Who's Online

We have 1322 guests online

Popular

1434 readings
NATO SUMMIT 2016: PREVENTING WAR AND ARMED CONFLICT BY MOVING FROM MILITARIZED SECURITY TO COMMON SECURITY PDF Print E-mail
Peace News
Posted by Joan Russow
Friday, 08 July 2016 08:19

 

by Joan Russow PhD

 

Peace Earth and Justice Project

Global Compliance Research Project

 

alt

 

 

ACTIONS THAT COULD BE PROMOTED INTERNATIONALLY

 

1. Changing the UN system

2. Reallocating military expenses

3. Opposing militarism by member states of the United Nations

4. Abolishing nuclear weapons

5. Disbanding NATO

                        6. Redefining what constitutes global  common security

 

                     1 Proposing changes to the UN system and international instruments

                       Since  the Security Council is controlled by the nuclear armed states, the

Security Council should be dismantled, and a rotational council should be selected from the membership   of the General Assembly. (Russow. proposal for a treaty 1999). Article 27 should be invoked whenever there are votes on nuclear arms

a.     The UN Security Council is the organ of the Nations that determines whether an invasion is deemed legal through being “seized of the matter” under chapter VII of the Charter. It is disturbing to note that all the permanent members with the veto, are nuclear weapons states. In addition, the existence of the UNSC itself, with the veto, even a fundamental principle of the Charter-the sovereign equality of states.

 

b. Delegitimize war-

Given the social, environmental, health, human rights, economic consequences of war, under no conditions or circumstance is war legal or just.

 

c. End any attempt to undermine the international resolve to prevent the scourge of war; this would include not engaging in intimidation, in cajoling or in offering economic incentives in exchange for support, at the UN Security Council, for military interventions.

 

d. End the misconstruing of Article 51 (self-defence) of the Charter of the United Nations to justify premeditated non-provoked military aggression, or to use various such pretexts for invading other sovereign states.

 

e. End the practice of invoking Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations rather than invoking Chapter VI - the peaceful resolutions of disputes – and refusing  to be judged by the International Court of Justice or even recognizing the jurisdiction of the ICJ.

 

         2 Reallocating military expenses  to social and environmental priorities

          To call for the implementation of the years of commitment to reallocate 

           military expenses

The member states of the United Nations spend 1.7 trillion per year on the military budget at a time when many basic and fundamental rights have not been fulfilled: the right to affordable and safe housing; the right to unadulterated food (pesticide-free and genetically engineered-free food); the right to safe drinking water; the right to a safe environment; the right to universally accessible, not for profit health care; and the right to free and accessible education.
 

Throughout the years, through international agreements, member states of the United Nations have recognized that the military budget has been a waste and misuse of resources.

Unfortunately, institutional memory is either short or member states ignore precedents.
 

 a. In 1976 at Habitat 1, member states of the United Nations affirmed the following in relation to the military budget:

"The waste and misuse of resources in war and armaments should be prevented. All countries should make a firm commitment to promote general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, in particular in the field of nuclear disarmament. Part of the resources thus released should be utilized so as to achieve a better quality of life for humanity and particularly the peoples of developing countries" (II, 12 Habitat 1).

b. In 1981, in the General Assembly resolution entitled Resolution on the reduction of the military budget, the member states

(i) reaffirmed "the urgent need to reduce the military budget, and agreed to freeze and reduce the military budget";

(ii) recognised that "the military budget constitutes a heavy burden for the economies of all nations, and has extremely harmful consequences on international peace and security";

(iii) reiterated the appeal "to all States, in particular the most heavily armed States, pending the conclusion of agreements on the reduction of military expenditures, to exercise self-restraint in their military expenditures with a view to reallocating the funds thus saved to economic and social development, particularly for the benefit of developing countries" (Resolution on the Reduction of Military .budgets, 1981).

c. These appeals were further reinforced in a 1983 General Assembly Resolution on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development that curbing the arms build-up would make it possible to release additional resources for use in economic and social development, particularly for the benefit of the developing countries." Also in the 1993 resolution, member states considered that "the magnitude of military expenditures is now such that their various implications can no longer be ignored in the efforts pursued in the international community to secure the recovery of the world economy and the establishment of a new internationaleconomic order."

d. In the 1984 General Assembly Resolution entitled the Right of Peoples to Peace, there were "Appeals to all States and international organizations to do their utmost to assist in implementing the right of peoples to peace through the adoption of ...measures at both the national and the international level." (4. Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace approved by General Assembly resolution 39/11 of 12 November 1984)

 

e.  In 1992, all member states recognized that "Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development" (Rio Declarations. Principle 24, UNCED, 1992), and in Chapter 33, of Agenda 21, member states of the United Nations made a commitment to the "the reallocation of resources presently committed to military purposes" (33.18e)

f  In 1994, in adopting the statement from the International Conference on Population and Development, the member states of the United Nations concurred that the attainment of ?quantitative and qualitative goals of the present Programme of Action clearly require additional resources, some of which could become available from a reordering of priorities at the individual, national and international levels. However, none of the actions required nor all of them combined is expensive in the context of either current global development or military expenditures." (Article 1.19)

g. In 1994, in adopting the statement from the International Conference on Population and Development, the member states of the United Nations concurred that the attainment of ?quantitative and qualitative goals of the present Programme of Action clearly require additional resources, some of which could become available from a reordering of priorities at the individual, national and international levels. However, none of the actions required nor all of them combined is expensive in the context of either current global development or military expenditures." (Article 1.19)

In 1995, similarly, states adopted the statement from the Social Development Summit calling for the reallocation of military spending to ensure a greater pocket of resources to expand public services. Again, in the same year, member states of the United Nations reconfirmed these commitments by adopting the Platform of Action at the UN conference on Women, Equality, Development and Peace. In the Platform of Action, States have made a commitment to maintain peace and security at the global, regional and local levels, together with the prevention of policies of aggression ... and the resolution of armed conflict? (Art. 14) and to reduce "...military expenditures" (Art. 15), states have also made a commitment to the prevention and resolution of conflicts? (Art.15) and to increase and hasten, ... the conversion of military resources and related industries to development and peaceful purposes" (145a)

And yet, in 2016, global military spending has increased to 1.7 trillion and  inequality has increased and civilian deaths from aggressive states has increased

.

It is time for the member states of the United Nations to give substance to the years of commitments to substantially reduce the military budget.


                  3.Opposing militarism  by member states of the United Nations

                   To call for states

 

a. To counter the guises for military intervention such as the following: “human security" (Iraq 1991), "Humanitarian intervention" (Kosovo, 1999), “self-defence” (Afghanistan 2001), "Pre-emptive/ preventive" attack (Iraq, 2003) "Responsibility to Protect (Haiti, 2004, Libya, 2011) or "will to intervene" (Mali, 2013)  

b. To abandon the guise of the pre-emptive/preventive attack policy that has resulted in aggressive attacks on sovereign states and that has been in violation of the Article 2 of United Nations and international law as being the 'supreme' international crime of a war of aggression.

c. To condemn the practice of targeting or assisting in the assassination of leaders of other sovereign states, and of engaging in "regime change". 

d. To end tolerance of the practice of mollifying public opposition to war  by couching aggressive acts in euphemistic "operations" such as "Operation Just Cause", "Operation Iraqi Freedom", "Operation Enduring Freedom. Etc.

d. To condemn the occupation of sovereign states

e. To end the production of land mines, as required in the convention against landmines and end the procrastination, by those responsible, to remove land mines from all areas of the world where land mines are known to exist.

 f. To end the destabilization of states and regions through the sale of arms, including through the guise of "foreign aid’ or through infiltration of NGOs, such as USAID, NED, Freedom House or through fundamentalist Christians in groups such as Operation Rescue.

g. To end the use of weapons that are prohibited under Article 36, which reads:

In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapons, means or method of warfare, states are under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law (Art 36. New weapons provision) Also in the additional Geneva protocol there are imposed limitations on the development of new weapons. Determine whether drones are prohibited by the Geneva Protocol on prohibited weapons

h. To suffocate the production of uranium, end importing and exporting of uranium, prohibit the use of weapons such as those with depleted uranium and cluster and end the continued profit-making from the sale of arms and trade in small arms.

i. To end the use of weapons that are prohibited under Article 36, which reads. 

In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapons, means or method of warfare, states are under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law (Art 36. New weapons provision) Also in the additional Geneva protocol there are imposed limitations on the development of new weapons. Determine whether drones are prohibited by the Geneva Protocol on prohibited weapons

 j. To end "War Games" or "Military Exercises"

Prohibit propaganda for war as per International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), including establishing military bases, engaging in war games, producing and selling of armaments, and holding arms exhibition. End government investment in weapons systems: 

 k. To end the production, circulation and berthing of nuclear powered or nuclear arms-capable vessels throughout the world.

   l. To end the disregard for the obligations under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty to      ensure that exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other       celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all  countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind [humanity].

m. To end the practice of "rendering"- sending "persons of interests" to countries which are known to condone torture.

 

4.

Abolishing nuclear weapons

 

a. To sponsor a resolution in the 71st Session of the UN General Assembly, that seeks a mandate to negotiate a legally binding Convention that prohibits the PRODUCTION, possession, THREAT TO USE and use of nuclear weapons and leads to their elimination thereafter

 

b.To seek to initiate in 2017  with a a view to concluding a Nuclear Weapons conventions as recommended by  Mayors for Peace representing 7000 cities world wide, including Hiroshima and Nagaski

 

c.To ensure that treaty negotiations are conducted in a forum that is open all member states,EXCEPT NUCLEAR WEAPONS STATES USING ARTICLE 27 OF THE CHARTER and to use democratic rules of procedure modelled upon those of the General Assembly; and to welcome and encourage the input of civil society

 

d. To promote the international Campaign for the abolition of nuclear weapons (ICAN)

 

e. To support the campaign to establish Nuclear Weapons Free Zones

 

f. To call on all states with nuclear weapons to sign and ratify the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

 

g. To call on nuclear arms states to comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by failing to implement Article VI of the Treaty, (Article VI: commits all parties to pursue negotiations in good faith on measures to end the nuclear arms race and to achieve disarmament.). 

 

h. To advocate the revision of Article 4 of the Non-proliferation Treaty; ``the inalienable right to the peeaceful use of nuclear energy. Since 1950s, nuclear arms have been developed from nuclear energy imports

 

i.To call for the adjustment of  the NATO charter to take out the provision for nuclear deterrence for all. 

                j.To  call for the removal of  US nuclear weapons based in five NATO countries:  Turkey,                       Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Germany.

 

                 k. To offer to host the nuclear weapons ban conference

                  l.  To oppose the multi-billion dollar nuclear arsenal modernization

                 http://www.ipsnews.net/2016/06/worlds-nuclear-arsenal-declines-but-                         multi-billion-dollar-modernization-continues

 

m. To call for the ending of  the production, circulation and berthing of nuclear powered or nuclear arms capable vessels and f the cancelling of  permission for the berthing of these vessels in urban harbours                 

n. To phase out nuclear energy, and support the call from WorldUraniumSymposium            in Quebec City, for an international movement was launched to ban uranium mining            worldwide.

 

 

5.

DISBANDING NATO

 

NATO must be disbanded for the Following Reasons: 

a. NATO must be disbanded for contributing to the scourge of war, and for defying peremptory norms particularly for the provocative eastern expansion after promising Russia to that, if Russia agreed to the unification of Germany, NATO would not move one more inch to the East.

b. NATO is a dangerous and provocative  institution  which has perpetuated the scourge of war, and conflict through its offensive actions

c. NATOthrough "War Games" or "Military Exercises" such as Exercise Trident Fury or Northwest Training Range complex etc., NATO has violated the following principle:

                  Prohibit propaganda for war as per International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights                       (ICCPR); this prohibition could include establishing military bases, engaging in war                           games, producing and selling of armaments, and holding arms exhibition.

 

d. The NATO states collectively spend Approximately 70% of the current 1.75 trillion global military budget in contravention of years of international Commitments are reallocate military expenses 

e NATO has condoned the possession of nuclear weapons by "friendly states², but has been willing to entertain strikes on the nuclear facilities of a" NATO-designed rogue states "and risk the release of radiation; on  May 15, 2016, none of the NATO States supported tte abolition of nuclear weapons.

On August 25 2016, none of the NATO states supported the proposal to negotiate, in 2017, a legally binding treaty on the abolition of nuclear weapons 

 

.

f. NATO has destabilized an area by offering one state an association with NATO; In 2006, during the election in el Salvador, whom NATO offered this association which intimidated both Nicaragua and Honduras (2006 Article in the Nicaraguan newspaper)

f. NATO, through its engaging in numerous military Interventions and occupations such as Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, has used depleted uranium (1999 testimony by NATO at the international Court of Justice in the case of Yugoslavia vs NATO)

http://www.countercurrents.org/jamail190313.htm

 

g. NATO has been using depleted uranium [the effect of Which in part is similar to That of a nuclear weapon], we have failed to act on its undertaking that deem "that the use of nuclear weapons would be a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and a crime against humanity², (Resolutions 1653 (XVI) of 24 November 1961, 33/71 B of 14 December, 1978, 34/83 G of 11 December 1979, 35/152 D of 12 December, 1980 and 36 / 92 I of 9 December 1981;

h. NATO through using depleted uranium, which could be deemed to have the effect of a nuclear weapon, has disregarded the decision of the International Court of Justice That the use or the threat to use nuclear weapons is contrary is International humanitarian law (World Court Project, 1996);

i. NATO has not abandoned the option of a "first use nuclear weapons policy", and has failed to act on its undertaking under the General Assembly Resolution Entitled the Condemnation of Nuclear War A / RES / 38/75, 1983 "to condemn the formulation , propounding, dissemination and propaganda of political and military Doctrines and concepts the intended to provide 'legitimacy' for the first use of nuclear weapons and in general to justify the "admissibility" of unleashing nuclear war (2, Condemnation of Nuclear War General Assembly Resolution A / RES / 38/75, 1983;

 

j. NATO still has article  V – which states an attack on one is an attack on all.

k. NATO has violated the Geneva Protocols on prohibited weapons; 

l. NATO has undermined the United Nations through Contributing to the failure (i) of this discharge obligations under International Conventions, Treaties, and covenants, (ii) is the act through Commitments made under Conference Action Plans and (iii) that fulfill the expectations created through General Assembly Resolutions; 

m. NATO has condoned the misinterpretation of Article 51 - self-defence- in the Charter of the United Nations in its support for the invasion of a sovereign state, and has used the Pretext of "human security" and "humanitarian intervention" and "pre-emptive / preventive "aggression to justify the invasion and occupation of other states; 

n. NATO has continually ignored Chapter VI - Peaceful Resolution of Disputes, of the Charter of the United Nations, and the provisioning in Chapter VI Disputes to take to the International Court of Justice; 

o NATO has failed to act on the commitment made under the Platform of Action of the UN Conference of Women This [Encourage diplomacy, [preventive diplomacy,] negotiation and peaceful settlement of Disputes in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, in Particular Article 2, paragraphs 3 and 4] (Art. 147 b., Advance Draft, Platform of Action, the UN Conference on Women, May 15); 

p. NATO has failed to discharge its obligations under the Convention Entitled (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva, 1949) that protect "persons taking no active part in the hostilities²; 

q. NATO has violated the Convention Against Torture; in some case. Members have redefined what constitute Torture

r. NATO has failed to discharge its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to "prohibit any propaganda of war", Article 20, and to "prohibit any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred constitutes incitement That is discrimination, hostility or violence (Article 20 -2); 

s. NATO has failed to fulfill the undertaking under the General Assembly Resolution Entitled the Declaration on the Use of Scientific and Technological Progress in the Interests of Peace and for the Benefit of Humanity, 1975) is a scientific and technological Prevent Achievements entailing dangers for the civil and political rights of the individual or of the group and for human dignity; 

t. NATO has failed to discharge its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child is the ensure respect for the rules of international humanitarian law relevant to the child in armed conflict (Art. 18, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989); 

u. NATO campaign has failed to fulfill the expectation under the General Assembly Resolution, Entitled "Effects of Atomic Radiation" is Prevent harmful effects on present and future generations, the Resulting from the levels of radiation Which is a man humans are exposed; 

v. NATO has failed to discharge its obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity is Prevent the loss or reduction of biodiversity in a region rich in biodiversity, and has contributed it irreversible environmental devastation; 

w NATO has failed to act on a commitment it Eliminate the production of weapons of mass destruction at the United Nations Conference on Humans and the Environment (UNCHE, 1972) [through its continued support for the mining and distribution of uranium both for civil nuclear reactors and for nuclear weapons]; 

x. NATO has failed to act on its undertaking under numerous UN Resolutions dry the

Y. NATO has engaged in war games dry as Exercise Trident Fury, Which have been a flagrant display of militarism and which flouts the rules related to the prohibition of the propaganda of war under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

 

 

6

PROMOTING TRUE SECURITY: COMMON SECURITY

 

 

There is a need to redefine what constitutes securitycommon security must trump militarized security

                                          

True security is not militarized security, or collective security or "human security which has been used as various pretexts for war. True Common Security [conceived by Olof Palme] through the compliance with international peremptory norms reflected in the years of international instruments; these norms can be derived from international instruments that have the following objectives:

a. to achieve a state of peace, and disarmament; through reallocation of military expenses;

b. to create a global structure that respects the rule of law and the International Court of Justice;

c. to enable socially equitable and environmentally sound employment, and ensure the right to development and social justice;

d. to promote and fully guarantee respect for human rights including labour rights, civil and political rights, social and cultural rights-- right to food, right to housing, right to safe drinking water and sewage, right to education and right to universally accessible not for profit health care system;

e to ensure the preservation and protection of the environment, the respect for the inherent worth of nature beyond human purpose, the reduction of the ecological footprint and move 

 

Last Updated on Saturday, 24 September 2016 07:19
 

Latest News