats de dollars.

Voici quelques citations du Financial Times:

“Un changement plus profond du statut de valeur refuge du dollar pourrait toutefois avoir lieu, selon Zach Pandl, responsable de la stratégie de change mondiale chez Goldman Sachs. Il a souligné les efforts de la Russie, qui étend l’utilisation des euros et des roubles. pour le règlement des transactions énergétiques, afin de réduire sa dépendance à l’égard de la devise américaine … M. Pandl a déclaré que d’autres pays pourraient emboîter le pas si les tensions géopolitiques persistent. ‘Si les tensions ne durent que quelques semaines ou quelques mois, ce ne sera pas suffisant pour lancer un effort de dé-dollarisation à grande échelle,’ a-t-il dit. ‘Mais s’il devait durer plus longtemps ou s’élargir d’une manière ou d’une autre, il pourrait affecter certains aspects du rôle mondial du dollar.'”

Une fois que le rouble s’est écrasé après 1989, tout était en descente. Finalement, aidé par des conseillers de la CIA envoyés pour “conseiller” le président Eltsine, le rouble a été dévalué de 10 000 fois. Imaginez ce qui arrivera à l’empire américain et à l’économie mondiale si le dollar perd son rôle mondial et doit être dévalué!

* * * * * *

Note: Une version antérieure de ce blog a déclaré que la faillite de l’Union soviétique en raison de la course aux armements était une politique délibérée de la CIA. Il s’avère que j’avais tort à ce sujet. Selon des entretiens avec des agents de la CIA qui étaient responsables de la politique russe dans les années 1980, ils n’ont pas osé faire cette prédiction parce que le gouvernement américain et le complexe militaro-industriel-du Congrès devaient justifier leur propre budget militaire en considérant l’Union soviétique comme un ennemi puissant.

Pour plus de détails sur les raisons de la faillite de l’Union soviétique, voir mon propre article écrit en 1991.

A World without the Nation-State

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

The articles in CPNN this month show how the state is a culture of war. In this case the state is the United States and their culture of war is shown in their role in the overthrow of President Morales of Bolivia (precisely because he was promoting a culture of peace) and their threat to punish Julian Assange (precisely because he revealed the secrets of their culture of war.) Not to mention that the states of the world are unable to seriously attack the problem of global warming, and the United States is the worst in this regard.

This is the latest evidence that the conclusion of my History of the Culture of War is correct: the state has come to monopolize the culture of war and cannot be separated from it.

The only solution if we are to survive must be a world in which the state has disappeared or has been relegated to a ceremonial role, much as monarchies were abolished or relegated to ceremonial roles in an earlier period of history.

When I say this, I receive the argument that one cannot imagine a world without the nation-state.

Well, let us try imagine such a world.

Imagine that there were no longer the frontiers of states. No visas. People would be free to travel anywhere without restriction!

No more wars or war preparations. After all, in most cases, it is the state that prepares for and makes war. And in most of the other cases, it is groups that are trying to take over the state.

This is where I part company with Marx and Engels. They thought that peace would come about once the communists seized the power of the state. But they were wrong. The communists seized power in almost half of the world during the 20th century, and what they produced were socialist cultures of war instead of a capitalist cultures of war. The role of the state was stronger than the dreams of the communists. The only difference was that the capitalist cultures of war were more adept at exploitation and were able to defeat the socialist cultures of war (Soviet Union and its allies) or convert them to capitalism (China).

But what about all of the roles now played by the state? Who would manage these roles? Obviously, we would not miss the states’ military budgets, military contracts, military preparation, secret budgets like that of the CIA, etc. But what about the useful roles played by the state?

By controlling the movement of peoples, the rich states ensure that the poor people from poor countries and countries victimized by war do not migrate into their states. You may think this is a good and necessary function. In fact, most populist and fascist politicians want this function strengthened. But what has happened in the course of history is that this has served as a mask to hide the continually growing inequality of the world caused by capitalist exploitation. This mask has enabled the people of the North to avoid confronting the problem. Although official statistics claim that foreign aid compensates for foreign exploitation, the truth is that these statistics are misleading. The illegal and hence secret movement of capital from the global south to the global north far exceeds foreign aid as shown in the study “Aid in reverse: how poor countries develop rich countries”.

Abolition or reduction in power of the state would require that we confront and solve the problem of inequality. We could no longer hide behind national borders. Let us come back to this challenge later in the blog.

Imagine that the United Nations were controlled by representatives of the mayors of the world instead of the states of the world, and that its agencies were to be reinforced so that they could operate universally, much as UN agencies already serve for the universal regulation of postal service, airport coordination, etc. Let us compare a list of these agencies (or potential agencies) to the major functions served by a typical national budget, in this case we take the example of France for 2019 according to www.statista.com.

French budget item in millions of eurosUN Agency to replace it (existing or potential)
1. Education 72,7United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) working with local authorities much as it already does throughout Africa.
2. Defense 44,3Put to use by a new UN commission to confront the need for transportation, communication, food and shelter for the people in migration (see below).
3. Financial commitments 42.4World Bank and International Monetary Fund working with banks around the world
4. Research and higher education 28.1United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) working directly with universities and research organizations
5. Security 20.1Interpol working with local police forces
6. Solidarity re-adaptation and equal opportunities 23,9(served by 8 & 9 below)
7. Territories cohesion 16,4(a bureaucracy no longer needed)
8. Work and employment 12,5New: A new global organization that would work with private industry for economic development and full employment. Based on World Trade Organization?
9. Environment and sustainable development and mobilities 12,6United Nations Environmental Program working with local authorities
10. Public finances and human resources management 10,4(a bureaucracy no longer needed)
11. Justice 9.1World court expanded to work with local judiciaries
12. Pension and social plans 6.3Privatization of pension and social plans in coordination with a new global monitoring unit
13. Relations with local and regional authorities 3.4(a bureaucracy no longer needed)
14. Agriculture, fishing, food, forests and rural affairs 2.9The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) working directly with local aouthoritiesL’
15. Foreign action 2.8(a bureaucracy and interference no longer needed)
16. Culture 2.9United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) working with local authorities much as it already does for the World Heritage Sites
17. General and territorial state administration 2.8(a bureaucracy no longer needed)
18. Public development aid 3.1(served by 8 & 9 above)
19. Veterans, memory and links with the nation 2.3Privatization of pension and social plans in coordination with the new global monitoring unit in 12 above
20. Overseas 2.6(a bureaucracy no longer needed)
21. Economy 1.9( served by 8 & 9 above)
22. Government action supervision 1.3(a bureaucracy no longer needed)
23. Immigration, asylum and integration 1.7(See comments below concerning migration)
24. Health 1.4World Health Organization working with local authorities

It is interesting that the United Nations agency in the best position to assume new powers is UNESCO where I worked for 10 years. During that time I met very talented people at UNESCO who would have been capable of undertaking the expanded roles required by the above.

I anticipate that readers will have many questions/objections at this point. Let me try to list and respond to some of them.

1. The transition to a world without states cannot come about because the state structures are strong and will resist change.

Yes, that is true at the present moment of history. But imagine that the global economy crashes. Would it not be followed by a global political crash and dismemberment such as what happened to the Soviet Union after 1989? At such a moment, the United Nations, which has already been abandoned by the Great Powers for their priority functions, might now be completely abandoned and the role of the nation-state at the UN could be replaced by representatives of the cities of the world.

2. What will become of the militaries of the world? Won’t they resist and revolt?

In addition to the migration from South to North mentioned above, there has been an enormous internal migration during the past few centuries from the countryside to the city, the process of urbanization. But if there is a global economic crash, the cities may become unlivable, and we may see the most dramatic migration of human history, from the cities back to the countryside as people seek something to eat. After all, most food in the city comes by truck and is sold in supermarkets. If, in a crisis, there is a shortage of fuel for the trucks, there will be no food deliveries and it will take only a day or two to empty the supermarkets by hoarding and riots. There may be great suffering.

Copying with these migrations could be another use to which the militaries of the world could be put to use if they were under the command of a reformed United Nations. Who is best equipped with the transportation and communication systems and the reserves of food and shelter that will be needed? The militaries of the world. Under orders from a reformed United Nations they could set aside their weapons and serve as the source of resources needed to survive the crisis.

3. Who will pay for all this?

With regard to item 3 above, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, they could take on a key role of the nation state – the collection of taxes. This will be essential in order to support the greatly increased expenses of the reformed United Nations. These taxes could be based on the proposals and experiments already in place for financial transaction taxes In effect they would be Robin Hood taxes that begin to reverse one of the most difficult and dangerous tendancies of recent history, the growing inequality of the world, as mentioned above. In other words, inequality would be reduced, not by directly giving money from the rich to the poor, but by taking money from the rich to deliver services (education, health care, full employment), to everyone, including the poor.

4. What will happen to law and order once the state’s power is reduced? Won’t there be violence and chaos?

Yes, people need law and order. Fortunately, in recent years, as we have tried to document in CPNN, there are growing movements of mediation, restorative justice and nonviolent peace forces that provide alternatives to police and internal military intervention. In this regard it is interesting to recall that during the Great Depression there was a decrease in armed theft and interpersonal violence, presumably because there was an increase in solidarity in the face of the common threat. It is this solidarity, coupled with existing initiatives, that could be the key.

5. Where is the precedent for item 8, a new global organization that would work with private industry for economic development and full employment?

Such an organization could take lessons from the Chinese who are developing a global system of transportation and trade, their “One belt, one road” plan. There are some who say that the Chinese will take over the world if the American empire collapses. This variant suggests that the Chinese may show us the way to sustain the world in that case. It seems that the Chinese, in this new project, are able to bypass state structures and make trade agreements directly with capitalist enterprises that already have production/employment structures at local, regional and international levels. This could serve as model for a new global economic organization that would work with private industry at local, regional and international levels in the absence of state involvement.

6. What will happen to national identity and patriotism?

For this it will be very important to expand the function that is far down on the list at number 16: culture. It will be useful to greatly expand the support of the reformed United Nations (in particular, UNESCO) to local and regional activities that express and develop the unique heritage of the thousands of national identities that exist throughout the world, often extending beyond traditional state borders.

7. You envisage abolition of the state, but you don’t envisage abolition of militaries or capitalism. Why?

As mentioned above, we will need the resources and organization of militaries in order to cope with the suffering associated with mass migrations. And we will need the production/employment structures of capitalist enterprises to maintain economic development and employment. This the logic that I followed a few years ago in developing my utopian novel that imagines the transition to a culture of peace. What will happen to capitalism and militaries in 50 or 100 years is difficult to predict, but the present scenario concerns years and decades, not centuries.

All of these crises may arrive at the same time: international migration, migration from city to countryside and the economic and political crises that cause them. Are we ready to cope with this?

No.

But how can we begin to prepare?

We need to be constructing an alternative global governance structure in preparation. Instead of depending on the nation-state to save us, we need to be developing city and regional peace commissions that deal with all of these problems as they develop, and which can serve as the basis for a new global structure centered on a United Nations managed by the people rather than the states, for example by representatives of the mayors of the world. Over the years, we have given priority to news of development of culture of peace at the city and regional level.

What can each citizen do? Each citizen can work for peace and justice at the local and regional level and develop structures such as city and regional peace commissions. For example, asked for advice by Mouvement de la Paix in France, I have recently proposed that those who initiated actions to mark the International Day of Peace in more than 60 cities and towns in France should now approach their city councils to establish a continuing action for peace and sustainable development in their communities and regions. In this way, we can prepare the basis for a new global governance structure when the present system collapses.

And in my opinion, and that of some others who have a good grasp of history, this collapse could come very soon.

  •   *   *   *   *   *

Un Monde Sans État-nation

Les articles du CPNN de ce mois-ci montrent à quel point l’État est une culture de guerre. Dans ce cas, l’État est les États-Unis et leur culture de guerre se manifeste dans leur rôle dans le renversement du président Morales de Bolivie (précisément parce qu’il promouvait une culture de la paix) et leur menace de punir Julian Assange (précisément parce qu’il a révélé les secrets de leur culture de guerre.)

C’est la dernière preuve que la conclusion de mon histoire de la culture de la guerre est correcte: l’État en est venu à monopoliser la culture de la guerre et ne peut en être séparé de cette culture.

La solution? Un monde dans lequel l’État a disparu ou a été relégué à un rôle cérémoniel, tout comme les monarchies ont été abolies ou reléguées à des rôles cérémoniels dans une période antérieure de l’histoire.

Quand je dis cela, je reçois l’argument selon lequel on ne peut pas imaginer un monde sans l’État-nation.

Quand même,, essayons d’imaginer un tel monde !

Imaginez qu’il n’y ait plus de frontières d’Etats. Pas de visas. Les gens seraient libres de voyager n’importe où sans restriction!

Plus de guerres ou de préparatifs de guerre. Après tout, dans la plupart des cas, c’est l’État qui prépare et fait la guerre. Et dans la plupart des autres cas, ce sont des groupes qui tentent de prendre le contrôle de l’État.

C’est là que je me sépare de Marx et Engels. Ils pensaient que la paix arriverait une fois que les communistes auraient pris le pouvoir de l’État. Mais ils avaient tort. Les communistes ont pris le pouvoir dans près de la moitié du monde au cours du XXe siècle et ils ont produit des cultures de guerre socialistes au lieu de cultures de guerre capitalistes. Le rôle de l’État était plus fort que les rêves des communistes. La seule différence était que les cultures de guerre capitalistes étaient plus aptes à l’exploitation et pouvaient vaincre les cultures de guerre socialistes (Union soviétique et ses alliés) ou les convertir au capitalisme (Chine).

Mais qu’en est-il de tous les rôles maintenant joués par l’État? Qui gérerait ces rôles? Évidemment, nous ne manquerions pas les budgets militaires des États, les contrats militaires, la préparation militaire, les budgets secrets comme celui de la CIA, etc. Mais qu’en est-il des rôles utiles joués par l’État?

En contrôlant le mouvement des peuples, les États riches veillent à ce que les peuples des pays pauvres et des pays victimes de la guerre ne migrent pas dans leurs États. Vous pensez peut-être que c’est une fonction bonne et nécessaire. En fait, la plupart des politiciens populistes et fascistes souhaitent que cette fonction soit renforcée. Mais ce qui s’est produit au cours de l’histoire, c’est que cela a servi de masque pour cacher l’inégalité croissante du monde causée par l’exploitation capitaliste. Ce masque a permis aux habitants du Nord d’éviter de faire face au problème. Bien que les statistiques officielles prétendent que l’aide étrangère compense l’exploitation étrangère, la vérité est que ces statistiques sont trompeuses. Le transfert illégal et donc secret de capitaux du Sud au Nord du monde dépasse de loin l’aide donnée, comme le montre l’étude ” Aide en sens inverse: comment pays pauvres développent pays riches .

L’abolition ou la réduction du pouvoir de l’État exigerait que nous affrontions et résolvions le problème des inégalités. Nous ne pouvions plus nous cacher derrière les frontières nationales. Revenons à ce défi plus tard dans le blog.

Imaginez que les Nations Unies soient contrôlées par des représentants des maires du monde au lieu des États du monde, et que ses agences devaient soient renforcées afin qu’elles puissent fonctionner universellement, tout comme les agences des Nations Unies servent déjà à la réglementation universelle des postes service (union postale universelle), coordination aéroportuaire, etc. Comparons une liste de ces agences (ou agences potentielles) aux principales fonctions assumées par un budget national. Dans ce cas prenons l’exemple de la France pour 2019 selon www.statista.com.

Poste budgétaire français en millions d'eurosAgence des Nations Unies (existante ou potentielle)
1. Enseignement scolaire 72,7L'Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'éducation, la science et la culture (UNESCO) en travail avec les autorités locales comme elle le fait déjà dans toute l'Afrique.
2. Defense 44,3Mis à profit par une nouvelle commission des Nations Unies pour faire face au besoin de transport, de communication, de nourriture et d'abri pour les personnes en migration (voir ci-dessous).
3. Engagements financiers de l’État 42.4La Banque mondiale et le Fonds monétaire international travaillent avec des banques du monde entier
4. Recherche et enseignement supérieur 28.1Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'éducation, la science et la culture (UNESCO) travaillant directement avec les universités et les organismes de recherche
5. Sécurités 20.1Interpol collaborant avec les forces de police locales
6. Solidarité, insertion et égalité des chances 23,9 (servi par 8 et 9 ci-dessous)
7. Cohésion des territoires16,4(une bureaucratie qui ne sera plus nécessaire)
8. Travail et emploi 12,5Besoin: Une nouvelle organisation mondiale qui travaillerait avec l'industrie privée pour le développement économique et le plein emploi. Basé sur l'Organisation mondiale du commerce?
9. Écologie, développement et mobilité durable 12,6Le Programme des Nations Unies pour l'environnement travaillant avec les autorités locales
10. Gestion des finances publiques et des ressources humaines 10,4(une bureaucratie qui ne sera plus nécessaire)
11. Justice 9.1Le tribunal mondial élargi pour travailler avec les autorités judiciaires locales
12. Régimes sociaux et de retraite 6.3Privatisation des régimes de retraite et sociaux en coordination avec une nouvelle unité de surveillance mondiale
13. Relations avec les collectivités territoriales 3.4(une bureaucratie qui ne sera plus nécessaire)
14. Agriculture, alimentation, forêt et affaires rurales 2.9L’Organisation pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture (FAO) en travail avec les autorités locales
15. Action extérieure de l'État 2.8(une bureaucratie qui ne sera plus nécessaire)
16. Culture 2.9Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'éducation, la science et la culture (UNESCO) travaillant avec les autorités locales comme elle le fait déjà pour les sites du patrimoine mondial
17. Administration générale et territoriale de l'État 2.8(une bureaucratie qui ne sera plus nécessaire)
18. Aide publique au développement 3.1(servi par 8 et 9 ci-dessous)
19. Anciens combattants, mémoire et liens avec la nation 2.3Privatisation des régimes de retraite et des régimes sociaux en coordination avec une nouvelle unité de surveillance mondiale en 12 ci-dessus
20. Outre-mer 2.6(une bureaucratie qui ne sera plus nécessaire)
21. Économie 1.9(servi par 8 et 9 ci-dessous)
22. Direction de l'action du Gouvernement 1.3 (une bureaucratie qui ne sera plus nécessaire)
23. Immigration, asile et intégration 1.7  (Voir les commentaires ci-dessous concernant la migration)
24. Santé 1.4L'Organisation mondiale de la santé en travail avec les autorités locales

Il est intéressant de noter que l’agence des Nations Unies la mieux placée pour assumer de nouveaux pouvoirs est l’UNESCO où j’ai travaillé pendant 10 ans. Pendant ce temps, j’ai rencontré à l’UNESCO des personnes très talentueuses qui auraient été capables d’assumer les rôles élargis requis par ce projet.

Je prévois que les lecteurs auront de nombreuses questions / objections à ce stade. Permettez-moi d’essayer d’énumérer et de répondre à certains d’entre eux.

1. La transition vers un monde sans États ne peut se faire parce que les structures étatiques sont fortes et résisteront au changement.

Oui, c’est vrai au moment actuel de l’histoire. Mais imaginez que l’économie mondiale s’effondre. Ne serait-il pas suivi d’un krach politique mondial et d’un démembrement comme ce qui est arrivé à l’Union soviétique après 1989? À un tel moment, les Nations Unies, qui ont déjà été abandonnées par les grandes puissances pour leurs fonctions prioritaires, pourraient maintenant être complètement abandonnées et le rôle de l’État-nation à l’ONU pourrait être remplacé par des représentants des villes du monde ou par autres représentants proches du peuple.

2. Que deviendront les forces armées du monde? Ne résisteront-ils pas et ne se révolteront-ils pas?

En plus de la migration du Sud vers le Nord mentionnée ci-dessus, il y a eu une énorme migration interne au cours des derniers siècles de la campagne à la ville, le processus d’urbanisation. Mais s’il y a un crash économique mondial, les villes peuvent devenir invivables, et nous pouvons voir la migration la plus spectaculaire de l’histoire humaine, des villes vers la campagne alors que les gens cherchent quelque chose à manger. Après tout, la plupart des aliments de la ville viennent par camion et sont vendus dans les supermarchés. Si, en cas de crise, il y a une pénurie de carburant pour les camions, il n’y aura pas de livraison de nourriture et il ne faudra qu’un jour ou deux pour vider les supermarchés par thésaurisation et émeutes. Il peut y avoir de grandes souffrances.

En face de ces migrations il y a un autre usage auquel les forces armées du monde pourraient être mises à l’emploi si elles étaient sous le commandement d’une Organisation des Nations Unies réformée. Qui est le mieux équipé des systèmes de transport et de communication et des réserves de nourriture et d’abris qui seront nécessaires? Les militaires du monde. Sous les ordres d’une ONU réformée, ils pouvaient mettre de côté leurs armes et servir de source de ressources nécessaires pour survivre à la crise.

3. Qui paiera tout cela?

En ce qui concerne le point 3 ci-dessus, la Banque mondiale et le Fonds monétaire international, ils pourraient jouer un rôle clé de l’État-nation – la collecte des impôts. Cela sera essentiel pour payer les dépenses considérablement accrues des Nations Unies réformées. Ces taxes pourraient être basées sur les propositions et les expériences déjà en place pour les taxes sur les transactions financières. En effet, elles seraient Robin Hood taxes qui commencent à inverser l’une des tendances les plus difficiles et dangereuses de l’histoire récente, l’inégalité croissante du monde, comme mentionné ci-dessus. En d’autres termes, l’inégalité serait réduite, non pas en donnant directement de l’argent des riches aux pauvres, mais en prenant de l’argent des riches pour fournir des services (éducation, soins de santé, plein emploi), à tout le monde, y compris aux pauvres.

4. Qu’adviendra-t-il de la loi et de l’ordre une fois que le pouvoir de l’État sera réduit? N’y aura-t-il pas beaucouop de violence et chaos?

Oui, les gens ont besoin de loi et d’ordre. Heureusement, ces dernières années, comme nous avons essayé de documenter dans le CPNN, il y a des mouvements croissants de médiation, de justice réparatrice et de forces de paix non violentes qui offrent des alternatives à la police et à l’intervention militaire interne. À cet égard, il est intéressant de rappeler que pendant la Grande Dépression, il y a eu une diminution des vols armés et des violences interpersonnelles, probablement parce qu’il y a eu une augmentation de la solidarité face à la menace commune. C’est cette solidarité, couplée aux initiatives existantes, qui pourrait être la clé.

5. Où est le précédent pour le point 8, une nouvelle organisation mondiale qui travaillerait avec l’industrie privée pour le développement économique et le plein emploi?

Une telle organisation pourrait tirer les leçons des Chinois qui développent un système mondial de transport et de commerce, leur plan «Une ceinture, une route». Il y en a qui disent que les Chinois prendront le contrôle du monde si l’empire américain s’effondre. Cette variante suggère que les Chinois pourraient nous montrer le moyen de soutenir le monde dans ce cas. Il semble que les Chinois, dans ce nouveau projet, soient capables de contourner les structures étatiques et de conclure des accords commerciaux directement avec des entreprises capitalistes qui ont déjà des structures de production / emploi aux niveaux local, régional et international. Cela pourrait servir de modèle à une nouvelle organisation économique mondiale qui travaillerait avec l’industrie privée aux niveaux local, régional et international en l’absence de participation de l’État.

6. Qu’adviendra-t-il de l’identité nationale et du patriotisme?

Pour cela, il sera très important d’élargir la fonction qui est loin dans la liste au numéro 16: la culture. Il sera utile d’étendre considérablement le soutien des Nations Unies réformées (en particulier, l’UNESCO) aux activités locales et régionales qui expriment et développent le patrimoine unique des milliers d’identités nationales qui existent dans le monde, s’étendant souvent au-delà des frontières traditionnelles des États. .

7. Vous envisagez l’abolition de l’État, mais vous n’envisagez pas l’abolition des forces armées ou du capitalisme. Pourquoi?

Comme mentionné ci-dessus, nous aurons besoin des ressources et de l’organisation des forces armées pour faire face aux souffrances liées aux migrations massives. Et nous aurons besoin des structures de production / emploi des entreprises capitalistes pour maintenir le développement économique et l’emploi. C’est la logique que j’ai suivie il y a quelques années en développant mon roman utopique qui imagine la transition vers une culture de la paix. Ce qui arrivera au capitalisme et aux militaires dans 50 ou 100 ans est difficile à prévoir, mais le scénario actuel concerne des années et des décennies, pas des siècles.

Toutes ces crises peuvent arriver en même temps: migrations internationales, migrations des villes vers les campagnes et crises économiques et politiques qui les provoquent. Sommes-nous prêts à faire face à cela? Non.

Mais comment pouvons-nous commencer à nous préparer?

Nous devons construire une structure de gouvernance mondiale alternative en préparation. Au lieu de dépendre de l’État-nation pour nous sauver, nous devons développer des commissions de paix municipales et régionales qui traitent tous ces problèmes à mesure qu’ils se développent et qui peuvent servir de base à une nouvelle structure mondiale centrée sur une Organisation des Nations Unies. géré par le peuple plutôt que par les États, par exemple par des représentants des maires du monde. Dans CPNN, au fil des années, nous avons privilégié l’actualité du développement de la culture de la paix au niveau de la ville et de la région, même si il reste beaucoup moins de ce dont nous avons besoin..

Que peut faire chaque citoyen? Chaque citoyen peut travailler pour la paix et la justice aux niveaux local et régional et développer des structures telles que les commissions de paix de la ville et de la région. Par exemple, sollicités l’avis du Mouvement de la Paix en France, j’ai récemment proposé que ceux qui ont initié des actions pour marquer la Journée Internationale de la Paix dans plus de 60 villes et villages en France devraient désormais s’adresser à leur conseil municipal pour mettre en place une action continue pour la paix et le développement durable dans leurs communautés et région. De cette façon, nous pouvons préparer la base d’une nouvelle structure de gouvernance mondiale prêt à prendre le pouvoir lorsque le système actuel s’effondre.

Et à mon avis, et celui de certains autres qui ont une bonne compréhension de l’histoire, cet effondrement pourrait arriver très bientôt.

The Pope, Religion and the Culture of Peace

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

In this month’s bulletin of CPNN I have written about the initiative of Pope Francis for nuclear disarmament, and, along with and the bishops and churches of the Amazon, for sustainable development and the rights of indigenous peoples, key components of the culture of peace.

One of the initial reactions to the bulletin was to object that the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church do not support the culture of peace insofar as they continue to call homosexuality a disease and and to oppose abortion. This point of view considers that a person’s sexual orientation and a woman’s control over reproduction are fundamental human rights and hence components of the culture of peace.

Of course the Pope’s remarks about homosexuality and abortion reflect a long-standing dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as many other religious institutions.

This debate reminds me of the excellent discussion about religion and culture of peace published in 2000 by Elise Boulding in her book Cultures of Peace: The Hidden Side of History:

“Every religion then contains two cultures: the culture of violence and war and the culture of peaceableness. The holy war culture calls for mobilization against evil and is easily politicized. The culture of the peaceable garden relies on a sense of the oneness of humankind, often taking the form of intentional communities based on peaceful and cooperative lifeways, sanctuaries for the nonviolent….”. .

In my opinion, the Pope’s initiatives go beyond the usual “two cultures” of religion. I see them as an important contribution to the agenda of history. Hence, at the conclusion of the bulletin I write that they “may be seen as a major step in the transition from a culture of war to a culture of peace.”

It is the general theme of this blog that there is an agenda of history in the sense that certain problems/challenges are more urgent than others. This theme is present in the remarks quoted in the bulletin by Cardinal Czerny at the final press briefing of the Amazon Synod, that the ecological and human crisis is so deep that without a sense of urgency “we’re not going to make it.”

Nuclear disarmament is such a problem/challenge. Unless we can achieve it, the other components of the culture of peace, including human rights, will never be achieved.

As for the ecological crisis and the necessity of sustainable development, there is a sense in which they are less urgent than nuclear disarmament. The ecological threat is real but while a nuclear war could completely destroy our world in a matter of hours and days, the ecological threat is a matter of decades and centuries.

Unlike the perspective that I am presenting, it seems that people, and especially the young generation, are more conscious of the ecological threat than the nuclear threat. For them the evidence of global warming is visible every day, while the nuclear threat remains abstract and hidden. Therefore, it is tactically and strategically effective that nuclear disarmament be linked as much as possible to the movements for sustainable development.

Of course, the two issues are profoundly related in the sense that both concern preservation of our planet, and like all components of the culture of war and culture of peace they are part of a cultural continuum. This was expressed by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres: “Today peace faces a new danger: the climate emergency, which threatens our security, our livelihoods, and our lives. That is why it is the focus of this year’s International Day of Peace.” And it was emphasized in the effective mobilizations for the International Day of Peace in France by Mouvement de la Paix and by the analysis for the occasion by their spokesman Roland Nivet: “Climate and peace are the same fight. The struggles for peace and climate, social justice and human rights, nuclear disarmament are linked. They unite us today and must be the cement of our unity of action for tomorrow.”

The initiatives of the Pope are especially timely because they support this linkage of nuclear disarmament and sustainable development and they send out this message to the Catholic churches around the world and their more than a billion religious followers.

  • * * *

Le pape, la religion et la culture de la paix

Dans le bulletin de CPNN de ce mois-ci, j’ai évoqué l’initiative du pape François en faveur du désarmement nucléaire et en faveur du développement durable et des droits des peuples autochtones, comme faisant partie des éléments essentiels de la culture de la paix.  Ces derniers ont été faits avec les évêques et avec les églises de l’Amazonie.

L’une des premières réactions au bulletin a été de faire remarquer que le Pape et l’Église catholique romaine ne soutiennent pas complètement la culture de la paix dans la mesure où ils continuent de qualifier l’homosexualité de maladie et de s’opposer à l’avortement. Ces points de vue considèrent que l’orientation sexuelle d’une personne et le contrôle de la procréation par une femme sont des droits de l’Homme fondamentaux et donc des éléments essentiels de la culture de la paix.

Bien sûr, le points de vue du pape sur l’homosexualité et l’avortement reflètent une prise de position de longue date de l’Église catholique romaine, ainsi que de nombreuses autres institutions religieuses.

Ce débat me rappelle l’excellente discussion sur la religion et la culture de la paix publiée en 2000 par Elise Boulding dans son livre Cultures of Peace: The Hidden Side of History:

“Chaque religion contient alors deux cultures: la culture de la violence et de la guerre et la culture de la paix. La culture de la guerre sainte appelle à la mobilisation contre le mal et est facilement politisée. La culture du jardin pacifique repose sur le sentiment de l’unité de l’humanité, prenant souvent la forme de communautés intentionnelles basées sur des chemins de vie pacifiques et coopératifs, des sanctuaires pour les non-violents…. “. .

À mon avis, les initiatives du pape vont au-delà des “deux cultures” habituelles de la religion. Je les considère comme une contribution importante à l’ordre du jour de l’histoire. Par conséquent, à la fin du bulletin, j’écris qu’ils “pourraient être considérés comme une étape majeure dans la transition d’une culture de la guerre à une culture de la paix”.

Le thème général de ce blog est qu’il existe un agenda de l’histoire en ce sens que certains problèmes – défis sont plus urgents que d’autres. Ce thème est présent dans les remarques citées dans le bulletin du cardinal Czerny lors de sa conférence de presse finale du Synode d’Amazonie, selon lesquelles la crise écologique et humaine est si profonde que, sans sentiment d’urgence, nous n’allons pas survivre.

Le désarmement nucléaire est un tel problème – défi !  À moins d’atteindre cet objectif, les autres éléments de la culture de la paix, y compris les droits de l’Homme, ne seront jamais atteints.

En ce qui concerne la crise écologique et la nécessité d’un développement durable, il est en quelque sorte moins urgent que le désarmement nucléaire. La menace écologique est réelle, mais son rhythme est plus lent. Une guerre nucléaire pourrait complètement détruire notre monde en quelques heures et quelques jours alors que la menace écologique est une affaire de décennies et de siècles.

Contrairement à la perspective que je présente, il semble que les gens, et en particulier la jeune génération, soient plus conscients de la menace écologique que de la menace nucléaire. Pour eux, les preuves du réchauffement climatique sont visibles chaque jour, tandis que la menace nucléaire reste abstraite et cachée. Par conséquent, il est tactiquement et stratégiquement efficace de lier autant que possible le désarmement nucléaire aux mouvements en faveur du développement durable.

Bien entendu, les deux problèmes sont profondément liés en ce sens qu’ils concernent à la fois la préservation de notre planète et que, comme toutes les composantes de la culture de la guerre et de la culture de la paix, ils font partie d’un continuum culturel. Dans ce sens, le Secrétaire général de l’ONU, Antonio Guterres, a déclaré: “Aujourd’hui, la paix fait face à un nouveau danger : l’urgence climatique, qui menace notre sécurité, nos moyens de subsistance, notre vie. C’est pourquoi cette année la Journée internationale de la paix sera placée sous le thème de l’action climatique.” Et il a été souligné dans les mobilisations effectives pour la Journée internationale de la paix en France par le Mouvement de la paix et par l’analyse effectuée pour l’occasion par son porte-parole Roland Nivet: “Climat et paix même combat. Les luttes pour la paix et le climat, la justice sociale et les droits humains, le désarmement nucléaire sont liées. Elles nous unissent aujourd’hui et doivent être le ciment de notre unité d’action pour demain.” “

Les initiatives du pape sont particulièrement opportunes, car elles soutiennent ce lien entre le désarmement nucléaire et le développement durable et envoient ce message aux églises catholiques du monde entier et à leurs fidèles qui sont plus d’un milliard.

The International Day of Peace

Featured

The International Day of Peace (IDP), as officially proclaimed by the United Nations, is certainly the most universal action for peace in our times, and there is no doubt that it contributes greatly to the consciousness throughout the world that we need to turn from the culture of war to a culture of peace.

With this in mind it would be good to be able to measure the IDP actions each year, to know if they are increasing or not, and to know if this is occuring throughout the world, or more in some regions than in others.

During the first decade of this century, extensive international surveys were conducted by the Culture of Peace Initiative (see suveys from 2005 and 2009 as documented in Wikipedia), but they were discontinued, and there was nothing to replace them until 2017 when I conducted the first IDP survey from CPNN, searching for articles by Google and using other, less complete surveys.

This is now the third time that I have done the survey – not an easy task requiring something like 100 hours of labor – and I continue to find hundreds of events throughout the world, with the largest number from USA/Canada and Western Europe.

There is no doubt that, despite my best efforts, we continue to under-estimate the number and scope of actions involved. Many actions are not put on the internet. In addition to the languages recognzed by the United Nations (English, French, Russian, Arabic, Chinese and Spanish), I have searched via Google in Ukrainian, German and Portuguese, but no doubt there are actions described in articles in other languages as well.

There are other surveys of IDP events, but it is difficult to assess their data in some cases.

Pathways to Peace, the successor to the Culture of Peace Initiative, provides a map where people can enter their actions for the IDP. This year’s map has 642 entries, but perhaps half of them are from 2018, and perhaps half of the entries from 2019 are marked as meditation (not action in the sense defined by CPNN). The others from 2019 that are marked as music, march or multiple actions have been included in the CPNN survey.

The Campaign for Nonviolence lists CNV 3314 total actions, mostly in the United States, but this includes multiple actions by the 205 sites listed on their map. I have included all the 205 sites in the CPNN data.

One Day One Choir says that for the International Day of Peace “since we started in 2014, more than a million people around the world have connected with us to sing for peace and unity,” There are almost a thousand entries on their map of the world, but I could not use the data because it seems to be an accumulaton of all the events since 2014, with no indication in what year or years the action occurred.

The website of Montessori schools says that “In 2017, “Sing Peace” involved over 150,000 children from some 65 different countries.” The site provides a listing of 1141 schools “signed up to sing” and these are shown on a map of the world,, but as in the case of OneDayOneChoir, it is not clear if this is an accumulation of data over many years or if it refers to actions in 2019.

In addition, I should mention the website of Peace One Day which states that “throughout the years, millions of people have been active on Peace Day in every country of the world. . . In 2016, after several years work with global management consulting firm McKinsey & Company, it was estimated that 2.2 billion people had been exposed to the Peace Day message, that 940 million were aware of the day and that 16 million behaved more peacefully as a result.” But since the website provides no listing or source for particular events, I don’t see how its claims. can be verified.

Failing to realize that the data from One Day One Choir and Montessori Sing Peace were not necessarily up-to-date, I included their data in the totals last year (2018). For that reason it makes no sense to compare this year’s CPNN total of 655 to last year’s total of 835. Although it is not possible to be precise, it seems likely that the number of IDP actions listed on CPNN might be as much as doubled if it were possible to obtain up-to-date information from One Day One Choir and the Montessori Schools.

Despite the incompleteness of the quantitative data, there is plenty of qualitative information to be found in the CPNN survey, as described in this month’s CPNN bulletin, and I think this justifies the labor involved. For example, it turns out that data cited from Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, France, Ukraine, and Yemen are not reflected in the other surveys mentioned above.

What really happened in Zimbabwe

Featured

On September 7 the New York Times carried several very long articles about former Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe who had just died, saying that he was a “tyrant” and that he “presided over the decline of one of Africa’s most prosperous lands.”

At one point they describe his seizure of white-owned farms. “By 1998, although Mr. Mugabe had promised new land for 162,000 black families, only 71,000 white households had been resettled. Then came a dramatic turn. Starting around 2000, Mr. Mugabe’s lieutenants sent squads of young men to invade hundreds of white-owned farms and chase away their owners. The campaign took a huge toll. Over two years, nearly all of the country’s white-owned land had been redistributed . . . The violent agricultural revolution had come with a heavy price. The economy was collapsing as farmland fell into disuse and peasant farmers struggled to grow crops without fertilizer, irrigation, farm equipment, money or seeds.”

But we get a different story about this if we look for an African source, in this case The East African.

“However, the land grab was instigated by Britain itself when it went against the spirit of the 1979 Lancaster House Agreement that stated that the former colonial power was to provide the funds for compensating Zimbabwean British settler farmers who were willing to sell their land back to the government. This agreement was signed by the Conservative Party under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher.

“When New Labour came to power in 1997 under prime minister Tony Blair, the UK government unilaterally scrapped the arrangement.

“President Mugabe was then adamant that his government would not initiate a land buy-out scheme for what had been stolen and taken for free from Africans. These facts were corroborated by the current British premier, Boris Johnson, when he was still a journalist.

“Mugabe then launched the so-called “Land Grab” that attracted economic sanctions from Western countries, making Zimbabwe a pariah nation, collapsing almost every sector of the economy.”

The New York Times article mentions only in passing the Lancaster House Agreement that ended colonial rule and provided for Zimbabwe’s independence, and they do not mention that part of the agreement was that the UK (and the US) would provide funds for land reform.

Nor do they mention that the UK unilaterally scrapped the agreement.

And in describing “the decline of one of Africa’s most prosperous lands”, the Times does not mention that Zimbabwe was the victim of economic sanctions.

In other words, “blame the victim!”

More detail is available in an article by Thabo Mbeki who succeeded Nelson Mandela as President of South Africa:

“When the war veterans and others began to occupy white-owned farms, we intervened first of all with Prime Minister Tony Blair in 1998 to encourage the UK Government to honour the commitment that had been made at Lancaster House in 1979 to give the Government of Zimbabwe the financial means to carry out the required land redistribution in a non-confrontational manner.

“This led to the September 1998 International Donors’ Conference on Land Reform and Resettlement held in Harare, which the British Government attended, but whose very positive decisions were not implemented, thanks to the negative attitude adopted by the very same British Government.

“Unfortunately, contrary to what the Conservative Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and John Major had agreed, Tony Blair’s Secretary of State for International Development, Claire Short, repudiated the commitment to honour the undertaking made at Lancaster House.”

Reacting to the death of Mugabe, Thabo Mbeki gives us a very different assessment of his role in Africa:

“Mugabe will be remembered as outstanding fighter for the liberation not only of the people of Zimbabwe but also all other colonially and racially oppressed peoples”, Mbeki said. . . . “Zimbabwe has lost a father of the nation! As Africans, we have lost an eminent leader of our victorious struggle for national liberation!”

As for the New York Times, we should question their claim to print “All the News That’s Fit to Print.”

The UN Resolution for the Culture of Peace

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

This summer and fall is seeing an increase in the number of international conferences dedicated to the culture of peace and basing their analysis on the Declaration and Program of Action for a Culture of Peace that was adopted 20 years ago by the UN General Assembly.

The UN resolution provides a holistic, positive view of peace. For each of the eight aspects of the culture of war, it proposes the alternative as described here. The resolution proposes specific actions to promote each of these eight program areas. And furthermore, it calls for a global movement for a culture of peace through partnerships between an among international, national and civil society organizations promoted through sysems of information exchange (such as the Culture of Peace News Network) on their initiatives.

The struggle for a culture of peace could gain much more force if this resolution were used as the basis for analysis and practice by more organizations around the world, but unfortunately it is relatively unknown.

The situation reminds me of the use of another landmark UN document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR).

The adoption of the UNDHR by the UN General Assembly in 1948 did not immediately yield results. For the first 40 years the document sat on the shelf and was rarely mentioned, as shown in the following graph which shows the citations of human rights in academic publications as monitored by the Science Citation Index. It has only in recent years that references have exploded into thousands of times per year.

Figure drawn from my book World Peace throught the Town Hall.

Now over 70 years after its adoption, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been taken up by thousands of other organizations and struggles in all social movements as a powerful tool for justice.

We may assume that the increased attention to human rights after the 1970s was largely due to the Nobel Peace Prize of 1977 to Amnesty International because of their efforts for human rights.

Hopefully, we will not have to wait another 20 years for such effective use of the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace. The work for culture of peace has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in recent years, and if it were to be recognized by the Prize, that could help produce the kind of universal recognition and historical impact as that of the UNDHR.

* * * * *

La résolution des Nations Unies pour la culture de la paix

Pour cet été et cet automne, le nombre de conférences internationales consacrées à la culture de la paix a augmenté. Leur analyse est souvent basée sur de la Déclaration et Programme d’action pour une culture de la paix adoptés il y a 20 ans par l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies.

La résolution de l’ONU offre une vision globale et positive de la paix. Pour chacun des huit aspects de la culture de la guerre, il propose une alternative (voir ici). La résolution propose des actions spécifiques pour promouvoir chacun de ces huit domaines de programme. En outre, il appelle à un mouvement mondial pour une culture de la paix par des partenariats entre des organisations internationales, nationales et de la société civile, promues par des systèmes d’échanges et d’informations (comme CPNN) sur leurs initiatives.

La lutte pour une culture de la paix pourrait gagner beaucoup plus de force si cette résolution était utilisée comme base d’analyse et de pratique par plus d’organisations dans le monde, mais malheureusement, elle est mal connue.

La situation me rappelle l’utilisation d’un autre document historique des Nations Unies, la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’Homme (DUDH).

L’adoption de la DUDH par l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies en 1948 n’a pas immédiatement donné de résultats. Pendant les 40 premières années, le document était sur l’étagère et rarement mentionné, comme l’illustre le graphique ci-dessous, qui montre les citations des droits de l’Homme dans des publications universitaires suivies par le Science Citation Index. Ce n’est que ces dernières années que les références ont explosé des milliers de fois par an.

[Figure tirée de mon livre “Paix mondiale à travers les municipalites”.]

Aujourd’hui, plus de 70 ans après son adoption, la Declaration universelle des droits de l’Homme a été reprise par des milliers d’organisations et de luttes dans tous les mouvements sociaux, en tant que puissant outil de justice.

Nous pouvons supposer que l’attention accrue portée aux droits de l’Homme après les années 1970 était largement due au prix Nobel de la paix de 1977 attribué à Amnesty International en raison de ses efforts en faveur des droits de l’Homme.

Espérons que nous n’aurons pas besoin d’attendre encore 20 ans pour une utilisation aussi efficace de la Déclaration et du Programme d’action pour une culture de la paix. L’œuvre pour la culture de la paix a été nominée pour le prix Nobel de la paix ces dernières années. Si elle devait être reconnue par le prix, elle pourrait contribuer à produire le type de reconnaissance universelle et d’impact historique de la DUDH.


 

Consciousness + Institutional Change = Culture of Peace

Featured

People are taking to the streets to defend human rights and demand democracy around the world, including Hong Kong, Russia, Sudan, Algeria, Czech Republic and Brazil as described on the pages of CPNN and reviewed in this month’s CPNN bulletin.

They join the millions of people who have taken to the streets for human rights and democracy in the last few years in France , Germany and the United States.

And perhaps most important, it is the new generation that has often taken the lead, as we have seen in the global student movement to demand that we change the policies that are contributing to global warming. This is the new generation that is on the front lines every year to celebrate the international day of peace.

We see the development of a global, universal consciousness. But is it strong enough to counter the rise of authoritarian governance that is also developing at this moment of history, whether in the rich counties or in the poor countries?

In my little utopian novella I have imagined that people will take to the streets to resist the imposition of fascism after the present system crashes. It was fascism that was installed when the financial system collapsed in the 1930’s?

I come from the generation of the 60’s which also saw people taking to the streets to oppose the American war in Vietnam. In fact, in the 1990’s when we looked around the table of UNESCO workers developing the Culture of Peace Program, it turned out most of us had been involved in the movements of the 60’s in one way or another in France, Ecuador, Costa Rica and the United States. The consciousness developed in the 60’s came to fruition in the 90’s.

But consciousness is not enough. We need institutional change towards a culture of peace such as the initiative developed thanks to the leadership of Federico Mayor at UNESCO in the 1990’s. The United Nations resolution for a culture of peace which he inspired will have its 20th anniversary this September and will be celebrated at the annual High Level Meeting on the Culture of Peace at UN headquarters.

To see and understand these institutional changes, we cannot depend on the commercial media to which they are almost invisible. This was the case with the UNESCO culture of peace initiative, which was never mentioned in the American press at the time despite our signed agreements with two American institutions with 50 million members, the American Association of Retired Persons and the National Council of Churches, and the 75 million signatures on the Manifesto 2000 obtained around the world.

At CPNN we provide an alternative media that seeks out news about institutional change towards a culture of peace. A good example is the adoption of restorative justice princiiples and practices by the entire judicial system of Brazil, as described this month in CPNN. Over the years we have followed this initiative that was largely due to the work of Judge Leoberto Brancher. I don’t think it is by accident that prior to this he was involved in the development of city culture of peace commissions that came out of the UNESCO program and the UN Decade for a Culture of Peace.

We need more such institutional change if we are to harness the consciousness of people in the coming decade when the global financial system has crashed and a window of opportunity opens for us to move from the culture of war to a culture of peace.

Roadmap for peace activism

Featured

In this month’s bulletin of CPNN we try to identify those to whom we can look for peace leadership in these turbulent times. Let us consider their actions and advice.

Let’s listen first to the new generation of youth activists.

The Panafrican Panafrican Youth Network for the Culture of Peace has provided a roadmap for actions in Gabon, which can serve as a model everywhere. It includes promotion of a culture of peace, support for the UN SR resolution 2250 on youth, peace and security, and development of social enterprises for youth employment.

The Resolution 2250 is especially important because provides a link between the developing global youth movement which has taken the lead in the fight to save the climate to global warming (see blog this April ) and the United Nations which, despite its weakness at the present moment of history, is still our best hope for a future institutional base for the culture of peace (see blog on the paradox of the United Nations). Resolution 2250 was adopted as the result of several years of intensive lobbying by youth organizations for the UN to recognize and guarantee the role of youth in peacebuilding and violence prevention.

At the same time, let us also listen to “the Elders.” Mary Robinson, now President of the Elders, formerly President of Ireland and UN Commissioner for Human Rights, recalls the founding of their organization by Nelson Mandela in 2007. “At first I was quite skeptical. Isn’t it a bit arrogant to want to be elders for the global village. But as soon as he [Nelson Mandela] sat with us and talked, it was as if we had a mandate that was overwhelmingly important.”

The Elders continue to be involved as peacemakers around the world and to give us good advice. Most recently in Ethiopia, they have lauded efforts to establish universal health care. As stated by Mandela’s widow, Graça Machel, “Health is a human right, and health workers are human rights champions.” Among other priorities identified by the Elders are the development of Green economies, the continuation of the Colombia peace process, multilateralism as now championed by China (while it seems increasingly abandoned in the West), and a solution to the terrible suffering in the Middle East by means of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

And let us listen to those who have won the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Women’s Initiative recently brought 50 women from over 20 countries together in Monrovia, Liberia to discuss feminism, power, activism and peace. According to one of the participants, “the overarching theme was that we (women) are powerful and worthy; that we must claim our space, we must use our voice and we must not ask for permission to do so.”

One of the themes at Monrovia was the need for “self and collective care, wellbeing and healing as critical components in our struggles for rights, justice and peace. We heard from Jody Williams and Rigoberta Menchú Tum on how they look after themselves and how they continue to do the work that they do. Jody mentioned how easy it is to feel overwhelmed by urgency and righteous indignation, however with time she has learned the value of granting herself personal time and space. By exposing their own humanity and vulnerability, these powerhouse women let the young people in the room know that it’s ok to not feel strong sometimes.”

Another major theme at Monrovia was the need for alliance building, tapping into different networks on a local and global scale. There was a commitment to feminist leadership, to multi-generational organising and to building communities of care.

Alliance-building was also an important theme in the work of the Panafrican Youth Network for Peace Culture; they are urged to collaborate with other youth organizations for greater synergy and social impact.

A concrete example of alliance-building comes from the plans for the 17th World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates. In addition to at least 21 Nobel Laureates, the meeting expects to include representatives of the following Institutions: American Friends Service Committee, Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet, International Peace Bureau, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, Albert Schweizer Institute, International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Amnesty International, Institute of International Law and the Kim Dae-Jung Presidential Library and Museum.

The preceding themes, activism, affiliation, personal integration and world historic consciousness, correspond to steps of consciousness development identified in the survey of great peace activists described in my 1986 book, Psychology for Peace Activists. They provide a universal roadmap for the development of peace activism.

Let us continue to listen to the youth, to the women, to the Elders, to the Nobel Peace Laureates, and let us strengthen our commitment to activism, affiliation, personal integration and world historic consciousness as we work for the transition to a culture of peace !

Why Julian Assange is so important

Featured

Julian Assange has been arrested, imprisoned threatened with extradition to the US where he could face solitary confinement or death. It seems he is considered to be extremely dangerous by the US and its allies. Why? Because he has exposed the weakness of the culture of war – its secrecy and lies.

As we have analyzed previously, there has been so much advance in both democracy and anti-war consciousness over the past few centuries that the state has found it increasingly difficult to get popular support for its wars, overt and covert, and its threats of war. People no longer will vote for this. To get around this problem and to continue its culture of war, the state has increasingly resorted to secret war, secret threats, and outright lies in order to justify its overt warfare. The war against Vietnam was justified by an invented attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. The war against Iraq was justified by the invented “weapons of mass destruction.”

The control of information has become a crucial means for the culture of war – without this control it cannot be sustained.

In the past, only a few of the secrets and lies of the US and its allies were revealed, such as the Gulf of Tonkin and the “weapons of mass destruction.” But thanks to Julian Assange and his organization Wikileaks, we have learned about many more secrets and lies in the past few years.

How do governments react? They certainly do not apologize and promise to tell the truth! Instead they try to control the media. As described in CPNN this month, freedom of the press is under attack. And government lying has become so commonplace that the current US president tells obvious lies almost every day and has surrounded himself with advisors that will do the same. In fact, the repeated lying by the US president and his advisors is one of the few conclusions of the long-awaited “Mueller report” in the US. But go one step further. Is the Mueller report telling the truth? Although the commercial media seems to think so, there are some independent observers who think that the Mueller report, like the Warren report after the assssination of Kennedy, may turn out to be an elaborate coverup. Given the current plethora of government lies, we should remain skeptical.

And how do the commercial media react? They criticize governments on many issues, but when it comes to questions of war and peace they repeat the governments’ lies without question. A case in point is the media coverage of events in Venezuela over the past few months. As we have shown recently in CPNN, it is almost impossible to learn from the commercial media what is really happening in Venezuela. And most recently, the US government lies about the coup attempt were headlined without question, not only by Fox News, but by the New York Times, Washington Post, Guardian, BBC, etc.

This is not sustainable. As famously expressed by Abraham Lincoln: “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

People no longer believe in their governmens. One of the effects is their increasingly erratic voting patterns. People are now voting for the most anti-establishment candidates such as Trump and Bolsonaro. Consequent to this, the government policies that result have become increasingly erratic, upsetting the traditional balances and structures of international relations.

Now people are starting to disbelieve the mass media as well. What will be the effect of this?

One thing we can say for certain. These trends are not sustainable!

And they come at a time when there are other trends that cannot be sustained: the increasing gap between rich and poor, the destruction of the environment, the changing of the climate, the structure of global finance based on debt and speculation that far exceeds actual production, burgeoning military production and sales, and the nuclear arms race increasingly out of control.

Analyzing the accumulation of such unsustainable contradictions in the Soviet Union in 1980, Johan Galtung predicted the collapse of the Soviet Empire by 1990. He was correct. And analyzing the accumulation of such unsustainable contradictions in the American empire, he has predicted its collapse by 2020. Yes, next year !

And speaking of the collapse of empire, we must consider the key role of confidence and lack of confidence of the people in their government and media.

I saw this living from time to time in the Soviet Union in the years before its collapse. People no longer believed their government or their media. As they said, you find no truth in Pravda and no true information in Izvestia. President Gorbachev tried to correct this with his “glasnost and perestroika” but it was too little and too late. When the Soviet economy crashed, the people did not come onto the streets to support their government or reconstruct it. Instead, they washed their hands of it, saying in effect, “let it crash, it is not worth saving.”

If the global ecoomy crashes (next year?), who will come into the streets to save it?

When the global economy and national governments crashed in the 1930’s, what happened? We fell back on the culture of war in its extreme form, fascism. And eventually, world war.

Let us not allow this to happen again ! Let us prepare, instead, for a transition to the culture of peace.

In previous blogs we have explored the various trends that could potentially contribute to such a transition:

* a global student movement

* a “rural-urban continuum” based on solar energy and electric vehicles

* the preparation for a United Nations run by direct representatives of the people instead of by nation-states.

We don’t need a Chinese proverb to tell us that a crisis is an opportunity as well as a danger.

Let us not be distracted by the lies of governments and their media supporters, but keep on working positively on these and other potential “opportunities” that can emerge from the present crisis.

CAN STUDENTS BECOME A REVOLUTIONARY FORCE?

Featured

As often remarked in this blog, the world is in such a mess that we need radical action. In fact we need revolutionary change.

But where can it come from? Who can be the revolutionary actors?

A century ago, it was thought by some that revolution would come from industrial workers.

They were constantly and obviously exploited by their capitalist bosses.

They were concentrated in large numbers in factories

They had the power to stop production by going on strike.

Today there are few such factories in the rich countries of the North. Factories have been automated or transferred to China and the poor countries of rhe South.

We don’t hear anymore that factory workers will change the world.

On the other hand, as described this month on CPNN, it seems we are now starting to see student strikes to demand that their governments address the problem of climate change. Can this movement become revolutionary?

Students are beginning to see that their world is being exploited by their governments and that their schools seem to be in complicity with the governments.

Students are concentrated in large numbers in schools.

Their strikes do not stop production in the short term, but in the long term their compliance is necessary if governments are to continue their inaction. At least that is the hope of the American Youth Climate Strike who say in their mission statement that “if the social order is disrupted by our refusal to attend school, then the system is forced to face the climate crisis and enact change.”

Students today have a tool that was not available to workers a century ago. They can connect up rapidly everywhere by means of social media. An example of this is the initiative of Greta Thunberg whose actions have inspired the student movement around the world. Her twitter accounts and her website list events in 1325 places in 98 countries going on strike on March 15, including Washingto DC, Moscow, Mumbai, Shanghai, Lagos, Rio de Janeiro, Sydney, Nuuk, Paris, Nairobi, Santiago, New York, London Hong Kong, Berlin, Tel Aviv, Toronto, Beirut, Zurch, Kyiv, Havana, Cork, Kampala, Buenos Aires, Seoul, Cape Town, Kyoto, Mexico City, Brussels, Por Vila, Los Angeles, Rome, Kuala Lumpur, Madrid, Auckland and Södertälje just to name a few.

What else does this student movement need to become truly revolutionary?

They would become more powerful by broadening their agenda to include other issues related to the question of environmental catastrophe. One such issue should be nuclear disarmament, given that a nuclear war would be even more catastrophic than global warming. In the long run both are important components of a global agenda to move from the culture of war to a culture of peace.

And they need to develop alliances with other movements that contribute to a culture of peace. One such alliance is the movement for equality of women, given that women have always been exploited and kept down by the culture of war and have usually taken the lead in movements for peace.

The largest mobilizations of the student strike movement have taken place in the rich countries of Europe and North America. To be come more effective they need to link up with students in the poor countries of the South, understanding and supporting their needs for education and development. This is not simple, since schools in the North may seem irrelevant, even oppressive, while education in the South is more often seen as liberation.

Insofar as the student strike movement broadens its agenda, other movements would be wise to accept their leadership. It may not always be easy for older generations to accept the leadership of the young. This was a problem in the 60’s in France when the organized workers refused to march with the revolutionary students, and in the US when the older peace activists refused to accept any leadership from the youth such as those of SDS (the Students for a Democratic Society). On the other hand, in South Africa, when the students took up the struggle against apartheid, their leadership was widely accepted by the older generation who were in prison or exile, and, as a result, this led to one of the greatest victories for justice in our times.

All this may seem fantastic in the face of the monolithic American empire and its alliances throughout the world, but, as often remarked this blog, the empire is crashing and we are coming into times of extraordinary change – and opportunity as well as danger. Let us hope that the students can rise to the challenge of leading us towards a better world.

How to prepare for a global financial crash: Rural-urban continuum and electric vehicles

Featured

In this blog we have often proposed that the culture of war is not sustainable and that the American empire is destined to crash for the same reasons that the Soviet empire crashed. It can be an opportunity for a transition from the culture of war to a culture of peace. However, the crash of the American empire may well be accompanied (caused) by a global financial crash with suffering for ordinary people, as it did for the Soviet people 30 years ago.

In a financial crash the cities are especially vulnerable. They depend on daily food deliveries to supermarkets that often come long distances by plane and truck.

It is precisely this delivery system that is at risk in a global financial crash. Not to mention industrial agriculture. Both depend on adequate supplies of gasoline and diesel fuel for trucks, planes and tractors, and the fuel, in turn, is largely dependent on a global system of oil tankers which, in turn, depends up/on consistent financial support.

To site an historical precedent, following the financial crash of 1929, the number of freighters at sea fell drastically due to lack of financial support. In 1929 the world was less urbanized and the cities were less dependent on food deliveries by plane and truck. Much of their food came from local suppliers who were, in turn, less dependent on industrial methods.

That is no longer the case. Small local farms have been replaced by industrial agriculture that is concentrated in regions far from most cities.

One solution to this problem lies in the recent proposal of José Graziano da Silva, Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), addressing a UN conference discussing common challenges to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as climate change and food security: “Sustainable development calls for the strengthening of rural-urban linkages based on a territorial approach,” he said, pushing for “a rural-urban continuum.”

In fact, this process is already underway on a small scale as cities develop networks of farmer’s markets linked to small farms in the region around them, and as young people increasingly turn to subsistence farming near these cities.

There is a second component needed for this solution: a shift from dependence on fossil fuel for trucks and tractors to use of electric trucks and tractors recharged by solar-powered charging stations.

The Chinese are at the forefront of this with their shift to electric vehicles, and their development of solar energy. We need to learn from them.

A shift to electric tractors and solar charging stations on farms is especially important, but we have little indication that this process has even begun.

How much time do we have to make these changes? Impossible to say. Johan Galtung has predicted the end of the American empire by the year 2020. Will it be accompanied and/or caused by a global financial crash?

In any case, it is not too early to begin the transition to a “rural-urban continuum” based on solar energy and electric vehicles.

Where is democracy?

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

In the past few months we have a tale of two elections.

In the Democratic Repubic of the Congo, after a difficult election campaign (described in CPNN), there is serious reason to believe that the election results were fixed to favor a candidate favorable to the huge mining interests in that country. Although the African Union and the catholic churches of the Congo have questioned the results, none of the major powers of Europe, North America, etc. have spoken up.

The opposite has occurred with regard to the election results last year in Venezuela. All of the major powers of Europe and North America and their allies have claimed that the election results were fraudulent and they have announced their support for the losing candidate. He just happens to support the major capitalist interests in the huge petroleaum industry of that country, unlike the President who claimed the election victory.

Such hypocrisy!

Not only do the governments of the major capitalist countries take these positions, but the major mass media follows the government lines.

This is not new.

In recent years we saw the “successful” overthrow of the President of Libya (put “successful” in quotation marks, because the country has been in chaos ever since). Was it by accident that Libya has major oil exports or that the overthrown President was a major financial supporter of the African Union?

And we have seen the unsuccessful, but extremely bloody attempt to overthrow the President of Syria.

Where is democracy? It seems to be held hostage to neo-colonialism, the continued exploitation of minerals and oil from the poor countries of Latin America and Africa and manipulation of the goverments in those countries to allow this exploitation. Although the mainstream media did not cover their remarks, several countries addressed this in the recent meeting of the UN Security Council called by the United States to gain UN support to overthrow the Venezuelan government.

The delegate from Cuba said that the current United States Administration appears to have “dusted off the Monroe Doctrine”, and in a fresh extension of imperialism in the region, gone so far as to say that all options are on table.  And the delegate from Saint Vincent and the Grenadines recalled that the history of Latin America and the Caribbean is indelibly scarred by military interventions and imposition of dictator Governments.

Let us not forget Salvador Allende!

To further understand the process, we can go over 50 years to the precise analysis of neo-colonialism that was made by the Kwame Nkrumah, the President of Ghana. I have quoted his analysis extensively in my History of the Culture of War. Here are some excerpts:

“Faced with the militant peoples of the ex-colonial territories in Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America, imperialism simply switches tactics. Without a qualm it dispenses with its flags, and even with certain of its more hated expatriate officials. This means, so it claims, that it is ‘giving’ independence to its former subjects, to be followed by ‘aid’ for their development. Under cover of such phrases, however, it devises innumerable ways to accomplish objectives formerly achieved by naked colonialism. It is this sum total of these modern attempts to perpetuate colonialism while at the same time talking about ‘freedom’, which has come to be known as neo-colonialism.

“Foremost among the neo-colonialists is the United States, which has long exercised its power in Latin America. Fumblingly at first she turned towards Europe, and then with more certainty after world war two when most countries of that continent were indebted to her. Since then, with methodical thoroughness and touching attention to detail, the Pentagon set about consolidating its ascendancy, evidence of which can be seen all around the world.

Who really rules in such places as Great Britain, West Germany, Japan, Spain, Portugal or Italy? . . . Lurking behind such questions are the extended tentacles of the Wall Street octopus. And its suction cups and muscular strength are provided by a phenomenon dubbed ‘The Invisible Government’, arising from Wall Street’s connection with the Pentagon and various intelligence services …”

In the culture of war, democracy is fragile and expendable. But the culture of war is also fragile and will eventually crash. When it crashes, we will have the chance to establish a new system with a culture of peace and a democracy that is sustainable. But how can this be done?

* * * * * * *

Où est la démocratie?

Ces derniers mois, deux élections ont pris place.

En République démocratique du Congo, après une campagne électorale difficile, décrite dans CPNN, il y a de bonnes raisons de croire que les résultats des élections ont été fixés de manière à favoriser un candidat favorable aux énormes intérêts miniers de ce pays. Bien que l’Union africaine ainsi que les églises catholiques du Congo ait mis en doute les résultats, les grandes puissances d’Europe, d’Amérique du Nord n’ont rien dit.

Le contraire s’est produit en ce qui concerne les résultats des élections de l’année dernière au Venezuela. Toutes les grandes puissances d’Europe et d’Amérique du Nord et leurs alliés ont affirmé que les résultats des élections étaient frauduleux et ils ont annoncé leur soutien au candidat perdant. Il arrive justement à soutenir les intérêts capitalistes majeurs de l’immense industrie pétrolière de ce pays, contrairement au président qui a remporté la victoire électorale.

Quelle hypocrisie!

Non seulement les gouvernements des principaux pays capitalistes adoptent ces positions, mais les principaux médias suivent les lignes des gouvernements.

Ce n’est pas nouveau.

Ces dernières années, nous avons assisté au renversement “réussi” du président libyen (entre guillemets, car le pays est plongé dans le chaos depuis). Était-ce par accident que la Libye avait d’importantes exportations de pétrole ou que le président renversé était un important bailleur de fonds de l’Union africaine?

Et nous avons assisté à la tentative infructueuse mais extrêmement sanglante de renverser le président de la Syrie.

Où est la démocratie? Il semble être pris en otage par le néo-colonialisme, l’exploitation continue des minéraux et du pétrole des pays pauvres d’Amérique latine et d’Afrique et la manipulation des gouvernements de ces pays pour permettre cette exploitation. Bien que les principaux médias n’aient pas couvert leurs propos, plusieurs pays ont abordé cette question lors de la récente réunion du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies, appelée par les États-Unis à obtenir le soutien de l’ONU pour renverser le gouvernement vénézuélien.

Le délégué de Cuba a déclaré que le gouvernement des États-Unis actuel semble avoir «dépoussiéré la doctrine Monroe» et, dans une nouvelle extension de l’impérialisme dans la région, est allé jusqu’à dire que toutes les options sont sur la table. Et le délégué de Saint-Vincent-et-les Grenadines a rappelé que l’histoire de l’Amérique latine et des Caraïbes est marquée à jamais par les interventions militaires et l’imposition de gouvernements dictateurs.

N’oublions pas Salvador Allende.

Pour mieux comprendre le processus, nous pouvons passer plus de 50 ans à l’analyse précise du néo-colonialisme réalisée par le président du Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah. J’ai abondamment cité son analyse dans mon Histoire de la culture de guerre. Voici quelques extraits:

“Face aux peuples militants des territoires anciennement colonisés d’Asie, d’Afrique, des Caraïbes et d’Amérique latine, l’impérialisme change simplement de tactique. Sans scrupule, il renonce à ses drapeaux et même à certains de ses fonctionnaires expatriés les plus détestés. Cela signifie Elle prétend ainsi, qu’elle “donne” l’indépendance à ses anciens sujets et qu’elle est suivie d’une “aide” pour leur développement. Sous le couvert de telles expressions, elle conçoit toutefois d’innombrables moyens d’atteindre les objectifs autrefois atteints par le colonialisme nu. Telle est la somme de ces tentatives modernes de perpétuer le colonialisme tout en parlant de la «liberté», connue sous le nom de «néo-colonialisme».

“Au premier rang des néo-colonisateurs, on trouve les États-Unis, qui ont longtemps exercé leur pouvoir en Amérique latine. Elle s’est d’abord retournée maladroitement vers l’Europe, puis avec plus de certitude après la deuxième guerre mondiale, lorsque la plupart des pays de ce continent lui étaient redevables. Depuis lors, avec une minutie méthodique et une attention touchant aux détails, le Pentagone s’est efforcé de consolider son ascendant, ce dont témoignent des preuves partout dans le monde.

Qui règne réellement en Grande-Bretagne, en Allemagne de l’Ouest, au Japon, en Espagne, au Portugal ou en Italie? . . . Derrière de telles questions se cachent les tentacules étendus de la pieuvre de Wall Street. Et ses ventouses et sa force musculaire sont fournies par un phénomène appelé “Le gouvernement invisible”, qui découle des relations de Wall Street avec le Pentagone et de divers services de renseignement … ”

Dans une culture de guerre, la démocratie est fragile et quelque chose qui peut être sacrifié. Mais la culture de guerre est aussi fragile et eventuallement il s’écroule. Quand cela se produira, nous aurons la chance d’établir un nouveau système basé sur la culture de la paix et une démocratie durable. Comment cela peut-il être fait?

The Doomsday Clock

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

Looking back at 2018, we see progress in all of the areas of a culture of peace except one: disarmament, and in particular nuclear disarmament.
Symbolic of this, last year the “doomsday clock” of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists was reset to only two minutes before midnight, the shortest it has been since 1953!

An accompanying article recalls a 1982 television film depicting the effects of a nuclear war on a Kansas town which was viewed by 100 million people and which helped inspire President Ronald Reagan to reach a disarmament agreement with Russian President Gorbachev a few years later. The author of the article concludes:

“There are striking parallels between the security situations today and 35 years ago, with one major discordance: Today, nuclear weapons are seldom a front-burner concern, largely being forgotten, underestimated, or ignored by the American public. The United States desperately needs a fresh national conversation about the born-again nuclear arms race—a conversation loud enough to catch the attention of the White House and the Kremlin and lead to resumed dialogue.”

This reminds me of a novel that I wrote back in 1965 called simply “PEACE.” Like many of my generation I was greatly troubled by the Cuban missile crisis a few years before which served as a wake-up call that we could destroy our entire civilization with a nuclear war. So I wrote a novel imagining that a series of accidental nuclear explosions and the threat of nuclear blackmail, combined with a peace movement centered around “Peace News” (much like CPNN), led eventually to a World Peace Treaty and nuclear disarmament.

More recently, in 2011, I came back to this theme in a two-act theatre play called “Freud’s Last Death” which takes place in the 1986 in a bunker buried deep below ground in what was then the Soviet Union. We meet Colonel Stanislav Petrov, retired from the Soviet Air Defense Forces, who refused to launch a nuclear attack against the West despite the fact that the radar showed missiles on the way to destroy the Soviet Union. That part of the play reflects an actual event that occurred in 1983. We carried two articles about this in CPNN, in 2004 and again in 2012, and a film about it was released in 2014. Petrov died in 2017 in poverty, and his story remains relatively unknown. Symbolically, it seems, even the links in the CPNN articles are no longer valid.

In the play we also meet Sigmund Freud, whose brain has been kept alive by a scientific “miracle,” and we question him about his belief that humanity is condemned because of a “death instinct.” At the time of the play, Gorbachev and Reagan are meeting in Iceland where they will reach agreement for the most important nuclear disarmament initiative in history. The danger of a nuclear war was reduced, but not eliminated,.

The play concludes:

The “initial disarmament agreements have been overcome by a new arms race. There are now over 30,000 nuclear weapons under the control of nine states, with other states planning to manufacture them. A global nuclear war would still risk the destruction of all life on the planet. And as for the death instinct, scientists still do not know if it exists or not.”

Here we are, entering 2019, without progress towards nuclear disarmament.

Will humanity survive until 2020? Or will the nightmare of nuclear war intervene?

It’s time to wake up!

 

L’horloge Doomsday


En regardant l’ensemble de l’année ècoulée, nous constatons des progrès dans tous les domaines d’une culture de la paix, à l’exception du désarmement, et en particulier le désarmement nucléaire.

Symbole de cela, l’année dernière, le “Doomsday Clock” du Bulletin of Atomic Scienists a été réinitialisé à seulement deux minutes avant minuit, son minimum depuis 1953 !

Un article d’accompagnement rappelle un film télévisé en 1982 décrivant les effets d’une guerre des armes nucléaires sur une ville du Kansas, vue par 100 millions de personnes et qui a incité le président Ronald Reagan à conclure un accord de désarmement avec le président russe Gorbatchev quelques années plus tard. L’auteur de l’article conclut:

“Il existe des parallèles frappants entre la situation sécuritaire actuelle et celle d’il y a 35 ans, et une discordance majeure: aujourd’hui, les armes nucléaires sont rarement une préoccupation majeure, elles sont en grande partie oubliées, sous-estimées ou ignorées par le public américain. Les États-Unis ont désespérément besoin d’une nouvelle consultation nationale sur la course aux armements nucléaires qui est relancée, mais une consultation suffisamment forte pour attirer l’attention de la Maison-Blanche et du Kremlin et pour amener à la reprise du dialogue. ”

Cela me rappelle un roman que j’avais écrit en 1965 et qui s’appelait simplement “PEACE.” Comme beaucoup de membres de ma génération, la crise des missiles cubains qui a eu lieu il y a quelques décennies m’a profondément troublée et a servi de signal d’alarme pour que nous puissions détruire toute notre civlilsation par une guerre nucléaire. J’ai donc écrit un roman en imaginant qu’une série d’explosions nucléaires accidentelles et la menace de chantage nucléaire, combinées à un mouvement pour la paix centré sur “Peace News” (un peu comme le CPNN) aboutissaient à un traité de paix mondial et au désarmement nucléaire.

Plus récemment, en 2011, je suis revenu sur ce thème dans une pièce de théâtre en deux actes intitulée “La dernière mort de Freud” qui se déroule en 1986 dans un bunker enfoui sous le sol dans ce qui était à l’époque l’Union soviétique. Nous y rencontrions le colonel Stanislav Petrov, retraité des Forces de défense antiaériennes soviétiques, qui a refusé de lancer une attaque nucléaire contre l’Occident alors que le radar montrait des missiles sur le chemin de la destruction de l’Union soviétique. Cette partie de la pièce reflète un événement réel arrivé en 1983. Nous avons publié deux articles à ce sujet dans CPNN, en 2004 et à nouveau en 2012, et un film à ce sujet a été publié en 2014. Petrov est décédé en 2017 dans la misère, et son histoire reste relativement inconnue et oublié. Les liens des articles de CPNN n’existent plus. Le film n’a pas reçu grand attention.

Dans la pièce, nous rencontrons également Sigmund Freud, dont le cerveau a été maintenu en vie par un “miracle” scientifique, et nous le questionnons sur sa conviction que l’humanité est condamnée en raison d’un “instinct de mort”. Au moment de la pièce, Gorbatchev et Reagan se rencontrent en Islande où ils parviendront à un accord sur la plus importante initiative de désarmement nucléaire de l’histoire. Le danger de guerre nucléaire a été réduit, mais pas éliminé.

 La pièce se termine: “Les accords de désarmement initiaux ont été dépassés par une nouvelle course aux armements. Plus de 30 000 armes nucléaires sont actuellement sous le contrôle de neuf États, d’autres pays envisageant de les fabriquer. Une guerre nucléaire mondiale risquerait encore de détruire la planète. Et quant à l’instinct de mort, les scientifiques ne savent toujours pas s’il existe ou non. ”

Nous sommes entrés en 2019 sans progresser dans le désarmement nucléaire.

L’humanité survivra-t-elle jusqu’en 2020? Ou le cauchemar de la guerre nucléaire va-t-il intervenir?

If faut se réveiller!

Rationale for an Alternative to the UN Security Council

Featured

In last month’s blog, after writing about the impending crash of the American empire and the window of opportunity this will create to change the global system of governance from the culture of war to a culture of peace, I returned to a previous theme of an Alternative UN Security Council.

It has been pointed out to me that I did not provide a very explicit rationale about this proposal and why it should be given priority. So let me try to do that now in terms of the following strategy and tactics involved.

1) The United Nations is capable of promoting a culture of peace, as we showed at UNESCO during the 1990’s when Federico Mayor was its Director-General. We initiated culture of peace programs at a national level in El Salvador and Mozambique that brought together the opposing sides of the civil wars in those countries to work together in projects of education, science, culture and communication. In one case the project was funded by one of the major donors to the UN (Germany) and in that case the program was successful. However, the major powers pointedly refused to fund the other projects, and despite the efforts of UNESCO and our partners “on the ground” the culture of peace programs could not be sustained. National programs foreseen in Russia, the Balkans and elsewhere could not even get started. An account of the one successful project in El Salvador is available here on the Internet.

2) Our experience at UNESCO shows that the peace capacities of the United Nations cannot be achieved so long as the UN is run by the Member States. In fact the Member States of the UN Security Council are the states who are responsible for wars and preparation for wars, such as the possession of nuclear weapons. This can be understood from the history of the culture of war which shows that over time the state has come to monopolize and embody the culture of war. Other entities that previously made war (cities, tribes, criminal organizations, etc.) have been “pacified” by the states and deprived of their war-making capacity. Meanwhile, the preparations for war remain the dominant expense of the state, and the huge military expenditures of the state have engendered a military-industrial-financial complex. This was even true in the old Soviet Union, as we found out at the end of the Soviet empire. A self-perpetuating cycle has resulted, as the military-industrial-financial complex promotes and ensures the election of a pro-military government.

3) There is a growing anti-war consciousness of the peoples of the world in contradiction to the policies of their national governments. We see this growth in anti-war consciousness in the news covered by the Culture of Peace News Network. See, for example, the increase in participation in the International Day of Peace from year to year.

4) There is a contradiction between the growing anti-war consciousness of the people and the continued priority of the culture of war by the state. So far this contradiction has been handled by the state and its allies in the miltary-industrial-financial complex in two ways.

a) First, they control the mass media and emphasize enemy images and news of violent events in order to convince the people that military preparedness is necessary.

b) Second, national elections have become more and more expensive and hence more dependent on funding from the military-industrial-financial complex. Anti-war candidates cannot get the funding they need to win on a national scale. As a result, almost no congressman or senator in the United States votes against the military budget, even if a majority of the voters that elected them may be anti-war.

5) Putting together the above, it would seem that the transition to a culture of peace needs a United Nations that is run by the peoples of the world rather than the Member States. This may be expressed In terms of the charter of the United Nations, which begins, “We the Peoples. . . ”

6) If history did not have major qualitative, revolutionary changes, but simply continued with only gradual change, it would seem that a United Nations run by the Peoples would never be possible.

7) However, there is good reason to believe that the American empire will soon crash because of its over-militarization similar to that which caused the crash of the Soviet empire. Many other countries will crash as well, similar to what happened to Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. This may open a window of opportunity during which the United Nations is more or less abandoned by the states and open to a radical refoundation. In fact, we have already seen in the last few decades the United Nations is abandoned by the major states when there is a crisis. The economic crisis of 2008 was handled directly by state ministries and power was not given the UN entities, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Similarly, the great powers avoid the United Nations when it comes to nuclear policy and rely on ad-hoc inter-state forums and agreements to contain nuclear proliferation. Also, the great powers do not seriously engage the United Nations in confronting the problem of global warming and climate change. As for military interventions, the great powers try to get consensus on the Security Council, but they go ahead with invasions and attacks when they cannot obtain it.

8) We don’t have to wait for the crash of the American empire to begin preparing. Given all of the above strategic considerations, we could create an unofficial Alternative Security Council (ASC). This would be an effective tactic for at least two reasons.

a) Wide dissemination of regular press releases by the ASC would support and strengthen the anti-war consciousness of the peoples of the world that “another world is possible.” It would start them thinking that the United Nations could be reformed in a way that would support peace instead of war.

b) Experience gathered by an ASC could provide a valuable input into the institutional changes that would be needed for an eventual refoundation of the United Nations based on “We the Peoples” instead of the Member States. Perhaps the eventual institutional arrangement would be different from the ASC, but the principles would be similar.

9) The effectiveness of an ASC at this time, especially its press releases and their effect on the peoples’ consciousness would depend upon the perceived stature and democratic representation of the members of the ASC. For this reason, a good choice would be an ASC composed of mayors and ex-mayors of major cities in all regions of the world (for example, two each from East Asia, South Asia, Arab states, former Soviet states, Africa, Europe, South America and North America).

10) This proposal does not depend on the timing of a crash of the American empire. Even if you do not think it will crash soon (as I do), you may wish to start thinking in the long run, how the world can turn from a culture of war to a culture of peace.

11) Nor does it depend on the maintenance of the United Nations after a global economic crash. Perhaps there will be a new institution, similar to what happened after World War II which did not retain the League of Nations but established a completely new institution, the United Nations. But even if there is a totally new institution, it will face the same challenges as the United Nations of today and the experience of a previous ASC could be useful.

12) Many readers may well persist in believing that the nation-state can be reformed to support a culture of peace. As you can see, I am skeptical of this. In any case, however, attempts to reform the state could also be served by the experience of a radical alternative such as the proposed ASC.

13) As for the importance of all this, I close with the words from the monograph on a culture of peace that we published at UNESCO in 1995:

14) When in the course of history there is an accumulation of changes which make possible a revolutionary transformation in social relations, the mobilization and participation of people on a vast scale, a global movement, becomes possible through the development and sharing of a common vision of a new world. The time is ripe for such a movement and vision for a culture of peace.

15) The transformation of society from a culture of war to a culture of peace is perhaps more radical and far reaching than any previous change in human history. Every aspect of social relations – having been shaped for millennia by the dominant culture of war, is open to change – from the relations among nations to those between women and men. Everyone, from the centres of power to the most remote villages, may be engaged and transformed in the process.

As the Empire Crashes

Featured

As the American empire begins to crash, capitalism becomes desperate and takes off its gloves. We see its fist; all of the characteristics of the culture of war carried to extreme. In fact, that is the simple nature of fascism, the culture of war carried to extreme.

Trump in the USA, Erdogan in Turkey, now Bolsonaro in Brazil. The capitalists finance their campaigns in a desperate effort to protect their wealth.

History is repeating. Hitler, too, was backed by big capitalists at a time when the Weimar Republic was failing. This is not generally known because the records of German industry for that period are kept secret and the unfortunate historian who tried to document this back in the 1980’s, a young graduate student at Princeton named David Abraham, was drummed out of the profession as a reward for his research.

All of the aspects of the culture of war are exaggerated now. Enemy images are used to label scapegoats (immigrants, leftists, muslims, will the scapgoating of jews be next?). Military budgets are bloated. Democracy is jettisoned in favor of authoritarian regimes. Educational systems are devoted to producing a generation of passive citizens believing in the glory of past wars. Information is controlled and whistle-blowers punished. Human rights are trampled. The earth is plundered for its resources.

And as always the case with the culture of war, women are oppressed and victimized. This was the theme of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, as the Nobel Committee joins an impressive list of organizations around the world that are working for women’s equality and an end to violence against women, in the face of increased pressures against women’s rights.

As an example, consider how Trump, Erdogan and Bolsonaro deal with the question of abortion. Trump’s oppostion to abortion has been concretized in his choice for the Suprieme Court, a man who is pledged to overthrow abortion rights in the US. Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan has described abortion as tantamount to “murder”, angering women’s rights groups and sparking an intense debate in the mainly Muslim nation. And now Brazil’s Bolsonaro is strongly opposed to abortion. Writing on Twitter on 12 October he said: “The money of Brazilians will not finance NGOs that promote that practice.”

It should be obvious that all of these policies of the culture of war are linked to each other, and hence the struggles for peace, human rights, democracy, sustainable development, education, the free flow of information and equality for women also need to be linked together in one great unified movement.

It’s too late to stop the system from crashing. Just as the Soviet Union crashed because it poured its wealth into the bottomless pit of military spending, so, too, the United States has been doing the same for decades already. There is no one in the Congress opposed to the military budget, as they are all in debt to the military-industrial complex. And Trump, of course, is making it worse. We will soon arrive at the tipping point when the dollar crashes like the ruble crashed before it.

But we can begin already to construct what will come after the crash. We need a whole new system of governance in the world that is devoted to the culture of peace! The maximum unity is needed if we are to achieve this.

The answer is blowing in the wind

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

During the week (actually it took two weeks) during which I was seeking out the information about the observation of the International Day of Peace, I came across the article published by Unfold Zero about two meetings at the United Nations on the same day concerning nuclear weapons. The major nuclear states (USA, France, UK, China and Russia) all went to a meeting for non-proliferation and boycotted the meeting for nuclear disarmament. As the article correctly concludes, the nuclear states “place very little priority on their obligations to eliminate their own weapons of mass destruction, focusing instead on preventing others from acquiring such weapons.”

The contrast could not be stronger between the actions of these national governments and the great numbers of schools, cities and towns, civil society organizations and individuals everywhere in the world who took part in the International Day of Peace.

Having used more or less the same methodology this year as last year, we can see that the involvement in the International Day of Peace is increasing in most of the world. In fact, this is probably the best measure we have of the increasing anti-war consciousness of the peoples of the world.

Not only does this mean that new people, localities and organizations enter the celebration of Peace each year, but we can imagine as well that for those who have been involved before, there is an accumulation and strengthening of their anti-war consciousness.

And most important of all, the greatest part of the celebrations took place in schools with schoolchildren taking part in the International Day of Peace. This gives us great hope for the future. We are raising a new generation who, hopefully, can finally undertake the abolition of war.

The schoolchildren took part in a wide variety of actions for the Day, but for me the most symbolic was their release of balloons and doves into the sky, and their watching them disperse with the wind, as if they were going around the world. After all, the sky is something we share with everyone else in the world. Symbolically, “the answer is blowing in the wind,” as in the anti-war song written by Bob Dylan in my generation opposed to the Vietnam War.

The continuing growth of anti-war consciousness, as expressed by “the answer blowing in the wind,” is absolutely essential to our hopes for peace, including nuclear disarmament and the abolition of war. Perhaps it is not enough, as I have often emphasized in this blog, since we also need to develop an institutional framework for peace. But even if it is not enough, it still essential and indispensable.

Let us be like the children and launch our balloons and doves and desires for peace onto all the winds and involving all the peopes of our planet ! And knowing that the days are numbered for the national governments that hold onto nuclear weapons as instruments of power, let us look forward to the day when their power has crashed and they are replaced at the United Nations by true representatives of the people conscious of the need for a culture of peace.

* * * * *
La solution souffle dans le vent

Au cours de la semaine (en fait, cela a pris deux semaines) au cours de laquelle j’ai cherché des informations sur l’observation de la Journée internationale de la paix, je suis tombé sur l’article publié par Unfold Zero à propos de deux réunions le même jour aux Nations Unies sur les armes nucléaires. Les principaux États nucléaires (États-Unis, France, Royaume-Uni, Chine et Russie) se sont tous rendus à la réunion sur la non-prolifération et ils ont boycotté ainsi la réunion sur le désarmement! Comme l’article le conclut à juste titre, les États nucléaires “n’accordent pas de priorité à leur obligation d’éliminer leurs propres armes de destruction massive, mais se concentrent plutôt sur l’empêchement des autres d’acquérir de telles armes”.

Le contraste ne pouvait pas être plus fort entre les actions de ces gouvernements nationaux et le grand nombre d’écoles, de villes et villages, d’organisations de la société civile et d’individus du monde entier qui ont participé à la Journée internationale de la paix.

Après avoir utilisé plus ou moins la même méthodologie cette année que l’année dernière, nous pouvons constater que la participation à cette Journée s’intensifie dans la plupart du monde. En fait, ces chifres sont probablement la meilleure mesure que nous ayons de la conscience croissante des peuples du monde entier contre la guerre.

Cela signifie non seulement que de nouvelles personnes, localités et organisations y participent chaque année, mais nous pouvons également imaginer que, pour ceux qui ont été impliqués auparavant, leur conscience anti-guerre s’accumule et se renforce.

Et le plus important de tout, la plus grande partie des célébrations de la Journée a eu lieu dans les écoles avec des écoliers. Cela nous donne un grand espoir pour l’avenir. Nous élevons une nouvelle génération qui, espérons-le, pourra enfin entreprendre l’abolition de la guerre.

Les écoliers ont pris part à de nombreuses actions pour la Journée, mais pour moi, le plus symbolique a été de lâcher de ballons et de colombes dans le ciel et de les regarder se disperser avec le vent, comme s’ils partaient faire un tour du monde. Après tout, le ciel est quelque chose que nous partageons avec tous les autres peuples du monde. Symboliquement, “la solution souffle dans le vent”, comme dans le chanson anti-guerre écrit par Bob Dylan de ma génération opposée à la guerre du Vietnam.

La croissance de la conscience anti-guerre, exprimée par “la solution qui souffle dans le vent”, est absolument essentielle à nos espoirs de paix, y compris le désarmement nucléaire et l’abolition de la guerre. Comme je l’ai souvent souligné dans ce blog, cela n’est peut-être pas suffisant, car nous devons également mettre en place un cadre institutionnel pour la paix. Mais même si cela ne suffit pas, cela reste essentiel et indispensable.

Soyons comme les enfants et lançons nos ballons, nos colombes et nos désirs de paix dans le vent pour arriver dans tous les coins de notre planète! Et sachant que les jours sont déjà compté avant que les pouvoirs nucleaires tombent dans un crash économique, attendons avec impatience ce jour quand leur pouvoir se sera écrasé et quand ils seront remplacés aux Nations Unies par de véritables représentants des peuples conscient de ce qui soufle dans le vent !

The Paradox of the United Nations: Peace vs. Culture of Peace

Featured

If we consider the purpose for which the United Nations was formed: “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” it is failing badly. This spring, when we hoped that the United Nations would convene a High-Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament, the meeting was cancelled due to pressure from the United States and its allies. And most recently, we see that the proposal for a peacekeeping force to protect the Palestinian people cannot be implemented because of the American veto.

This month in the CPNN bulletin, we look at recent moves towards peace in the Philippines, Colombia, Korea and Etheopia/Eritrea. What is remarkable is the absence of the United Nations from these initiatives. Only in Colombia did the United Nations play an important role by supervising the disarmament of the FARC guerilla army.

This impotence of the UN is not new. We saw it two decades ago when our work for peace in El Salvador and Mozambique was not supported by the US and its allies.

On the other hand, if we look at the culture of peace, the 90% of the iceberg of peace which is not visible on the surface, we see that the UN is continually developing a culture of peace at the local level.

Education for peace: the ‘Back to Learning’ education campaign of UNICEF will benefit half a million children in South Sudan.

Democratic participation: UN Women contributed to the historic leap in Tunisia where women now make up 47 per cent of local government.

Sustainable development: UNESCO and UNWTO are encouraging cultural tourism as a means of fostering sustainable development.

Women’s equality: As described in their annual report, UN Women is supporting women politicians, electoral officials, voters, lawmakers, civil society activists and many others to claim their equal right to lead and be heard.

Human rights: Although the task is often frustrating, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights works for implementation of the UN Declaration on Human Rights which is the keystone of work in this area.

Tolerance and solidarity: The United Nations continues to support youth projects for tolerance and solidarity through the Youth Solidarity Fund.

Free flow of information: In Africa UNESCO supports the development of local radio initiatives against gender violence.

Disarmament: Although the UN is failing at the highest level for disarmament, it is quite capable of action when the member states support it, as described above in the case of Colombia.

And on a more general level, the United Nations continues to hold annual high level forums dedicated to the development of a culture of peace and UNESCO continues to support the development of a culture of peace in Africa.

Imagine how effective the UN could be if the stranglehold of the member states as expressed by the veto of the United States were to be replaced by a radical revision of the UN management with direction by representatives of cities or parliaments, as I have repeatedly proposed!

Movement for Sustainable Development: Model for Culture of Peace?

Featured

From the beginning, sustainable development has been considered to be an essential component of the culture of peace, one of the eight action areas of the Programme of Action for a Culture of Peace, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1999.

In our analysis of the National Culture of Peace Programme in El Salvador, published in 1996, Francisco Lacayo Parajon considered that the global ecological movement provided the best model for the development of a global movement for the culture of peace. He described seven stages of its development, beginning with the adoption of a new paradigm, open to the participation to various sectors, so long as they share the same basic principles and culminating in its internalization in the daily life of people, until it becomes a benchmark of a great majority of societies.

Is the global movement for sustainable development still a good model for the culture of peace? I think the answer is yes, but in a way we did not envisage in 1996.

To some extent, it is true as we predicted that the new paradigm of sustainable development has become accepted and integrated into the thinking of a large proportion of humanity. But there is a new and different stage emerging now, as described in this month’s bulletin of CPNN, based on simple economic forces. This can be seen in the changing nature of fossil fuel divestment: Originally, it “was entirely driven by moral concerns—institutions pulled their money out of oil, gas, and coal companies because they didn’t want to be contributing to the destruction of a stable climate. Now, divestment is increasingly seen as a smart financial move for investors.” An example of this comes from India where “new renewable energy is less expensive to build than it costs to run most of the existing coal fired power in the nation—let alone construct new plants.”

Should we be surprised that economic forces turn out to be the most powerful factor in social change? Not if we were Karl Marx 150 years ago who analyzed historical change as follows: the era of social revolution is preceded by a transformation of the material productive forces of society, i.e. its economy, due to their conflict with the previous material productive forces which have become fetters. Put in terms of example of India, the reliance on coal-fired power is becoming more expensive than the new technologies of wind and solar power.

But is this relevant for the movement for a culture of peace? Yes, if we take seriously the analysis made several decades ago by the economist Lloyd Dumas in his book The Overburdened Economy. He shows that in the long run military production is a burden to the economy, draining its talent and material resources away from production which is useful for people. This was, in fact, the reason for the collapse of the Soviet economy (and Soviet empire) at the end of the 1980’s and it seems likely to produce the collapse of the American economy (and American empire) in the next few years. Recalling how the collapse of the Soviet empire produced a collapse of the linked economies of Eastern Europe, we should understand that the collapse of the American empire will have a similar effect throughout the world due to the interdependence of economies which has increased over time.

Already we see that the paradigm of a culture of peace, as opposed to a culture of war, is becoming internalized in the consciousness of a large proportion of humanity.

Can we not expect that the closer we come to a collapse of the present system, the more it will become evident that wise financial investment should seek out productive sectors instead of militarized sectors of the economy? If and when this occurs, then the time will be ripe for a social revolution from the culture of war to a culture of peace.

“Slow News” vs “Fast History”

Featured

This month’s CPNN bulletin describes the “slow news” of culture of peace as it has been developing for some time now in Africa. The reforestation of the Great Green Wall and the Plant a Million Trees initiative seem to symbolize the slow pace of the process, especially when one recalls that the pre-colonial peace mechanism of Africa was to meet and resolve conflicts under the village tree.

At the same time this blog last month suggested that history is moving much faster than we think and that the collapse of the American empire is likely to come within the next two years.

This leads me to the question: Can the slow development of the culture of peace make it possible for a transition from the culture of war to a culture of peace when the American empire crashes?

I realize that it is out of fashion since the crash of the Soviet empire, but the best analytic framework to understand history is still that of dialectics as conceived by Hegel, refined by Marx and put into practice by Lenin. As Lenin wrote in his letter to the American workers in 1918: “Historical action is not the pavement of Nevsky Prospekt.” It does not proceed “easily and smoothly.” Instead, it proceeds “by leaps, catastrophes, and revolutions.” Put another way, there are times when the pace of history accelerates.

It seems likely that there will be an acceleration in the development of the culture of peace in the next two years as more and more people realize that the system is collapsing and needs to be replaced. I can see that there has already been such an acceleration in the last year or two, especially since the election of President Trump in the United States. Trump’s policies are the most evident sympton of the process, already many decades in the making, that brings us to the end of the empire. We have entered a period of accelerated history; both negative and positive forces are speeding up.

The key question is whether we are preparing the specific institutional frameworks that are needed for the transition? I have previously suggested that we need international frameworks for culture of peace that are above the level of the individual nation-states.

One such framework could be the African Union (AU) which is included in the “slow news” from Africa this month. As an international body, above the level of the nation-state, the AU is relatively free from the culture of war, and it has already made some initiatives towards a culture of peace.

Of course, the AU does not have many resources. Its previous benefactor, Muammar  Gaddafi, was assassinated at the initiative of the EU and the United States, especially due to the policy of Hillary Clinton who was the American Secretary of State. We don’t know precisely why Clinton undertook this policy, but it seems likely that it was, at least in part, to deprive the AU of Gaddafi’s support. After all, it was during her tenure that the United States was secretly establishing military bases throughout Africa. To some extent the support previously provided to the AU by Gaddafi has been taken up by China, but will this be continued or expanded after a crash of the American dollar? Maybe not, since China is heavily invested in the dollar and may have to reduce its overseas commitments.

For a while it seemed that UNASUR could develop as a regional organization for the culture of peace, but recent developments in Latin America have undermined that possibility. As described in an article from the ALBA movement, the major countries of UNASUR have withdrawn their support for the leadership of Bolivia which was dedicated to the culture of peace: “The sovereign and integrationist vision promoted by Bolivia and the other countries of ALBA-TCP is opposed by the war strategy of other UNASUR members, subordinated – as throughout history – to the imperial powers, at this moment in particular to the United States , whose elite tries to control again what they consider their backyard. For this purpose it is the political, media, economic and military siege against Venezuela and the diplomatic offensive against Unasur and CELAC.” [translation from the Spanish by CPNN.

As long as international organizations are based on nation-states, they are dominated directly by the culture of war (such as the UN, the EU, etc.) or else they are dominated indirectly through sabotage, as in the case of the African Union and UNASUR. This is not surprising when we consider the history of the culture of war and we find that over the course of the centuries it has become monopolized by the state.

At one time, there was some hope that the socialist countries might be able to play a positive role for peace, but they, too, were cultures of war. And in a struggle between a socialist culture of war and a capitalist cuture of war, it has always been the capitalists who win because they profit more from international exploitation. This was very evident towards the end of the Cold War when the Rand Corporation, an American culture of war think-tank, was paid to assess the economic relations betwen the Soviet Union and their “satellite countries” of Eastern Europe. They found that the net flow of wealth was from the center (the Soviet Union) towards the periphery (Eastern Europe), true to the principle of socialist solidarity. This is the opposite of the relationship between the imperial capitalist powers and the countries of the South. This becomes evident when you take into account the economic transactions that are secret and illegal.

For this reason, I have tended to put a priority on institutional frameworks for peace based on regional or global organizations of parliamentarians or cities instead of states, but for the moment it seems that they are also in a “slow mode” of development.

It seems that time is running out . . .

Why There is So Much Anger

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

Wherever we turn, people are angry. In France and United States where I live, voters are angry and turn their anger against immigrants and people of color. And they vote for the Front National and for Donald Trump. And the struggle in the US between students protesting against school massacres and linking them to gun sales, on the one hand, and the National Rifle Association (NRA), on the other hand, is fueled by anger on both sides.

To understand this, I go back to the studies I did as a scientist which are summarized in an Internet book called The Aggression Systems.

Of special importance is the analysis of how the aggressive behavior of our animal ancestors was transformed through the course of evolution into the human behavior of “righteous indignation against perceived injustice.” Here is a technical analysis from one of my scientific papers translated into more simple language:

Over the course of evolution the aggressive behavior common to all mammalian ancestors was modified and has come to serve many functions in human beings, including the way people make history.

1) The first modification concerned the kinds of stimuli that provoked aggression. In our most ancient animal ancestors, the stimuli consisted of permanent qualities of the other animal. For example, males attacked other males because of their male odor. Over the course of evolution, and especially in our primate ancestors, aggression came to be stimulated as well by the actions of the other animal. For example, among the monkeys of Japan, the dominant male will attack young animals if they approach the traps that have been set by the scientists who study these animals.

2) A second modification that we can also see in the Japanese monkeys consists of a process of internalization by which the young animal learns which actions are to be punished. This corresponds to the human “superego”, i.e. learning what behavior is “good or bad.” When they become adults, these monkeys reproduce the punishment they received by punishing young animals that show “bad” behavior, for example going too close to the traps. Note here that we need to recognize the importance of “punishment” in the course of human evolution. We see its effect in the anger of children when they cry out “that’s not fair !”

3) A third modification, which takes place only at the level of human society, is the ability to conceptualize institutions and social systems and to respond to their actions with punishment and anger, just as one might respond to the “bad” actions of another individual.

4) Fourth, and, finally, there is the ability to incorporate this “righteous indignation” into a complex pattern of consciousness development, including action, affiliation and analysis by which individuals become powerful forces in history.” In the case of great peace activists, such as Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, their righteous indignation became the emotion that fueled their social activism.

Here, it is important to recognize that the anger of righteous indignation is directed not at some abstract social injustice, but rather at the perceived injustice in the eyes of the person concerned. If the person concerned believes that social ills are caused by immigrants or people of color or of women who seek abortion, then their “righteous indignation” is directed against them. Those who vote for LePen in France or Trump in the United States are often motivated by their anger against immigrants and people of color as well as against “establishment” political parties whom they perceive to be favoring these immigrants and people of color. If the person believes that sales of assault rifles leads to school massacres, then their righteous indignation may be directed against the NRA. On the other hand, NRA members believe they are protecting the American Constitution which gives citizens the right to bear arms. It is important to keep in mind here that another person’s perception of injustice may be very different than your own.

Let me return here to the initial question, why is there so much anger at this period of history? The reason is simple. There is more injustice now. The rich have become richer and the poor have become poorer. There is more inequality and there is more exploitation. There are more people displaced by war and more preparation for new wars. These problems are perceived in different ways by different people. But they are perceived!

There was a time, a few generations ago, when many poor and working people adhered to socialist or communist trade unions and political parties that convinced them that they should be united across the lines of social class and ethnic origin and that they should direct their anger against the boss or the capitalist system. But militant trade unions and communist parties have been greatly weakened, and the people they would have recruited in an earlier era are now recruited by populist politicians and media who divide and rule by blaming immigrants or people of color for the deteriorating standard of living of the poor and working people.

I am not writing this in order to excuse racism and xenophobia, but rather to help us all understand the profound crisis in which we find our world. It will not help for us to attack the anger of the people. That will further divide us. Instead, to quote Martin Luther King, “the supreme task is to organize and unite people so that their anger becomes a transforming force.” We don’t have to look far to find an example of how this can be done. The Poor People’s Campaign that is underway now in the United States takes its inspiration directly from Martin Luther King to organize and unite people against “the evils of systemic racism, poverty, the war economy, ecological devastation and the nation’s distorted morality.

* * *

Pourquoi y a-t-il tant de colère dans le monde?

Partout où nous nous tournons, les gens sont en colère. En France et aux États-Unis où je vis, les électeurs sont en colère et tournent leur colère contre les immigrés et les personnes de couleur. Ils votent pour le Front National ou pour Donald Trump. La lutte aux États-Unis entre les étudiants protestant contre les rapports entre les massacres d’écoles et les ventes d’armes, d’une part, et la National Rifle Association (NRA), d’autre part, est alimentée par une colère réciproque.

Pour comprendre cela, je reviens aux études que j’ai faites en tant que scientifique et qui sont résumées dans un livre sur Internet intitulé The Aggression Systems.

L’analyse de la façon dont le comportement agressif de nos ancêtres animaux a été transformé au cours de l’évolution en un comportement humain d ‘«indignation juste contre l’injustice perçue» revêt une importance particulière. Voici une analyse technique d’un de mes articles scientifiques traduit en langage clair:

Au cours de l’évolution, le comportement agressif commun à tous les ancêtres des mammifères a été modifié et sert maintenant de nombreuses fonctions chez les êtres humains, y compris la façon dont les gens font l’histoire.

1) La première modification concernait les types de stimuli qui provoquaient l’agression. Chez nos ancêtres animaux les plus anciens, les stimuli dépendaient des qualités permanentes de l’autre animal. Par exemple, les mâles ont attaqué d’autres mâles à cause de leur odeur masculine. Au cours de l’évolution, et en particulier chez nos ancêtres primates, l’agression a été également stimulée par les actions de l’autre animal. Par exemple, parmi les macaques du Japon, le mâle dominant va attaquer les jeunes singes s’ils s’approchent des pièges qui ont été fixés par les scientifiques qui étudient ces animaux.

2) Une deuxième modification que nous pouvons également observer chez les singes japonais consiste en un processus d’intériorisation par lequel le jeune animal apprend quelles actions doivent être punies. Cela correspond au “surmoi” humain, c’est-à-dire apprendre quel comportement est “bon ou mauvais”. Quand ils deviennent adultes, ces singes reproduisent la punition qu’ils ont reçue en punissant à leur tour de jeunes animaux qui montrent un «mauvais» comportement, en allant par exemple trop près des pièges. Notez ici que nous devons reconnaître l’importance de la «punition» dans le cours de l’évolution humaine. Nous le voyons son effet dans la colère des enfants quand ils crient “ce n’est pas juste!”

3) Une troisième modification, qui a lieu seulement au niveau de la société humaine, est la capacité de conceptualiser les institutions et les systèmes sociaux et de répondre à leurs actions par la colère, tout comme on peut réagir aux mauvaises actions d’un individu.

4) Quatrièmement, et, finalement, il y a la capacité d’incorporer cette «indignation vertueuse» dans un schéma complexe de développement de la conscience, y compris l’action, l’affiliation et l’analyse par lesquelles les individus deviennent des forces puissantes dans l’histoire. Dans le cas des grands militants de la paix, tels que Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela et Martin Luther King, leur indignation était devenue l’émotion qui alimentait leur activisme social.

Ici, il est important de reconnaître que la colère de la juste indignation n’est pas dirigée contre une injustice sociale abstraite, mais plutôt contre l’injustice perçue aux yeux de la personne concernée. Si la personne concernée croit que les maux sociaux sont causés par les immigrés, les gens de couleur ou les femmes qui se font avorter, alors leur «juste indignation» est dirigée contre ceux-la. Ceux qui votent pour LePen en France ou Trump aux États-Unis sont souvent motivés par leur colère contre les immigrés et les personnes de couleur ainsi que contre les partis politiques en place qu’ils perçoivent comme favorisant ces immigrés et ces gens de couleur. Si la personne croit que les ventes de fusils d’assaut conduisent à des massacres d’école, alors son indignation sera dirigée contre la NRA. D’un autre côté, les membres de la NRA croient protéger la Constitution américaine qui donne aux citoyens le droit de porter des armes. Il est important de garder à l’esprit que la perception de l’injustice d’une autre personne peut être très différente de la vôtre, voire à l’opposé.

Permettez-moi de revenir ici à la question initiale, pourquoi y a-t-il tant de colère à cette période de l’histoire? La raison est simple. Il y a d’avantage d’injustice maintenant. Les riches sont devenus plus riches et les pauvres sont devenus plus pauvres. Il y a plus d’inégalité et il y a plus d’exploitation. Il y a plus de personnes déplacées par les guerres et plus de préparation à de nouvelles guerres. Ces problèmes sont perçus de différentes manières par différentes personnes. Mais ils sont perçus!

Il y a quelques temps, il y a quelques générations, de nombreux travailleurs et pauvres adhéraient à des syndicats et à des partis politiques socialistes ou communistes qui les convainquaient qu’ils devaient être unis sans tenir compte de leur classe sociale ni de leur origine ethnique, et qu’ils devaient diriger leur colère contre le patron ou le système capitaliste. Mais les syndicats militants et les partis communistes ont été fortement affaiblis, et les personnes qu’ils auraient recrutées dans une époque antérieure sont maintenant recrutées par des politiciens et des médias populistes qui divisent et gouvernent en accusant les immigrés ou les gens de couleur de la détérioration du niveau de vie de la population. pauvres et travailleurs.

Je n’écris pas ceci pour excuser le racisme et la xénophobie, mais plutôt pour nous aider à comprendre la crise profonde dans laquelle nous trouvons notre monde. Cela ne nous aidera pas à critiquer la colère du peuple. Cela nous divisera davantage. Au lieu de cela, pour citer Martin Luther King, «la tâche suprême est d’organiser et d’unir le peuple afin que leur colère devienne une force transformatrice». Nous n’avons pas à chercher loin pour trouver un exemple de la façon dont cela peut être fait. L’actuelle Campagne des Pauvres aux États-Unis s’inspire directement de Martin Luther King. Elle organise et unit le peuple contre «les maux du racisme systémique, la pauvreté, l’économie de guerre, la dévastation écologique et la moralité déformée de la nation».

Consequences of the Crash of the American Empire

Featured

In last month’s blog, I mentioned the prediction of Johan Galtung that the American empire cannot last more than another two years. Is that likely, and if so, what will be the consequences?

Having witnessed the crash of a previous empire, I think is likely.

When I worked as a scientist in the Soviet Union in the 1970’s and 80’s, I could not obtain the materials that were needed for my lab. When I visited the well-equipped lab of another scientist who was my friend, he explained that he got his material from his connections in the military. The Soviet Union had decided to match the military forces of the West in the arms race, gun for gun, soldier for soldier and missile for missile. Since this was based on a gross economy only half as big, they had to devote twice as high a percentage of scientists, engineers and materials to the military. As Karl Marx had explained a century before, investment in the military is like throwing money into the sea. It is not productive. As a result, the Soviet empire crashed, first economically, then politically.

Long before Trump became President, the United States was throwing its money away into its military machine with bases and interventions around the world. And now with Trump it is even more exaggerated. The weakness of the American economy is masked by an elaborate financial system of speculation, greater than the actual economic production of the world, but the system of speculation is fragile. We can foresee that the dollar will crash, and with it the empire.

What will be the consequences?

Let us consider two precedents, the crash of the Soviet empire and the economic crash of the Great Depression.

1) Economically, most people will suffer. There may be runs on the banks and lack of access to savings. There may be devaluation. In the case of the Soviet Union it was a devaluation of something like 10,000 between 1990 and 1996. For pensioners with savings of 100,000 rubles, they now had savings of the equivalent of 10 rubles. They lined the streets trying to sell what goods they had in order to have money to eat. In the US in the Great Depression, people lost their savings, but there was still a sizable number of people living in small farms who could produce something to eat. Now, almost a century later, most people live in cities. What will they eat if they have no money?

2) Key aspects of the global economy will be fragile. Of special significance is the global transport of oil which is carried primarily in tanker ships. Between 1929 and 1932, lacking money to finance their voyages, the number of ships at sea fell by 75%. Imagine a fall of 75% in oil arriving by ship! No oil for trucks. No deliveries to grocery stores . . .

3) For centuries now there has been a constant trend towards urbanization. Imagine the consequences if that is suddenly reversed and in order to eat, people have to flee the cities for the countryside . . .

4) Access to international transport and communication will be vulnerable. Will we still be able to go from one place to another? Will we still have internet and telephone?

5) Ironically, the one institution that will probably be of most emergency help is the military. They have stocks of oil and food, effective communication and transportation systems.

6) Also ironically, the advance of global warming may be slowed down, since the American empire, its military, its industry, its transportation systems, air conditioning, etc., has been the greatest producer of pollution.

7) Politically, there will be severe problems for those countries depending on the American empire. A case in point is Israel. Without American money and American military support, how can they continue to maintain their system of apartheid?

8) Big countries also depend on the American dollar. The reserve holdings of China and Japan are in dollars. Their economies will suffer. Not the mention Western Europe, where the effects of an American crash may be expected to mirror the effects of the Soviet crash on Eastern Europe a generation before.

If the preceding analysis is anything near correct, we need to be preparing now for radical action. As concluded in last month’s blog, the crash of the American empire could open a window of opportunity for a transition from the culture of war to a culture of peace.

At the same time, there is a serious danger of transition to fascist governments, instead. During the Great Depression in Europe, it was HItler, Mussolini, Franco,  Pétain. In the United States, the Business Plot. As a result, in the years that followed, European fascists presided over terrible concentration camps and wars. The risk of war will be greater than ever.

The preparation for a transition to the culture of peace is truly urgent ! Tomorrow may be too late !

The times call for radical action !

Featured

War and threats of war. Resurgence of fascism. Indicators forewarning a global economic crash. Acceleration of global warming. Wherever you turn, there are signs of dramatic, radical, dangerous change.

What is to be done? Where is the lever that can move history forward? We need radical action, but which action should we put first?

Personally, I’ve been active in all the relevant movements: socialism, ecology, peace, democracy, and each one has its proposals. What should be the priority? Let’s look at the probable sequence, keeping in mind what happened 30 years to the Soviet empire.

Back in 1980 Johan Galtung predicted the crash of the Soviet empire within one year, and now he predicts the end of the American empire within the next two years. If he is correct, the crash of the global economy is likely to come before the threatened wars, before the full development of fascism, and before the full effects of global warming. And if he is correct, it will provide us with a window of opportunity in the next two years to refound the global political system.

The most effective change would be the refounding of the United Nations to be under the direction of the People, not the State. The State is inextricably bound to the culture of war, while the People are increasingly conscious of the need for a culture of peace.

With that in mind, I return to the proposal that I made two years ago for the establishiment and effective functioning of an Alternative Security Council. At the time, the proposal fell on deaf ears, but perhaps the time was not yet ripe for it. After all, it is often the case that radical proposals require a certain moment of history to be put into motion.

Here is what I proposed:

“I propose the establishment of an “Alternative Security Council” (ASC) composed of mayors or parliamentary representatives from all the regions of the world. This ASC would regularly consider the issues faced by the actual UN Security Council and publicize its “decisions” in order to provide an alternative vision of how the issues of war and peace could be managed at a global level.

One can imagine that their decisions would be radically different concerning, for example, nuclear disarmament, approaches to the disasters in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, etc.  This would be a powerful force for consciousness-raising in the general public, and it could provide a model for an eventual radical reform of the UN.”

Along with the proposal two years ago I put forward the need for an institutional host, an agreement for membership, a small secretariat, a means for media dissemination and a small budget.

Have we arrived at a moment of history that is ripe for this action? There are some reasons to think so:

1) the consciousness of the people continues to grow that we need to replace the culture of war by a culture of peace;

2) it becomes more evident every day that the American Empire is crashing, which will provide a window of opportunity for radical change;

3) international organizations of cities are holding high-level meetings devoted to peace.

So far, I have not been able to put the ASC proposal onto the agenda of the meetings of cities, but I will keep trying.

If you are a reader of this blog and you wish to help out with this project, please contact me, either by putting a comment below on this blog or by sending me an email.

Towards a global movement against all violence

Featured

The growing mobilizations by teenagers in the US and Palestine, cited in this month’s CPNN bulletin, remind me of the mobilizations by youth against the War in Vietnam in the 1960’s and by youth against Apartheid in the 1970’s.

If we learn from those mobilizations, now 50 years ago, there is a possibility that they can be expanded into a global movement against all violence.

Both began as localized movements and rapidly spread around the world, especially through the engagement of young people.

I had been active in the anti-Vietnam movement in the mid-60’s in the US and spent a year in Italy in 1968. The students in Italy joined the movement with enthusiasm and enlarged the agenda to include a general demand for education reform. 25 years later, working with the UNESCO team for a National Culture of Peace Program in El Salvador, we discovered that each of us had been radicalized in the movement of the 60’s and active in more than one country (USA/Italy, Nicaragua/France, Ecuador/France, etc.).

The student-led movement against Apartheid in South Africa was picked up by students around the world, including those at my university in the United States which became the first American university to divest its portfolio from companies doing business with the Apartheid regime. I was proud to be their advisor.

At that time there were still active movements of Communist Parties around the world that provided strategic and tactical support to the youth movements, helping them to achieve global networks and inspiration.

The Communists also helped broaden the agendas of action against all sorts of violence. Our actions in the USA against the Vietnam War were linked by the Left to the actions of the Civil Rights movement against the violence of racism. For example, with the help of the Left, a civil rights activist from the South who had been threatened with death in the South came north to help with our political campaign in Connecticut which gained the greatest number of votes of any anti-war candidate in 1966. And in April 1967 Martin Luther King united the civil rights movement with the anti-war movement in two dramatic speeches, one of which he delivered to an anti-war march to the United Nations. Accused of being pro-communist by FBI director J.Edgar Hoover, he was assassinated one year later.

In the 1960’s, It was Communist veterans from the 1930’s who taught us to recognize the agents provocateurs of COINTELPRO, the government agents who tried to infiltrate our ranks with guns and dynamite in order to give the government an excuse to crush our movement with violence.

The movement against the violence of Apartheid produced political leadership of people like Bishop Tutu and Nelson Mandela whose inspiration reached far beyond South Africa, inspiring us all towards a global movement against all kinds of violence and oppression.

Those of us who are veterans of the 60’s and 70’s need to assume the role played by veterans of the 30’s in those years and provide strategic and tactical support to the new generation. We need to help them broaden their agenda to protest all forms of violence and broaden their scope to become a truly global movement.

The time is short. Johan Galtung has repeated his prediction, first made in 2004, that the American Empire cannot be sustained beyond the year 2020. The window of opportunity is soon arriving when the culture of war and violence can be transformed into a culture of peace and nonviolence. The strength is in the hands of the new generation, but the support and advice of the older generation is still needed.

Towards a World without Walls

Featured

    (Une version française suit en dessous)

Walls and frontiers are in the news these days – constructed by states in order to keep people out. At the same time, as we see in this month’s CPNN bulletin, it seems that movements of activists opposed to these walls are continuing to grow.In France, activists continue to aid migrants trying to escape from the wars and poverty of Africa and the Middle East and trying to enter France despite prosecution by the French authorities. As stated by Amnesty International, “These people are not traffickers or delinquents; they are worried, intimidated, pursued, defending human rights first and foremost.”

In the United States, activists continue to gather momentum in their movement to stop the deportation of undocumented immigrants by the Trump administration. This month the mayor of New Haven proclaims “We’re the resistance”, while Trump continues to insist on the construction of a wall between the United States and Mexico to stop further immigration.

A similar wall already exists, constructed by the state of Israel to keep people from entering from Palestine. But movements of solidarity continue to grow in opposition, such as the International Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement newly nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

It will soon be 30 years since the historic destruction of the wall the separated East from West Berlin and East from West Germany. But another similar wall still exists, the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. Can the Korean wall be removed? There is a glimmer of hope for this in the actions around the Olympic games in Korea, where the top organizer said in his message to the closing ceremony: “The seed of peace you have planted here in PyeongChang will grow as a big tree, . . . a cornerstone of the unification of the Korean Peninsula.”

The Olympic Games can be seen as a foretaste of a world without walls. As stated by the UN Secretary-General, ““The Olympic spirit allows people to be together, from all over the world, to respect each other, to assert the values of tolerance, of mutual understanding that are the basic elements for peace to be possible.” The vision of thousands of athletes marching and mingling together at the opening and closing of this year’s Korean games provided viewers with a concrete image of this spirit.

In Africa, the actions for a culture of peace supported by UNESCO are designed not only to promote a lasting peace and endogenous development, but also Pan-Africanism, in other words, an Africa without walls, as was the dream a century ago of activists like W.E.B. Dubois.

The new generation can be seen as force towards a world without walls. The winners of the Youth Solidarity Fund of the United Nations Alliance of Civilization are young people acting in solidarity both within and across national frontiers. They are from a generation that travels and exchanges ideas more than ever before in history, a generation that resists visas and that crosses borders.

The construction of walls, the defense of borders and the demand for visas are among the very few functions of the state that cannot be done better by local authorities, on the one hand, and by a renewed United Nations and regional organizations, on the other hand. Walls, borders and visas go along with the most intensive function of the state which is war and war preparations, along with the taxation that supports them. Other than these, we could do without the state. Management of justice, agriculture, commerce, education, energy, labor, healthcare, transportation and communication which extend beyond the local level can already, for the most part, be managed by the various agencies of the United Nations and regional organizations such as the European Union, African Union, etc.

Of course, for a world without walls, we need a world without the injustices of war and exploitation that are producing the terrible waves of migration from south to north.

With this in mind, we can consider those who work for a world without walls are working for the transition from a culture of war to a culture of peace.

PS (added 5 March): In listing the functions of the state, I neglected to mention the establishment and enforcement of tariffs. This has taken on special importance in recent days with the announcement by President Trump that he will impose tariffs on imported metals. The announcement has been met by complaints of the business media that these actions risk to launch “trade wars.” Note the relationship to the state’s monopoly on the culture of war! In fact, according to the classical sociologist Max Weber, the state can be defined as the organization that has a “monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”

* * * * * * VERS UN MONDE SANS MURS * * * * * *

Les murs et les frontières sont dans les infos ces jours-ci – construits par les Etats afin d’empêcher les gens d’entrer. En même temps, comme nous le voyons dans le bulletin du CPNN de ce mois-ci, il semble que le nombre de mouvements et de militants opposés à ces murs ne cesse d’augmenter.

En France, malgré les poursuites engagées par les autorités, les activistes continuent d’aider les migrants qui tentent d’échapper aux guerres et à la pauvreté de l’Afrique et du Moyen-Orient. Comme l’a déclaré Amnesty International, «ces personnes ne sont ni des trafiquants ni des délinquants, elles sont inquiètes, intimidées, poursuivies et défendent avant tout les droits de l’Homme».

Aux États-Unis, les militants continuent à prendre de l’ampleur dans leur mouvement contre la déportation des migrants sans papiers par l’administration Trump. Ce mois-ci, le maire de New Haven proclame «Nous sommes la résistance», tandis que Trump continue d’insister sur la construction d’un mur entre les États-Unis et le Mexique pour arrêter l’immigration !!

Un mur similaire existe déjà, construit par l’Etat d’Israël afin d’empêcher les gens venant de Palestine. Mais les mouvements de solidarité continuent de grandir dans l’opposition, comme le mouvement international de boycott, de désinvestissement et de sanctions, nouvellement nominé pour la prix Nobel de la paix.

Il y aura bientôt 30 ans depuis la destruction historique du mur qui séparait l’Est et l’Ouest, à la fois de Berlin et de l’Allemagne. Mais un autre mur similaire existe encore. Il s’agit de la zone démilitarisée entre la Corée du Nord et la Corée du Sud. Le mur coréen peut-il être retiré? Il y a une lueur d’espoir dans les actions autour des Jeux Olympiques en Corée, où le top organisateur a déclaré dans son message à la cérémonie de clôture: “La graine de paix que vous avez planté ici à PyeongChang va grandir comme un grand arbre. . . une pierre angulaire de l’unification de la péninsule coréenne.”

Les Jeux Olympiques peuvent être considérés comme un avant-goût d’un monde sans murs. Comme l’a déclaré le Secrétaire général des Nations Unies, «L’esprit olympique permet aux gens d’être ensemble, de partout dans le monde, de se respecter, d’affirmer les valeurs de tolérance, de compréhension mutuelle qui sont les éléments de base de la paix possible.” La vision de milliers d’athlètes qui marchent et se mêlent à l’ouverture et à la fermeture des jeux coréens de cette année a donné aux spectateurs une image concrète de cet esprit !

En Afrique, les actions pour une culture de la paix soutenues par l’UNESCO visent non seulement à promouvoir une paix durable et un développement endogène, mais aussi le panafricanisme, autrement dit une Afrique sans murs, comme l’ont revé il y a un siècle des militants comme W.E.B. Dubois.

La nouvelle génération peut être considérée comme une force pour un monde sans murs. Les lauréats du Fonds de solidarité des jeunes de l’Alliance des civilisations des Nations Unies sont des jeunes qui agissent en solidarité à la fois à l’intérieur et à l’extérieur des frontières nationales. Ils proviennent d’une génération qui voyage et échange des idées plus que jamais auparavant dans l’histoire, une génération qui résiste aux visas et qui traverse les frontières.

La construction des murs, la défense des frontières et la demande de visas sont parmi les très peu de fonctions étatiques qui pouraient être facilement réalisées par les autorités locales, ou par les organisations régionales et une Organisation des Nations Unies reformée. Les murs, les frontières et les visas sont liés aux fonctions les plus intense de l’Etat, à savoir la guerre et ces préparatifs, ainsi que la fiscalité qui les soutient. A part cela, nous pourrions bien vivre sans Etat. La gestion de la justice, de l’agriculture, du commerce, de l’éducation, de l’énergie, du travail, des soins de santé, des transports et de la communication peut déjà être gérée par les différentes agences des Nations Unies et par les organisations régionales telles que Union Européene, Union africaine, etc.

Bien sûr, pour un monde sans murs, nous avons besoin d’un monde sans les injustices de la guerre et de l’exploitation qui produisent les terribles vagues de migration du sud vers le nord.

Dans cette optique, nous pouvons considérer que ceux qui travaillent pour un monde sans murs travaillent en même temps pour une transition d’une culture de guerre à une culture de paix.

PS (ajouté le 5 mars): En énumérant les fonctions de l’Etat, j’ai négligé de mentionner l’établissement et l’application des tarifs du Commerce. Cela a pris une importance particulière ces derniers jours, après l’annonce par le président Trump de l’imposition de tarifs sur les métaux importés. L’annonce a été accueillie très froidememt par les médias d’affaires qui disent que ces actions risquent de déclencher des «guerres commerciales». Notons la relation avec le monopole de l’Etat sur la culture de la guerre ! En fait, selon le sociologue classique Max Weber, l’Etat peut être défini comme l’organisation qui a «le monopole de l’usage légitime de la force physique sur un territoire donné».

The Role of Media for a Culture of Peace

Featured

Over the past century the control of information, especially through the mass media, has become the most important characteristic of the culture of war. Why?

It is because there has been such an advance over the past century in democratic participation that the modern state is forced to justify its culture of war. Since people in general do not want war, the state and its military-industrial complex must convince them that military preparations are necessary in the face of external enemies. This is a major change from earlier history when the state was not subject to election by the people and it could pursue its policies regardless of their attitudes.

In fact, we see that the mass media in countries with the most powerful military forces, such as the United States, are pro-military and continually publish propaganda against external enemies and give priority to news about unavoidable violence and disaster. They do not give place to peace initiatives.

One is not usually aware of this, but I came face to face with it during the campaign for the Manifesto 2000 during the International Year for the Culture of Peace. We obtained millions of signatures in India, Brazil, Colombia, Japan, Korea, Kenya, Nepal and many hundreds of thousands in Algeria, Italy, Azerbaijan, Morocco and the Philippines. But in the United States, despite signed agreements for its distribution with the American Association of Retired Persons and the National Council of Churches, each with something like 50 million members, not to mention another 69 organizational partners and over 100 events and projects (more than in other countries!), the Manifesto obtained only 46,000 signatures. I don’t believe that this was because Americans do not want peace. Instead, it was due to the fact that there was a total blackout in the mass media.

In view of this, it is especially important when the mass media begin to promote a culture of peace instead of a culture of war. This is the case in Mexico, Colombia and in much of Sub-Saharan Africa as described in this month’s CPNN bulletin.

Perhaps it is not by chance that these are regions of the world where people have suffered especially from violence and where the state with its culture of war has been weakened. In Mexico, corrupted by the narco traffic, one speaks of a “failed state.” And Colombia is just putting into practice the peace accords that ended decades of war. Africa has been weakened by colonialism and neo-colonialism (which are culture of of war) to such an extent that it is now victimized by extremist violence as well which adds to their suffering. As a result, the people have a special thirst for a culture of peace.

In the Global North the mass media have become monopolized by huge multinational companies that are part of a military-industrial-media complex closely linked to the political parties and the government. As an illustration of this, consider the money paid to the mass media by the political campaigns in the United States. The last Presidential election in the United States cost over one billion dollars, much of it spent for media advertising. And candidates for Congress pay enormous sums as well.

Fortunately, we have the Internet, where it is possible to create media that promote a culture of peace for a very small price. The annual budget of CPNN is in the hundreds (not thousands!) of dollars, even though we publish in three languages and at least one article per day. Hopefully, the Internet will remain a space that is free and available, although there is always the risk that the culture of war will try to restrict it. And hopefully, CPNN will be joined by more and more such internet initiatives for peace.

Given that the control of information has become a key function of the culture of war, it is urgent that we continue to develop media for a culture of peace throughout the world, hoping that someday it will obtain an audience as great as that for the culture of war. When that day arrives, we will have made a great advance towards the historical transition from culture of war to culture of peace.

The culture of war is hiding in plain sight: it is the state

Featured

We see articles almost every day criticizing the Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and blaming her for not stopping the terrible genocide in Myanmar against the Rohingya people.

It is true that she is now the President of Myanmar, but the power of the state continues to be held by the military, which she has referred to as “my father’s army.”

In fact, Myanmar is not exceptional. The state devotes its resources and is more or less controlled, overtly or covertly, by the military throughout the world. This is not new but has been true throughout history.

Let us begin with the Great Powers. The United States, which we may more appropriately refer to as the “American empire” devotes more than half of its national budget to the military and now maintains hundreds of military bases throughout the world. Countries without an American military base are exceptional. Now we learn that almost every African country has one. Another Nobel laureate, Barak Obama, aided in this expansion.

Where is the ultimate power in China if it is not with the Red Army?

Not one of the world’s nuclear powers, the U.S., Britain, France, China, Russia, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea, took part in the negotiations at the United Nations for nuclear disarmament.

Should we have been surprised when the Arab Spring was cut short by a military coup in Egypt?

The question of state power is where I part company with those who would follow the advice of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. They believed that peace could be obtained by converting the state from capitalism to socialism. And indeed, in the 20th Century, we saw many examples where capitalist states were indeed overthrown by socialist revolutions. But what ensued was not peace. What ensured was a socialist culture of war instead of a capitalist culture of war.

And we can see why socialism has failed. A socialist culture of war will alway lose in competition with a capitalist culture of war. Socialists tend to share wealth with their client states, while capitalists exploit their client states. In the long run, it is the capitalist states that win the economic competition. The socialist states must either submit (as was the case of the USSR) or become capitalist (as in the case of China).

If socialism is to succeed it cannot be based on the state.

If peace is to be obtained, it cannot be based on the state.

Can the state be replaced? Yes. The next time the state system collapses (this time with the collapse of the American empire), we need to have an alternative systm of governance to replace it! To prepare for this we need both a strong consciousness of the people of the world that a culture of peace is necessary and possible, and we need to start developing an institutional framework to replace the state. Consciousness continues to grow as we see in our review of 2017 in the CPNN bulletin. But a new institutional framework is lacking.

The struggle to eliminate violence against women is essential to the culture of peace

Featured

The advance this year of the struggle to eilmininate violence against women is an important step forward for the global movement for a culture of peace. Here’s why.

First of all, violence against women has always been an intrinsic component of war. This goes back to prehistory when women were excluded from war due to the fact the practice of patrilocal exogamous marriage (husband remains in his native village and marries a wife from outside) ensured that wars were conducted between the husband of a woman on one side and her father and brothers on the other side. As a result, since warriors were exclusively men, they were free to capture and rape the women they found when vanquishing another community.

The male domination of the culture of war has characterized all human societies since the beginning of history. The male rulers of the first empires were not only the military commanders but also the heads of the state religion. Female heads of state and religion were so rare that they are considered to be curiosities of history: for example the pharaoh Hatshepsut in ancient Egypt, and the (mythical?) female Catholic Pope in the Middle Ages.

The male domination of the culture of war has come down to our present world system transformed by previous changes in economic systems, from slavery to colonialism to neo-colonialism, but all of these systems remain essentially sexist.

Huge economic industries, part of the culture of war, are essentially sexist. Of course, female prostitution goes back to the beginning of recorded history. But what about modern advertising the use of scarcely clad female models to sell automobilies, beauty products, etc. etc.? In capitalist economies, women are often considered as a commodity to be bought and sold. Seen in this context, rape can be considered in many cases as the forceful theft of the female commodity.

Apart from physical violence the exploitation of women in the modern economy is a form of structural violence. Women are not paid for their essential work in the bearing and raising of children. And in the workplace they continue to be paid substantially less than men in the equivalent occupation.

Political leaders often echo the sexism. The current US President is an example as reported on many occasions (for a list see the this article in The Guardian). Fortunately, we find more political leaders speaking out against sexism, such as the Presidents of France, Turkey and Canada as described in this month’s CPNN bulletin.

Second, violence against women diminishes their capacity to play their essential role as leaders in the transition to a culture of peace. Their role is essential as a result of their exclusion and suffering from war and the culture of war which gives them special reason to take action. In fact, we find women in leadership wherever there are campaigns for a culture of peace, but it would be even greater if all women were free from the threat of violence.

Third, the struggle for any one of the eight program areas of the culture of peace is a struggle for the others as well, because the movement for a culture of peace is an integral and synergistic struggle. For example, the rights of women are an important component of human rights in general. Similarly, sustainable and equitable economic development and democratic participation require the economic and political equality of women. Education for peace requires that girls have the same access to education as boys. In fact, as UN Secretary-General António Guterres has said, unless the international community tackles the problem of violence against women, the world will not eradicate poverty or reach any of its other goals.

In general, we should not make the mistake of thinking that the struggle to eliminate violence against women is just a struggle of the women themselves. It has to be the struggle of everyone, men as well as women, if we are to advance towards a culture of peace.

Catalunya: Culture of war or culture of peace?

Featured

It seems that the people of Catalunya will vote in December whether to declare independence from Spain, i.e. to form a separate state.

If someone were to ask my advice about this election, I would say that it risks becoming a decision to move Catalunya towards the culture of war.

Here’s why I say this.

Over the course of history, the state has come to monopolize the culture of war. Those who seek to take over the state (revolutionaries) and those who seek to declare independence (separatists, nationalists) may have the best intentions for a culture of peace, but inevitably, once they arrive at state power, they take on the qualities of the state which include the culture of war.

Perhaps the most spectacular example is the Russian Revolution exactly one century ago. The revolution was carried out with the slogan of bread, peace and land, but once power was in the hands of the Bolsheviks, they were forced to make it a culture of war in order to defend against the invasions from the Europeans and Americans.

So, today, the people of Catalunya, if they declare independence, will be forced to form an army to defend against being invaded by Spain and its NATO allies, who, of course, are characterized by a culture of war.

Let us look at other examples of independence movements in our time. The independence of Bosnia/Herzogovina was marked by a bloody war with Serbia over the control of Sarajevo. For the first few years after the independence of the Ukraine from Russia, there was no war, but in the past few years, the secession of eastern provinces from the Ukraine has been marked by warfare, and each side remains armed and at the risk of further conflict, exacerbated by alliances with other states.

On the other hand, the independence movement of Quebec did not get to the point of establishing a separate country, and so the Quebecois and the rest of Canada never got to the point of military confrontation.

And coming to the present time, there are those who foresee the secession of California, Oregon and Washington State from Trump America, and a recent poll by Foreign Policy magazine foresees a real possibility of civil war in the United States. But we should not forget that the American Civil War caused by the secession of the South in 1860 was the bloodiest war ever fought by Americans.

There are good alternatives for Catalunya, apart from secession.

Granted that Spain is not in good shape, neither economically nor politically. But instead of bailing out, Catalunya could help in its reform. Wouldn’t it be great if the people of Catalunya could persuade all of Spain to renounce its culture of war and seek through dialogue to establish a culture of peace with all of its citizens and its neighboring countries! A good start would be to withdraw from NATO!

Here’s the question. Where’s the answer?

Featured

At the end of this month’s CPNN bulletin, having remarked that youth and children took the lead in this year’s global celebration of the International Day of Peace, we concluded that “Thanks to the new generation, yes, there is a global movement for a culture of peace.”

That leads to a question. Can this global movement continue to grow to the point that it can promote the transition from our current culture of war to a new culture, a culture of peace? And if so, how?

I don’t have the answer to this question.

As I look for an answer, I recall three global peace movements in which I have participated over the years, and I wonder if we can take lessons from the history of those examples.

1) The global movements against the war in Vietnam in the 1960’s, for a nuclear freeze in the 1989’s and against the war in Iraq in 2003.
2) The peace movement associated with communist parties, both East and West, during the 1970’s and 1980’s.
3) The Manifesto 2000 associated with the United Nations International Year for the Culture of Peace in the year 2000.

Trying to understand the accomplishments, failures and potentials of the movements of the 60’s and 80’s I wrote The American Peace Movements in 1985. Both movements showed the potential for spontaneous, rapid and massive mobilizations when the historical conditions are ripe. But like the movement in 2003 against the war in Iraq, they ended just as quickly because they were reactions against a particular threat and disappeared once the threat subsided.

Lesson 1: We need a global peace movement that is stable and growing over time.

At that point in the 1980’s I turned to the communist peace movements since they seemed (at the time) to be more stable and able to grow over the long term. I still have a copy of the book from the remarkable “International Meeting of Communist and Worker’s Parties” that took place in Moscow in 1969 with representatives speaking from 75 countries. Of course, they supported the Vietnamese, but they called for peace; they did not advocate war against the United States.

At that time I often went to the Soviet Union and even worked there as a scientist at a few points. But in the end I was disappointed. Later on, after analyzing the History ot the Culture of War, I came to realize that like all states and empires, they were a culture of war, which led inexorably to their collapse (like what I see now happening to the American empire).

Despite the collapse of its dreams of state power, the communist peace movement left important traces for peace. Last week, we saw this in the school mobilizations for the International Day of Peace in the ex-Soviet republics and in the extensive mobilization of celebrations throughout France by the Mouvement de la Paix and the French Communist Party.

Lesson 2: The movement must be independent of the state because the state is intrinsically the culture of war. This is where I disagree with the communists, as they persist in seeking state power.

Finally, there was my experience as director of the United Nations International Year for the Culture of Peace when we mobilized 75 million people to sign the Manifesto 2000, promising to promote a culture of peace in their daily life, family, work, community, country and region. Its strength came from the fact that it was a well-coordinated campaign, involving all the organizations of the UN, the UNESCO Commissions in the Member States, and the major international NGOs. We even sent letters of invitations to thousands of universities and mayors. And the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration and Programme of Action for a Culture of Peace that we sent from Paris to New York which called for “a global movement for a culture of peace.”

But the UN coordination was also its weakness, because the coordination was in one place (UNESCO, Paris) and its head was cut off by the United States and its allies who control the UN, and who halted the UNESCO culture of peace program in 2001.

Again the same lesson: The movement must be independent of the state because the state is intrinsically the culture of war.

I still believe in the potential of the United Nations to promote a global movement for a culture of peace, if it could be made independent of the state by passing its control to regional parliaments or regional organizations of mayors. But progress towards that goal is painfully slow.

As I said in the beginning, I don’t have an answer to the question: Can this global movement continue to grow to the point that it can promote the transition from our current culture of war to a new culture, a culture of peace? And if so, how?

But, as always, history does not allow us to formulate an answer until after we have clearly formulated the question. And so, posing the question is a step forward. And who knows? Perhaps you readers, especially those of you from the new generation, can take us further and begin to provide an answer.

Imagining peace: Latin America

Featured

In 2007, I tried to imagine how the world would make a transition to a culture of peace in the year 2027 and I started to write a novella, I have seen the promised land.

In making the scenario, I imagined that the most important point in the transition would occur in Porto Alegre, Brazil, at a world-wide meeting of peace cities.

Now 10 years later, returning from visits to Brazil and Mexico, I pose the question: if today I were to imagine the transition to a culture of peace, would I still consider that Latin America, and Brazil in particular would play a central role?

If we look only at national governments, it would seem doubtful. Leaders who might have shown some sympathy with a culture of peace are gone, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Lula in Brazil and Fidel in Cuba, and their countries are moving to the right. This trend is not limited to Latin America. We have Trump, Putin, Duterte, Erdogan, rise of right-wing, even fascist parties in Europe, loss of the leadership of Mandela and Mbeki in South Africa, fading hopes that were raised by the Arab spring, and lack of any movement in Asia towards a culture of peace. Some might say it is the end of democracy, although I see it more limited as the loss of bourgeois democracy. After all, national elections are now almost solely determined by big money, and big money corrupts. To find progress towards true democracy it is necessary to look at a more local level.

As readers of this blog know, I believe that we cannot achieve a culture of peace through the system of nation-states, so the loss of bourgeois democracy at the national level is not necessarily a negative development. In fact, I interpret it as another sign that the American empire and the global system of states devoted to the culture of war is beginning to collapse.

But are we developing at a local level a new system of global governance to replace the present system when it collapses?

My recent visits to Mexico and Brazil, along with a visit a year ago to Colombia, give me some cause for optimism. Audiences in these countries, especially students, were enthusiastic to hear a message quoting the World Social Forum that “another world is possible” and emphasizing the old slogan of “think global, act local.” And, as described in this month’s CPNN bulletin, I found many local inititives underway that contribute to a culture of peace, including participative budgeting, restorative justice, struggle against the violence against women, and the development of city peace commissions.

I hope to return to Latin America next year and hope to find that these initiatives are continuing to develop. If so, may they serve as a model for other parts of the world.

If I were writing a utopian novella today, would I still imagine the culture of peace being born in Latin America. The answer is “Yes!”

Towards a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

Featured

A frequent theme of this blog has been the need for a profound reform of the United Nations so that it is managed more directly by the peoples of the world – through cities or parliaments instead of the present Member States that are inextricably linked to the culture of war.

A significant first step towards such a reform would be the proposed parliamentary assembly of the United Nations (UNPA). As this month’s bulletin of CPNN documents, there are increasing calls for such an assembly, including proposals from the European Parliament, the Pan-African Parliament and an international conference of around 300 chief justices, judges, legal experts and ambassadors from nearly 60 countries predominantly from the Global South.

Such an Assembly would be an important step forward for a number of reasons.

1) A UNPA could make the United Nations more democratic. As stated by the European Parliament, it could increase “the democratic profile and internal democratic process of the organisation and . . . allow world civil society to be directly associated in the decision-making process.”

2) Parliamentarians are often closer to the people than their national goverments. For example, we have seen recently that many parliamentarians and some parliamentary associations support the nuclear ban treaty even when their governments have boycotted the UN negotiations, and we note other parliamentary initiatives towards a culture of peace. Hence a UNPA would be a force within the UN system to move towards a culture of peace.

3) There has been talk of UN reform for many years, but no action, because of resistance by the Member States. A UNPA would set a precedent for change.

4) There has been an erosion of confidence among the peoples of the world that the UN can provide a way forward to escape from the damages caused by the culture of war. A UNPA could begin to restore confidence and inspire further change.

5) If the thesis of this blog is correct that we are approaching a collapse of the present world economic and political structure, a UNPA could become key element in a new global governance structure, which, in turn could help in the development of a new, and hopefully, more equitable, economic order.

So what needs to be done?

Already regional parliaments of Africa and Europe are on record to support a UNPA. We need a similar initiative from the Latin American Parliament, and support from parliamentarians in North America, Asia and the Arab States.

We have seen that organizations of mayors often take progressive positions on the issues related to war and peace. It would be good if they would support the development of a UNPA.

There needs to be a concerted effort by alternative, progressive media to put the UNPA on the agenda for action by the civil society. To the extent that this is done it can stimulate the mainstream commercial media to pick up the issue as well.

International NGO’s should be encouraged to see in a UNPA a potential support for their progressive initiatives, and they should get on board a global movement for a UNPA.

With increased attention to the question, there needs to be further study of the methods and effectiveness of the regional parliaments that exist already, in order to determine how a UNPA should be structured. This was the conclusion of a recent meeting of the organizations already involved in working for a UNPA: Parliamentarians for Global Action, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly.

The establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly could move us a step closer to the transition from the culture of war to a culture of peace. No doubt there will be resistance from national governments, and especially the great powers, who will understand the a UNPA provides an alternative to their power that is based on the culture of war. Hence, the struggle will not be easy. But, as Richard Falk reminds us with regard to the nuclear ban treaty and the elimination of nuclear weapons, there is historical precedent for progressive change as a result of “deep commitments, sacrifices, movements, and struggles that eventually achieved the impossible, ending such entrenched evils as slavery, apartheid, and colonialism.”

Mayors and Media for Peace

Featured

Imagine what the world would be like if the United Nations was managed by mayors instead of states! And imagine how it would be if the mass media was dedicated to a culture of peace!

We have some hint of how this might be in the recent events covered by CPNN.

While all of the nuclear-armed states and their allies are boycotting the UN conference to draft a treaty against nuclear weapons, we see that mayors have a different point of view.

At their annual meeting the United States Conference of Mayors adopted a resolution that “welcomes the historic negotiations currently underway in the United Nations, involving most of the world’s countries, on a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading to their total elimination” and they demanded that the US government join the negotiations in good faith. Their resolution concludes with the following remarkable paragraph:

“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that The United States Conference of Mayors urges all U.S. mayors to join Mayors for Peace in order to help reach the goal of 10,000 member cities by 2020, and encourages U.S. member cities to get actively involved by establishing sister city relationships with cities in other nuclear-armed nations, and by taking action at the municipal level to raise public awareness of the humanitarian and financial costs of nuclear weapons, the growing dangers of wars among nuclear-armed states, and the urgent need for good faith U.S. participation in negotiating the global elimination of nuclear weapons.”

Mayors for Peace already includes the mayors from more than 7,300 cities around the world!

If the mayors of the world were running the UN instead of the states, we could achieve nuclear disarmament! And much more! Once again we come back to the need for a radical reform of the United Nations!

As for the media, some indication of the positive role that they could play can be seen in the role of community radios in the peace process in Colombia. They are supported by funds from the European Union in order to send messages on peace to the territories and to promote reconciliation between the Colombians. The EU initiative not only opens microphones to the people, but also includes workshops in which 200 community radio journalists have been trained in the elaboration of educational content on peacebuilding, as well as 50 broadcasters receiving technical assistance and donations of recording equipment.

Similarly, in Uganda, community radio stations continue to work for peace. Back in 2004, they played a major role in convincing over 22,000 child soldiers and commanders to abandon the armed rebellion of the Lord’s Resistance Army: “In short, the LRA conflict could only be ended after the intervention of peace journalism.” Today they continue to work for peace, especially to give a voice to the massive number of refugees in Uganda.

As The Senegalese writer Aissatou Cissé said at the recent meeting of the Writers’ Union of Africa, Asia and Latin America, which took place in Senegal: What we need are “readings of peace in this world context of turbulence, verbal and physical violence”. “Every morning, when we get up, we read on the Internet, or through a newspaper or a book, and what we read does not promote the culture of peace, it disrupts even more and creates zizanie [discord].”

“Children, adolescents and adults who read us need to read positive things that can boost their creativity, and it is in peace that we can create,” said the Special Advisor to the President of the Republic, Macky Sall.

Thank you, mayors, and thank you, writers and journalists! You remind us that “A better world is possible!” Imagine it!

To quote George Bernard Shaw: “Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire, you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.”

Who are the biggest terrorists?

Featured

Readers of this blog know that I believe that in order to move from the culture of war to a culture of peace, we must develop a new order of world governance in which the United Nations is based on cities or regional parliaments rather than the present system of Member States. This is because the nation state is inextricably tied to the culture of war. More evidence for this comes from the recent United Nations vote on a resolution concerning a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons.

All the rich and powerful countries are against the resolution, including all the countries that possess nuclear weapons and their allies, including most of Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan and South Korea.

What this tells us is that nuclear weapons are considered essential to the power of the state

This is state terrorism.

Let me explain.

The definition of terrorism is the achievement of political goals through violence or threat of violence against innocent populations.

What can better describe the possession of nuclear weapons than to call it terrorism.

The only times they have been used, they slaughtered the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 for political goals. Some think it was to end the war earlier. Others, having examined the evidence, say that it made no difference in ending the war, but was rather meant as a threat against the Russians which evolved into the Cold War. In any case, the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mostly civilians, not military.

Since 1945, nuclear weapons are used as a threat against whatever enemy a state happens to have. During the Cold War it was the American against the Russians, and it seems now that a new Cold War is being developed, especially by the American “deep state” that supported the Hillary Clinton candidacy. The weapons of France and the UK are jusitified by their membership in NATO which is on the American side of the Cold War. Then there is the antagonism between India and Pakistan which is used to justify their weapons. And between Israel and North Korea and their enemies which seems to be much of the world.

Nuclear weapons do not distinguish their victims. That means that in all these cases, the threat is against the populations of the enemy country, without regard for the fact that most are not engaged militarily. This is terrorism. State terrorism.

Why do I say that this is essential to the state?

After considering the history of the culture of war in my book by that name, I come to the conclusion that over the course of history, the state has come to monopolize the culture of war. No one else is allowed to make or prepare for war except the state. Not cities, as was the case in the Middle ages. Not indigenous peoples, as was the case before they were conquered and subjugated around the world. Not private armies or armies of religious sects (although sometimes states with a state religion are allowed to have nuclear weapons as in the case of Israel, but not Iran).

In the same way, the state monopolizes nuclear weapons. No other institution is allowed to develop or possess them.

In fact, the culture of war, if we include the defense and limitation of trade and travel at its borders and the raising of taxes (mostly to pay for the culture of war), is one of the few functions that can only be performed by the nation-state. Other vital functions, such as healthcare, education, housing, transportation and communication services, etc. can (and often are) regulated at a higher and lower level. For example, aviation and maritime shipping are regulated at the level of the United Nations. As for healthcare and education, the United Nations has specialized agencies that are capable of regulating them (WHO and UNESCO). At the same time, many of these functions can be effectively regulated at lower levels, as is done for education in the United States.

The culture of war is the defining characteristic of the state. As stated clearly by the great sociologist Max Weber the state is defined as the organization that has a “monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”

The next time you see reference in the commercial media to “terrorists,” ask the question, “who are the biggest terrorists?” And join the ranks of those who are struggling to abolish nuclear weapons. In the short run, the struggle is being carried out with states from the Global South at the United Nations. But in the long run, we need a new United Nations run instead by cities or regional parliaments.

Trump and Le Pen: Symptoms of the empire’s collapse

Featured

What is the appeal of Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen? Why have they able to get so many votes?

A superficial response is easy: Voters are angry and fed up with the present political system and they will vote for whoever best shares their anger and damns the present political system. The more the media attacks Trump, the more his US supporters are confirmed that he represents their own rejection of the system. And the more the other political parties and political elite attack Le Pen, the more the French voters are confirmed that she is allied with them against the present political system.

But a more profound response requires that we analyze why voters are angry and fed up. One cause is their economic hardships. The average wages of a worker continue to decrease year after year. More and more families are forced to work two or three jobs just to survive. And they understand, to some extent, that the problem is due to government policies that support capitalist exploitation, enabling the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. On the other hand, many are confused, misled by populists like Trump and Le Pen, who tell them that the problem is caused by imigrants who take their jobs and receive government welfare.

There is a classic term to describe the anger and frustration related to economic hardship that is blamed on the government and other institutions of the society. It is called “alienation.” The young Karl Marx devoted his doctoral thesis to this topic, describing how industrial workers, unlike handicraft workers in previous centuries, no longer had control over the products that they created. Instead, the capitlalist controlled production and took the profits from it. The more the worker toiled, the more the capitalist got richer and could exploit him even more.

Ironically, when I worked in the 70’s and 80’s in the old Soviet Union, I found that my so-called communist friends had never heard the Russian word for alienation (отчуждение), even though their economic conditions were deteriorating as their country’s economy declined under the burden of the arms race. However, they knew that the government was lying to them about the economic situation. They would say “You can find the truth anywhere except in Pravda and the news anywhere except in Izvestia.” These were the two leading state-run news media in the Soviet Union and their names are the Russian words for Truth and News.

Nowadays, Trump and Le Pen make short-term gains by criticiizing the news media. In the short-term, they gain support of many voters who have come to mistrust pronouncements by the government and the capitalist class that are repeated by the media. The voters think that Trump and Le Pen are “on their side.”

But in the long run, they are playing with fire.

In fact, it is true that the media are lying and that the government is directly or indirectly responsible for the lies. If you read Rolling Stone magazine back in the 1970’s, you would have know from Carl Bernstein’s article that all the major media were infiltrated by the CIA during the Vietnam War in order to ensure support by the American people for the war. Although the Bernstein article was simply the account of the US Senate hearings, headed by Senator Frank Church, he could not publish it anywhere except in Rolling Stone. Why? Of course, because the other media were controlled by the CIA!

The Bernstein story is not an exception. It is more and more the rule. In fact, as I conclude in The History of the Culture of War, the control of the media through secrets and lies has become the most important weapon of the culture of war.

We all know now about the big lie of weapons of mass destruction used to justify the war in Iraq. How many remember the falsified Gulf of Tonkin incident that was used to justify the war in Vietnam? Few know the reason for the war against Ghadafi in Libya: it was because he was using Libya’s oil money to strengthen the African Union to the point that the Africans began to resist exploitation by the Americans and Europeans. And unless you dig deep in the foreign media you will not know that the media reports of a poison gas attack by the Syrian government used to justify American intervention, was based on what appears to be faked videos by the White Helmets, an organization established and funded by the US and UK governments as part of their campaign in the Syrian war.

In fact, control of the media, including secrets and lies, is necessary to the culture of war if is to survive. This is due to two other general historical trends: the increase in democracy throughout the world, and the increasing anti-war sentiment throughout the world. People don’t want their country to make war. A few years ago, a political scientist at Yale got a lot of press by arguing that democracies do not make war against other democracies. When I looked at his data, I came to a different intepretation: in order to conduct a war, a democracy has to convince its people that the enemy is not a democracy or else they have to make war secretly, because otherwise the people will not support it. For example, the American wars against Cuba and Nicaragua, as well as the Cold War against Russia, were possible because they could convince the American voter that these were totalitarian countries rather than democracies. And in order to make war against Chile they had to conduct it secretly. The same process is evident today as the government (and the media) condemn Libya and Syria as totalitarian, while supporting even more authoritatian allies, especially Saudi Arabia. The new form of American warfare, the drone attacks that were greatly increased by Obama, enable the US to engage in secret wars throughout the world.

But in the end, the political and economic system of the American empire will pay a heavy price for the manipulation of the news. As it becomes more blatant and more universal and more evident, it increases the alienation of the people from their government and their media. In the short run, it opens the door to demagogues like Trump and Le Pen and perhaps even worse yet to come.

But the heaviest price will come when the economic system collapses. The people of America and Euorope may do what the Soviet people did when their economic system collapsed. The Soviets stayed in their homes and the troops stayed in their barracks, saying “good riddance!” to the Gorbachev government and the Communist Party in Russia. The system collapsed with a whimper rather than a bang!

It’s a vicious cycle. The alienation of voters makes possible the electoral victories of demagogues and fascists. In turn, these demagogues and facists increase government priorities for military spending which, eventually, will push the American empire over the same cliff as the Russian empire before it, unless of course they stumble into a world war which would be and even worse outcome.

Fortunately, since our species is resilient and our history is dialectical, there are positive reactions against the election of demagogues. As we continue to cover in CPNN, there is a strong positive fightback against the Trump administration which this month concentrated on saving the planet from his disastrous denial of climate change.

And there is also a positive fightback against the secrets and lies of the government and the mass media in the form of independent media. Thanks to modern technology, internet news systems like CPNN globally as well as many local independent news websites and low-cost local radio stations have been made possible by technological progress. And more and more people are relying on the independent media for their news.

I got a taste of this last month when I was invited to participate in a panel discussion in Oregon with other independent media operators on the topic “Cultivating a Culture of Peace in an Era of Trump: What’s the Media’s Role?” It was good to see that CPNN is not the only independent media out there, but there are many good local media in Oregon as well. And thanks to modern technology I was able to take part in the discussion by means of Skype.

To quote the National Coordinator for the Peoples Climate Movement, “Today’s actions are not for one day or one week or one year. We are a movement that is getting stronger everyday for our families, our communities and our planet. To change everything, we need everyone.”

Women, religion, socialism, and the state

Featured

(Une version française suit en dessous)

Each March in CPNN, we celebrate International Women’s Day and the annual meetings of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, and we see how women are a force for peace.

There is a deep historical reason for this. As I found in my one foray into anthropological studies, women were excluded from war very early in human prehistory because of the social contradiction between war and marriage. Marriage, in prehistory, was often arranged between different tribes or communities that would also be at war from time to time. In such a war, a woman’s loyalty was torn between her husband on one side and her father and brothers on the other. There was a simple solution: women were excluded from war.

Does that mean that we should promote women to positions of leadership in order to achieve peace? The answer is no. And we saw a good example last year. Hillary Clinton became the first woman who was a serious candidate to become President of the United States. And as we documented in CPNN, she was a war candidate, having been largely responsible when she was Secretary of State for American involvement in the wars of Libya, Syria and the Ukraine.

It turns out the the state as a force for war has a stronger effect than women as a force for peace. Once a woman becomes head of state, she becomes part of the culture of war. Another example in recent history was Margaret Thatcher in the UK.

This is similar to the situation for religion and war. As a general rule, religions are for peace. We devote an entire section of the Culture of Peace Network to the theme of “How can different faiths work together for understanding and harmony?

But when religions take power in the state, they become a force for war. Look at the situation today in Israel and Iran for clear examples. Once again we see that the state as a force for war has a stronger effect than religion as a force for peace.

And finally, consider the relation of socialism and war. In general those who are for socialism are also for peace. Exactly 100 years ago, the Bolsheviks took power in Russia under the slogan of “Peace, Bread and Land.” Their leader, Lenin, was a powerful critic of imperialist wars. In his essay War and Revolution, he wrote “Peace reigned in Europe, but this was because domination over hundreds of millions of people in the colonies by the European nations was sustained only through constant, incessant, interminable wars, which we Europeans do not regard as wars at all, since all too often they resembled, not wars, but brutal massacres, the wholesale slaughter of unarmed peoples.”

But once the Bolsheviks took power, they succumbed to the culture of war of the state. Trotsky called for forced labor camps to “build socialism” and his rival, Stalin, put them into place and later, invaded by Nazi Germany, he built a powerful war machine which eventually led to the crash of the Soviet empire.

The crash of the Soviet empire was forced, intentionally, by the United States and its allies, by bankrupting them with the arms race. I cannot forget passing by Lenin’s tomb in the May Day celebration in Moscow in 1976 and looking up to see all of the Soviet leaders, all old soldiers proudly wearing their military medals.

No one is forcing the United States today to be bankrupted with an arms race, but we see the same old soldiers with their military medals being appointed by President Trump to run (and bankrupt) the American empire. They learn nothing from history!

In fact, as I have documented in “The History of the Culture of War,” over the course of history the state has come to monopolize the culture of war. Other entities of the the culture of war, such as cities which flourished in Europe in the Middle Ages, were taken over by the state, and since then cities have no culture of war.

All of this goes to show that in order to move to a culture of peace, we must develop alternatives to state power. That is why I work for a global network of culture of peace cities that could someday run the United Nations when the state system collapses into bankruptcy and chaos.

If you can help with this, contact me at coordinator@cpnn-world.org.

          * * * * * * * * * *

LES FEMMES, LA RELIGION, LE SOCIALISME ET L’ETAT

Chaque année en mars, nous célébrons dans CPNN la Journée internationale de la femme et la réunion annuelle de la Commission des Nations Unies de la condition de la femme ; cela nous permet de voir comment les femmes sont une force pour la paix.

Il y a une raison profonde dans notre préhistoire. Comme je l’ai constaté lors de mon incursion dans les études anthropologiques, les femmes ont été exclues de la guerre très tôt dans la préhistoire, en raison de la contradiction sociale entre la guerre et le mariage. Le mariage était souvent arrangé entre différentes tribus ou communautés qui seraient également de temps en temps en guerre. Dans de telles guerres, la loyauté d’une femme était douteuse, parce que partagée entre son mari d’un côté et la famille de son père et de ses frères de l’autre. Il restait une solution simple: exclure les femmes de la guerre !

Cela signifie-t-il que les femmes doivent être promues à des postes de direction pour parvenir à la paix? La réponse est non. Et nous avons vu un exemple récent l’année dernière. Hillary Clinton est devenue la première femme candidate sérieuse pour devenir président des États-Unis. Et comme nous précisé dans CPNN, elle était une candidate ‘’guerrière’’, ayant été largement responsable de l’implication américaine dans les guerres Libye, de Syrie et d’Ukraine quand elle était la ministre des Affaires étrangères.

Il semblerait que l’État en tant que force de guerre a un effet plus fort que celui des femmes comme force pour la paix. Une fois qu’une femme devient chef de l’État, elle devient partie intégrante de la culture de la guerre. Un autre exemple dans l’histoire récente a été Margaret Thatcher au Royaume-Uni.

Ceci est semblable à la situation pour la religion et la guerre. En théorie, les religions sont engagées pour la paix. Nous consacrons une partie entière de CPNN au thème : «Comment différentes confessions peuvent-elles travailler ensemble pour la compréhension et l’harmonie? »

Mais quand une religion prend le pouvoir dans un état, elle devient une force pour la guerre. Regardez la situation actuelle en Israël et en Iran pour des exemples clairs. Une fois de plus, nous voyons que l’État, en tant que force de guerre, a plus d’effet que la religion comme force de paix.

Et enfin, considérons le rapport du socialisme et de la guerre. En général, ceux qui sont pour le socialisme sont aussi pour la paix ( voir la position de Jean Jaurès avant la 1ere guerre mondiale).

Il y a exactement 100 ans, les Bolcheviks prenaient le pouvoir en Russie sous le slogan «Paix, pain et terre». Leur chef, Lénine, était un puissant critique des guerres impérialistes. Dans son essai ‘’Guerre et Révolution’’, il écrit: “Pendant que la paix régnait en Europe, les nations européennes exerçaient une très forte domination sur des millions de personnes dans les colonies. Cette domination n’a pu exister que parce qu’elle n’était soutenue que par des combats constants, incessants, interminables que les Européens ne considéraient pas comme des guerres, puisqu’elles ressemblaient d’avantage à des massacres brutaux, à l’abattage massif de peuples désarmés.”

Mais quand les Bolcheviks ont pris le pouvoir, ils ont succombé à la culture de la guerre de l’état. Trotsky a proposé de creer des camps de travaux forcés pour «construire le socialisme» et son rival, Staline, les a mis en place. Puis plus tard, envahi par l’Allemagne nazie, il a construit une puissante machine de guerre qui a finalement mené à l’effondrement de l’empire soviétique.

L’effondrement de l’empire soviétique a été forcé, intentionnellement, par les Etats-Unis et ses alliés, en le ruinant dans la course aux armements. Je suis passé par le tombeau de Lénine lors de la célébration du mois de mai 1976 à Moscou et j’ai vu tous les dirigeants soviétiques, tous ces vieux soldats portant fièrement leurs médailles militaires.

Personne ne force les États-Unis aujourd’hui à être mis en faillite par une course aux armements, mais nous voyons les mêmes vieux soldats avec leurs médailles militaires, nommés par le président Trump pour gérer (et mettre en faillite) l’empire américain. Ils n’apprennent rien de l’histoire!

En fait, comme je détaillé dans “TL’histoire de la culture de la guerre“, au cours de l’histoire, l’État est parvenu à monopoliser la culture de la guerre. D’autres entités, telles que les villes qui ont fleuri en Europe au Moyen Âge, ont été prises en charge par l’État, et donc n’ont plus de culture de la guerre.

Tout cela montre que pour progresser vers une culture de paix, nous devons développer des alternatives au pouvoir de l’Etat. C’est pourquoi je travaille pour un réseau mondial de villes de la culture de la paix qui pourrait éventuellement gérer les Nations Unies lorsque le système d’État s’effondrera dans la faillite et le chaos.

Role of mass demonstrations in history

Featured

Once again, as described in this month’s CPNN bulletin, we are seeing mass demonstrations against corrupt and repressive government policies, which leads us to the question of their historical significance.

I am reminded of mass demonstrations which I have experienced over the years in the United States: the gathering for civil rights at the Washington Monument in 1963 when Martin Luther King made his great speech “I have a dream!”; the mobilization of one million people for a nuclear test ban in New York’s Central Park in 1982; and the mobilizations in 2003 against the American invasion of Iraq which involved millions of people around the world. The mobilization in Barcelona in 2003 was cited as the precedent for the new mobilization a few days ago in that city demanding that Spain should receive refugees.

The effect of these demonstrations, as I look back at them, was to mobilize the consciousness of participants and onlookers, to make them realize that progressive change is possible if enough people demand it. In the words of the World Social Forum, it makes us realize that “A better world is possible!” In the words of the Black Panther Party in the 1960’s, “Power to the People!” And in the words of the poem I wrote when working for the culture of peace at UNESCO:

“… those who would drive the team of peace
must link arms on either side,
harness their anger against injustice,
conquer the fears of centuries…”

Yes, this kind of consciousness is essential for progress! In the cases mentioned above, it led to civil rights legislation in the United States in the 1960’s, to nuclear agreements of the 1980’s (Gorbachev said at the time he was influenced by the mass demonstrations), and to the great increase in consciousness against the culture of war that we have seen in this century.

But consciousness, by itself, is not enough to bring us to a culture of peace.

Think of the massive demonstrations in Iran in 1978 or in Egypt’s Tahir Square in 2011. Yes, there was a great leap forward in consciousness of the people in those countries. And yes, change was achieved. But in the end they did not lead to a culture of peace, but rather to new authoritarian (culture of war) governments in Iran and Egypt.

I come back to the analysis put forward last year for the changes towards peace in Colombia, which has also been accompanied by a great increase in consciousness. Like Martin Luther King in the 1960’s, President Santos has received the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in this important historical process. But as I wrote last year in my advice to the people of Colombia, one cannot leave progress in the hands of the state because ultimately the state is inextricably linked to the culture of war. Instead, “develop a network of local peace committees and keep them strong and independent so that you do not have to depend solely on the national government to maintain the peace.”

It is for that reason that we continue to search for more initiatives such as the peace commission of the city of New Haven where I live.

Can we learn from history?

Featured

The events reflected in recent CPNN bulletins concerning the voting split in the United Nations and the results of last fall’s elections, remind me of turbulent periods of the 20th Century and raise the question if we can learn from what happened then.

The rise of populist and potentially fascist parties last year remind one of the rise of fascism in the 1930’s. What can we learn from those times?

First of all, we must avoid a Third World War. That requires a unified opposition against fascism and preparations for war such as those that took place in Germany and Spain in the 1930’s. A lesson from the 1930’s is that the opposition was weakened by serious infighting between communists, socialists and anarchists. In France, in the late 1930’s there was a united front under the leadership of Leon Blum (who later played a major role in the establishment of UNESCO), but by then it was too late for united fronts in Germany and Spain.

Lesson 1: the need for solidarity of those opposed to fascism and war.

These times also remind us of the 1960’s and the movements for civil rights and against the Vietnam War. I was part of the new generation at that time in the United States, and our generation was opposed by many peace activists of the previous generation who were influenced by the anti-communism of the government and the media. We were considered too radical! Of course, there were some in the previous generation who worked with us, the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, Jr and Malcolm X. but they paid for it with their lives (to what extent at the hands of government forces remains an open question). In Europe, too, the new generation took a revolutionary stance in the face of opposition for the most part from their elders.

Lesson 2: the need to listen to the new generation and work with their progressive leadership.

Returning to the voting split in the United Nations, we can ask if the Global South can provide leadership at this period of history beyond their votes at the UN. In recent years, this blog has followed progressive trends in Latin America and Africa, but the more a regime is progressive the more likely it will be overthrown by the forces of imperialism. The classic example from a previous generation was the government of Allende in Chile. But now, Venezuela is overturning the left-wing legacy of Hugo Chavez and Brazil has overturned the leftist legacy of Lula. And perhaps most dramatic was the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, we may assume because of his leadership for African unity to oppose Northern imperialism.

Lesson 3: the need to develop oppposition based in the civil society rather than relying on states to provide the leadership that is needed. Even in Colombia, which has provided leadership for peace in the last year, we have warned that the people should develop a strong civil society and not depend on the government to remain progressive. Even if the government is not overthrown, it may be weakened by corruption as is the case now in South Africa.

As for the reaction to the rise of right-wing politics, we have been following the post-election fightback for human rights in the USA, which can also serve as an example for other countries faced with similar problems. One of the outstanding aspects of the fightback for human rights in the USA is the leadership of cities. Something like 300 American cities continue to maintain their stance as sanctuaries to protect undocumented immigrants against national police raids, despite the threat of the new president to cut funding to those cities. These are the cities that voted against Trump and that mounted huge demonstrations on the day after his inauguration.

Lesson 4: the need to develop an alternative progressive movement based on cities.

These lessons are played out at a local level in my city, where I am writing the annual report, The State of the Culture of Peace in New Haven, for the official city peace commission, of which I am a member. Here are some of the remarks of activists who were interviewed for that report and who were asked about how to respond to the new political situation in the country:

* Ideally, we should unite the widest movement possible to defend the human rights of everyone, beginning with the most vulnerable. And at least, we should struggle against divisiveness, not necessarily to convince the other, but at least to find ways to collaborate.

* Listen to the youth. They have a more holistic view than us adults, especially with regard to sexual orientation. They’re angry and will not tolerate inaction. We need them in public office to push the legislature to defend public services and policies.

* Resistance is needed at every level against hate and persecution. For immigrant rights, the city needs to continue providing leadership and link up to the resistance on a national level. Despite the election results and false news by some of the mass media, we must realize that progressive opinions are those of the majority of Americans.

* Protest is necessary, but with an agenda that is clear and unifying. We need dialogue at every level, engaging the opposition and taking care that legitimate anger does not stifle dialogue. We need the emergence of a moral voice like that of Martin Luther King, with an effective media strategy.

I have presented a rationale previously that we need to develop a movement of progressive cities that can take control of the United Nations if and when there is an economic and political crash that leads the Member States to more or less abandon the UN.

But now we arrive at a major contradiction. On the one hand, cities are more progressive than rural areas, but on the other hand, they are also more vulnerable if and when there is a global economic crash. And there is reason to think that such a crash is imminent. We face the possibility of a sudden and traumatic reversal of the trend towards urbanization that has been developing over recent centuries.

That leads us to Lesson 5: The need to develop links between progressive organizations based in cities (such as City Peace Commissions) and adjacent rural associations that can help us survive a global economic crash.

In this regard, an economic crash at this point in history could be worse than that of the Great Depression, because small, self-sufficient farming has been replaced by industrialized farming dependent on oil deliveries. It is not easy to find an historic precedent or roadmape for how we should respond. Perhaps the closest is the experience of Cuba after loss of oil deliveries following the crash of the Soviet Union when they reformed their agricultural production to be more diversified, more integrated, and smaller in scale.

Where are we in the course of history?

Featured

I have long believed that we are at the point of human history where we can make the transition from the culture of war which has dominated us for 5,000 years to a new culture, a culture of peace. As I prepare the CPNN review for 2016 and compare it to the CPNN review that I wrote one year ago for the year 2015, it gives me the chance to reflect on the question: where are we in this transition?

I frame my response in the context of my novella, “I have seen the promised land“, in which I have tried to imagine the stages by which the transition to a culture of peace could take place.

In the novella, I suppose that the system of nation states, led by the Amerian empire, which have come to monopolize the culture of war, will crash, first as an economic collapse, then follwed by a political collapse (such as I witnessed in the Soviet Union during the 1980s). It will be accompanied by attempts to impose fascist governments, such as occurred during the great depression of the 1930’s. To move forward, we will need strong nonviolent movements to resist the movement towards fascism. I imagine that after the crash, governments will abandon the United Nations and leave a void in which cities, which no longer have a culture of war, can take change of a renewed United Nations and thereby manage the transition to a culture of peace.

In my blog last month, I remarked that “the election of Trump promises to embolden fascists everywhere. We already see fascism in Turkey, and it is threatened in Brazil and Venezuela. Not to mention fascist political parties on the rise throughout Europe. Hence, we are aleady challenged to overcome fascism now, before we suffer from the economic collapse. Perhaps that is to our advantage, because the struggle will be more difficult later when economic survival becomes the priority.” More details are provided in the recent CPNN article that quotes the human rights chief of the United Nations, “‘Fascist Rhetoric’ Becoming Commonplace in US and Europe: UN” Let us recall that fascism is simply the extreme form of the culture of war, with all of its eight aspects exaggerated.

In other words, we are already seeing signs of political collapse, even though the global economy continues to struggle along. At the same time, there is no let-up in the various economic contradictions listed by Johan Galtung as the basis of his prediction that the American empire will crash by the year 2020. These contradictions include: 1. between growth and distribution: overproduction relative to demand, 1.4 billion below $ 1/day, 100.000 die/day, 1/4 of hunger [i.e. the widening gap between rich and poor]; 2. between productive and finance economy (currency, stocks,bonds) overvalued, hence crashes, unemployment, contract work; and 3. between production/distribution/consumption and nature: ecocrisis, depletion/pollution, global warming. Not to mention the ever increasing balance of payments deficit of the United States as it imports without exporting, and the economic burden of its military bases around the world.

Another sign of political collapse is suggested in recent speculations that the new government in the United States, may withdraw its support for the United Nations.

As I concluded in last month’s blog: “We are entering a watershed period of human history. Although it is being pushed forward by economic factors, the ultimate determining factor can become the social consciousness of the people themselves.”

Now, let us look at the CPNN reviews for 2015 and 2016. Do they give us cause for optimism? In the reviews, we have given particular attention to the transition to peace in Colombia, as well as advances elsewhere in Latin America. However, as we have discussed previously, the transition to a culture of peace will ultimately have to be global in scope if it is to succeed.

On a global level, our reviews present some evidence that the social consciousness of the people is developing rapidly enough to resist fascism in the coming years? In particular, we see advances in the practice of nonviolence and the development of peace education, as well as continually expanding participation in the International Day of Peace. We have seen advances in confronting terrorism without violence, and, most recently, the strengthening of sanctuary cities, universities and churches in the face of threats by the new Presdient of the United States.

But, as we have often considered, consciousness is not enough. It needs to be accompanied by the development of a new institutional framework, if we are to replace the nation states in a reformed United Nations. Here, it seems we are lagging. There are calls for UN reform, but they do not seem radical enough. There is growth in peace cities, as reviewed by CPNN, but it seems that the growth is not yet sufficient to play a determining role.

Some things can be done immediately. In particular, I have previously proposed the establishment of an Alternative Security Council composed of mayors or parliamentarians from all regions of the world. Such a “Shadow Security Council: would regularly consider the issues faced by the actual UN Security Council and publicize its “decisions” in order to provide an alternative vision of how the issues of war and peace could be managed at a global level. It would provide a first step towards the eventual institutional change that is needed.

There is important work to be done!

Entering a watershed period of human history

Featured

(pour la version française, voir en dessous)

“We’ve seen two shocking election results recently: the defeat of the referendum for the peace accords in Colombia, and the election of Donald Trump in the USA based on a racist and xenophobic campaign. What does it mean? It means that voters in the two countries are alienated from their governments – quite simply, they do not trust the government. And they are angry. So what comes next? Do we slide back into war or into fascism? Or do we return to the people, listen to their fears and anger, and organize them in the sense that Martin Luther King told us?: “The supreme task is to organize and unite people so that their anger becomes a transforming force.

Hopefully, we can avoid a nuclear war, which might have been greater if Clinton had been elected.

But at the same time, yes, we are moving backwards.

By looking at the big picture, we can see that this is inevitable. As I describe in my novella, “I have seen the promised land“, the American empire is crashing, and it will bring immense human costs in dislocation and suffering, far greater than we can imagine at this time. As a result, we may assume, as I describe in the novella, that there will be attempts to impose a fascist “solution” much as was done during the greatest economic collapse of the 20th century.

In fact, the election of Trump promises to embolden fascists everywhere. We already see fascism in Turkey, and it is threatened in Brazil and Venezuela. Not to mention fascist political parties on the rise throughout Europe.

Hence, we are aleady challenged to overcome fascism now, before we suffer from the economic collapse. Perhaps that is to our advantage, because the struggle will be more difficult later when economic survival becomes the priority.

In the CPNN bulletin, we list some of the measures being taken already in the fightback against the attacks on human rights in the United States and towards territorial peace in Colombia. The move towards sanctuary universities, cities and states in the USA is especially impressive. Were there such moves when minorities were targeted in Germany during the 30’s? We cannot forget the words of the pastor Martin Niemöller in Germany at that time, “First they came for the communists and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist.” Then the trade unionists. . Then the Jews . . . Then the catholics. “Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

We note that in both the USA and Colombia, the fightback takes place primarily on the local level, often at the level of cities and towns. At the national level, the corruption of the culture of war continues. We may be slow it down, but it cannot be eradicated there because it is too much entrenched in the structure of national government. At the local level, however, we can be free from the culture of war and free to develop strength for the culture of peace.

In Colombia, there was consideration of a process by which the revised peace accord would be adopted through open municipal councils with direct participation of citizens. Unfortunately, however, there is so much violence and threat of renewal of war that it was decided not to take this route but rather to seek ratification immediately from the national congress. However, in the long run, I have argued elsewhere, the peace will not be sustainable until it is established and maintained at the local and municipal level.

We also note that in both the USA and Colombia, the leadership is being taken by young people. That is inevitable and necessary. As I documented previously in my history of American Peace Movements, each new peace movement must reinvent its methods, because the preceding movement has become rigid and inflexible in its approach. However, that does not mean that the older generation should remain on the sidelines. We have ever more work to do as advisors to the new generation. In that regard, I call your attention to the example of I.F. Stone who served as an advisor to the youth movements of the 1960’s. The new generation of activists will have to look for our advice based on the experience of previous generations, and we must be there alongside them.

To some extent, our advice will be tactical. We must teach the methods of nonviolence and mass mobilization. We must alert the new generation to avoid the influence of agents provocateurs.

But even more so, it is important to provide strategic advice. The most important task is to prepare both the consciousness of the people and new institutional frameworks, so that when the institutions of the culture of war have momentarily collapsed, we can create a new United Nations based directly on the people.

We are entering a watershed period of human history. Although it is being pushed forward by economic factors, the ultimate determining factor can become the social consciousness of the people themselves.

      NOUS ENTRONS DANS UNE PERIODE CRITIQUE DE NOTRE HISTOIRE

    Nous avons vu récemment deux résultats électoraux choquants: la défaite du référendum sur les accords de paix en Colombie et l’élection de Donald Trump aux Etats-Unis après une campagne raciste et xénophobe. Qu’est-ce que cela signifie ? Cela signifie que les électeurs dans les deux pays se sentent aliénés, dépossédés de leurs gouvernements – tout simplement, ils ne font plus confiance à leurs dirigeants et ils sont en colère. 
Alors, que va t-il arriver maintenant ? Allons-nous tomber dans la guerre ou dans le fascisme, ou retournerons-nous vers les peuples ? Serons nous capable d’écouter leurs craintes et leur colère et de nous organiser dans le sens exprimé par Martin Luther King? :”La tâche suprême est d’organiser et d’unir le peuple pour que sa colère devienne une force transformatrice“.

    Espérons que nous pourrons éviter une guerre nucléaire, bien que cela ait été plus probable si Hillary Clinton avait été élue.

    Mais en même temps, oui, nous sommes dans la régression. 

En regardant les grandes lignes, nous pouvons voir qu’une régression est inévitable. Comme je l’ai décrit dans la Nouvelle: «J’ai vu la terre promise», l’empire américain est en train de s’effondrer, et il entraînera des coûts humains énormes dans la dislocation et la souffrance, beaucoup plus grands que ce que nous pouvons imaginer. En conséquence, nous pouvons supposer, comme dans mon roman, qu’il y aura des tentatives pour imposer une «solution» fasciste, comme cela a été le cas lors du plus grand effondrement économique du XXe siècle, en 1929.

    En fait, l’élection de Trump promet d’encourager les fascistes partout. Nous le voyons déjà en Turquie, et il semble vouloir émerger au Brésil et au Venezuela. Sans parler des partis politiques fascistes à la hausse dans toute l’Europe.

    Par conséquent, nous devons lutter MAINTENANT contre le fascisme, avant que nous ne souffrions de l’effondrement économique. Peut-être est-ce à notre avantage, parce que la lutte sera bien plus difficile plus tard lorsque la survie économique deviendra la priorité.

    Nous citerons quelques-unes des mesures qui sont déjà prises pour lutter contre les atteintes aux Droits de l’Homme aux États-Unis et pour aller vers la paix territoriale en Colombie. Les initiatives pour les sanctuaires dans les universités, les villes et les États aux États-Unis sont particulièrement impressionnantes (cf. cpnn). Y a t-il eu de tels mouvements lorsque les minorités ont été ciblées en Allemagne dans les années 30 ? Souvenons nous des paroles du pasteur Martin Niemöller en Allemagne à cette époque : “Quand ils sont venus chercher les communistes, je n ai rien dit, je n’étais pas communiste. Quand ils sont venus chercher les syndicalistes, je n’ai rien dit, je n’étais pas syndicaliste.” Puis ils sont venus chercher les juifs, ensuite les catholiques. “Puis ils sont venus me chercher. Et il ne restait plus personne pour dire quelque chose.”

    Nous notons que, aux États-Unis comme en Colombie, la lutte se fait principalement au niveau local, souvent au niveau des villes. A l’échelle nationale, la corruption de la culture de guerre continue. Nous espérons pouvoir éviter le fascisme et ses extrêmes ; mais la culture de guerre ne peut pas être éradiquée dans la structure du gouvernement national parce qu’elle y est trop ancrée. Au niveau local, cependant, il n’y a pas de culture de guerre et nous sommes libre de développer la force de la culture de la paix.

    En Colombie, avait été envisagé un processus par lequel l’accord de paix révisé serait adopté par des conseils municipaux ouverts avec la participation directe des citoyens. Malheureusement, il y a tellement de violence et de menace de renouveau de la guerre qu’il a été décidé de ne pas emprunter cette voie, mais plutôt de demander immédiatement la ratification du congrès national. Cependant, à long terme, comme je l’ai toujours soutenu , la paix ne sera durable que si elle est établie et maintenue au niveau local.

    Notons aussi que, aux États-Unis comme en Colombie, les jeunes sont les nouveaux leaders. C’est logique, souhaitable et nécessaire. Comme je l’ai documenté dans mon histoire des mouvements pacifistes américains, chaque nouveau mouvement pour la paix doit réinventer ses méthodes, parce que le mouvement précédent est devenu rigide et inflexible dans son approche. Cependant, cela ne signifie pas que les générations précédentes doivent rester à l’écart. Nous avons encore plus de travail à faire en tant que conseillers pour la nouvelle génération. Je me souviens de l’exemple de I.F. Stone qui a servi de conseiller aux mouvements de jeunesse des années 1960. La nouvelle génération de militants devra chercher nos conseils sur la base de l’expérience des générations précédentes, et nous devons être là, à leur coté.

    Dans une certaine mesure, nos conseils seront tactiques. Nous devons enseigner les méthodes de non violence et de mobilisation de masse. Nous devons alerter la nouvelle génération comment éviter l’influence des agents provocateurs.

    Mais plus encore, il est important de fournir des conseils stratégiques. La tâche la plus importante est de préparer à la fois la conscience du peuple et les nouveaux cadres institutionnels, de sorte que lorsque les institutions de la culture de la guerre s’effondreront, à ce moment nous puissions créer une nouvelle ONU basée directement sur le peuple.

    Nous entrons dans une période critique de l’Histoire de l’humanité. Bien qu’il soit poussé par des facteurs économiques, l’ultime facteur déterminant peut devenir la conscience sociale des peuples eux-mêmes.

How history moves: Economic change precedes; political change follows

Featured

(pour la version française, voir en dessous)

When I visited and worked in the Soviet Union and later in Russia I was able to see how history moves. I watched from within as an empire crashed.

The crash of the Soviet empire, foreseen a decade before by Johan Galtung, was first an economic crash, and then secondarily to that, a political crash. The empire crashed economically because it lost the arms race to the West. The West, led by the United States which devoted something like 40% of its budget to the military, forced the Soviet empire to match them, soldier by soldier, boot by boot, rocket by rocket, military scientist by military scientist. But since the Soviet empire had only half the size of the West’s economy, it had to double the percentage of their economy devoted to the arms race.

Hence, it went bankrupt first and the West won.

Once the Soviet economy crashed, the political system crashed on top of it. The people stayed home, the soldiers stayed in their barracks, and the oligarchs, aided by CIA economic advisors, finished the economic collapse by drastically devaluating the ruble. The people stayed home because they were totally alienated from the system. They used to say you could find truth anywhere except in Pravda (which means truth in Russian) and the news anywhere except in Izvestia (which means news in Russian).

In this month’s CPNN bulletin, we see once again how political change lags behind. Here it concerns the solution to the problem of global warming. We have known for many years that to halt the global warming, we need to change from fossil fuels to renewable energy. But politically, we could not make the change. Last year’s global summit of the world’s nations failed to address the challenge of abandoning fossil fuels.

It’s the economic factors that are making the change. Renewable solar energy has become so cheap and readily available that it is more and more replacing energy from fossil fuels. And the faster we change over to renewable energy for economic reasons, the faster the political change will follow.

The first great sociologist, Karl Marx, understood this dynamic when he developed his theory of historical change. Here’s what he wrote in his Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy:

The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or — this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms — with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

How does this apply the great historical change that we have yet to make: the transition from the culture of war to a culture of peace?

There is a growing psychological and political consciousness around the world that this transition is necessary. The movement for a culture of peace has been inspired by the movement for sustainable development which has been the greatest political movement of the past half century.

But as we are seeing, the movement for sustainable development can only become effective as a sequel to economic changes which make sustainable development possible and profitable.

The sequence of economic change first, political change second, applies equally to the transition towards a culture of peace. A culture of peace will become politically possible after the economy of the culture of war has crashed. When will that come? Too soon, because we are not ready for it!!!

The same economic fate that destroyed the Soviet empire is already far advanced towards the destruction of the American empire – and for the same reason – devotion of the greatest part of the economy to armaments and wars. Johan Galtung predicted in 2004 that the crash would come by the year 2020. The economic crash will be followed by a political crash; Americans and European are already as alienated from their political system as the Russians were in 1989. As evidence, just look at the abstention from voting in national elections.

When the American empire crashes, the rest of the world will crash with it, just as Eastern Europe crashed when the Soviet Union crashed.

At that moment, there will be a window of opportunity to establish a culture of peace – but that can happen only if we are prepared with institutional frameworks that can replace the nation states. If we are not prepared, we risk the replacement of the present system by a fascist system – just as happened after the crash of 1929 in Europe (and almost in the United States as well).

Whereas the question of global warming and changes of energy sources are matters of many decades, the question of the collapse of the economy of the culture of war is a matter of only a few years. Like the collapse of the Soviet Union, it threatens to catch us by surprise.

I work with cities in the hopes that they will be able to provide an institutional framework to replace the role of the nation states as the basis for the United Nations Security Council (See blog of June 1), but the work is painstakingly slow. Too slow. History is moving faster than us!

      • Comment bouge l’histoire: Les changements economiques passent avant le politique !

        Durant les années où j’ai voyagé et travaillé en URSS, puis plus tard en Russie, j’ai vu comment l’Histoire bouge. Je regardais de l’intérieur pourquoi et comment s’écrase un empire.

        Le crash de l’empire soviétique, prévu une dizaine d’années auparavant par Johan Galtung, fut d’abord un crash économique, puis ensuite seulement, un crash politique. L’empire s’est écrasé économiquement parce qu’il a perdu la course aux armements à l’Ouest. L’Occident, dirigé par les Etats-Unis, qui consacrait environ 40% de son budget à l’armée, força l’empire soviétique à les égaler, soldat contre soldat, botte contre botte, fusée contre fusée, scientifique militaire contre scientifique militaire ! L’empire soviétique ayant seulement la moitié de la taille de l’économie de l’Ouest, il a dû consacrer le double à la course aux armements et a donc fait une ponction enorme dans son économie.

        Par conséquent, il a fait faillite et l’Occident a gagné !

        Une fois que l’économie soviétique est tombée, le système politique s’est écrasé à son tour. Les citoyens sont restés chez eux, les soldats sont restés dans leurs casernes, et les oligarques, aidés par des conseillers économiques de la CIA, ont terminé l’effondrement économique en dévaluant le rouble. Les citoyens sont restés chez eux parce qu’ils étaient totalement aliénés au système et qu’ils n’avaient plus confiance en lui. Je les ai même entendu dire que l’on pouvait trouver la vérité partout, sauf dans Pravda (qui signifie la vérité en russe) et les nouvelles partout sauf dans l’Izvestia (ce qui veut dire nouvelles en russe)

        Revenons à l’actualité, dans le bulletin de CPNN ce mois-ci, nous voyons une fois de plus que les changements politiques sont à la traine en ce qui concerne le problème du réchauffement climatique. Nous savons depuis de nombreuses années que pour arrêter le réchauffement de la planète, nous devons quitter les combustibles fossiles et développer les énergies renouvelables. Hélas, politiquement, nous ne pouvons pas faire de changement. Le sommet mondial des nations du monde de l’an dernier n’a pas réussi à relever le défi d’abandonner les combustibles fossiles.

        Ce sont les facteurs économiques qui mènent la danse . L’énergie solaire renouvelable est devenue si peu chère et si facilement disponible qu’elle commence à remplacer l’énergie des combustibles fossiles. Plus vite nous passerons à l’énergie renouvelable pour des raisons économiques, plus vite le changement politique suivra.

        Le premier grand sociologue, Karl Marx, a bien compris cette dynamique quand il a développé sa théorie du changement historique. Voici ce qu’il a écrit dans sa préface à la “Critique de l’économie politique.”

        “L’ensemble de ces rapports de production constitue la structure économique de la société, la base concrète sur laquelle s’élève une superstructure juridique et politique et à la­quel­le correspondent des formes de conscience sociales déterminées. Le mode de production de la vie matérielle conditionne le processus de vie sociale, politique et intellectuel en général. Ce n’est pas la conscience des Hommes qui détermine leur être; c’est inversement leur être social qui détermine leur conscience. À un certain stade de leur développement, les forces productives matérielles de la société entrent en contradiction avec les rapports de production existants, ou, ce qui n’en est que l’expression juridique, avec les rapports de propriété au sein desquels elles s’étaient mues jusqu’alors. De formes de développement des forces productives qu’ils étaient ces rapports en deviennent des entraves. Alors s’ouvre une époque de révolution sociale. Le changement dans la base économique bouleverse plus ou moins rapidement toute l’énorme superstructure.”

        Comment cela s’appliquera t-il au grand changement historique que nous avons encore à faire: le passage de la culture de la guerre à une culture de la paix?

        Une conscience psychologique et politique croissante apparait dans le monde entier sur la necessité de cette transition. Le mouvement pour une culture de la paix a été inspiré par le mouvement pour le développement durable qui a été le plus grand mouvement politique du dernier demi-siècle.

        Mais comme nous le voyons, le mouvement pour le développement durable n’a pu devenir effectif que suite aux changements économiques qui rendent le développement durable possible et rentable.

        Les séquences “changement économique d’abord, changement politique après” s’appliquent également à la transition vers une culture de paix. La culture de paix va devenir politiquement possible qu’après l’implosion de l’économie de la culture de la guerre.

        Le même sort économique qui a détruit l’empire soviétique est déjà bien avancé vers la destruction de l’empire américain – et pour la même raison – l’attribution de la plus grande partie de l’économie à l’armement et aux guerres. Johan Galtung a prédit en 2005 que l’accident viendrait avant l’an 2020. Le crash économique sera suivie d’un crash politique. Les Americains et les européens sont déjà autant aliénés à leur système politique que les Russes l’étaient en 1989. Comme preuve, il suffit de regarder le taux d’abstention aux élections nationales.

        Lorsque l’empire américain s’écroulera, le reste du monde va suivre, tout comme l’Europe de l’Est s’est écroulée lorsque l’Union soviétique est tombée.

        À ce moment-là, il y aura une fenêtre d’opportunité pour établir une culture de la paix – mais cela ne peut se produire que si nous sommes prêts avec les cadres institutionnels qui peuvent remplacer les Etats-nations. Si nous ne sommes pas prêts, nous risquons le remplacement du système actuel par un système fasciste – tout comme cela est arrivé après le crash de 1929 en Europe (et presque aux États-Unis également).

        Alors que l’affaire du réchauffement planétaire et des changements de sources d’énergie sont les questions sur plusieurs décennies, l’effondrement de l’économie de la culture de guerre est une affaire de seulement quelques années. Comme l’a fait l’effondrement de l’Union soviétique, il menace de nous surprendre.

        Je travaille avec les villes dans l’espoir qu’elles seront en mesure de fournir un cadre institutionnel pour remplacer le rôle des Etats-nations comme base pour le Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies (Voir le blog de 1 juin), mais le travail est très lent. Trop lent. Histoire se déplace beaucoup plus vite que nous!

  • Success of the United Nations

    Featured

    We know all too well the failures of the United Nations. At this moment of history, its failures include the wars and potential wars everywhere in the world, including the potential of a catastrophic nuclear war. As we have stated previously, as long as the United Nations is run by the Member States, it will not be able to control their culture of war.

    But let us not ignore the successes of the United Nations.

    First, it has succeeded in developing around the world a universal consciousness for peace.

    This is shown in the celebration of the International Day of Peace, which, as we have documented in this month’s CPNN bulletin, has been taken up by millions of people in all parts of the world. And, as we have mentioned in the bulletin, this follows in a tradition that includes the 75 million signatures on the Manifesto 2000 for the International Year of the Culture of Peace and the mobilization for peade by thousands of organizations of the civil society during the International Decade for a Culture of Peace 2001-2010.

    The universal consciousness for peace follows on the heels of the universal consciousness for human rights.

    In both cases, a key moment was the adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of a key Declaration. For human rights it was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, and for peace it was the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace of 1999. The simple fact that all the countries of the world could adopt a resolution has enabled the UN to play a key role in the development of universal consciousness.

    In sum, one great success of the United Nations has been its standard-setting function.

    Second, the United Nations has succeeded in managing international matters on a global scale when they are not part of the culture of war.

    Here are some examples:

    In 1967 there were 130,000 cases of smallpox in the world. By 1984, there were no cases and the virus was declared extinct. This was due to the global vaccination program of the World Health Organization, one of the United Nations agencies.

    At any given moment there is a bewildering number of airplanes taking off and landing in airports around the world without accident. This is due to the work of the International Civil Aviation Organization, another United Nations agency.

    You can mail a letter to any destination in the world by puttiing it in a mailbox in any country. This is due to the work of the Universal Postal Union, yet another United Nations Agency.

    In all these cases, success comes because the problems are not political. They are simply technical.

    That leaves us with the big question: could the United Nations succeed in bring us a global culture of peace? Not just peace consciousness, but could it achieve a true and universal disarmament, just as dueling, slavery and other such practices were previously eliminated? The problem here is not technical. It is political.

    My experiences when I worked at UNESCO tell me that a culture of peace is technically possible. As I have described previously, we were able, as an agency of the United Nations, to involve the people of Mozambique and El Salvador to design national peace programs during the 1990’s following their civil wars, and I believe that they would have achieved peace and disarmament in those countries if the Member States had supported our work. But they did not support our work – for political reasons. I am reminded of that history when I see the progress towards disarmament that is being achieved these days in Colombia, and I hope that they can sustain the peace despite the arrival of political changes.

    Yes, a culture of peace is possible. What is needed is a radical reform of the United Nations, putting it in the hands of the people instead of the states.

    The dialectical pace of history

    Featured

    (pour la version française, voir en dessous)

    History does not progress at an even rate, but by long periods of slow development punctuated by sudden revolutionary changes, as described by dialectical philosophy.

    The news in CPNN this month illustrate the slowness of the development of the culture of peace.

    The development of the peace process which led to this month’s signing of a peace accord in Colombia comes after a half century of war and many years of peace negotiations. The case is similar for the progress towards a peace accord with the communist movement in the Philippines. When I took part in the UNESCO international conference for a culture of peace in the Philippines twenty years ago, negotiations were already underway.

    Development is similarly slow for city peace commissions. We began the New Haven City Peace Commission in the 1980’s and it is still trying to find its identity. The newest city peace commission, that of Santos, Brazil, was begun six years ago, and only this year has it been officially formalized. As they say: ” It is a long walk on a road that builds itself as we walk over it; we cannot see the end of it, but it is known that the end is a much better place than the one we are living today.”

    Human rights are widely recognized and respected today, but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was ignored and unknown for the first 40 years after its adoption by the United Nations. It was only after the Nobel Peace Prize to Amnesty International in 1977 that it began to get recognition. The equivalent UN resolution for a culture of peace was adopted in 1999. If the same pace is followed as that for human rights, it may not gain universal recognition for another 25 years!

    When development is very slow, it is hard to see. As the activists of the new Ashland Culture of Peace Commission state, “we need to acknowledge the important and often unnoticed work that is being done in our community that moves us toward a better world.”

    The culture of war has dominated humanity for more than 5000 years. Should we expect it to be replaced by a culture of peace in a short period of time?

    On the other hand, at the present time, there are other historical tendencies developing that may come quickly to the point of sudden revolutionary change. In his most recent column, Johan Galtung considers that “the world ‘right now’ [is] so unstable with imbalances everywhere that what we are living is fluxes and jumps. . . . power imbalance that can lead to war ‘before it is too late’, to passive coexistence, or to active coexistence, peace.  Very, very dynamic indeed.  No stability.”

    The “peace” mentioned by Galtung would seem to be a relative peace in the sense of the absece of war, caused by the exhaustion of the warring parties. However, even if that comes about, we will still be far from the culture of peace that we need and that is developing much too slowly.

      • Le rythme dialectique de l’histoire

        L’histoire ne progresse pas à un rythme constant, mais par de longues périodes de développement lent entrecoupées de changements soudains et révolutionaires comme le définit la philosophie dialectique.

        Les nouvelles de CPNN ce mois-ci illustrent la lenteur du développement de la culture de la paix.

        Le développement du processus de paix qui a conduit à la signature d’un accord de paix en Colombie ce mois-ci aboutit après un demi-siècle de guerre et de nombreuses années de négociations. Le cas est similaire pour les progrès vers un accord de paix avec le mouvement communiste aux Philippines. Quand j’ai pris part à la conférence internationale de l’UNESCO pour une culture de la paix aux Philippines il y a vingt ans, les négociations étaient déjà en cours.

        Le développement est similairement lent pour les commissions de paix des villes. Nous avons débuté la Commission de Paix de la Ville de New Haven (USA) dans les années 1980, mais elle chereche est encore son identité. La toute derrière commission municipale de la paix, celle de Santos, au Brésil, commencé il y a six ans, n’a été officiellement formalisé que cette année. Comme le disent ses membres: «C’est une longue marche sur une route qui se construit alors que nous marchons dessus, nous ne pouvons pas en voir la fin, mais nous sommes sûr que la fin est un endroit bien meilleur que celui où nous vivons aujourd’hui.”

        Les Droits de l’Homme sont largement reconnus et respectés aujourd’hui, mais la Déclaration universelle des Droits de l’Homme a été ignorée, voire inconnue les 40 premières années suivant son adoption par les Nations Unies. Ce fut seulement après le Prix Nobel de la Paix décerné à Amnesty International, en 1977, qu’il a commencé à aovir une reconnaissance. La résolution de l’ONU équivalente pour une culture de la paix a été adoptée en 1999. Si le même rythme est suivi, nous devrons attendre encore 25 ans pour une reconaissance universelle !!

        Lorsque le développement est très lent, il est difficile de le voir. Comme disent les militants de la Commission de la cultre de la paix de Ashland, “nous devons reconnaître le travail important et souvent inaperçu qui se fait dans notre communauté qui nous pousse vers un monde meilleur.”

        La culture de la guerre a dominé l’humanité depuis plus de 5000 ans. Faut-ils attendre à son remplacement par une culture de la paix dans un court laps de temps ??

        D’autre part, à l’heure actuelle, il existe des tendances historiques en développement qui peuvent venir rapidement au point de changement soudaine et révolutionnaire. Dans sa chronique plus récente, Johan Galtung estime que «le monde en ce moment ‘[est] si instable avec des déséquilibres partout et ce que nous vivons sont des flux et des sauts…. Déséquilibres du pouvoir qui peuvent conduire à la guerre “avant qu’il ne soit trop tard”, à la coexistence passive, ou à la coexistence actif, i.e. la paix. Très, très dynamique en effet. Pas de stabilité.”

        La «paix» mentionné par Galtung semble d’être une paix relative dans le sens de l’absence de guerre, provoquée par l’épuisement des partries belligérantes. Cependant, même si cela arrive, nous serons encore loin de la culture de la paix dont nous avons besoin et qui se développe beaucoup trop lentement.

  • Consciousness, by itself, is not enough; the task is also political

    Featured

    We are seeing progress towards a culture of peace on several fronts:

    In this month’s CPNN bulletin, we feature progress in peace education around the world.

    In the bulletin of May, it was progress in the practice of nonviolence.

    As described by the Brazilian pedagogue, Paulo Freire, there is a development of consciousness in the sense of understanding plus action.

    But consciousness, by itself, whether through peace education or the practice of nonviolence, is not enough to change the course of history. If we are to make the transition from the culture of war to a culture of peace, our task is not only psychological, but also political. I have discussed this previously by insisting that peace education, to be effective, must be prepared to confront the dominant culture of war.

    To be political, consciousness needs to be linked up to the development of a new institutional framework.

    As we have previously observed, peace education is an integral part of the peace process in Colombia, but to make a permanent change, it needs to be linked to a network of peace committees at the local and regional levels.

    We can begin to see signs that such a linkage is happening. For example, restorative justice, a key practice of nonviolence and an important aspect of peace education is being promoted by the peace commissions of the cities of Londrina in Brazil and Ashland and New Haven in the United States. Cities are also promoting the practices of mediation and participative budgeting, two other key practices of a culture of peace.

    A great step forward is underway as cities for peace link into global networks such as those described in a recent CPNN bulletin. This process should be strengthened by regularly assessment of the state of the culture of peace by each city (see CPNN February 24) and exchange of their practices and results in this regard.

    The development of networks of cities for peace can be seen as a step towards the development of a global institution of the culture of peace, perhaps a radically-reformed United Nations (as we suggested in a previous blog), or perhaps an entirely new institutional framework at a global level.

    Looking at the headlines of the mass media might make us pessimistic, but we need to keep in mind that a better world is possible and keep working to establish its institutional framework.

    What happens after peace accords are signed

    Featured

    Now that there is a ceasefire in Colombia, as described in this month’s bulletin of CPNN, the question arises whether a culture of peace can be maintained afterwards.

    When I was working on the culture of peace in UNESCO, I experienced a similar situation in two countries, El Salvador and Mozambique. Both of them emerged with peace accords in the early 1990’s after civil wars comparable to that in Colombia. In both we established national culture of peace programs to maintain the peace afterwards. They were major efforts, as I will describe, but ultimately they failed. Now, twenty five years later, both El Salvador and Mozambique are once again descending into violence, verging once again on civil war.

    Why did they fail?

    First, consider the efforts. The program in El Salvador is described in a journal article, available on the Internet, written by the three of us who managed the program. To quote from its conclusion: the program transformed “conflict into cooperation by engaging those previously in violent conflict in the joint planning and implementation of human development projects of benefit to all. . .. [it] developed both a set of guidelines accepted by all parties to the previous violent conflict, and institutionalized these guidelines in a National Coordination Council and its Executive Committee which ensure that they are put into practice. In particular, the guidelines are being followed in the implementation of project 507/ELS/01, the production of daily radio broadcasts and non-formal education campaigns for the most needy and neglected women in the country. In the course of the working out of this project, during the period from the summer of 1994 to the present (spring of 1996) the participants, representing the government, community radio stations and nongovernmental organizations including those associated with the FMLN, have internalized the basic principles and guidelines of a culture of peace. While at first they distrusted each other to the point that UNESCO had to play the role of arbitrator and mediator, they have since learned to negotiate and arrived at the point of regular concerted decision-making. Daily radio broadcasts are now being produced which reflect the fruits of this process of dialogue, participation and concertation and which up until now have been well-produced and well-received despite time pressures and the demanding schedules of radio broadcasting. These broadcasts are carried by 24 radio stations around the country, as well as in marketplaces, and they are accompanied by the work of 64 correspondents in the various communities who monitor the broadcasts and provide information from their communities to the technical team that creates the programmes.

    The radio project was only one of 20 human development projects in El Salvador that were developed by the method of concertation described above.

    In Mozambique, a similar process of concertation between ex-enemies resulted in the elaboration of ten human development projects with rural women, demobilized soldiers, schools, youth, mass media, community leaders, etc.

    The process worked. Hoping to develop their country, the ex-enemies could be brought together and could work together.

    But the programmes did not work. The Member States of UNESCO refused to fund the projects, preferring to put their development funds into projects that they could manage themselves for political advantage (including, in some cases, corruption and exploitation).

    Alvaro de Soto, who had mediated the El Salvador peace accords, warned us at the time that it could not work. As part of the accords, the US and Europe had promised to fund land reform and judicial reform in El Salvador, but afterwards they reneged and never provided the funds they had promised. By the way, the same thing happened with the peace accords that established Zimbabwe. The UK never came through with the money they promised as part of the accords, to buy land from the white farmers and distribute to the African farmers. Eventually, President Mugabe got tired of waiting and seized the land and Zimbabwe was punished by international sanctions.

    In general, we came to realize that the powerful Member States of the UN do not want peace. They want to exploit the poor countries of the world and that requires the old method of the culture of war: “Divide and conquer.”

    Hopefully, Colombia can learn from the failures of the past and achieve a sustainable peace. As I have suggested in my previous blog, “Advice to Colombia,” they need to develop a network of local peace committees and keep them strong and independent so that they do not have to depend solely on the national government or United Nations support. Those of us in other countries can help with direct people-to people support; as Amada Benavides says, “Peacebuilding moment starts just now. Today we need more support than ever.”

    Proposal for a Radical Reform of the United Nations

    Featured

    As it is structured now, the United Nations is controlled by national governments, with their military institutions and military budgets. Over the course of history, national governments have come to monopolize war. As a result, if we are to make the transition from a culture of war to a culture of peace, we need a radical reform of the United Nations. Instead of being controlled by the Member States, it should be controlled by “We the Peoples,” the words that begin its Charter.

    Before making a proposal for such a radical reform, we need to consider the following:

    1) The national governments of the world increasingly ignore the United Nations when faced with global problems. Just this last month the major countries failed to send heads of state to the United Nations Humanitarian Summit. We first saw this trend with the global economic crisis of 2007-2008; the powerful states, meeting as the G-7, ignored the relevant financial institutions of the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and responded to the crisis with meetings of their finance ministers. Then in 2010, the powerful countries ignored the United Nations Non-proliferation conference and met in Washington in a parallel conference called by President Obama. Only Iran sent a head of state to the United Nations conference. Finally, even when the national governments attend a United Nations summit, the results are not adequate, as illustrated by the conferences to confront global warming in 2012 in Rio and 2015 in Paris.

    2) The global system of national governments periodically fails, leaving a void where other institutions can take their place. During the 20th Century this occurred twice with World Wars I and II, as well as during the global economic crisis beginning in 1929, and (for half of the world) with the economic, then political collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989. There is a growing awareness that the world is due for another economic (and political?) collapse, including a collapse of the American Empire, which may leave a temporary void in international decision-making. It may provide a “window of opportunity” for radical change.

    With this in mind, let us consider what a radical reform of the United Nations could look like.

    Let us begin with the proposal of the Pan-African Parliament, as reprinted in this month’s CPNN bulletin, for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. This would have the advantage that parliamentarians have less vested interest in the culture of war than do the representatives of national governments. Parliaments do not have military forces, although they may vote on military budgets. As the Parliament’s President explained, “It is long overdue that ‘We, the Peoples,’ as the UN Charter begins, have more say in global affairs.

    But the real problem is the Security Council. As the bulletin describes, there are many proposals to reform it, but they all continue to assume that it should be controlled by representatives of the Member States. Instead, we need a global organization where the decisions are made by “We, the peoples”. I can imagine two possibilities: a Security Council controlled by the mayors of the world, or one controlled by the parliaments of the world.

    Since such a reform cannot be achieved under the present system of national governments, it must await the “window of opportunity” of their next crash. In the meantime, I propose the establishment of an “Alternative Security Council” (ASC) composed of mayors or parliamentary representatives from all the regions of the world. This ASC would regularly consider the issues faced by the actual UN Security Council and publicize its “decisions” in order to provide an alternative vision of how the issues of war and peace could be managed at a global level. One can imagine that their decisions would be radically different concerning, for example, nuclear disarmament, approaches to the disasters in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, etc.  This would be a powerful force for consciousness-raising in the general public, and it could provide a model for an eventual radical reform of the UN.

    There are several ways that mayors and parliaments are organized globally, any of which could be represented in an Alternative Security Council:

    1) Regional organizations of parliaments such as the European Parliament, the Latin American Parliament and the Pan-African Parliament or of cities such as the Council of European Municipalities and Regions and the Arab Towns Organization.

    2) Global organizations of parliamentarians for peace such as Parliamentarians for Global Action or of mayors and cities for peace, as described in a recent CPNN bulletin.

    3) Global organizations of parliamentarians in general such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union or of cities in general such as the UCLG: Global Network of Cities, Local and Regional Governments.

    All that is needed in order to establish an Alternative Security Council at the present time is;

    a) an institutional host for the ASC, preferable a recognized international body that promotes a culture of peace;

    b) an agreement for membership of the ASC, which could be established with any one of the organizaions of mayors or parliaments mentioned above;

    c) a small secretariat to manage the Council by email (rather than actual meetings which would not be convenient, both because of the cost and because the members would not be free from their other tasks)

    d) a means to disseminate widely the decisions of the council, i.e. a network of partners for publicizing these decisions.

    e) a small budget which would be minimal if the sponsoring organization were receptive and if the secretariat and ASC members were volunteers.

    The time is now to prepare a new system that will be ready to install during the next window of opportunity. If we wait for the crash of the present system, it will be too late. The time is now for radical action. And here is an action we can do now: an alternative security council.

    Peace, nonviolence, compassion, and culture of peace

    Featured

    (Voir ci-dessous pour la version française)

    The various initiatives at the level of the city described in this month’s CPNN bulletin are devoted to these four different goals: peace, nonviolence, compassion and culture of peace.

    Certainly the initiatives are complementary and they have the potential to join in a unified struggle to change the world. But their unity remains to be achieved.

    What are their differences and advantages/disadvantages?

    At UNESCO, when we developed the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace for the UN system, we distinguished culture of peace from the traditional notion of peace. Peace, we reflected, is the period between wars when countries prepare for the their next wars. Culture of peace, instead, is a change in the culture so that wars become unnecessary, even impossible. Culture of peace was conceived as a political strategy to replace the culture of war. Each of the key characteristics of the culture of war was countered by its opposite in a culture of peace. For example, you cannot have a war if you have no enemy. It’s that simple!

    The complementarity of Culture of Peace and Nonviolence was recognized in the title of the United Nations Decade following the International Year for the Culture of Peace the United Nations International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-violence for the Children of the World.

    Whereas culture of peace was conceived specifically as a political strategy, nonviolence may be considered as a necessary tactic. Strategically, a culture of peace cannot be achieved by tactics that are violent. This is an important consideration if we analyze the history of the last few centuries. Revolutionary movements have succeeded in overthrowing cultures of war, but because their tactics were violent, they ended up establishing new cultures of war instead of cultures of peace.

    In this regard, let us recall the reasoning of Mahatma Gandhi. We have no enemies, only opponents whom we have yet to convince. To succeed, the struggle must be carried on at the level of ideas, dialogue and mediation rather than force and violence.

    It seems to me that we should advance under a banner of culture of peace as well as nonviolence. In that way we make it clear that this is a political strategy, not just a tactic, a strategy to replace the culture of war by a culture of peace.

    And what about compassion?

    Let us look closely at the text of the Charter for Compassion:

    “The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there, and to honour the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.”

    I see at least two aspects of this Charter that make an important contribution to the struggle for a culture of peace.

    First, it is not enough to have very rational strategy and tactics, unless we also have an emotional empathy and concern for “every single human being.” This is the cry of the heart that is needed to accompany the reasoning of the head.

    Second, the movement for a culture of peace should gather force from the millenia of religious, ethical and spiritual struggles that have gone before us to make a better world. While it is true that the concepts of nonviolence and culture of peace are relatively new, the struggle for a peaceful, nonviolent world is as old as humanity. Most of the great religions were established by prophets who rejected the violence of the societies in which they lived. They should be considered as the prophets of a culture of peace and nonviolence.

    Another world is possible! Let us develop the unity of all these initiatives and struggles in order to achieve it!

    * * * * * * * * * *

    Paix, non-violence, compassion et culture de la paix

    Les différentes initiatives au niveau de la ville, décrites dans le bulletin de CPNN ce mois-ci sont consacrées aux quatre objectifs suivant: la paix, la non-violence, la compassion et la culture de la paix.

    Certes, ces initiatives sont complémentaires et potentiellement capables de se joindre à une lutte unifiée pour changer le monde. Mais l’unité reste à accomplir !

    Quelles sont leurs différences, leurs avantages, et leurs desavantages?

    À l’UNESCO, lorsque nous avons développé la Déclaration et Programme d’action sur une culture de la paix pour le système des Nations Unies, nous avions fait une distinction entre la culture de la paix et la notion traditionelle de paix. La paix, nous avions réfléchi, est la période entre les guerres lorsque les pays se préparent pour leurs prochaines guerres. La culture de la paix, à la place, est un changement dans la culture afin que les guerres deviennent inutiles, voire impossible. La culture de la paix a été conçue comme une strategie politique pour remplacer la culture de guerre. Chacune des principales caractéristiques de la culture de la guerre a été contrée par son contraire dans la culture de la paix. Par exemple, vous ne pouvez pas avoir une guerre si vous n’avez pas d’ennemi ! C’est tout simple !

    La complémentarité de la culture de la paix et de la non-violence a été reconnue dans le titre de la Décennie des Nations Unies pour la suite de l’Année internationale de la culture de la paix: la Décennie internationale de la promotion d’une culture de la non-violence et de la paix au profit des enfants du monde (2001-2010).

    Considérant que la culture de la paix a été conçue spécifiquement comme une stratégie politique, la non-violence peut être considérée comme une tactique nécessaire. Stratégiquement, la culture de la paix ne peut pas s’établir par des tactiques violentes. Ceci est une considération importante si nous analysons l’histoire des derniers siècles. Les mouvements révolutionnaires ont réussi à renverser les cultures de guerre, mais parce que leurs tactiques étaient violentes. Hélas, ils ont fini par établir de nouvelles cultures de guerre au lieu de cultures de paix.

    À cet égard, rappelons le raisonnement du Mahatma Gandhi. Nous n’avons pas d’ennemis. Nous n’avons que des adversaires que nous n’avons pas encore convaincus. Pour réussir, la lutte doit être menée au niveau des idées, du dialogue et de la médiation plutôt que par la force et par la violence.

    Il me semble que nous devrions avancer sous la bannière de la culture de la paix, et de la non-violence. De cette façon, nous montrerions clairement que cela est une stratégie politique, et pas seulement une tactique, une stratégie visant à remplacer la culture de la guerre par une culture de la paix.

    Et qu’en est-il de la compassion?

    Regardons attentivement le texte de la Charte de la compassion:

    “Le précepte de compassion, qui est au coeur de toutes les traditions religieuses, spirituelles et éthiques, nous invite à toujours traiter autrui de la manière dont nous aimerions être traités nous-mêmes. La compassion nous incite à nous engager sans relâche à soulager les souffrances de tous les êtres et à apprendre à ne pas nous considérer nous-même comme le centre du monde, mais à être capable de placer autrui à cette place centrale. Elle nous enseigne à reconnaître le caractère sacré de chaque être humain, et à traiter chacune et chacun, sans aucune exception, avec un respect inconditionnel et dans un esprit de justice et d’équité.”

    Je vois au moins deux aspects dans cette Charte qui apportenaiet une contribution importante à la lutte pour la culture de la paix.

    Tout d’abord, il ne suffit pas d’avoir une stratégie et des tactiques très rationnelles. Il faut également avoir une empathie émotionnelle et le souci de «tout être humain.” Ceci est le cri du cœur qui est nécessaire pour accompagner le raisonnement de la tête.

    Deuxièmement, le mouvement pour la culture de la paix doit s’appuyer entre autre sur les millénaires de luttes religieuses, éthiques et spirituelles qui sont passés avant nous pour un monde meilleur. Il est vrai que les concepts de la non-violence et la culture de la paix sont relativement nouveaux, mais la lutte pour un monde non-violent et pacifique est aussi vieille que l’humanité. La plupart des grandes religions ont été créées par des prophètes qui ont rejeté la violence des sociétés dans lesquelles ils vivaient. Ils doivent être considérés comme les precurseurs d’une culture de la paix et de la non-violence.

    Un autre monde est possible! Développons l’unité de toutes ces initiatives et luttons pour y parvenir!

    African Leadership for the Culture of Peace

    Featured

    Africa is featured again this month on the CPNN bulletin, as it has been numerous times before, because of its leadership for a culture of peace.

    The recent articles illustrate what I wrote recently in the article Africa’s Contribution to the Global Movement for a Culture of Peace for the African journal, The Thinker.

    Culture of Peace Consciousness

    “Africa is the leading continent of the world for peace education and media for peace.” This is exemplified by actions described in articles this month from Cameroon, Mali, Tunisia, Congo and Ethiopia.

    Culture of Peace Methodologies

    Africa has shown its leadership in culture of peace methodologies that promote reconciliation and solidarity “with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa and the Gacaca in Rwanda, enabling Africans to overcome bitter conflicts and enter a path of reconciliation.” Recently we see movement towards African solidarity in Morocco, Sierra Leone, Chad and the Gambia.

    As we have often seen at CPNN, it is often the women of Africa who take the lead in culture of peace methodologies.

    Culture of Peace Institutions

    “During the transition period in South Africa following Nelson Mandela’s release from prison, as part of the National Peace Accord, a broad set of regional and local peace committees were established that united representatives from political organizations, trade unions, business, churches, police and security forces to resolve disputes at local and regional levels.”

    Culture of peace institutions are once again beginning to develop thanks to initiatives of the African Union, as indicated by their most recent assembly, their delegation to Burundi and their meeting of the Pan-African Network of the Wise, as well as their support for the UNESCO initiatives such as the African biennial for a culture of peace and the networks for African youth and women for culture of peace.

    Conclusion

    Historically, Africa may be in a good position to take a leadership role in the global movement, because in the course of history, with the exception of the ancient empires of Egypt, Africans did not develop culture of war empires and states to the same extent that they were developed in other continents. And the rich tradition of Pan-Africanism provides an alternative model to that of empires and states. A Pan-African union could be based on a culture of peace rather than culture of war. It would be within the tradition of peace-building by Nelson Mandela. And it would fulfill the dream of that great African-American, W.E.B. Dubois, which he shared at the end of his life with Kwame Nkrumah and the people of Ghana, an Africa at peace with itself and the world.

    Culture of Peace: Are we making progress?

    Featured

    This month’s bulletin gives us an idea of where progress is being made (or not being made) towards a culture of peace if we compare it to the CPNN bulletins of 2015.

    On the good side

    Progress is being made at  a grass-roots level by social movements for sustainable development and food sovereignty, often led or inspired by women and indigenous peoples.  Often this involves the return to traditional practices.

    On the bad side

    The national governments of the world, gathered in Paris, did nothing to reduce the global dependence on fossil fuels which makes development unsustainable, contributing to pollution and global warming.   Despite technical advances which begin to make renewable energy cheaper than fossil fuels, a large portion of technological innovation and development planning continues to favor the old unsustainable energy systems.

    On the good side

    Increasingly there are political movements against the policies of austerity that have been imposed by international financial institutions and national governments, policies that have accelerated the concentration of the world’s wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

    On the bad side

    The rich continue to get richer and the poor to get poorer, both within and between countries.  This is not just.  And it is not sustainable!

    On the good side

    Wise men and women tell us that the scourges of terrorism and displacement of peoples (refugees) cannot be defeated by more violence and xenophobic barriers, but we must address the roots of these problems by rejecting the culture of war and adopting policies corresponding to the culture of peace.

    On the bad side

    Influenced by the mass media and political demagogues, many people, perhaps a majority in many countries, continue to support policies of violence and xenophobia.

    On the good side

    After decades of civil war, Colombia is arriving at a peace accord with participation of the entire country and, in fact, all of Latin America.

    On the bad side

    Wars and civil wars, often fueled by the most developed countries, continue to plague much of the rest of the world.

    In sum, are we making progress?  It would seem that we are developing the base for a future culture of peace, but it will not come easily because at the higher levels of the world, things are getting worse.  Where is the United Nations in all this?  What if it could be reformed to really represent “we the peoples”, as stated in the opening lines of its Charter?  Imagine what it would be like if the Security Council were composed of representatives of the mayors of the world.  Do you think they would want to maintain nuclear weapons?  Or to make peace by bombing people?  Look, for example, at the recent approach of the mayors of Madrid and Paris!

    Some Advice to the New Generation

    Featured

    Kumi Naidoo of Greenpeace and the indigenous elders who came to Paris for the Climate Negotiations are correct in their assessment.

    As the elders say, “We have misplaced our trust in governmental leaders and the leaders of industry. They failed us by trying to maintain their profits, economies and their power over the people . . .  Those seeking profit and power have created a business of war and destruction that now threatens the lives of billions around the world . . . We can no longer wait for solutions from governmental and corporate leaders. We must all take action and responsibility to restore a healthy relationship with each other and Mother Earth.”

    And as Naidoo says, “We need substantial, structural, systemic change – and this change can only be led by the youth, who are not infected by the political pollution of the past.”

    With this wisdom in mind, I should like to offer some advice to the youth who are seeking “substantial, structural, systemic change.”  It concerns two needs: 1) a general raising of consciousness; and 2) the development of new institutions.

    At CPNN we are very familiar with the challenge of raising consciousness.  In contrast to the dominant culture of war that uses the mass media to justify their power and their violence, we are part of a growing movement of alternative media that seeks to provide what the people are seeking: the truth.

    Of course, the truth is not simple.  As Gandhi teaches us, the truth is mountain that we are climbing by many different paths, often invisible to each other.  We may not always understand each other’s truth, but we can always recognize the falsehoods of the propaganda for the culture of war by its emphasis on violence, fear and passivity.

    Never before have so many people come to the truth that we need a world without war.

    What is more difficult is the development of new institutions.  It often seems that the state has already pre-empted the possibilities for institution-building.  But the state, as I have shown in the History of the Culture of War, has come over the centuries to monopolize war to the point that it has become itself the embodiment of the culture of war.  Even when revolutionaries have sought to end war by taking over the state, they have simply ended up by creating new cultures of war.

    However, the state is neither stable nor necessary.

    Several times each century the state system collapses from the contradictions of its culture of war.  In the 20th Century we can point to four such crashes, two of them from the two world wars and two of them from the economic contradictions of the culture of war (the Great Depression and the crash of the Soviet empire).

    Nor are states necessary.  Human needs, as well as care of the environment, can be handled by local and regional government and coordinated at a global level by institutions such as those of the UN system.  For what is the state necessary?  For wars and war preparation and for the guarding of frontiers.

    So here is my advice: don’t worry about the state, but strengthen local, regional and global institutions that can replace the state next time the system crashes, so that we can arrive at a world without war or frontiers.

    Listen to the refugees

    Featured

    As we have emphasized previously, education for peace, to be effective, must be informed by an incisive understanding of the culture of war.

    And who knows better the culture of war than refugees?  In the rich countries  we consider war as a distant event that we see only on the television screens.  Even our warriors now sit in air-conditioned offices in the US where they guide remote-controlled drones that can destroy whole villages on the other side of the world.  But the refugees are coming from those villages.  They know what war is all about.

    Let us listen to the refugees!  Let them teach us that we must abolish war, that we must stop the bombing, stop the killing, and find non-violent ways to deal with conflict.

    Of course, as the articles this month in CPNN  indicate, it is the right and humane thing to welcome and integrate refugees into our societies, into our homes as Michael Moore demands.

    But more than that, our future depends on what we learn from these refugees.  If we do not learn from them to abolish war, our children and grandchildren will be the next generation of refugees.  Our empire is crashing and when the culture of war crashes, it may come about through war (1914, 1939) or through economic collapse (1929, 1989).  In either case it is the common people who suffer.  Cities and regions become unlivable and the people must flee from their homes.  Now this happens on the other side of the world.   But unless we learn and change to a culture of peace, tomorrow it will happen here!

    Let us listen and learn from the refugees!

    Écoutons les réfugiés !

    Featured

    Comme je l’ai souligné précédemment, l’éducation pour la paix, pour être efficace, doit avoir  une compréhension incisive de la culture de guerre.

    Et qui connaît mieux la culture de guerre que les réfugiés? Dans les pays riches, nous considérons la guerre comme un événement lointain que nous ne voyons que sur les écrans de télévision. Même nos guerriers sont assis dans des bureaux climatisés aux États-Unis d’où ils guident des drones télécommandés qui peuvent détruire des villages entiers de l’autre côté du monde. Mais les réfugiés viennent de ces villages. Ils savent ce qu’est la guerre en direct.

    Ecoutons les !  Ils nous enseignent que nous devons abolir la guerre, que nous devons arrêter les bombardements, arrêter les massacres, et trouver des moyens non-violents pour résoudre les conflits.

    Comme nous l’indiquons ce mois-ci via CPNN c’est une bonne chose d’accueillir et d’intégrer les réfugiés dans nos sociétés,  de les accueillir dans nos maisons à l’exemple de la demande de Michael Moore.

    Mais plus que cela, notre avenir dépend de ce que nous apprenons de ces réfugiés. Si nous n’apprenons pas de leur part la nécessité d’abolir la guerre, nos enfants et nos petits enfants seront la prochaine génération de réfugiés. Notre empire est en train de s’écrouler et nous savons que quand cela arrive aux empires, nous aboutissons à la guerre (1914, 1939) ou à l’effondrement économique (1929, 1989). Dans les deux cas, ce sont les gens ordinaires qui souffrent.  Des villes et des régions deviennent invivables et les gens doivent fuir leur maison.  Maintenant, ça se passe à l’autre côté du monde.  Mais à moins que nous n’apprenions et que nous changions pour une culture de paix, demain cela arrivera ici !
    Ecoutons les réfugiés pour apprendre de leurs expériences !

    The Colombia Peace Process and Education for Peace

    Featured

    Several years ago (September 2013 to be exact), I posed the question in this blog, “What Kind of Peace Education?” and responded that an effective program of peace education must begin by analyzing the culture of war. But this approach is strongly opposed by those who hold state power because, in fact, their power is based on that culture.

    Therefore, it was a refreshing change to hear the discussions when I took part last month in the National Encounter for Peace Education for post-conflict Colombia. The people of Colombia know very well what is the culture of violence and war, as they have experienced it for many decades, and now that a peace accord is being reached, they want to change from that culture to a culture of peace.

    An especially clear exposition of this kind of peace education is made by Alicia Cabezudo, who also took part in the Encounter. As she says in her essay, reprinted by CPNN, “violence, and especially the ‘culture of violence’ needs to be analyzed and studied in the content of education for peace because the concealment of violence in the educational system serves to legitimize violence and makes it more difficult to study and understand its causes and search for its roots. The analysis of violence, including the actors and the specific context is needed if we are to identify and select potential solutions to this violence.”

    As Alicia says, “one of the characteristics of education for the Culture of Peace is the social construction of knowledge, following the educational precepts of the famous Brazilian educator Paulo Freire.” Education should be a process of democratic participation: “Not only teachers, but also student representatives, parents associations and relevant members of the education community should be involved in establishment of the curriculum and how it is taught.”

    The National Encounter was organized in a culture of peace manner. Most of the time we sat in small circles in workshops, face-to-face, and exchanged ideas, listening to each other rather than “talking at each other.” As I remark in my description of the event, there was a remarkably high proportion of young people involved in these discussions. It is evident that the youth of Colombia wish to construct a new society of peace. And they realize that it must be “peace” in the broad sense, not just the absence of war but a culture of peace.

    There was a rumor that President Santos might stop by the Encounter on his way back from Havana where he was taking part in the negotiations around the Peace Accord. After all, he was elected President on a platform of peace, and only a week before had taken part in a nationally televised program on peace education with some of the educators who organized our Encounter.

    Although the peace initiatives of the national government are needed and applauded by the people, they realize full well, as Alicia insists, that this “should not be only an agreement between the government and the guerrillas or the paramilitaries – It is and should be an agreement of everyone. It is and should be an agreement in which the civil society participates actively. For that reason, it is an educational theme par excellence.”

    The message that I brought to Colombia from South Africa (see my previous blog) was one that they were ready to hear and take seriously, that they should “develop a network of local peace committees and keep them strong and independent so that [they] do not have to depend solely on the national government to maintain the peace.”

    As Alicia says, peace education has a crucial role in the peace process: “Peace Education should be used as a tool, a way to facilitate the return to peace at the territorial level; the democratization of the political, social and economic system, and the effective practice of social solidarity and equitable justice . . . Never before has a peace process after an armed conflict been accompanied simultaneously by a pedagogy of building a culture of peace as it is being discussed today in Colombia. It’s an opportunity that must not be wasted.”

    *  *  *  *  *  *

    Le processus de paix en Colombie et l’éducation pour la paix

     Il y a plusieurs années (Septembre 2013 pour être exact), je posais la question dans ce blog: “Quelle éducation pour la paix?” et j’ai répondu qu’un programme efficace d’éducation pour la paix doit commencer par analyser la culture de guerre. Mais cette approche est fortement contestée par ceux qui tiennent le pouvoir de l’Etat parce que, en fait, leur pouvoir est fondé sur cette culture.

    Par conséquent, ce fut un changement rafraîchissant que d’entendre les discussions lorsque je pris part le mois dernier à la Rencontre nationale pour l’éducation pour la paix en Colombie post-conflit.  Les Colombiens savent très bien ce qu’est la culture de la violence et de la guerre, parce qu’ils l’ont vécue pendant de nombreuses décennies, et maintenant que l’accord de paix est atteint, ils veulent passer de cette culture à une culture de paix.

    Un exposé particulièrement clair de ce genre d’éducation pour la paix a été fait par Alicia Cabezudo, qui a également pris part à la rencontre. Comme elle le dit dans son essai, réimprimé par CPNN, “la violence, et en particulier la« culture de la violence »doit être analysée et étudiée dans le contenu de l’éducation pour la paix parce que la dissimulation de la violence dans le système éducatif sert à la légitimer, ce qui la rend plus difficile à étudier, à comprendre ses causes et à rechercher ses racines.  L’analyse de la violence, y compris les acteurs et le contexte spécifique est nécessaire si nous voulons identifier et sélectionner les solutions possibles à cette violence.”

    Comme le dit Alicia, “l’une des caractéristiques de l’éducation pour la culture de paix est la construction sociale de la connaissance, en suivant les préceptes éducatifs du célèbre pédagogue brésilien Paulo Freire”:  L’éducation devrait être un processus de participation démocratique: “Non seulement les enseignants, mais aussi les représentants des étudiants, les associations de parents et les membres concernés de la communauté de l’éducation doivent être impliqués dans l’établissement du programme et comment il est enseigné.”

    La rencontre nationale a été organisée dans l’esprit de la culture de paix. La plupart du temps nous nous sommes assis en petits cercles dans les ateliers, en face-à-face, et avons échangé des idées en s’écoutant les uns les autres, plutôt que de parler sans s’écouter.  Comme je le remarque dans ma description de l’événement, il y avait une proportion remarquablement élevée de jeunes impliqués dans ces discussions. Il est évident que les jeunes de Colombie souhaitent construire une nouvelle société de paix. Et ils se rendent compte que ce doit être la «paix» au sens large, et pas seulement l’absence de guerre, mais une vraie culture de paix.

    Une rumeur a couru que le président Santos pourrait passer par notre conference sur le chemin du retour de La Havane où il prenait part aux négociations autour de l’accord de paix. Après tout, il a été élu président sur une plateforme de la paix, et seulement une semaine avant il avait pris part à un programme télévisé à l’échelle nationale sur l’éducation de la paix avec certains des éducateurs qui ont organisé notre rencontre.

    Bien que les initiatives de paix du gouvernement national soient nécessaires et aient été applaudies par le peuple, celui-ci réalise très bien, comme insiste Alicia, que ce “ne doit pas être seulement un accord entre le gouvernement et la guérilla ou les paramilitaires – Il est et doit être un accord de tout le monde. Il est et doit être un accord dans lequel la société civile participe activement. Pour cette raison, il est un thème éducatif par excellence.”

    Comme écrit dans le blog de septembre, de mon voyage en Afrique du Sud, j’ai apporté un message aux gens de Colombie, un message qu’ils étaient prêts à entendre et à prendre au sérieux: “vous devez développer un réseau de comités de paix locaux et garder ces comités forts et indépendants afin de ne pas dépendre uniquement du gouvernement national pour maintenir la paix.”

    Comme le dit Alicia, l’éducation pour la paix a un rôle crucial dans le processus de paix: “L’education pour la Paix doit être utilisée comme un outil, un moyen de faciliter le retour à la paix au niveau territorial; la démocratisation du système politique, économique et sociale, et la pratique effective de la solidarité sociale et de la justice équitable. . . . Jamais auparavant après un conflit armé un processus de paix a été accompagné simultanément par une pédagogie de la construction d’une culture de paix comme il est discuté aujourd’hui en Colombie. C’est une occasion qui ne doit pas être manquée.”

    Advice to Colombia for the Peace Process

    Featured

    As described in this month’s CPNN bulletin, Colombia is preparing for peace as the peace talks advance between the Government and FARC. Local and regional peace initiatives, as well as a national move for peace education, are taking place in this context. It seems that Colombia will achieve peace accords that allow the election of a unity government that represents all of the people. But we should ask the question about what comes next. Can one trust that a unity government will continue the serve the people, or will it become corrupt?

    I am reminded of the situation 25 years ago in South Africa when the peace talks between the apartheid government of South Africa and Nelson Mandela inspired the entire country to prepare for peace. At that time a network of local peace committees was established. At their peak in the early 1990’s, there were 11 regional committees and over one hundred local peace committees, with an annual budget of almost $12 million which enabled the hiring of full time staff for regional offices. These committees united representatives from political organizations, trade unions, business, churches, police and security forces to resolve disputes at local and regional levels. They engaged people directly in conflict management on a grass roots level throughout the country.

    Earlier this year, I had the chance to spend a month in South Africa and to meet with social activists who had been active in the anti-apartheid movement. The told me that they regret now that they abandoned the network of local peace committees, because the national government has become so corrupt they can no longer work with it. The corruption is exemplified by the alleged involvement of Cyril Ramaphosa in the massacre of striking mine workers three years ago.

    The massacre took place in 2012 at the Lonmin platinum mines near Marikana, South Africa where 41 striking mineworkers were killed and many more injured, mostly by the police, many of them shot in the back. The strike was carried out by workers opposed to the leadership of their union, the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), which they considered to have sold out the company interests. The NUM was founded by Cyril Ramaphosa, after which Ramaphosa became the leader of COSATU, the national organization of trade unions, and then leader of the ANC, and now Vice President of South Africa.

    Most recently, according to an article in Jeune Afrique, the leader of EFF, the new political party opposed to the ANC, announced the filing of a legal complaint against Ramaphosa, for having had “a decisive effect on the final decision of deliberating the mass murder of the miners at Marikana”. At the time of the massacre, Ramaphosa, in addition to being Vice-President of the country and founder of the National Union of Mineworkers, was also a shareholder in Lonmin. Ramaphosa is accused by the leader of the radical left to have insisted that the police should break the strike. Although there was an official investigation after the massacre, its mandate did not allow it to investigate the role of government members in ordering the police action.

    One year after the massacre, one commentator concluded: “Perhaps the most important lesson of Marikana is that the state can gun down dozens of black workers with little or no backlash from ‘civil society’, the judicial system or from within the institutions that supposedly form the bedrock of democracy. What we have instead is the farcical Farlam commission, an obvious attempt to clear the state’s role in the massacre and prevent any sort of real investigation into the actions of the police on that day. In other words, the state can get away with mass murder, with apparent impunity in terms of institutional conceptions of justice and political accountability.”

    Meanwhile, Ramaphosa has become one of South Africa’s richest men, with Forbes Magazine estimating his wealth at $275 million. Many believe that he is in line to be elected the next President of South Africa.

    Hopefully, the activists in South Africa can revive a network of local peace committees. And hence, my advice to the people of Colombia: develop a network of local peace committees and keep them strong and independent so that you do not have to depend solely on the national government to maintain the peace.

    Political will – Will it be there for the global meeting on climate change?

    Featured

    This is the question posed by this month’s CPNN bulletin with regard to the global meeting on climate change to take place at the end of the year in Paris.

    It is generally agreed, at least by the citizens of the world, that we need to reverse the global warming that comes from the exhausts of power plants, automobiles, factories, airplanes, etc.

    So what has been keeping national governments from reaching agreements all these years, despite the desires of their citizens? Where has there been democracy?

    The first and most obvious reason has been the powerful lobbies of the oil industry and their allies that have tried to deny the obvious fact that there is global warming and that it comes from their pollution. They have tried to convince us with pseudo-scientific articles. By now, however, the peoples of the world have seen through their false propaganda and they overwhelmingly demand action to stop global warming.

    But more important, the big corporations have paid legislators not to take action that could reduce their profits. In other words they have corrupted the national governments.

    The outcome in Paris will depend on the relative weight of corruption and democracy.

    What should we expect?

    If nuclear armaments are any precedent, we should expect that democracy will lose, that corruption will win, and that global warming will continue.

    After all, we have known for decades that nuclear weapons are an even greater danger than global warming for the future of our planet, and yet there has been no effective action to eliminate them. This year the meeting of national governments at the United Nations in May produced no agreement. Why? Because the United States followed the political demands of Israel that their weapons program should not be questioned.

    National governments are corrupted. In my opinion they are hopelessly corrupted. By the culture of war. Over the centuries, for millennia, in fact, they have come to monopolize war and to construct their power on its basis. Their power has been shared with the miltary-industrial complex, and more recently the military-industrial-media complex, since the media also have been corrupted.

    For this reason, it is of the utmost importance that cities, provinces and regions, as well as civil society, have taken up the cause of preventing climate change. Unlike national governments, they cannot make war, and hence they are relatively free from the culture of war. This month we recognized climate initiatives by the provinces and regions of the Americas, by the mayors of the world meeting with the Pope, by mayors from Africa and Europe meeting with the mayor of Paris, and by the civil society meeting in Mozambique, as well as election results from the oil-rich province of Alberta, Canada, where voters threw out the incumbent party and elected candidates who pledged to establish tougher policies against climate change.

    The leadership of cities, provinces and regions to prevent climate change is a good precedent for their leadership on a more general level, the transition from a culture of war to a culture of peace.

    How One Culture of War Begets Another

    Featured

    In this month’s CPNN bulletin, we read how the “unjustifiable” war in Iraq has been a major cause of the rise of the barbaric ‘Islamic State’ in the region.  This observation comes from two important figures in our time, Ismail Serageldin, head of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, and Mary Robinson, formerly President of Ireland, then High Commissioner for Human Rights, and now one of the “Elders.”

    Let us expand on their analysis.  The forces that now lead the Islamic State received their arms from the American Empire (i.e. the United States, NATO, and their allies) in order to take part in the overthrow of President Assad in Syria, and then they captured arms that had been sent by the US to Iraq in order to overthrow President Sadam Hussein.  And then there is Boko Haram and Al-Shabab in Africa who are inspired by the Islamic State even through they lack the heavy weapons.  But let us expand in time as well as in space.  The Islamic State is a successor to Al Quaeda and Osama Bin Laden who got their arms and training in the beginning as part of the war of the American Empire against the Russians in Afghanistan.  And Sadam Hussein was armed by the American Empire as part of their war against the Iran that came after they had overthrown the legitimate democracy of Mossadegh.

    And so, over time, the West’s culture of war has reproduced its mirror image in the Middle East – another military empire.  One culture of war has armed, trained and justified another.  One must say “justified” because the Islamic State, like its predecessor Al Quaeda, attracts its recruits by promising to rid the region of the American Empire!

    Perhaps, some readers will be shocked to consider the Islamic State as the mirror image of the American Empire.  But think carefully.  Which one has killed the most people?  Which one has produced the most inter-tribal, inter-religious, inter-ethnic conflicts?  And is it better to kill with drones than by beheading?

    And now, as the Western Empire prepares its military options in an attempt to destroy the Islamic State, what new monsters will it create?  And are there not already new monsters arising from the ashes of their military intervention to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi in Libya?  Not to mention the military aid and advice provided to fascists in the Ukraine. . .

    Where will it end?  Perhaps very simply by the bankruptcy of the West.  These wars are very expensive, and they continue to add to unsustainable national debts.   While it may seem that the production of arms provides jobs to sustain their economies, the people of the American Empire cannot eat or find shelter from the weapons they produce.  As Marx once said, the production of arms is like throwing money into the sea.  Or to quote a more contemporary specialist, the economist Lloyd Dumas, in his book The Overburdened Economy, shows how military production has a general negative effect on the economy.

    And as for the Islamic State, perhaps it does not need to worry about bankruptcy, but once it loses its enemy, the American Empire, it will lose its claim to legitimacy, and will not be able to sustain itself.  For, as Hina Jilani reminds us, they are not about religion, but only control.  “It’s not about religion or any attempt to impose any kind of religious values, because those values are obviously values of peace, of tolerance, of humanity. ”

    So, what should we be doing?

    Planting Seeds for a Culture of Peace

    Featured

    As stated above, the American Empire and its mirror image in the Middle East, are destined to collapse.  The most important question is what will come next.  Will new empires arise quickly to take their place?  Will they be fascist regimes (extreme cultures of war), which is what happened after the economic collapse that began in 1929?  Or will we have a window of opportunity to make a culture of peace instead of a new culture of war?

    The answer depends upon what we do now.  Have we prepared the ground and sowed enough seeds for a for a culture of peace?

    In Ismail Serageldin’s “Cultural Program to Reject Extremism and Violence” he refers to the arts as “seeds of hope.”   This is what we should be planting.

    A culture of peace is just that:  a culture.  Cultures are not constructed.  They are cultivated, and the first steps of cultivation are preparing the ground and planting the seeds.  In my latest book, Embrace the Fire: Plant the seeds for a Culture of Peace, I consider the myriad initiatives that we have read about in CPNN over the years to be like seeds for a new culture.  Of course, like the planting of seeds in general, not every seed will survive and grow.  But if we continue planting them, eventually enough of them will survive to produce a new culture.   It is not only the culture of war that reproduces itself, but the culture of peace can do so as well – but by a very different method.

    I was very impressed by a visit last year to see the giant sequoias in California and to learn that their seeds can only be productive after they have passed through a fire.  And so we may look at the culture of peace like the sequoias.  The seeds we plant will have to pass through the fiery death of the culture of war and survive to start a new culture that will replace it afterwards.

    This approach requires patience and a long-range vision of history.  The results do not arrive quickly.  It requires the attitude of the farmer who assumes the cycle of seasons.  It assumes the old prophetic wisdom: “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted. . . ”

    As usual, CPNN this month describes seeds of hope.  If we go to the original essay of Serageldin we find many seeds of hope, some of which have been planted already, and some that need resources in order to be planted.  Then look at the work being done by Syrian women: stopping child marriage, uniting refugees and host communities, policing the streets, listening to marginalized groups, reopening schools, helping families survive, reforming corrupt courts, vaccinating children, disarming youth and mobilizing a movement for peace.  If we go to the International Symposium of the Pan-African Centre for Social Prospects for Peace and Development through Interfaith and Intercultural Dialogue, we find the planting of a culture of peace in Africa.   Also in Africa we find graffiti art employed as a tool for social change to promote women’s rights, including equal pay and educational access.

    Also, as usual, there are many good examples from Latin America.   Several come from Colombia, where the people have suffered from war for many decades and now there are seeds of peace coming to fruition.  The negotiations between the FARC revolutionary movement and the government are moving forward with the decision to establish a Commission for Clarification of Truth, Coexistence and Non-Repetition.  The national law for teaching peace is in the course of implementation.  And in the Caribbean region of Colombia a regional peace assembly is being developed.

    Are we doing enough?  Probably not.  And do we have a lot of time?  Probably not.  I fear that the American Empire cannot last much longer, and when it crashes, its allies and its mirror images will probably crash as well, just as the crash of the Soviet Empire led to the collapse of most of its allies.

    Let us redouble our efforts.  We are racing against time.

    Food Sovereignty is Culture of Peace

    Featured

    In CPNN this month, we ask the question “What is the relation between peasant movements for food sovereignty and the global movement for a culture of peace?”

    Here is my own response to the question.  It is based on the many articles in CPNN this month about the global movement of peasants for food sovereignty.

    Yes, they are an important part of the global movement for a culture of peace, for several reasons.

    First, they are the first line of defense against one of the main advances of the culture of war.  As we said in the document that we sent from UNESCO to the UN to define the culture of peace, it “represents a major change in the concept of economic growth which, in the past, could be considered as benefitting from military supremacy and structural violence and achieved at the expense of the vanquished and the weak.”  What better way to describe the advances of a few transnational corporations, supported by so-called “free-trade treaties” who are attempting to monopolize the seeds that farmers use throughout the world and to impose monoculture agriculture based on their seeds and their pesticides?

    The transnational corporations are supported by the power (ultimately military) of nation states around the world, not only by the great powers, but also by the governments of the small countries.  An example is Guatemala, where despite pressure from a strong peasant movement to support a Rural Integral Development law, the law is blocked by a coalition of right-wing parties.

    Second, the peasant movements are organized not only locally, and to an increasing extent, on a global scale.  Look at the map of protests on April 17, the International Day of Peasant Struggle against Transnational Companies and Free Trade Agreements. There are actions on every continent.

    The peasant movements are based ultimately on the wisdom and experience of their ancestors as described in the blog from this February, “Listen to the indigenous people.”  This is clearly stated in the declaration of the 6th Congress of the Latin American Coordination of Countryside Organizations: “We emerged from the heart itself of the 500-year process of indigenous, peasant, black and popular resistance.”

    The peasant struggle ultimately concerns all of us.  As we concluded in the February blog, we need to “organize local cooperatives and local food production instead of importation and agro-business . . .  In this way we can protect ourselves against the crash of the American empire and the global economy that it manages.”

    Finally, we can say that the peasant movement for sustainable agriculture is not only part of the global movement for a culture of peace, but perhaps its most critical component because it will enable us to survive after the crash and during the period when it may be possible to make a transition from the culture of war to a culture of peace.  For this reason it is especially important that we see more and more young people turning back to small-scale, “human-scale” farming, as described in the CPNN interview this month.