A few resources relating to efforts to promote peace in the midst of the conflict:
"Churches can't be silent on D.R. Congo humanitarian catastrophe" is the headline of a report of a World Council of Churches Delegation, which goes on to say:
The ecumenical delegation congratulated President Kabila for "having chosen and privileged the path of dialogue in order to achieve peace". The group plans to meet Rwandan President Paul Kagame in the coming days or weeks, as well as "other actors able to contribute to the resolution of the current crisis," which includes the Congolese rebels leader Laurent Nkunda.
Reaffirming the commitment of the churches in Burundi, Rwanda and D.R. Congo "to work together for peace, healing and reconciliation in the region," the group made an "urgent appeal to the concerned governments and the international community to protect civilians, children, women, and the elderly by applying the agreements already achieved".
Leaders of an inter-faith agency, Inter-Faith Action for Peace in Africa (IFAPA) also "appealed to the continent’s religious leaders to urgently engage political leadership in the DRC and neighboring countries to end a crisis for which civilians continued to suffer the greatest atrocities." we read on Ekklesia"
And US Friends, through Friends Committee on National Legislation and American Friends Service Committee have written to Condoleeza Rice, saying:
Fighting and unspeakable atrocities have continued in the DRC for far too long. Promoting a sustainable peace, protecting civilians, and providing humanitarian relief can be achieved with these recommended steps. We appreciate your immediate attention and support your leadership role in addressing the urgent crisis in Congo.
Friday, 14 November 2008
Wednesday, 12 November 2008
A week on from Barack Obama's election...
Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian writes: "The president-elect is not a dove - he is just a much smarter hawk". and goes onto detail some of the ways in which he perceives the Obama's approach to be more nuanced and sharply focused on current peace and war issues, concluding:
"In every sphere, Obama marks a break from the recent past. He will not be perfect; the disappointments will be real and may come soon. But for now, at least, we are entitled to that sigh of relief - and even the odd yelp of joy."
Ira Chernus, writing ('Obama' for Lefties) on CommonDreams, suggests... "Barack Obama is the name of a person. "Obama" is also the name of a new mood -- a new tone and sensibility -- that has somehow risen up in every section of this country. It's a sense of open-ended possibility that hasn't been felt since the time of JFK" .... but also recognises the limitations of what we should expect.... "We don't have to appear as cautious and timid as Obama. We couldn't, even if we wanted to. But we can learn how to talk to people who don't share our values, how to take their needs and concerns into account, even how to work together with them, without sacrificing our principles. If we do that, we can use the new mood of change as a window of opportunity to persuade the whole nation to continue moving leftward. That possibility is what the name "Obama" symbolizes. But the new president certainly won't do it for us. We have to do it ourselves."
A particular challenge that he may face is that of US army reservists who are refusing to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, described here where two of them write: "By refusing activation we are refusing to participate in wars that serve the purposes of furthering the careers of politicians and high-ranking officers. We openly support other IRR [Individual Ready Reserves] members who follow in these footsteps. ... we turn to organizations like Courage to Resist, Iraq Veterans Against the War and many other large scale and grassroots organizations to solicit change in a largely unrepresentative democracy, and, to allow the voices of the people to ring through the halls of the Capital."
And finally, for now, an interesting and helpful analysis by Jim Lobe, Obama Foreign Policy May Not Require a Clean Break
We musn't undervalue the significance of the election – the Obama 'mood' and the momentum of the election are a positive in so many ways - but no-one, not even he, will be able to please all the activists all of the time.
"In every sphere, Obama marks a break from the recent past. He will not be perfect; the disappointments will be real and may come soon. But for now, at least, we are entitled to that sigh of relief - and even the odd yelp of joy."
Ira Chernus, writing ('Obama' for Lefties) on CommonDreams, suggests... "Barack Obama is the name of a person. "Obama" is also the name of a new mood -- a new tone and sensibility -- that has somehow risen up in every section of this country. It's a sense of open-ended possibility that hasn't been felt since the time of JFK" .... but also recognises the limitations of what we should expect.... "We don't have to appear as cautious and timid as Obama. We couldn't, even if we wanted to. But we can learn how to talk to people who don't share our values, how to take their needs and concerns into account, even how to work together with them, without sacrificing our principles. If we do that, we can use the new mood of change as a window of opportunity to persuade the whole nation to continue moving leftward. That possibility is what the name "Obama" symbolizes. But the new president certainly won't do it for us. We have to do it ourselves."
A particular challenge that he may face is that of US army reservists who are refusing to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, described here where two of them write: "By refusing activation we are refusing to participate in wars that serve the purposes of furthering the careers of politicians and high-ranking officers. We openly support other IRR [Individual Ready Reserves] members who follow in these footsteps. ... we turn to organizations like Courage to Resist, Iraq Veterans Against the War and many other large scale and grassroots organizations to solicit change in a largely unrepresentative democracy, and, to allow the voices of the people to ring through the halls of the Capital."
And finally, for now, an interesting and helpful analysis by Jim Lobe, Obama Foreign Policy May Not Require a Clean Break
We musn't undervalue the significance of the election – the Obama 'mood' and the momentum of the election are a positive in so many ways - but no-one, not even he, will be able to please all the activists all of the time.
Monday, 10 November 2008
Opportunities and responsibilities
There are some interesting personal and official response from Friends Committee on National Legislation.
First, their statement...
Opportunity Knocks--Are We Ready? from Joe Volk, Executive Secretary, detailing what they see as some specific opportunities for FCNL in the first months of 2009Source: Friends Committee on National Legislation, which concludes:
First, their statement...
Opportunity Knocks--Are We Ready? from Joe Volk, Executive Secretary, detailing what they see as some specific opportunities for FCNL in the first months of 2009Source: Friends Committee on National Legislation, which concludes:
On Tuesday night, President-Elect Obama said, "This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change, and that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you. So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of service and responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other."
We at FCNL look forward to working with President Obama on these opportunities.
On the less formal level, staff members and programme assistants have taken a step back to contribute personal responses to the landmark election in a series of blog pieces. In one of these, Alex Martin writes of his sense of responsibility:
Millions of people who felt alienated by or just indifferent to politics, in the sense of our common civic project, have been connected to it by the two-year drama that has just concluded. Suddenly, they feel they have a stake. For a time, anyway, we feel like a people. How will we harness this energy? How will we keep people engaged in solving the tremendous problems we confront?
I also feel great privilege, because I work for an organization dedicated to precisely this purpose. FCNL has never been more relevant. Never has there been greater need for our work: to show people ways to remain involved with their government, and to continually remind our new leaders of the causes of peace, justice, and stewardship, so that together we may build the world we seek.
And those of us working in other parts of the world can share that sense of privilege and responsibility by holding our own leaders to account in pursuit of the same goals, and drawing inspiration from the possibilities of drawing communities together for a common cause.
Friday, 7 November 2008
Remembrance
An interesting piece from Ekklesia's Jonathan Bartley today .... The default politics of Remembrance
On Remembrance Sunday, thousands of services will take place, commemorating - as the Church, state and the British Legion put it with one accord - “those who have given their lives for the peace and freedom we enjoy today”. But the political, and for that matter theological implications of such a perspective, will be quietly ignored. This should be, they say with equal agreement, an impartial event, devoid of political considerations.
But it isn’t. Because this is in reality Remember-In-A-Certain-Way Sunday ....
... if we accept the Remembrance Day rhetoric, that soldiers laid down their lives to give us the liberties we enjoy today, then surely that must include the freedom to choose how we remember the dead, and say what we believe?
Meanwhile, the Yorkshire Evening Post carried a number of letters on the theme, including the following from Martin Schweiger:
On Tuesday the YEP letters page carried three letters making the case for wearing poppies to remind us of the sacrifice made by so many servicemen and women and importantly supporting the Poppy Appeal. The red poppies are an echo of human bloodshed upon the battle fields of the First World War while flowers grew and bloomed nearby.
I suggest that today we should complement the red poppies with white poppies to mark a determination that we should not forget the past but learn from it and strive to build lasting peace between people and between nations.
Simply buying a red poppy and wearing it will not solve all the problems of those whose lives have been damaged by conflict. Simply buying and wearing a white poppy will not bring about an instant end to all conflict. However we have to start somewhere and the poppies, red and white give us a starting point.
Martin Schweiger, Member of Roundhay (Leeds) Quaker Meeting
On Remembrance Sunday, thousands of services will take place, commemorating - as the Church, state and the British Legion put it with one accord - “those who have given their lives for the peace and freedom we enjoy today”. But the political, and for that matter theological implications of such a perspective, will be quietly ignored. This should be, they say with equal agreement, an impartial event, devoid of political considerations.
But it isn’t. Because this is in reality Remember-In-A-Certain-Way Sunday ....
... if we accept the Remembrance Day rhetoric, that soldiers laid down their lives to give us the liberties we enjoy today, then surely that must include the freedom to choose how we remember the dead, and say what we believe?
Meanwhile, the Yorkshire Evening Post carried a number of letters on the theme, including the following from Martin Schweiger:
On Tuesday the YEP letters page carried three letters making the case for wearing poppies to remind us of the sacrifice made by so many servicemen and women and importantly supporting the Poppy Appeal. The red poppies are an echo of human bloodshed upon the battle fields of the First World War while flowers grew and bloomed nearby.
I suggest that today we should complement the red poppies with white poppies to mark a determination that we should not forget the past but learn from it and strive to build lasting peace between people and between nations.
Simply buying a red poppy and wearing it will not solve all the problems of those whose lives have been damaged by conflict. Simply buying and wearing a white poppy will not bring about an instant end to all conflict. However we have to start somewhere and the poppies, red and white give us a starting point.
Martin Schweiger, Member of Roundhay (Leeds) Quaker Meeting
Thursday, 6 November 2008
Hope from across the pond?
The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States is a great moment for America and the world – a time of celebration and tears. .... We have restored hope and made possible the restoration of America’s credibility in the world.
writes David Krieger in President-elect Obama and a World Free of Nuclear Weapons
concluding:
For the first time since Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev met at the Reykjavik, Iceland Summit in 1986 and came close to reaching an agreement on abolishing nuclear weapons, the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons appears to be within the realm of possibility. This will require presidential leadership, and the President-elect will need support and encouragement from the American people and from people throughout the world.
American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) meanwhile, with many other organisations, has issued a
"... call on the next U.S. President and administration to engage in a new foreign policy based on these five core principles. 1. Our nation should invest in peace. 2. Strengthen the civilian agencies that work on peace and development issues. 3. Give diplomacy a chance. 4. Be a part of global peacebuilding efforts. 5. Create justice through good development and trade policies."
in its Roadmap for Peace
writes David Krieger in President-elect Obama and a World Free of Nuclear Weapons
concluding:
For the first time since Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev met at the Reykjavik, Iceland Summit in 1986 and came close to reaching an agreement on abolishing nuclear weapons, the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons appears to be within the realm of possibility. This will require presidential leadership, and the President-elect will need support and encouragement from the American people and from people throughout the world.
American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) meanwhile, with many other organisations, has issued a
"... call on the next U.S. President and administration to engage in a new foreign policy based on these five core principles. 1. Our nation should invest in peace. 2. Strengthen the civilian agencies that work on peace and development issues. 3. Give diplomacy a chance. 4. Be a part of global peacebuilding efforts. 5. Create justice through good development and trade policies."
in its Roadmap for Peace
Thursday, 9 October 2008
Money and peace part 3
Scotland's for Peace, the umbrella / coalition of peace-minded organisations in Scotland, is planning an event to take place on 25th October that asks What else could the money be spent on?
The money they have in mind is that which is currently tied up in military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan and in maintaining and developing the UK's nuclear weapons, present and future.
They are calling for a People's Budget for Peace...
Here are some of their questions:
How would YOU spend the money ?
- Would you use it to launch a major housebuilding programme to provide affordable housing for homeless and inadequately housed families ?
- Would you use it to increase spending on health and education and create thousands of new public sector jobs ?
- Would you increase spending on health and education and to create a ground breaking rewable energy industry in Scotland ?
- Would you use it to increase overseas aid and debt relief to tackle poverty across the wor.d ?
What you can do
- Come along to the rally in George Square, Glasgow on Saturday 25 October and tell us how you would spend the money.
- Ask your MP and MSP to vote against Trident replacement and for British withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan
Money .... and peace part 2
Robin Robison, QPSW's former staff member on economics issues, writes in today's issue of The Friend (readable online only by subscribers) about the possible consequences of the financial crisis. He highlights the threat to achieving the Millenium Development Goals, reflecting a concern expressed powerfully by UN Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro in a 6th October press-release ...
Noting that Africa remains the region with the greatest challenges ahead, particularly against the backdrop of much higher food and energy prices and climate change, she called for increasing and better coordinating aid, reducing agricultural subsidies in developed countries, and investing more in infrastructure.
"Let’s make sure the financial crisis does not divert our efforts," she appealed to Member States. "If we are to take away any lesson from the multiple crises we face, it is that delaying action only makes matters worse."
Robin Robison, meanwhile, concludes:
.... the developing world will still require markets for their goods in the wealthy nations and technological innovation and other research will still require funding for the benefit of humanity, but the terms of debate about how these goals are to be achieved are open once again. It is an opportunity that the boundaries of what is considered normal in a democratic market economy are now being opened up again before our eyes. The question is who and what will rush into the vacuum that is being created?
Wednesday, 8 October 2008
Money .... and peace?
Difficult to avoid this particular issue at the moment. And very tempting to begin with a whole load of clichés about the uncertain and challenging times we're in... but I won't!
I'm not sure who it was on the radio this morning... but someone was making the very obvious point that the government's (ours and those of other countries) financial commitment to keeping the banking system afloat necessarily means that there's less money to go around on other things.
And this is really important, I feel. With such obvious constraints, can we hope for hope for a shifting of priorities towards building security along the lines of the sustainable security paradigm outlined in the Oxford Research Group's report? ( Global Responses to Global Threats:Sustainable Security for the 21st Century, Chris Abbott, Paul Rogers and John Sloboda, June 2006)
Mark Lynas, writing in The Guardian today argues that the need to move to a low-carbon energy system is a great business opportunity, as opposed to a distraction from getting the economy back on track. ..."we need to transform completely the energy basis of industrial civilisation", he states, "Anyone thinking of this as a terrible sacrifice is dead wrong; it is an unparallelled business opportunity, which canny companies will use to their great advantage". Both he and the paper's editorial are cautiously optimistic about the commitment of our government to tackling climate change, indicated by the setting up of the new department for energy and climate change.
The other side of the sustainable security coin though, which the ORG report urges we move away from, is what they describe as the 'control paradigm'. A move away from a commitment to renewing UK nuclear weapons would be a very welcome indication of a shift from the one paradigm to another and is essential if we're to make a meaningful and sustainable change towards a more peaceful and secure world.
--
I've noted that this blog doesn't often get a mention in list of Quaker blogs - mostly, I think, because it's more about what's going on the world rather than in my head and my Quaker Meeting. My work, and that of NFPB in general, is of course rooted in our Quakerism. Here's a bit from our Advices and Queries which seems very relevant to these times...
31. We are called to live 'in the virtue of that life and power that takes away the occasion of all wars'. Do you faithfully maintain our testimony that war and the preparation for war are inconsistent with the spirit of Christ? Search out whatever in your own way of life may contain the seeds of war. Stand firm in our testimony, even when others commit or prepare to commit acts of violence, yet always remember that they too are children of God.
I'm not sure who it was on the radio this morning... but someone was making the very obvious point that the government's (ours and those of other countries) financial commitment to keeping the banking system afloat necessarily means that there's less money to go around on other things.
And this is really important, I feel. With such obvious constraints, can we hope for hope for a shifting of priorities towards building security along the lines of the sustainable security paradigm outlined in the Oxford Research Group's report? ( Global Responses to Global Threats:Sustainable Security for the 21st Century, Chris Abbott, Paul Rogers and John Sloboda, June 2006)
Mark Lynas, writing in The Guardian today argues that the need to move to a low-carbon energy system is a great business opportunity, as opposed to a distraction from getting the economy back on track. ..."we need to transform completely the energy basis of industrial civilisation", he states, "Anyone thinking of this as a terrible sacrifice is dead wrong; it is an unparallelled business opportunity, which canny companies will use to their great advantage". Both he and the paper's editorial are cautiously optimistic about the commitment of our government to tackling climate change, indicated by the setting up of the new department for energy and climate change.
The other side of the sustainable security coin though, which the ORG report urges we move away from, is what they describe as the 'control paradigm'. A move away from a commitment to renewing UK nuclear weapons would be a very welcome indication of a shift from the one paradigm to another and is essential if we're to make a meaningful and sustainable change towards a more peaceful and secure world.
--
I've noted that this blog doesn't often get a mention in list of Quaker blogs - mostly, I think, because it's more about what's going on the world rather than in my head and my Quaker Meeting. My work, and that of NFPB in general, is of course rooted in our Quakerism. Here's a bit from our Advices and Queries which seems very relevant to these times...
31. We are called to live 'in the virtue of that life and power that takes away the occasion of all wars'. Do you faithfully maintain our testimony that war and the preparation for war are inconsistent with the spirit of Christ? Search out whatever in your own way of life may contain the seeds of war. Stand firm in our testimony, even when others commit or prepare to commit acts of violence, yet always remember that they too are children of God.
41. Try to live simply. A simple lifestyle freely chosen is a source of strength. Do not be persuaded into buying what you do not need or cannot afford. Do you keep yourself informed about the effects your style of living is having on the global economy and environment?
42. We do not own the world, and its riches are not ours to dispose of at will. Show a loving consideration for all creatures, and seek to maintain the beauty and variety of the world. Work to ensure that our increasing power over nature is used responsibly, with reverence for life. Rejoice in the splendour of God's continuing creation.
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
Inspiration
I've had a busy few weeks and next month is just going to get a lot busier. Whilst trying to keep my head above water and cope with the constant flow of news (most of it bad) I thought I would just give a bit of space on some good and inspiring peace-related things happening...
- Leap Confronting Conflict's work on gangs
- Peace Direct's support for the Nepal Rapid Response Fund
- CAAT's campaign for the UK to provide legal assistance to the US' BAE Systems investigation
- The forthcoming (27th October) big blockade taking place at Aldermsaton
- The work at St Ethelburga's centre for Reconciliation and Peace on exploring religious difference
Thursday, 14 August 2008
Whose agenda?
Behind the frightening escalation of military activity in Georgia there are a number of agendas, contradictions and underlying issues that it's not easy to get to grips with. For example, what role has the US government and the Republican presidential candidate had in stoking the conflict? Read Seamus Milne in The Guardian here and Robert Scheer on truthdig ('drilling beneath the headlines') on this theme. I've put a range of links to background information and analysis on the del.icio.us pages. The whole situation reveals a lot about the state of big-power aspirations, policies and relationship, about their own internal political motivations and about the number of layers of the onion one has to peel back before beginning to find the real facts.
Tuesday, 29 July 2008
Mixed messages
George Monbiot in the Guardian today points to the contradictory messages that our Government has been giving about nuclear weapons in recent years. He reminds us of the NPT commitments that oblige signatories to work towards complete nuclear disarmament, but then draws attention to the information uncovered by CND last week ...
[from the CND press release] Ministry of Defence documents obtained by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament reveal the Government plans to replace Britain's nuclear warheads, despite Ministers repeatedly telling MPs that no decision would be taken until the next Parliament. The shocking revelation came to light in a speech to the arms industry executives by David Gould, then chief operating officer at the Defence Equipment and Support Organisation, now released under the Freedom of Information Act. [See note 3 and below for the documents] Whilst the Commons voted last year to replace the submarines that carry the UK's nuclear warheads on Trident missiles, the White Paper and repeated ministerial statements since then [see note 4] have claimed that no decision would be taken on replacing the explosive warheads themselves until the next Parliament, expected to be 2010 at the earliest. Today's revelation that a senior defence official has been privately telling industry the opposite, suggests that Parliament has been misled.
Monbiot writes: According to a leaked briefing by the US Defence Intelligence Agency, Israel possesses between 60 and 80 nuclear bombs. But none of the countries demanding that Iran scraps the weapons it doesn't yet possess are demanding that Israel destroys the weapons it does possess. and continues further on in his piece: The permanent members of the UN security council draw a distinction between their "responsible" ownership of nuclear weapons and that of the aspirant powers. But over the past six years, the UK, US, France and Russia have all announced that they are prepared to use their nukes pre-emptively against a presumed threat, even from states that do not possess nuclear weapons. In some ways the current nuclear stand-off is more dangerous than the tetchy detente of the cold war.
Those involved in planning the next major action at Britain’s nuclear
weapons factory are keen that people make the connections and attend the next Aldermaston Big Blockade on 27th October 2008.
[from the CND press release] Ministry of Defence documents obtained by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament reveal the Government plans to replace Britain's nuclear warheads, despite Ministers repeatedly telling MPs that no decision would be taken until the next Parliament. The shocking revelation came to light in a speech to the arms industry executives by David Gould, then chief operating officer at the Defence Equipment and Support Organisation, now released under the Freedom of Information Act. [See note 3 and below for the documents] Whilst the Commons voted last year to replace the submarines that carry the UK's nuclear warheads on Trident missiles, the White Paper and repeated ministerial statements since then [see note 4] have claimed that no decision would be taken on replacing the explosive warheads themselves until the next Parliament, expected to be 2010 at the earliest. Today's revelation that a senior defence official has been privately telling industry the opposite, suggests that Parliament has been misled.
Monbiot writes: According to a leaked briefing by the US Defence Intelligence Agency, Israel possesses between 60 and 80 nuclear bombs. But none of the countries demanding that Iran scraps the weapons it doesn't yet possess are demanding that Israel destroys the weapons it does possess. and continues further on in his piece: The permanent members of the UN security council draw a distinction between their "responsible" ownership of nuclear weapons and that of the aspirant powers. But over the past six years, the UK, US, France and Russia have all announced that they are prepared to use their nukes pre-emptively against a presumed threat, even from states that do not possess nuclear weapons. In some ways the current nuclear stand-off is more dangerous than the tetchy detente of the cold war.
Those involved in planning the next major action at Britain’s nuclear
weapons factory are keen that people make the connections and attend the next Aldermaston Big Blockade on 27th October 2008.
Thursday, 24 July 2008
History, journalism, fact and fiction
On Radio 4's 'Today' programme recently, following the arrest in Belgrade of Radovan Karadzic, James Naughtie was heard to declare - as if it were a simple, well-known fact - that the NATO bombing of 1999 had been a success. Bridget Kendall, the Diplomatic Correspondent, responded with a rather more nuanced critique. With the recent declaration of independence in Kosovo, the Albanian population might well feel that it was a success - but at what cost?
Jan Oberg, of the Transnational Foundation wrote earlier this year:
"Did the international community make mistakes? Or did it have a deliberate plan to destroy Yugoslavia? Or was it a mix of this spiced with general conflict illiteracy? The answer is as hugely complex as it is important.
"One mechanism is obvious, however: Having started out with the outdated, two-party conflict paradigm – one all right, the other all wrong - borrowed from the just dissolved Cold War structure, nothing could go right. And since this community by constitution cannot admit that it makes mistakes, it has had to build on blunders, covering them up by continuing its irrational, counter-productive policies. The sum total is a boomeranging make-believe such as independent Kosovo. "
In the year of the bombing itself, Philip Hammond concludes:, in Reporting Kosovo: Journalism vs. Propaganda,
"As the bombs and missiles rained down we were informed by Nato leaders that this was 'not a war', and when it ended every newspaper found the same word to describe the occupation of part of a sovereign country by foreign troops: 'liberation'. This was a fitting climax to a media crusade which had frequently turned reality on its head in an utter dereliction of what journalism is supposed to be. It would seem that one casualty of the Kosovo war was British journalism, although some sources maintain it was already long dead. In its place we have propaganda."
The further away you get from an event, historically, it is harder but still more important to question the history with which we are presented as fact, just as it was and remains important to look beneath the current headlines. The danger in doing so is that the very process of questioning can easily be turned around and used as propaganda by one party or another. But keep questioning we must, and keep looking for nonviolent alternatives to the desperation and destructiveness of military responses.
In 2000, between the Nato action in the Balkans and the beginning of the 'war on terror', Judith Large wrote: "Let us never lose our compassion for suffering and willingness to respond. But let us also cultivate an awareness and sensitivity to signs and signals, and take imaginative and strategica actions to pre-empt collective violence, to protect the vulnerable, to build different futures. It is a longer, slower path than the use of only force, but it will lead to hope and renewal rather than destruction and retribution."
(in 'No Alternative? Nonviolent Responses to Repressive Regimes', edited by John Lampen and published by Sessions of York).
Jan Oberg, of the Transnational Foundation wrote earlier this year:
"Did the international community make mistakes? Or did it have a deliberate plan to destroy Yugoslavia? Or was it a mix of this spiced with general conflict illiteracy? The answer is as hugely complex as it is important.
"One mechanism is obvious, however: Having started out with the outdated, two-party conflict paradigm – one all right, the other all wrong - borrowed from the just dissolved Cold War structure, nothing could go right. And since this community by constitution cannot admit that it makes mistakes, it has had to build on blunders, covering them up by continuing its irrational, counter-productive policies. The sum total is a boomeranging make-believe such as independent Kosovo. "
In the year of the bombing itself, Philip Hammond concludes:, in Reporting Kosovo: Journalism vs. Propaganda,
"As the bombs and missiles rained down we were informed by Nato leaders that this was 'not a war', and when it ended every newspaper found the same word to describe the occupation of part of a sovereign country by foreign troops: 'liberation'. This was a fitting climax to a media crusade which had frequently turned reality on its head in an utter dereliction of what journalism is supposed to be. It would seem that one casualty of the Kosovo war was British journalism, although some sources maintain it was already long dead. In its place we have propaganda."
The further away you get from an event, historically, it is harder but still more important to question the history with which we are presented as fact, just as it was and remains important to look beneath the current headlines. The danger in doing so is that the very process of questioning can easily be turned around and used as propaganda by one party or another. But keep questioning we must, and keep looking for nonviolent alternatives to the desperation and destructiveness of military responses.
In 2000, between the Nato action in the Balkans and the beginning of the 'war on terror', Judith Large wrote: "Let us never lose our compassion for suffering and willingness to respond. But let us also cultivate an awareness and sensitivity to signs and signals, and take imaginative and strategica actions to pre-empt collective violence, to protect the vulnerable, to build different futures. It is a longer, slower path than the use of only force, but it will lead to hope and renewal rather than destruction and retribution."
(in 'No Alternative? Nonviolent Responses to Repressive Regimes', edited by John Lampen and published by Sessions of York).
Friday, 11 July 2008
Innocent victims
I was deeply saddened to read the report about the 47 people killed at a wedding party by US bombs in Afghanistan recently. Sometimes words and comment not helpful.
.
.
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
Three Lords and a knight on nuclear disarmament
The Times yesterday carried an opinion piece Start worrying and learn to ditch the bomb from four former UK government ministers, which states, in part that ...
"There is a powerful case for a dramatic reduction in the stockpile of nuclear weapons. A new historic initiative is needed but it will only succeed by working collectively and through multilateral institutions. ..... Substantial progress towards a dramatic reduction in the world's nuclear weapons is possible. The ultimate aspiration should be to have a world free of nuclear weapons. [my emphasis] It will take time, but with political will and improvements in monitoring, the goal is achievable. We must act before it is too late, and we can begin by supporting the campaign in America for a non-nuclear weapons world. "
The writers of this forcefully argued piece are George Robertson, Douglas Hurd, Malcolm Rifkind and David Owen (I hope they will excuse my Quakerly non-use of their titles). A statement from BASIC sees this as a real breakthrough, building as it does on a similar call from former members of US governments last year. I've not spotted much response or comment on this from other parts of the press so far. It does seem to provide a very useful tool for engaging again with our elected representatives and current government ministers on this issue, however. It is very welcome that this article has appeared - I look forward to seeing a similar comment from members of a current government before too long.
"There is a powerful case for a dramatic reduction in the stockpile of nuclear weapons. A new historic initiative is needed but it will only succeed by working collectively and through multilateral institutions. ..... Substantial progress towards a dramatic reduction in the world's nuclear weapons is possible. The ultimate aspiration should be to have a world free of nuclear weapons. [my emphasis] It will take time, but with political will and improvements in monitoring, the goal is achievable. We must act before it is too late, and we can begin by supporting the campaign in America for a non-nuclear weapons world. "
The writers of this forcefully argued piece are George Robertson, Douglas Hurd, Malcolm Rifkind and David Owen (I hope they will excuse my Quakerly non-use of their titles). A statement from BASIC sees this as a real breakthrough, building as it does on a similar call from former members of US governments last year. I've not spotted much response or comment on this from other parts of the press so far. It does seem to provide a very useful tool for engaging again with our elected representatives and current government ministers on this issue, however. It is very welcome that this article has appeared - I look forward to seeing a similar comment from members of a current government before too long.
Thursday, 26 June 2008
US/UK - an explosive relationship
A press release just received from the CND (not yet, at time of writing, available on the press release page of their website) reads, in part:
WITHDRAWAL OF US NUKES WELCOMED; BUT CND WARNS AGAINST US MISSILE DEFENCE DEVELOPMENTS
CND today welcomed the news that 110 US tactical nuclear weapons had been withdrawn from Lakenheath airbase in Suffolk . The report by Hans Kristensen, one of the foremost nuclear researchers with the Federation of American Scientists, concludes that there are now no US nuclear weapons in Britain – for the first time since 1954.
However, CND cautioned against the installation at Lakenheath of interceptor missiles as part of the US Missile Defence system, which could potentially replace one historical arms race with another, with Europe again at the centre. Tony Blair asked the US to consider Britain as a possible launching pad for US missile interceptors in February 2007.
This looks like good news: but where are they now keeping the weapons withdrawn from Lakenheath?
Less cheerful news came in an article in The Sunday Times this week, reporting that the UK military is currently using Hellfire missiles in Afghanistan, fired by RAF Reaper unmanned drones, remotely controlled from a US base in Nevada. The missiles have been described as being armed with 'thermobaric' warheads, though the article tells us that the MoD prefers to call them 'enhanced blast weapons'. The Times article describes the effects thus: "[the weapons] create a pressure wave which sucks the air out of victims, shreds their internal organs and crushes their bodies". Concerns have been raised by Human Rights Watch, Nick Harvey of the Lib Dems and others, particularly highlighting the consequences for civilians who happen to be in the vicinity of one of these missile explosions. Anyone remember that old-fashioned idea of an ethical foreign policy?
WITHDRAWAL OF US NUKES WELCOMED; BUT CND WARNS AGAINST US MISSILE DEFENCE DEVELOPMENTS
CND today welcomed the news that 110 US tactical nuclear weapons had been withdrawn from Lakenheath airbase in Suffolk . The report by Hans Kristensen, one of the foremost nuclear researchers with the Federation of American Scientists, concludes that there are now no US nuclear weapons in Britain – for the first time since 1954.
However, CND cautioned against the installation at Lakenheath of interceptor missiles as part of the US Missile Defence system, which could potentially replace one historical arms race with another, with Europe again at the centre. Tony Blair asked the US to consider Britain as a possible launching pad for US missile interceptors in February 2007.
This looks like good news: but where are they now keeping the weapons withdrawn from Lakenheath?
Less cheerful news came in an article in The Sunday Times this week, reporting that the UK military is currently using Hellfire missiles in Afghanistan, fired by RAF Reaper unmanned drones, remotely controlled from a US base in Nevada. The missiles have been described as being armed with 'thermobaric' warheads, though the article tells us that the MoD prefers to call them 'enhanced blast weapons'. The Times article describes the effects thus: "[the weapons] create a pressure wave which sucks the air out of victims, shreds their internal organs and crushes their bodies". Concerns have been raised by Human Rights Watch, Nick Harvey of the Lib Dems and others, particularly highlighting the consequences for civilians who happen to be in the vicinity of one of these missile explosions. Anyone remember that old-fashioned idea of an ethical foreign policy?
Monday, 9 June 2008
Arms conversion still envisioned
Steven Schofield has long been advocating arms conversion and has written extensively on the theme. Many of us were disappointed about the Labour government's approach when it came into power in '97. Instead of conversion away from arms production, they set up the Defence Diversification Agency which was as much about 'spin-in' from the non-military sector as diversifying (spin-offs) from arms production. The most recent CAAT newsletter reports that Steven Schofield has just written a new report ' 'Making Arms, Wasting Skills: Alternatives to Militarism and Arms Production'. It doesn't seem to be on their website yet (though keep checking, as I am sure it will be soon).
The printed newsletter quotes parts of the Executive Summary, which advocates deep cuts in defence procurement and cancellation of Trident, amongst other things. And along with this, a 'multi-billion pound investment in renewable energy.... [that would] also generate more jobs than those lost from the restructuring of the arms industry. This way the UK would take a leading role in establishing a new form of international security framework based on disarmament and sustainable economic development.'
Meanwhile, the successor body to at least part of the Defence Diversification Agency, is Ploughshare Innovations which 'manages technology transfer on behalf of Dstl, the Ministry of Defence's Defence Science & Technology Laboratory; an organisation of some 3,500 plus staff devoted to providing the UK Government with independent expertise on defence and security-related issues.'
It's worth remembering at this point another group which incorporates the imagery of swords into plougshares in its name, Trident Ploughshares whose activists have pledged to disarm the UK Trident nuclear weapons system in a non-violent, open, peaceful, safe and fully accountable manner. Their next major initiative to this end is Aldermaston Big Blockade on 27th October. Perhaps Ploughshare Innovations hope to disarm the potency of ploughshare actions of this nature by adopting the name.... Now, how about a joint project in which the disarmers do their bit and the technological innovators do theirs, as Steve Schofield has suggested. That would be some interesting joined-up ploughshare thinking, even though there may be a bit of culture clash to work through in the first instance....
The printed newsletter quotes parts of the Executive Summary, which advocates deep cuts in defence procurement and cancellation of Trident, amongst other things. And along with this, a 'multi-billion pound investment in renewable energy.... [that would] also generate more jobs than those lost from the restructuring of the arms industry. This way the UK would take a leading role in establishing a new form of international security framework based on disarmament and sustainable economic development.'
Meanwhile, the successor body to at least part of the Defence Diversification Agency, is Ploughshare Innovations which 'manages technology transfer on behalf of Dstl, the Ministry of Defence's Defence Science & Technology Laboratory; an organisation of some 3,500 plus staff devoted to providing the UK Government with independent expertise on defence and security-related issues.'
It's worth remembering at this point another group which incorporates the imagery of swords into plougshares in its name, Trident Ploughshares whose activists have pledged to disarm the UK Trident nuclear weapons system in a non-violent, open, peaceful, safe and fully accountable manner. Their next major initiative to this end is Aldermaston Big Blockade on 27th October. Perhaps Ploughshare Innovations hope to disarm the potency of ploughshare actions of this nature by adopting the name.... Now, how about a joint project in which the disarmers do their bit and the technological innovators do theirs, as Steve Schofield has suggested. That would be some interesting joined-up ploughshare thinking, even though there may be a bit of culture clash to work through in the first instance....
Wednesday, 4 June 2008
Food security, climate change and conflict
This issue is deeply worrying. It's only become apparent to many of us these past few months. Here's a recent piece from a blog that is dedicated to the food crisis:
Dominique Strauss-Kahn said last Saturday that if the spike in food prices continued, “thousands, hundreds of thousands of people will be starving. Children will be suffering from malnutrition, with consequences for all their lives. As we know, learning from the past, those kinds of questions sometimes end in war.”
Meanwhile, the wider context is addressed in an interesting blog 'New Security Beat'
One of their recent pieces... U.S. Army War College Report Says We Ignore Climate Change Security Risks “At Our Peril”
The article concludes: '[Carolyn] Pumphrey - [editor of the War College report] calls for a three-pronged strategy that includes “better intelligence, better science, and better understanding of the relationships between such things as violence, society, and climate change.” She maintains that we must slow the rate of climate change and prepare for unavoidable changes, take action to alleviate international social distress, and prepare to address potential conflicts. And, she notes, this is “a job for everyone,” not just the military.'
Dominique Strauss-Kahn said last Saturday that if the spike in food prices continued, “thousands, hundreds of thousands of people will be starving. Children will be suffering from malnutrition, with consequences for all their lives. As we know, learning from the past, those kinds of questions sometimes end in war.”
Meanwhile, the wider context is addressed in an interesting blog 'New Security Beat'
One of their recent pieces... U.S. Army War College Report Says We Ignore Climate Change Security Risks “At Our Peril”
The article concludes: '[Carolyn] Pumphrey - [editor of the War College report] calls for a three-pronged strategy that includes “better intelligence, better science, and better understanding of the relationships between such things as violence, society, and climate change.” She maintains that we must slow the rate of climate change and prepare for unavoidable changes, take action to alleviate international social distress, and prepare to address potential conflicts. And, she notes, this is “a job for everyone,” not just the military.'
City of Sanctuary
Good to see a report in the Guardian today about the City of Sanctuary project, holding their first national conference in Sheffield as I write.
From the article: 'Craig Barnett, the voluntary organisation's national coordinator, says the project aims to dispel misconceptions and build a culture of hospitality. "It is about offering a positive vision of our city as a place of sanctuary," he says.
I look forward to hearing from Bolton Friends who are attending the conference.
From the article: 'Craig Barnett, the voluntary organisation's national coordinator, says the project aims to dispel misconceptions and build a culture of hospitality. "It is about offering a positive vision of our city as a place of sanctuary," he says.I look forward to hearing from Bolton Friends who are attending the conference.
Thursday, 29 May 2008
More hope for nuclear disarmament?
Paul Ingram, director of BASIC, the British American Security Information Council, writes in a recent press advisory...
"This is the clearest indication yet that nuclear disarmament has now achieved the mainstream - and it is now out of touch to oppose it. This is a speech that represents a clear departure not only from the current Administration..."
And the big surprise is that he's writing about the Republican Candidate for the US Presidency, John McCain. He is qu0ted as saying in said speech:
"The truth is we will only address the terrible prospect of the worldwide spread of nuclear arms if we transcend our partisan differences, combine our energies, learn from our past mistakes, and seek practical and effective solutions."
Coverage of the other candidates views on nuclear weapons and other foreign policy issues can be found on the Council for a Livable World's website.
And the recent 'Prep Comm', preparing for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2010 is reported on in depth by Rebecca Johnson on the Acronym website and by Reaching Critical Will. The latter reported that:
"Over the course of this PrepCom session, several delegations made substantial, concrete proposals on specific issues related to strengthening and implementing the Treaty. Some of these proposals have generated broad interest, momentum, and/ or convergence, suggesting they are or could be ripe for action by the 2010 Review Conference."
Reasons to be cheerful? Certainly a little less despondent, perhaps...
Meanwhile, coming soon to a nuclear submarine base near you (if you live in the west of Scotland), and to remind our own politicians of the public's continuing unhappiness at UK nuclear weapons policy...
Peace Chain Around Faslane Saturday 14th June 2008
The Peace Chain date marks several important anniversaries:
* One year ago, 14 June 2007, the Scottish Parliament voted against the UK Government’s plan for a new nuclear weapon system.
* The day of the Peace Chain also sees the celebration of the 26th birthday of Faslane Peace Camp.
* 40 years ago, 14 June 1968, the first British nuclear patrol – HMS Resolution – sailed from Faslane.
* This year is also the 50th birthday of CND and its struggle against nuclear weapons.
In SCND’s history never before has there been such concerted and widespread opinion against nuclear weapons in Scotland – both amongst elected officials and the general public – and so with this Peace Chain we intend to mark not only anniversaries of past events but a real hope for the future.
"This is the clearest indication yet that nuclear disarmament has now achieved the mainstream - and it is now out of touch to oppose it. This is a speech that represents a clear departure not only from the current Administration..."
And the big surprise is that he's writing about the Republican Candidate for the US Presidency, John McCain. He is qu0ted as saying in said speech:
"The truth is we will only address the terrible prospect of the worldwide spread of nuclear arms if we transcend our partisan differences, combine our energies, learn from our past mistakes, and seek practical and effective solutions."
Coverage of the other candidates views on nuclear weapons and other foreign policy issues can be found on the Council for a Livable World's website.
And the recent 'Prep Comm', preparing for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2010 is reported on in depth by Rebecca Johnson on the Acronym website and by Reaching Critical Will. The latter reported that:
"Over the course of this PrepCom session, several delegations made substantial, concrete proposals on specific issues related to strengthening and implementing the Treaty. Some of these proposals have generated broad interest, momentum, and/ or convergence, suggesting they are or could be ripe for action by the 2010 Review Conference."
Reasons to be cheerful? Certainly a little less despondent, perhaps...
Meanwhile, coming soon to a nuclear submarine base near you (if you live in the west of Scotland), and to remind our own politicians of the public's continuing unhappiness at UK nuclear weapons policy...
Peace Chain Around Faslane Saturday 14th June 2008
The Peace Chain date marks several important anniversaries:
* One year ago, 14 June 2007, the Scottish Parliament voted against the UK Government’s plan for a new nuclear weapon system.
* The day of the Peace Chain also sees the celebration of the 26th birthday of Faslane Peace Camp.
* 40 years ago, 14 June 1968, the first British nuclear patrol – HMS Resolution – sailed from Faslane.
* This year is also the 50th birthday of CND and its struggle against nuclear weapons.
In SCND’s history never before has there been such concerted and widespread opinion against nuclear weapons in Scotland – both amongst elected officials and the general public – and so with this Peace Chain we intend to mark not only anniversaries of past events but a real hope for the future.
Wednesday, 28 May 2008
Peace Tax, conscience and all that
I enjoyed the company of Robin, of the Peace Tax Seven, at Britain Yearly Meeting (Quaker annual conference in Britain) last weekend, as we shared a display table in the small groups' area. They're joining with conscience: the peace tax campaign in hosting the 12th International Conference on War Tax Resistance and Peace Tax Campaigns, from Friday 5th to Sunday 7th September in Manchester this year.
Manchester was also the location for a ceremony on 18th May, marking the Right to Refuse to Kill. These ceremonies started off in London and are now spreading across the country. Here's a photo from the Manchester event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)