To readers:
Unusually,
my blog post has an unusual length. I decided to propose during this
vacation period, perhaps more conducive to reflection, a real analytical
note on the very worrying situation of world peace. I bring my
proposals and reflections and above all, wish to initiate a broad debate
on the renewal of the objectives of action on peace. I hope you find it
of interest. DD
_______________________________________________________________________
IDRP – context note – August 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To get out of warlike impasses,
rethink the struggle for peace
Daniel Durand
Between
May 2024 and May 2025, we commemorate and remember that eighty years
ago we defeated the Nazi hydra and restored world peace.
Today, our societies, on all continents, seem inclined to once again take warlike and dangerous paths.
In Europe, a regional war led by Russia against Ukraine increasingly
threatens to turn into a major global conflict. In Asia, around the
Strait of Formosa, war clashes are becoming worrying. In Africa, bloody
conflicts continue to the indifference of the Western world. In the
Middle East, the bloody terrorist attacks of Hamas have led, in the name
of the archaic law of retaliation, to carnage of civilian populations,
increasingly described as genocide. On the American continent, the
political uncertainty reigning within the largest military power is
worrying.
Accelerated militarization
These situations are aggravated by the fact that the amount of military spending is reaching peaks around the world. More than 2,400 billion dollars during the year 2023 according to the Swedish institute SIPRI i !
With
defense spending reaching over US$916 billion, the United States is in
first place. Followed by China (296 billion), Russia (109 billion) and
India (98 billion). Next come Saudi Arabia (75.8 billion) and the United
Kingdom (74.9 billion). Germany (66.8 billion) and France (61.3
billion) were in 2023 the nations with the highest military spending in
the European Union. Ukraine, for its part, spent $64.8 billion on arms
as a result of the war
. This military spending fuels a thriving and worrying arms trade. If
the United States is by far the leading arms exporters in the world (42%
of the total), France now ranks second ahead of Russia ($27 billion in
2022) iii .
The summit held in Washington iv
, in July 2024, by the largest military alliance in the world, NATO,
reinforces concerns about the militarization of international relations.
Two new countries have joined this military bloc (Sweden, after
Finland), which now has 32 members. 23 of them now devote more than 2%
of their gross domestic product to military spending.
This
summit was marked, despite the leaders' affirmations of principle, by
the desire to extend the influence of the Alliance in several regions of
the world. His final statement is enlightening. v The leaders clearly state: "
We will meet with the leaders of Australia, Japan, New Zealand and the
Republic of Korea and those of the European Union to discuss common
security challenges and areas of cooperation. NATO attaches importance
to the Indo-Pacific, as developments in this part of the world have
direct implications for Euro-Atlantic security.”
We clearly see that the designated adversary is China. It is said that “ The PRC continues to pose systemic challenges to Euro-Atlantic security .”
This
summit with very bellicose overtones confirmed that in Europe, NATO
intended to continue its policy of expansion towards the East, affirming
that “ The future of Ukraine is in NATO” . The pursuit of nuclear militarization is unashamedly affirmed, " Nuclear deterrence is the cornerstone of Alliance security", as is the race for military spending: " We
reaffirm that, in many cases, it will be necessary to devote more of 2%
of GDP to defense spending to address current inadequacies.
After this belligerent positioning, the reaffirmation of principle at the top of the Washington Summit declaration seems an empty assertion : “ We adhere to international law as well as the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”.
Europe in militarization
One of the most worrying decisions of the Washington Summit was the decision taken by US leaders to re-establish long-range missiles in the heart
of Europe and to once again transform our continent into the scene of
future terrible military confrontations. The announcement was made in a
joint statement that the United States would " begin episodic deployments of long-range fire capabilities
" in Germany in 2026. The statement cited SM-6 missiles, Tomahawk
missiles and weapons hypersonics under development, which will increase
the range of US capabilities currently deployed in Europe. This decision
recalls the debates over the deployment of American Pershing missiles
and Soviet SS20s in the late 1970s vi
. European opinions were widely mobilized and influenced the signing by
Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev of a ban and elimination treaty, the
INF Treaty (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty), on December 8,
1987. This required the two countries to eliminate their land-launched
ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of between 500 and 5,500
kilometers, by a date set for June 1, 1991.
The
deployment of American equipment announced on Wednesday would be
contrary to this INF treaty if it were still in force. Unfortunately, on
February 1, 2019
, Donald Trump, after several years of the United States accusing
Russia of again developing these missiles, proclaimed his intention to
withdraw the United States from this treaty.
The
negotiations with Russia having failed, the American withdrawal was
formalized on August 2, 2019. Moscow responded the next day by
announcing, in turn, that it was withdrawing from this treaty.
This
return to over-armament in Europe is accentuated by the announcement,
again in parallel with the NATO summit, that France, Germany, Italy and
Poland had signed a letter of intent establishing a joint development
project and acquisition of long-range missiles, that is to say with a
range of more than 500 kilometers (up to 1,000 km), which the European
Union does not have. According to Ouest-France vii , this capability effort, initiated by Paris, will focus on the possibility of “ deep ground-to-ground strikes ”.
In
this context, the fact that Ursula von der Layen was renewed in her
mandate as President of the European Commission is not a good sign for
peace, she who marked her action by the commitment of the The European
Union, for the first time in its history, in the development of arms
supplies to an external country viii .
It
is becoming clear that Europe no longer aims to be an actor in world
peace but a participant in the power rivalries of today's world. The tone of the last resolution adopted by the European Parliament, on July 17, clearly shows this . She “
welcomes the results of the NATO summit and reaffirms her conviction
that Ukraine is irreversibly committed to the path to membership in NATO ”.
The
concern that we may have towards this European political line based on
the exacerbation of military tensions can only be reinforced by the
information revealed by the German media Der Spiegel x .
He
has just revealed that Berlin is secretly preparing a gigantic
logistical effort which aims to allow the passage, in a few months, of
800,000 NATO soldiers through its territory, on their way to defend
Eastern Europe against Moscow. This shows that the Atlantic Alliance
seeks to prepare for a confrontation with Russia, whatever its form and
location. This also shows that Germany has entered a new era, where the
military dimension is no longer shameful. “ We are ready to take orders”, it is with this proactive expression launched on May 9 in front of the press, and reported by the Taggesspiegel,
that Boris Pistorius, the German Minister of Defense, wanted to define
the new position diplomacy that Berlin wishes to embody, during an official visit to the United States xi .
Remember that Chancellor Scholz declared in June 2022, after the G7 summit, that “ The largest conventional army in Europe within the framework of NATO is being formed [in Germany Editor’s note]” xii .
On
the French side, President Macron, after aligning himself with the
positions of Mrs von der Leyen, during his presidency of the European
Union in 2023, finally chose to play the role of firefighter by
proposing the sending of troops in Ukraine in February 2024 xiii . Although his proposal was received with reluctance by his European and American allies, this
idea helped to prepare minds for new warlike adventures. We can
consider that it is the same approach aimed at trivializing sensitive
military subjects which led him on May 2 to call for a debate on the strategic autonomy of the European Union, and to declare
"I am in favor of opening this debate which must therefore include
anti-missile defense, long-range weapon firing, nuclear weapons for
those who have them or who have American nuclear weapons on their soil.
Let’s put everything on the table and look at what truly protects us in a
credible way.” These remarks
raised an outcry that the President's defenders tried to quell by
saying that Emmanuel Macron was only repeating the old strategic
thinking expressed since Pompidou that “ France's vital interests now have a European dimension” xiv . We
must not be naive: in the political context of 2024, the presidential
reflection necessarily went beyond the simple reminder of the classic
doctrine of deterrence!
Emmanuel Macron completed the picture of his new military-strategic positioning by announcing new increases in French military spending for the coming months . He declared on July 14 that he wanted to “ prepare an adjustment to our military programming for 2025 ” xv , programming which already marks a 42% increase in French military spending.
But, in these days of August 2024 which evoke memories of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (August 6 and 9, 1945), the nuclear danger remains the most worrying threat to world peace
and it is very worrying to note that , in political speeches, and
particularly in that of Russian leaders, nuclear weapons are once again
becoming a subject of political controversy. Furthermore, to support its
senseless offensive contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, this
country is developing a war economy, which plunges its population into
misery and serves as justification for all promoters of the
militarization of the world.
As
revealed in a recently released report by the International Campaign to
Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), global spending on nuclear weapons
increased by 13.4% in 2023 xvi
. The United States has increased its spending the most with an
increase of almost 18% in its spending in this area while it spends the
most on military nuclear power by far: 51.5 billion dollars, compared to
11.9 billion dollars for China, which comes in second place. For the
other major nuclear powers, the increase was 17% in the United Kingdom
and around 6% in Russia, France and China. On the other hand, in 2023,
Russia was the country with the most nuclear warheads in the world
(4,380 warheads), ahead of the American 3,708 nuclear warheads and
France's 290.
Despite
growing support among non-nuclear countries, the TPNW (Treaty on the
Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons), which has been ratified by 70 states
and signed by 93, still faces hostility from current nuclear countries
and that of member countries. of NATO. This means that the risk of
nuclear destruction has not been ruled out and that the world is still
under threat of slippage or provocation around the NATO/Russia borders
or around the Formosa Strait.
In
this new climate of global militarization, the planet is therefore
faced with the highest risks of war known since the end of the Cold War.
At the same time, it must be admitted that peace mobilizations are weak.
The fight against the war in Ukraine divides the democratic forces,
divided between support for the Ukrainian people, implying support for
arms deliveries provided by the Western camp, or a demand for
negotiations and a ceasefire, assimilated to a support for the Putin
regime. The turn of the German Greens (or the Troskyists of the NPA in
France) on this subject is enlightening.
Even
in the dramatic situation of civilians in Gaza, the ceasefire movement
is struggling to truly become a mass movement, being caricatured and
accused of anti-Semitism by the media mainstream.
How
to act in this situation, faced with the dangers for world peace and
the difficulty in mobilizing opinions? Should we not go beyond simple
observations or critical analyses, certainly lucid but powerless?
Should we not imagine innovative solutions to ensure world peace in the 21st century , which can mobilize public opinion around the world and sweep away resistance from state apparatuses?
Reinvent peace?
Let's ask ourselves: what did we forget after the end of the Cold War?
Let's
open our eyes: all the conflicts in the world are linked. Peace will
not be settled on the scale of Europe alone. We have forgotten the
reason for the proclamation of the United Nations Charter and the creation of the organization.
Above all, we have forgotten the basis of its action stated in its preamble and in its article 1: “ to
achieve, by peaceful means, in accordance with the principles of
justice and international law, the adjustment or settlement of disputes
or situations, of an international character, likely to lead to a
breakdown of the peace ” xvii .
It is this principle and this rule that all the great powers trample on. This is what we must re-impose.
The
obligation, posed by respect for the United Nations Charter,
particularly for the members of the Security Council, is not simply to
say " Russia cannot and must not win this war" xviii or "to defeat the Russian aggressor” xix .
It
is fundamentally, today, in Ukraine to obtain a ceasefire, to create
the conditions for a framework of diplomatic discussions in conformity
with the Charter of the United Nations and therefore with international
law, and thus, to make it possible to build compromise solutions, some
of which were outlined in the Minsk agreements in 2014.
More than two years after the start of Russian aggression, we must fully apply Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which recognizes the attacked country's " natural right of self-defense ", but which adds " until that the Security Council has taken the necessary measures to maintain international peace and security
.” It is these political and diplomatic initiatives that must be taken
as a priority now. However, for more than two years, the “ Western bloc
” which has reformed has frustrated all diplomatic initiatives to
explore political outcomes, whether individual (Pope Francis, Turkey's
Recip Erdogan) or state ( Brazil, South Africa). Better, on June 15 and 16, 2024, Switzerland organized a high-level conference on peace in Ukraine, which was held without the presence of Russia. “ Despite
certain advances, the Ukrainian strategy of rallying the countries of
the Global South has not worked, as evidenced by the fact that no BRICS+
member signed the final communiqué,” estimates IRIS researcher Jean de Gliniasty xx . One of the only positive points is the fact that the Ukrainian
president opened the door, for the first time, to the participation of a
Russian delegation in another future peace summit xxi .
More
generally, we have arrived at a turning point in international life.
The only positive and promising perspective is to make, concretely, the
application of international law the pivot of global multilateralism.
International law at the heart of the future
How
to make people understand the importance of international law, of its
organizations, of absolute respect for the Charter of the United
Nations, of the central role of the latter in today's world, to overcome
the obstacle of the great powers, to give its true place to humans, to
“W e, the people ”?
Above
all, how can we make it understood and supported by public opinion as a
whole, outside of just the informed and militant part?
The major problems facing our generations all require global and planetary solutions.
NEVER have humans been able to say as today, we are in the “ same boat ”, a “ world boat ” which can
sink, either because of physical threats (linked to global warming)
which is well understood in youth, either because of military threats
(nuclear conflict or uncontrollable regional conflict, in the Middle
East or Asia), which is sometimes underestimated, except perhaps by those who experienced the periods of the Cold War .
It is by relying on the perception, perhaps widespread today, of the globality of global climate issues , particularly among young people, that we must move forward on the notion of “ same boat ” or “ same house ” .
For my part, I prefer to speak of a “ common house ” of which we would be co-owners, very unequal in status.
Let's see that today, there is nothing outside this common house, G7, G20 are only squatters in the co- ownership !
We succeeded in establishing initially, in 1945, a “ co-ownership regulation ”,
the United Nations Charter, a Trade Union Council with the Security
Council and working commissions, with all the UN institutions. It is this construction that we must revisit, make it work better. To
do this, we need to explain it much more, popularize it and have it
appropriated by the people. There is therefore an enormous dimension of
popular education to be carried out, popular education and I would add,
popular mobilization. This is where an active education policy has its
place and represents an issue that must be taken into account , in all countries, by education structures.
What
is the heart of this United Nations Charter? It is to build peace,
banish force and war from international relations. It is fundamental to
understand it, to explain it and to fight to have it respected!
We must take a step forward today!
The
question of respect for international law based on the Charter of the
United Nations and then on all constructions which resulted from it has
become central and will be the challenge of the next two decades.
Is what was difficult yesterday more within our reach today?
Yes, because we must see that this world has changed profoundly since 1945.
The number of States has quadrupled since 1945, the role of emerging countries and those of the Global South is growing.
At the same time, the UN multilateral system developed: agencies, treaties.
We have
moved, in a few decades, from the exclusive order of States in 1945 to a
complex global network of forces, where we find alongside these States,
non-state entities, economic forces and NGOs.
Last
element not to be neglected: it is the revolution in the means of
information with technologies which promote information and the
possibilities of individual interventions.
Despite
the obstacles, international law is already emerging at the center of
political debates, in particular around the dramatic situation in Gaza.
These
are the findings of the International Court of Justice and the
International Criminal Court which appear to be the essential levers to
use to resolve the situation in Palestine.
We are not doing enough, moreover, to develop pressure for France and
the European Union to enforce the obligation laid down for an immediate
ceasefire in Gaza.
On the climate front, the “Affair of the Century
” was a turning point in actions. Four general interest organizations
have taken the French state to court before the Paris Administrative
Court for inaction in the face of climate change. The aim was to have
the judges recognize the obligation of the State to act to limit global
warming to 1.5°C, in order to protect the French from the risks induced
by climate change. On February 3, 2021, state fault was established;
justice also recognized its responsibility and the ecological damage
caused by France's climate inaction.
These
examples show that international law has become an element of the
solutions for a world of lasting peace, an element of the solution and
also a tool of this solution. Acting with international law as a tool is
not launching into courtroom battles far from public opinion, but the
means of pointing out the responsibilities of the powerful of this world
and circumventing the institutional blockages that they use.
The reform of international institutions is a privileged field of action.
Beyond
the emergency, we must think about the new use of international law and
the decisions of its organs such as the International Court of Justice
and the International Criminal Court to reform the functioning of the
Security Council and overcome blockages and the impasse caused by the
use of the “veto power” by the permanent members of the Security
Council.
How
can we impose respect for the decisions of the International Court of
Justice and the International Criminal Court, by obtaining a ban on the
veto by a permanent member, after a decision by the ICJ?
How
to obtain that the members of the Security Council are obliged to
enforce and apply the decisions of the ICJ and the ICC, and, in the
event of refusal, that there can be a binding vote by the General
Assembly of the UN. This is possible today, when the Security Council
considers that there is a “ threat to peace
”, within the framework of Chapter VII of the Charter, which even
allows the use of force. How can this situation be broadened by ensuring
that all decisions of the ICJ, which are already binding by nature, are
assimilated to situations falling under Chapter VII of the Charter and
can thus be applied by force, if necessary?
In
this year of the 80th anniversary of the founding of the United
Nations, should we not launch a major public opinion campaign on the
theme: “ for the political resolution of conflicts, let us apply international law everywhere, by all, for all” to obtain a resolution from the General Assembly to this effect?
This
proposal could be part of the Summit of the Future which will be held
in September 2024. It would be unthinkable for a Summit of the Future to
discuss the problems of sustainable development, the problems of global
warming without putting on the same level and with the same degree of
urgency, the questions of world peace and action against current
excessive militarization.
Should
we not, as an extension of this idea, launch the proposal to quickly
initiate a cycle of international discussions for the resolution of
armed conflicts. This could be made up of regional peace conferences,
accompanied by local truces in fighting, continent by continent, to lead
to regional peace and common security agreements. These agreements
would make it possible to sometimes begin denuclearization, sometimes
demilitarization in these sectors, as well as the strengthening of
cooperation and regional organizations (OSCE xxii in Europe, African Union xxiii , ASEAN xxiv , OAS xxv
). These decentralized conferences, under the aegis of the United
Nations, could contribute to the construction of more lasting peace in
the world.
Restoring
international law, its full respect, without double standards, is the
only way to get the international situation out of the dangerous shifts
that are occurring. Otherwise, the return to the predominance of power
relations will increase, in Europe with the expansionism of NATO, in the
east of Europe with the cynical warlike excesses of Russia, in Asia,
with the aspirations growing hegemonies of China. In this context, we
see the multiplication of abuses contrary to the law, as practiced by
the current government of Israel. The generalization over the past two
decades of the targeted assassination of external political adversaries,
under the pretext of the fight against terrorism, such as the USA with
Osamah Bin Laden, Israel with Ismaïl Haniyeh, amid almost general indifference, opens a dangerous path.
Only recourse to international law can put a barrier to excesses and make it possible to find political solutions to crises.
More than ever, the challenge arises of transforming this challenge into a major popular demand: “ to
break the war deadlocks, 80 years after its founding, let us bring the
United Nations, our common Charter, everywhere to the heart of world
peace ”.
Daniel Durand – August 6, 2024
President of the IDRP (Institute for Documentation and Research on Peace)
NOTES
