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.
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
i Total global military spending rises to $2.443 billion in 2023, an increase of 6.8% in real terms compared to 2022 – https://www.sipri.org
iii “ France has become the second largest arms exporting country in the world, ahead of Russia ” - https://www.opex360.com/2024/03/11/la-france-est-devenue-le-second-pays -arms-exporter-to-the-world-before-russia/
iv Read the Washington Summit declaration at https://www.nato.int/cps/fr/natohq/official_texts_227678.htm
v ibidem
vi The Euromissile crisis is a period of tense East-West relations and debates within the European members of NATO which arose from the first deployments of Soviet SS-20 missiles in 1977 and ended with the signing of the Treaty on intermediate-range nuclear forces in 1987. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crise_des_euromissiles
vii https://lignesdedefense.ouest-france.fr/longue-portee-et-frappes-en-profondeur-la-course-aux-missiles-est-relancee-en-europe/
viii Two days after the Russian aggression, Mrs von der Leyen used the credits provided under the chapter of the “European Peace Facility” (sic) to finance donations of military equipment to Ukraine. https://theconversation.com/deux-ans-de-guerre-en-ukraine-comment-lue-sest-mobilisee-224028
ix PE762.593 – European Parliament resolution of 17 July 2024 on the need for continued Union support to Ukraine (2024/2721 (RSP)) – https://www.europarl.europa.eu/ doceo/document/B-10-2024-0008_FR.html
x Benjamun Laurent – https://www.geo.fr/geopolitique/le-plan-allemand-pour-deployer-800-000-soldats-al-est-en-cas-de-conflit-avec-la-russie- 221257
xiCourrier international – https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/diplomatie-guerre-en-ukraine-l-allemagne-veut-enfin-prendre-les-commandes
xii https://www.opex360.com/2022/06/29/lallemagne-a-lambition-de-se-doter-de-la-plus-grande-armee-conventionnelle-deurope/
xiii “The West dissociates itself from Emmanuel Macron after his comments on the troops in Ukraine ” – https://www.geo.fr/geopolitique/ukraine-troupes-otan-occident-se-desolidarise-propos-emmanuel-macron -219006
xivLe Huffington Post – https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/politique/article/que-signifie-la-dissuasion-nucleaire-europeenne-evoquee-par-emmanuel-macron_233593.html
xv Speech at the Hôtel de Brienne on July 13, 2024: https://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualites/discours-demmanuel-macron-lhotel-brienne-ce-quil-faut-retenir
xvi https://fr.statista.com/infographie/32460/evolution-depenses-armes-nucleaires-dans-le-monde-et-par-pays/
xvii See the full version of the Charter on the United Nations website: https://www.un.org/fr/about-us/un-charter/full-text
xviii Emmanuel Macron on March 14, 2024: https://www.lexpress.fr/politique/guerre-en-ukraine-macron-sexposition-sur-la-strategie-francaise-7K6XZBZRPBGNPEPWZLGZJA5AMQ/
xix Final Declaration of the NATO Summit in Washington, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_227678.htm
xx https://www.iris-france.org/187185-conference-pour-la-paix-en-ukraine-des-avancees-modestes-pour-kiev/
xxi “ I think that Russian representatives should participate in this second summit,” declared Volodymyr Zelensky. https://www.publicsenat.fr/actualites/international/sommet-sur-la-paix-en-proposing-a-la-russie-de-participer-lukraine-ne-signale-pas-quelle-est-prete- cede-on-the-borders
xxii OSCE: Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The OSCE, with 57 participating states in North America, Central Asia and Europe, is the world's largest regional security organization. The origins of the OSCE date back to the early 1970s, to the Final Act of Helsinki (1975) and the creation of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) which, during the Cold War, served as an important multilateral forum for dialogue and negotiation between the East and the West. https://www.osce.org/fr/
xxiii AU: African Union. The African Union is an intergovernmental organization of African states created on July 9, 2002 in Durban (South Africa), pursuant to the Sirte Declaration of September 9, 1999. It replaces the Organization of African Unity (OAU) . It has 55 member states. https://au.int/en/node/3587
xxiv ASEAN: Association of Southeast Asian Nations. eLLE was founded by five states in maritime Southeast Asia: the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. They joined Brunei in 1984, Vietnam in 1995, Laos and Burma (present-day Myanmar) in 1997 and Cambodia in 1999. https://asean.org/
xxv OAS: Organization of American States. founded in 1948 during the signing in Bogota (Colombia) of the OAS Charter which came into force in December 1951. Today, the OAS brings together all 35 independent states of the Americas. https://www.oas.org/fr/
