Abortion is a Fundamental Human Rights Issue

Civil Society, Democracy, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Researchers have found that if abortion care is banned throughout the United States, the number of maternal deaths would rise by 24 percent. This number is even worse for Black women, whose deaths would rise by 39 percent. Credit: The Century Foundation

NEW YORK, Oct 15 2024 (IPS) – The right to abortion is a human rights issue that no government agency, courts, local and state legislators, or anyone else has the right to violate or impede in any shape or form. It is a fundamental right that every woman must be free to exercise with impunity, in consultation with her doctor only, who acts based on his/her professional ethics and responsibility.


The right to abortion, or, as Vice President Harris put it in her debate with Donald Trump, “a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body,” is an unquestionable human right and may be the most critical issue discussed in the 2024 election campaign.

It is a significant issue of bodily autonomy, which extends not only to abortion but to the right of people with disabilities to control what happens to their bodies, the choice to participate in organ donation, and the right to keep medical decisions private.

Moreover, it is a significant issue in healthcare; pregnancy complications such as placental abruption can be life-threatening, and abortion is the only way to save the life of the pregnant woman. Pre-existing health conditions can be severely worsened during pregnancy, even causing death.

It is a women’s rights issue—among the right to vote, the right to free movement, and the right to live free of violence. And yet, during his presidency, Trump hand-selected three Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade and supported states enacting abortion bans with no restrictions, including incest and rape.

The Republicans’ Moral Bankruptcy on Women’s Rights

The Republican Party’s obsession with abortion and, as a consequence, forced pregnancy knows no bounds. Each year, approximately 700 minors in the state of Michigan, for example, must acquire a parent’s consent or a judge’s order to obtain an abortion. In 2022, Michiganders were guaranteed access to abortion under the state’s Constitution – but state law still requires parental consent for people under the age of 18 who seek abortions.

As Bridge Michigan observes, this consent requirement – dating back to 1991 – “forces some young people to face abusive parents and others to go to court to obtain a ‘judicial bypass’ waiver instead.”

A March 36-page ACLU report, In Harm’s Way: How Michigan’s Forced Parental Consent for Abortion Law Hurts Young People, points out that “When a young person does not involve a parent, it is often rooted in concern for their safety and well-being. One healthcare provider said a young client told her, ‘I can’t tell my parents because they will literally beat me, kick me out, and I’ll be on the street.’”

Moreover, many young people do not have access to a parent or legal guardian, which compels them to go through the judicial bypass process, where they face an array of logistical hurdles, “including finding an attorney, scheduling and attending hearings, taking time off school, and securing transportation to and from the court.”

In short, this reactionary and archaic law threatens the health and safety of young people, and it should be immediately repealed in every state where it is enforced to ensure young people’s safety and dignity.

The Horrific Implications of the Abortion Ban

There are many heart-wrenching stories about many young women who sought abortions but ended up dying because of inaccessibility to a normal abortion under the supervision of a doctor. In Georgia, the deaths of Amber Nicole Thurman and Candi Miller have been attributed to the state’s recently overturned abortion ban.

Thurman died of sepsis; she had received an abortion out-of-state but had not fully expelled the fetal tissue, which required a dilation and curettage (D&C) that Georgia had criminalized with few exceptions. Miller similarly did not fully expel the fetal tissue after taking abortion pills and died from a lethal combination of painkillers after suffering in pain for days as her children watched.

According to her family, Miller declined to see a doctor “due to the current legislation on pregnancies and abortions.” The families of Thurman and Miller, as well as many pro-choice advocates, have blamed their deaths on the state’s restrictive bans. And while on September 30, Fulton County Superior Judge Robert C. I. McBurney overturned the state’s heavily restrictive six-week abortion ban, the Supreme Court could issue a stay on the ruling, putting the six-week ban back in place.

According to ProPublica, Georgia’s four Planned Parenthood clinics have since been flooded with calls to schedule appointments, including from women in neighboring states where restrictive bans are still in place. While Republican governor Brian Kemp railed against the ruling, stating “…the will of Georgians and their representatives has been overruled by the personal beliefs of one judge,” the flood of appointments clearly demonstrates that the restrictive law is not the will of the people most affected, but solely of the predominantly chauvinist male lawmakers who will never have to face the decision about their own bodily autonomy.

I firmly stand with the women of Georgia and strongly support the ruling of Judge McBurney, who firmly stated in his ruling, “The Court finds that, until the pregnancy is viable, a woman’s right to make decisions about her body and her health remains private and protected, i.e., remains her business and her business alone.”

Fueling Other Regressive Policies

What is even more troubling is that many politicians and anti-choice activists are using their anti-abortion stance to fuel other regressive policies, such as child marriage. Last year, in a debate in Wyoming over ending child marriage, the state’s Republican Party promoted ‘analysis’ from Capitol Watch for Wyoming Families, which stated, “Marriage is the only institution in Wyoming Statute designed to keep a child’s father and mother living under the same roof and cooperating in the raising of any children that they, together, conceive… Since young men and women may be physically capable of begetting and bearing children before the age of 16, marriage MUST remain open to them for the sake of those children [emphasis added].”

Shameless GOP legislators are more concerned about the home lives of theoretical, future children rather than the living, breathing children who may be pregnant as victims of sexual abuse and whose parents fail them by forcing them into marriages they are not emotionally ready for or may not even want.

As state Rep. Liz Storer (D) stated in 2023, “In Wyoming, you could be married younger than you can legally consent to sex. Think about what that means. A man rapes a child. Is the man charged with rape? Not if the child is forced to marry him.”

And while Wyoming’s bill raising the minimum age to 18 (albeit allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to marry with judicial and parental consent) passed, this despicable and disingenuous argument continues to circulate around the country, which must be combatted at every turn.

It is hard to exaggerate the crucial importance of women’s rights to abortion in this election, not only because women must be free to decide for themselves about their biological needs but also about their freedom and autonomy to live their lives and have families as they see fit and desirable.

Former President Trump and his conspirators in the Senate, House, and state and local legislative bodies are determined to rob women of their freedom. They are doing exactly that: a violation of human rights in every sense of the word, and it must be condemned in the strongest terms.

No woman should ever believe Trump, who is trumpeting his false statements that he will not pass a national abortion ban. Every woman should remember his bigotry and dishonesty in dealing with just about every issue during his first term as president. Should he be reelected, women, who make up 50 percent of the electorate, will be disfranchised and lose their freedom, which is the bedrock of the American constitution.

On the other hand, Kamala Harris was the first vice president in history to visit a Planned Parenthood clinic, has firmly supported reinstating the protections of Roe v. Wade, has talked with the women of this country about this crucial issue, and has been a strong advocate of what women rightfully demand: the freedom to make decisions about one’s own body.

In this presidential election, there is only one option to uphold women’s right to abortion, which is a fundamental human rights issue that has made America proud for more than two centuries. In this pivotal election, only Kamala Harris will protect the sanctity of human rights, of which women’s right to abortion is inseparable.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.
alon@alonben-meir.com

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Stigmatization is the Entry Door for Repression and Violence

Civil Society, Democracy, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

In Lima, Peru, during a 2021 national demonstration by indigenous women movements. Credit: Felipe Caicedo

BOGOTA, Colombia, Oct 15 2024 (IPS) – Information manipulation and misinformation are not new phenomena, but they have taken on exaggerated importance, especially with the massive use of social media.


Hostile and stigmatizing narratives against civil society and civic activism, whether intentional or not, especially when propagated by authorities, create undue restrictions and hinder the exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association globally, and is contributing to the growing authoritarianism and the closing of civic space.

Different types of unjustified narratives are being used globally to target and silence civil society activists and protests: i) accusations of threat to State security and terrorism, facilitated by broad anti-terrorism laws. ii) labels related to treason to the nation and the national influence, including calling ‘foreign agents’ or ‘agents of foreign influence’ to organizations that receive foreign funding. iii) ‘anti-development’ rhetoric used to target land right defenders and climate justice activism. iv) narratives exploiting discrimination and structural racism, including sexual and gender-based violence, and attacks to associations aiding refugees and migrants; among others.

The problem is that these stories, labels and narratives do not remain solely in the discursive field. Activists subjected to stigmatization, and their families, face intimidation, physical attacks and online harassment.

Branding civil society, movements and activists as “terrorists” or “traitors” has a serious impact on their lives, well-being and economic situation; it silences them and leads to the defunding of associations and their illegal dissolution.

The broad chilling impact created by the stigmatization of civil society and assemblies leads to further severely restricting the ability of people to participate fully in society, exacerbates inequalities, fosters environments of fear and hostility, increases polarization and erodes trust between authorities and the public.

This hostile atmosphere provides fertile ground for the emergence of the anti-rights movements and rhetoric, and erode democracy.

Its impact is especially deeper for individuals and groups that already experience heightened barriers to exercising their freedoms and are subjected to inequality, marginalization, racism, discrimination and violence because of, among other grounds, their gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age and/ or migration status.

Stigmatization is disseminated by a broad set of actors, including political actors, state officials, and non-state actors, often supported with disinformation and smear campaigns, as well as populist rhetoric by authorities and public figures.

I have found a mutually reinforcing cycle of stigmatization, restrictive laws and repression of civil society and activism. Hostile and stigmatizing rhetoric leads to sweeping restrictions, adoption of restrictive laws, including imposition of excessive regulations, burdensome administrative requirements and heavy sanctions and criminalising associations while cutting off their funding.

These measures further fuel stigmatization and empower actors spreading stigmatizing narratives.

Also, stigmatizing narratives, especially when spread by those in power and amplified by the media, has legitimized repression of activists and peaceful assemblies. Whereas the unjustified heavy-handed law enforcement tactics and criminalization of protesters and activists have led to furthering stigmatization and delegitimizing the legitimate goals of the peaceful assembly.

There are several initiatives to respond and counter harmful narratives against activism, CSOs and assemblies. First, countering anti-rights narratives and developing narratives promoting messages to reinvigorate public support for democracy and human rights is crucial. All the initiatives that are changing the narratives based on hate for messages that are supported in hope need to be multiplied.

Hate is a better transmitter of stigmatization that hope.

Also, taking into account that stigmatization is forcing to silence the dissent, it is important to enhance space for dialogue and inclusion, to promote the valuable and legitimate role of civil society sector, and create a safe space for inclusive participation. When there is room for diversity of voices, silencing is more difficult.

Solidarity and building resilience are keys, to support associations targeted with stigmatizing and hateful rhetoric. Also, measuring the existence and impact of harmful narratives, including information about the long-term chilling effect that these have on the exercise of public freedoms and on other human rights allows the public and opinion-makers to have a better understanding and enable more critical debates.

Among other measures, States should ensure official rhetoric respects and supports fundamental freedoms, avoiding to use narratives and political discourse that discourage, vilify and criminalize civil society and the exercise of the right to protest.

Also, States must condemn and address harmful rhetoric, and promoting alternative narratives as well as an environment of public dialogue and inclusion in decision-making.

Fearing and persecuting dissent drives societies away from the rule of law, democracy and human rights, and claims hundreds of lives every year.

Gina Romero is UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

What do Russia and Israel Share in Common?

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Middle East & North Africa, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Damage caused after shelling in Mariupol, in southeastern Ukraine.Credit: UNICEF/Evegeniy Maloletka

MOSCOW, Oct 11 2024 (IPS) – Russia is pursuing, during these contemporary times, a new form of economic architecture, non-hegemonic policies and simultaneously portraying its first-class military power in the world. Russia’s development paradigm is distinctively different and largely oriented towards Global South.


While Russia stands against Western hegemony and dominance, and against NATO, Israel maintains a complex relationship between the United States characterized by deep-rooted historical ties.

But a closer examination also glaringly shows Russia and Israel have in common a depopulation agenda, Russia is demilitarizing its neighbour Ukraine, both were closely-knitted republics in the Soviet times, while Israel aims at settling on Palestine territory.

Russia referred to its war with Ukraine as a ‘special military operation’ which it began on 24th February 2022 soon after Federation Council and the State Duma approved (both houses of legislators). It has since been reviewing ‘peace initiatives’ offered by China, South Africa and many others. Brazil and India are currently pushing for a peace summit. In the case of Israel, it has completely brushed aside the ‘two-state’ resolution by the United Nations.

The United States has extended a combination of different kinds of support to Israel since its recognition after its establishment in 1948. The general perception is that throughout the 20th century, particularly during the Cold War, the United States viewed Israel as a crucial ally against common enemies such as Nazism and communism.

Furthermore, it has provided significant military aid to Israel, approximately $3.8 billion annually. Based upon these and without doubts, Israel therefore represents United States strategic interests in the region.

With the escalation of Israel war in the region, Russia has started talking about peace initiatives, in contrast to its accepting peace initiatives in the case of Ukraine. Russia has voiced concerns over potential Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Russia and Iran have excellent relations.

Earlier, a number of foreign media outlets reported that Israel might attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in retaliation for its earlier massive missile strike. Meanwhile, the United States has indicated that it did not support this idea.

With the conflict continuing and showing signs of disastrous consequences including in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, Russia gave a more realistic warning in early October, especially to its citizens in Israel. Latest Israeli airstrikes attack on the vicinity of Russia’s Khmeimim base in Syria necessitated Kremlin to order its estimated 1.5 million citizens to immediately leave Israel.

It further warned its people to get out before it’s too late. Something big was coming. Russia also evacuated citizens from Lebanon. The perception was that Russia was first neutral and played the double games with Israel as a means to protect its citizens, and also has little moral to advocate for peace between Israel and Palestine.

Palestine-Israeli conflict, which began in October 2023, has received global condemnations. At first, Russia has been extra-cautious talking about the Palestine-Israeli situation because of two main factors. The first is connected to its own military bombardment of Ukraine, distinctive similar to Ukraine.

South Africa has not raised genocide allegations in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, though. As the developments at the Gaza Strip show, it has taken on the genocide case triggered by a disproportionate military response or the high number of Palestinian casualties.

Then, the second point is Russia has an excellent relationship with Israel that it found it extremely difficult to publicly condemned Israel’s atrocities on Palestine. Russia and Israel have been strengthening their bilateral relations.

Both have stressed the importance of continuing active work in all areas of bilateral cooperation and the development of economic and trade, scientific, and cultural spheres, despite the ongoing crisis in the Middle East, and specifically between Palestine and Israel. Russia, at the initial stages suggested adopting measures to undertake a broad dialogue in ensuring territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Putin, as far back, on October 2023, expressed Russia’s sincere condolences to the families and friends of the Israeli victims. In addition, he warned about further escalation of violence and to avert a humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip. In particular, he informed the Israeli side of the key points of the telephone conversation with the leaders of Palestine, Egypt, Iran and Syria.

Besides warning, Russia’s principled commitment to continue its work to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and achieve a peaceful settlement through political and diplomatic means was reaffirmed.

It was only quite recently, in December last year, that Russian President Vladimir Putin has reiterated Russia’s principled position in rejecting and condemning terrorist in all of its manifestations, the Kremlin press service said after his phone calls with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“The conversation focused on the situation in the zone of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and, in particular, on the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip. Vladimir Putin reiterated the principled position of rejecting and condemning terrorism in all of its manifestations. Along with that, it is extremely important to ensure that efforts against terrorist threats do not entail such severe consequences for the civilian population,” it said.

The situation in the zone of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was among the central topics during Putin’s talks with the Saudi Crown Prince and the Presidents of the United Arab Emirates, Iran, and Egypt earlier in December 2023. Israel declared a total blockade of the Gaza Strip and launched bombardments of the enclave and some areas in Lebanon and Syria, as well as a ground operation against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Late January, the Israel Defense Forces has stormed a number of cities in the West Bank in sharp escalated battles with Palestinian resistance, according several media reports including Al Jazeera. Israel has declared a complete siege of the Gaza Strip. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Egypt and Jordan have also submitted settlement proposals for the Gaza Strip.

The Middle East is becoming a new arena of geopolitical confrontation. And Russian experts on the Middle-East issues have been up and offering their views since the conflicted October 7, the beginning of the conflict. The experts maintained that Russia has been actively building up its relations with countries across the Middle East in the context of resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Middle East expert Andrey Ontikov told Izvestia newspaper that if the Europeans and Americans truly wanted to promote the idea of a two-state solution, they could put some pressure on Israel’s leadership.

“While a part of the elite is committed to the idea of establishing an independent Palestinian state, others believe that the [window of] time for this has been lost. Much will depend on the outcome of the war,” he said, adding that resolving the Palestinian issue politically would depend on both the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves, Dmitry Mariyasis, leading researcher with the Department of Israel Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Oriental Studies.

According to experts interviewed by Russia’s Izvestia newspaper, Moscow’s goal here is to find partner support in its confrontation with the West, including in Ukraine. Finding ways to reduce tensions not only between the Jewish state and radical Palestinian movement Hamas, but also in the region as a whole became a key topic of discussion at a special meeting of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

On 28th December 2023, Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov praised Netanyahu for not criticizing Russia in public statements regarding the ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine. Lavrov said that Russia’s goals of “demilitarization” and “denazification” in Ukraine were similar to Israel’s stated goals of defeating Hamas and extremism in Gaza.

Excerpts from the briefing held on 12th January 2024, Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova expressed absolute regret over the massive civilian casualties in the current escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. “Russia proceeds from the unacceptability of targeted violence against civilians and the deliberate destruction of medical facilities and other civilian infrastructure.”

“Our country calls for strict compliance with international law, an immediate ceasefire in accordance with the decisions of the Security Council and the UN General Assembly,” argued Zakharova, while she closed her eyes on the consequences of the Russia-Ukraine conflict which began 24th February 2022.

In a nutshell, Russia has appreciable multifaceted relations with Israel these several years, just as it has with South Africa. But what seems to be important for the Kremlin is readiness to provide possible assistance to alleviate the suffering of civilians and de-escalate the conflict.

In the Kremlin, President Vladimir Putin’s comments on Palestine-Israeli was in addition to reaffirm its principled position on the essence to avoid such grave consequences for the civilian population while countering terrorist threats. In short, there would not be any attempt, not even the least sign in the near future, to sever decades-old relations between Israel and Russia.

Kester Kenn Klomegah focuses on current geopolitical changes, foreign relations and economic development-related questions in Africa with external countries. Most of his well-resourced articles are reprinted in several reputable foreign media.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Strategic Patience can Mitigate Conflict Between Israel & Iran

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Middle East & North Africa, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

President Masoud Pezeshkian of Iran addresses the general debate of the General Assembly’s 79th session in September 2024. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

WASHINGTON DC/OXFORD, Oct 9 2024 (IPS) – How will Israel respond to Iran’s recent ballistic missiles barrage? “Strategic patience” is the best course. Israel has its hands full with Hamas and Hezbollah. Now is not the time to escalate a new major war with Iran, which could have nuclear implications.


Israeli intelligence is still chafing from its failure to preempt Hamas’ attack on October 7, which killed 1,200 Israelis. In the year since Hamas attacked, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) launched operations that killed 41,000 Palestinians.

Its response has been brutal yet ineffective. Israel failed to capture the Hamas leader, Yahya Sinwar or gain the release of more than 100 Israeli hostages. A humanitarian catastrophe led to the starvation and displacement of more than 2 million people.

The IDF since taken a big step to redeem its tarnished reputation by deterring Iran’s missiles strikes. The “iron dome” repelled 190 ballistic missiles fired by Iran last week. Israel repelled another attack on April 13 involving 300 missile and attack drones, which caused little damage.

Iran was embarrassed by the sequence of events, which went far beyond its failed missile attacks. I know from Javad Zarif, Iran’s former foreign minister, that Persian pride is important to Iranians. Iran faced many setbacks in the past year. President Ibrahim Raisi died in a fiery helicopter crash.

Masoud Pezeshkian, who supports engagement with the United States, gained a plurality of the popular vote and became Iran’s president. The outcome was a rebuke to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime.

No event affected Iran more than the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. Nasrallah was a friend of and served as Iran’s most steadfast proxy for more than 30 years. Nasrallah was killed in an air strike in Beirut by 2,000 pound-bunker buster bombs that devastated the Southern Beirut neighborhood of Dahiyeh.

The air strike was another indignity following Israel’s sabotage of Hezbollah pagers and walkie-talkies that killed scores of Hezbollah commanders and disabled its communications system.

Hezbollah’s mythical reputation for battlefield prowess was shattered. Hezbollah was the most significant of Iran’s proxies in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Nasrallah fought ISIS, defended Bashar al-Assad in Syria’s civil war, and did the regime’s dirty work around the world.

Fearing his own assassination, Khamenei was removed to a secure location. He emerged in time for Friday prayers to defend Iran’s missile strikes on Israel as “correct, logical, and lawful” and to condemn Israel’s “astonishing crimes”.

Nasrallah’s death was a big blow to the Iranian regime. Iran was further humiliated by the assassination of Ismail Haniya, a senior Hamas figure staying in an official guest house while attending Raisi’s funeral in Tehran.

Netanyahu warned that no place in the Middle East is safe from Israel’s security services. He was right. In addition, economic sanctions have taken their toll on Iranians. Sanctions relief is a distant dream as the US and G7 allies tighten the screws on Iran’s economy.

Israel-Iran relations are at a fork in the road. President Joe Biden has urged Netanyahu to consider “alternatives” to attacking Iranian nuclear sites or destroying Iran’s oil infrastructure. There is an alternative conflict escalation.

Netanyahu and Khamenei should consider a new approach now that the shadow war is out in the open. Diplomacy would require assurances from Israel that it won’t launch a first strike against Iran. In turn, Iran must guarantee that its nuclear program won’t be weaponized.

Discreet discussions with the International Atomic Energy Agency would advance safeguards, including spot inspections of Iran’s nuclear sites and the reactivation of electronic surveillance. For sure, Israel will continue operations in Gaza. Israel will hunt Sinwar until he is eliminated. It cannot countenance another October 7.

In Lebanon, Israel has succeeded in killing Nasrallah and eliminating half of Hezbollah’s 150,000 missiles. Its ground operation in Southern Lebanon cannot be open-ended. Having a failed state on Israel’s northern border would result in continued instability and risk.

Regional progress would be impossible with a new front between Israel and Iran. Strategic patience means that Israel would bide its time until there is an opportunity for diplomatic progress. Diplomacy and de-escalation are preferable to war without end.

David L. Phillips is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Security Studies Program and a Visiting Research Scholar at Oxford University.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Activists Call on World to ‘Imagine’ Peace, End Nuclear Arms

Active Citizens, Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Conferences, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Nuclear Disarmament, Peace, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Peace

The panel for the session on “Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Imagining a World without Nuclear Weapons.” Credit: AD McKenzie/IPS

The panel for the session on “Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Imagining a World without Nuclear Weapons.” Credit: AD McKenzie/IPS

PARIS, Sep 27 2024 (IPS) – In any discussion of world peace and the future of humanity, the issue of nuclear arms must be addressed, and now.


That was the message from a range of delegates at the “Imaginer la Paix / Imagine Peace” conference, held in Paris September 22 to 24, and organized by the Sant’Egidio Community, a Christian organization founded in Rome in 1968 and now based in 70 countries.

Describing its tenets as “Prayer, service to the Poor and work for Peace,” the community has hosted 38 international, multi-faith peace meetings, bringing together activists from around the world. This is the first time the conference has been held in Paris, with hundreds traveling to France, itself a nuclear-weapon state.

Occurring against the backdrop of brutal, on-going conflicts in different regions and a new race by some countries to “upgrade” their arsenal, the gathering had a sense of urgency, with growing fears that nuclear weapons might be used by warlords. Participants highlighted current and past atrocities and called upon world leaders to learn from the past.

“After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we have been blessed with many who have said ‘no’—’no’ a million times, creating movements and treaties, (and) awareness… that the only reasonable insight to learn from the conception and use of nuclear weapons is to say ‘no’,” said Andrea Bartoli, president of the Sant’Egidio Foundation for Peace and Dialogue, based in New York.

Participating in a conference forum Monday titled “Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Imagining a World Without Nuclear Weapons,”  Bartoli and other speakers drew stark pictures of what living in a world with nuclear weapons entails, and they highlighted developments since World War II.

“After the two bombs were used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, humans built more than 70,000 nuclear weapons and performed more than 2,000 tests. Still today we have more than 12,500, each of them with power greatly superior to the two used in August 1945,” Bartoli said.

Despite awareness of the catastrophic potential of these weapons and despite a UN treaty prohibiting their use, some governments argue that possessing nuclear arms is a deterrent—an argument that is deceptive, according to the forum speakers.

Anna Ikeda, program coordinator tor disarmament at the UN Office of Soka Gakkai International. Credit: AD McKenzie/IPS

Anna Ikeda, program coordinator for disarmament at the UN Office of Soka Gakkai International. Credit: AD McKenzie/IPS

Jean-Marie Collin, director of ICAN (the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a movement launched in the early 2000s in Australia and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017), said that leaders who cite deterrence “accept the possibility of violating” international human rights.

“Nuclear weapons are designed to destroy cities and kill and maim entire populations, which means that all presidents and heads of government who implement a defense policy based on nuclear deterrence and who are therefore responsible for giving this order, are aware of this,” Collin told the forum.

ICAN campaigned for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons that was adopted at the United Nations in 2017, entering into force in 2021. The adoption came nearly five decades after the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in 1970.

The terms of the NPT consider five countries to be nuclear weapons states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China. Four other countries also possess nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel.

According to a 2024 ICAN report, these nine states jointly spent €85 billion (USD 94,6 billion) on their atomic weapon arsenals last year, an expenditure ICAN has called “obscene” and “unacceptable.” France, whose president Emmanuel Macron spoke about peace in broad, general terms at the opening of the conference, spent around €5,3 billion (about USD 5,9 billion) in 2023 on its nuclear weapons, said the report.

The policy of “deterrence” and “reciprocity,”  which essentially means “we’ll get rid of our weapons if you get rid of yours,”  has been slammed by ICAN and fellow disarmament activists.

“With the constant flow of information, we often tend to lose sight of the reality of figures,” Collin said at the peace conference. “I hope this one will hold your attention: it is estimated that more than 38,000 children were killed in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Children!”

All those killed—an estimated 210,000 people by the end of 1945—died in horrific ways, as survivors and others have testified. Delegates said that this knowledge should be the real “deterrent.”

At the forum, Anna Ikeda, program coordinator for disarmament at the UN Office of Soka Gakkai International, a global Buddhist movement, described testimony from a Hiroshima a-bomb survivor, Reiko Yamada, as one she would never forget.

“She (Yamada) stated, ‘A good friend of mine in the neighbourhood was waiting for her mother to return home with her four brothers and sisters. Later, she told me that on the second day after the bombing, a moving black lump crawled into the house. They first thought it was a black dog, but they soon realized it was their mother; she collapsed and died when she finally got to her children. They cremated her body in the yard,” Ikeda told the audience with emotion.

“Who deserves to die such a death? Nobody!” she continued. “Yet our world continues to spend billions of dollars to upkeep our nuclear arsenals, and our leaders at times imply readiness to use them. It is utterly unacceptable.”

Ikeda said that survivors, known as the “hibakusha” in Japan, have a fundamental answer to why nuclear weapons must be abolished—it is that “no one else should ever suffer what we did.”

Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Cultivating a Culture of Peace

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Peace, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

UNDP’s peacebuilding work in Afghanistan coordinates efforts, from international to local, and ensures community members, particularly disadvantaged groups, have a meaningful role in shaping their future. Credit: UNDP Afghanistan

UNITED NATIONS, Sep 26 2024 (IPS) – As global peace hits its lowest point since the Second World War, the International Day of Peace on September 21 offered a critical moment to reflect on and strengthen our peacebuilding efforts.


This year’s theme, ‘Cultivating a Culture of Peace’, is a powerful reminder that for peace to be possible, everyone must play a part.

This sentiment is at the heart of the UNDP’s conflict prevention and peacebuilding work, which we call an ‘area-based approach’. Under this model, we ensure that all those who are working towards peace within a community are working together, and towards a common goal.

The work is tailored to the specific needs and conditions of each particular community, and is locally-led. Peace has its greatest chance when communities come together to address the underlying causes of tension or conflict.

Conflict is on the rise

Today’s conflicts are driven by complex factors including shifting global power dynamics, weak governance, rising inequalities, and a range of interconnected threats such as climate change, crime, and terrorism.

The toll of armed conflicts is staggering. By the end of 2023, conflict-related deaths had surged dramatically. Over 117 million people have been forcibly displaced. Violence has cost the global economy an astonishing US$19.1 trillion. Two billion people, one quarter of the world’s population, live in conflict zones.

If we don’t invest sufficiently in peace, we can’t hope to reverse these trends. Yet, international resources are increasingly focused on immediate humanitarian relief rather than at the root causes of conflict.

The OECD estimates humanitarian aid in fragile contexts has reached a historic high of 27.7 percent of the Development Assistance Committee’s official development assistance, while peace building funding has fallen to a 15-year low of 10.8 percent.

In response, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres’s vision for building a more peaceful world, the New Agenda for Peace, calls for greater international cooperation and a decisive shift towards prioritizing conflict prevention.

To effectively address the root causes of violence It emphasizes the importance of national ownership, people-centred strategies, and peace financing. One way of meeting the promise of the New Agenda for Peace is to employ an area-based approach.

Area-based responses keep local communitiess at the centre of the peacebuilding process. Credit: UNDP Syria

What is an area-based approach?

It delivers tailored recovery and development based on context and conflict analysis. It works with local authorities, community groups, and local businesses to analyze and plan locally tailored solutions. In places such as Syria it ensures that responses are locally rooted, and keeps communities at the centre of the process.

Local communities, including vulnerable and excluded groups, define the priorities of area-based approaches. This inclusive engagement creates a shared sense of purpose, which is the foundation for building peace.

In Mozambique this has helped address localized conflict and foster resilience, including ensuring meaningful local participation in navigating entrenched social and political barriers.

In southern Iraq, UNDP is using an area-based approach to harmonize crisis response coordination, basic service delivery, livelihood opportunities, and protection for at-risk groups. It addresses the many facets of recovery and resilience simultaneously, helping build a foundation for lasting peace.

Area-based approaches also provide a coordination framework for international organizations to assess local needs, and design cost-effective responses.

UNDP’s work in Afghanistan coordinates efforts, from international to local, increasing effectiveness and value for money while also supporting local ownership. This ensures that community members, particularly disadvantaged groups, have a meaningful role in shaping their future.

Leveraging over 30 years of experience, UNDP has found area-based approaches to be highly effective in addressing some of the key barriers to peace, such as poverty, inequality, and weak governance.

However, these approaches are not a panacea.

There are challenges in ensuring meaningful participation. Among them are coordinating diverse stakeholders, sustaining long-term impact, managing varying expectations, and overcoming capacity constraints. To be effective peacebuilding programmes must be integrated into broader frameworks, such as national prevention strategies, efforts to mitigate strategic risks, and international cooperation.

Despite their challenges, area-based approaches have great potential for preventing conflict, fostering peace and building community resilience. We’re already seeing the dividends in Mozambique, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond.

By focusing on people-centred solutions, fostering national ownership and addressing the root causes of conflict, area-based approaches play a critical role in cultivating a culture of peace from the ground up.

Naysan Adlparvar is Core Government Functions and Research Advisor, UNDP; Giacomo Negrotto is Local Governance Specialist, UNDP; Adela Pozder-Cengic is Core Government Functions Specialist, UNDP

Source UNDP

IPS UN Bureau

  Source