Canada, Mexico, U.S. Peace Councils

Yes To Peace, No To NATO

2010-09-16T12:01:00.000-04:00

Dear friends

On the site below you will find the elaborated International Appeal by the World Peace Council (WPC) and the Portuguese Council for Peace and Cooperation (CPPC), which will host together with dozens of Portuguese Organisations the anti-NATO actions during the the next summit to be held in November 2010 in Lisbon.

We call upon all member and friendly organisations on National, Regional and International level to endorse and countersign the Appeal.

You can express your endorsement and support to the e-mail wpc@otenet.gr

Please feel free to publish the Appeal in your printed or/and electronic media.

The Secretariat of WPC

Statement by the World Peace Council and Portuguese Peace Council on NATO.

Campaign against NATO and its Lisbon summit

2010-08-06T13:59:00.000-04:00

Address by Ms. Socorro Gomes, chair of the World Peace Council, pronounced at Nagasaki on the occasion of the passage of the 65th anniversary of the nuclear bombings by the United States of America (USA) against the Japanese people.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Sisters and brothers,

65 years ago an unforgettable landmark tragedy befell the city of Nagasaki and the people of Japan – similarly affecting the whole of humanity–, when a genocide nuclear blast was conducted by the United States. It was the first and only time that a country ever used a nuclear weapon to attack another country. This dreadful event, an unspeakable crime against humanity, which took place just as the peoples had defeated fascism and nurtured legitimate and well-founded hopes in a world of peace, a new historic era would ensue– that of the cold war, nuclear blackmail and the arms race.

The horror awakened by the criminal action of the United States imperialism by exploding the atomic bomb over Japan transformed itself into protest, inconformity, consciousness and struggle. In response to the criminal action clamor for peace and nuclear disarmament grew across the world. The broad and far-reaching movement for peace that ensued originated the World Peace Council, in 1949-1950. The World Peace Council (WPC) first appeared waving the banner of nuclear disarmament. At the very moment of its creation, the WPC launched the Stockholm Appeal, which is still impressively up to date. That document, which famously traveled the world collecting the signatures of 600 million people, stated clearly and simply:

“We demand an absolute ban on nuclear weapons, which are aimed at aggression and the mass extermination of people.

We demand the establishment of rigorous international control to ensure the application of such ban.

We believe that the first government to make use of the nuclear weapon, no matter against which country, would commit a crime against humankind and should be treated as a war criminal.

We call on all people of goodwill in the world to sign this appeal.”

Even today, 60 years later, the Appeal inspires the World Peace Council and resonates in our actions. We deem it of the utmost importance that hundreds of social organizations engaged in the movement for peace and international solidarity around the world mobilized in the struggle against militarization, military bases, imperialism, and aggressive alliances by imperialist powers, such as NATO, and nuclear weapons. Last year and in the current year, many were the activities organized by the World Peace Council and other solidarity movements, organizations and networks.

In May this year the Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was held. Once more the United States imperialism and other nuclear powers took advantage of the occasion to further press the denuclearized countries in an attempt to make the additional protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty mandatory and to obstruct efforts towards disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons. At the same time, these same powers, in violation of aspects of the Treaty they claim to stand for, exert an intolerable veto against other countries’ access to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

This year the United States and Russia announced a bilateral strategic arms reduction agreement, arguably the most significant in the past 20 years, whereby they pledge to reduce over a seven-year timeline the number of strategic warheads to 1,550. Yet what is observed is that the agreement is of a merely symbolic value, linked to the role of these two countries’ bilateral relations in the geopolitical setting and means nothing in terms of reducing the threat of world destruction.

As a demonstration that the announced reduction of warheads is not by any means connected with peace efforts, an announcement was made over the last days regarding the development of project “Conventional Prompt Global Strike”, a new weapon to be mounted on a long-range missile capable of crossing the atmosphere at a speed several times higher than the speed of sound and capable thus of striking any place in the planet, launched from US ground, in less than an hour. The justification is the maintenance of the so-called dissuasion power, even with a reduced nuclear arsenal.

The planet’s greatest nuclear power has just announced its new defense strategy and a few weeks ago the US organized an international conference on nuclear security in Washington with the purpose of fighting “nuclear terrorism” and keeping terrorist networks from acquiring atomic bomb production and handling capacity.

Amid the disarmament rhetoric, the United States once again proclaims its right to use nuclear weapons in circumstances it shall classify as “extreme”, to “defend vital American interests or those of its allies”. And yet again the superpower refused to declare that it will not be the first to use nuclear armament.

Sisters and brothers, ladies and gentlemen,

As we hold these events in Japan, 65 years from the explosion of the nuclear arms in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world is neither more safe, nor more peaceful, stable and democratic.

The military and nuclear power of our times, the United States of America, undergoing an unheard-of process of economic decadence, social crisis and disputed hegemony, renews and intensifies strategic plans of world domination to whose execution it has already made it clear it will not relinquish the use of force.

Since the inauguration of the new Administration run by Mr. Barack Obama, a new rhetoric is disseminated. The White House and the Department of State have adopted for propaganda purposes a rhetoric including such terms as peace, multilateralism and international law.

But practice gradually reveals that such words in the American discourse are empty and keep no relation with the concepts of relations between sovereign countries and international law that inspired the creation of the United Nations system in the immediate post- Second World War period..

In addition to moving forward with the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States is conducting a policy hinged on blackmail and threats against Iran and the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea, with the adoption of sanctions and the concrete preparation of an environment conducive to a military intervention.

The militarization of the planet continues with increased military spending, the adoption by NATO of a new strategic concept, the construction of bases in every continent, sea and ocean.

In the Middle East, US imperialism continues to give the upper hand to Israel, which has taken its expansionist and extermination policy against the Palestinian people to extremes.

In Latin America, where a wealth of experiences in democratic, popular and patriotic mobilization is taking place, with many electoral wins by the progressive forces and advances in revolutionary and anti-imperialist processes, US imperialism intensifies its interventionist policy, by setting up military bases, conducting maneuvers, reactivating the 4th Fleet, backing coups d’état and now by sponsoring provocations by Colombia, a country ruled by a reactionary regime, against Bolivarian Venezuela.

Sisters and brothers, ladies and gentlemen,

65 years from the nuclear genocide promoted by the United States imperialism in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an occasion on which we honor the martyrs with deeply felt respect, it is our duty, on behalf of life, so neglected by an imperialist superpower that does not stop at any crime when it comes to imposing its petty interests, we wave the great banner of unity of the peoples, solidarity struggle against aggressions, defense of national sovereignty and the rights of the peoples, so that imperialist wars and nuclear genocides do not happen again, peace may prevail and humanity may reach higher stages of civilization.

2010-08-06T13:55:00.000-04:00

Address by Ms. Socorro Gomes, chair of the World Peace Council, pronounced at Hiroshima on the occasion of the passage of the 65th anniversary of the nuclear bombings by the United States of America (USA) against the Japanese people.

Today, when 65 years separate us from an unforgettable landmark tragedy for humanity, some symbolic reminiscences sparkle in our memory under the skies of the city of Hiroshima. We are accompanied, in a circumstance both sonorous and solemn, by a musical piece by former Brazilian ambassador and poet Vinícius de Moraes, now deceased, together with a fellow countryman, Gerson Conrad, under the title, “Rose of Hiroshima”:

Think of the children, mute and telepathic
Think of the girls, blinded and wandering
Think of the women, courses changed
Think of the wounds as warm roses
But don't forget the rose, the rose
The rose of Hiroshima, the hereditary rose
Radioactive, stupid, crippled rose
Rose with cirrhosis, atomic anti-rose
No more color, smell, rose, nothing

The dramatic appeal, which gains substance in the poet’s verses, has become emblematic in innumerous countries. And has also offered its modest contribution, among the many manifestations of the human spirit offended by the atomic genocide, so that a universal consciousness could be created in opposition to the destructive use of nuclear energy and its monopoly by the armed powers, under the hegemony of the United States of America.

It was this rising universal consciousness that throughout decades led the struggle of the peoples for world peace as opposed to the imperialist wars promoted in every continent and moved mostly by the US hegemonic economic interests. This was remarkable in the second half of the last century and grew, rapidly, in the first decade of the current 21st century, particularly with the invasions of countries as Afghanistan and Iraq.

And in all these moments since the massive genocide attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear blackmail has played a role. In response to such arrogance, world clamor for nuclear disarmament also grew. The World Peace Council and all of its member associations join have actively joined in the clamor and struggle.

We have the conviction that it is possible to take concrete steps towards disarmament. Accordingly the WPC has organized important activities, and has participated in others organized by different movements, and in official events within the framework of the United Nations.

Our purpose, in promoting and participating in these activities, consists in broadening the discussion on the issue with society and win its support for the current and the future battles.

The Stockholm Appeal is still alive in our memory, when, 60 years ago, it was launched by the World Peace Council with an impressive mobilization of the peace movement and 600 million signatures collected. Today, we consider it unfeasible to have nonproliferation without disarmament, since the instruments are already in place for nonproliferation while disarmament measures are still lacking.

The USA, with the hegemonic pretention that consists in establishing Draconian rules only for the other countries of the planet, more and more become the biggest hurdle to disarmament. Even as it impedes other countries from having access to technological advances, it increases its military budget to retain and modernize its nuclear weapons.

Humanity will always carry the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as swords stabbed in our spirit and in the spine of the civilizational process, in the only attacks in which nuclear arms were used. The prevailing conscience is that, at that moment, the peoples were shaken by the unprecedented appearance of mass destruction. Historically, to our days, no other episode rivals so much terror. It is estimated that the mass execution outnumbers by far evaluations of 140,000 in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki — mostly civilians. These estimates are considerably higher when one computes the ensuing deaths and congenital malformations stemming from exposure to radiation.

Nonetheless, throughout the decades that separate us from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki tragedies, the USA has demonstrated — from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan, among the countless more or less overt and devastating wars it engendered — that there has not been a more aggressive and inhumane nation throughout the historical development process. Its victims around the world can be counted by the millions. Also rising is its capacity to criminalize victimized nations, from the far-fetched and slanderous versions of “threats” inspired in its own State terrorism, an example of which is currently happening in relation to Iran.

Considering the need for developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, for the nonproliferation of nuclear arms and for disarmament, we share the opinion that the countries should not sign the Additional Protocol to the NPT.

The countries cannot submit to pressure, threats or blackmail hinting at the possibility of an atomic weapon being used against a non-signatory to the nonproliferation treaty based on its additional clause. Moreover, the countries must voice their criticism with regard to the announcement of the new US guideline on their nuclear policy. Within the NPT, disarmament is declaratory, whereas nonproliferation is mandatory, underscoring the imbalance regarding the interests of the whole of the 172 States Party.

The environment in which we live today makes it crystal clear that the nuclear powers are not devoted to protecting humanity but rather to defending their own interests when they announce — in the case of the United States and Russia — a deal to reduce nuclear arsenals.

Moreover, there is rising evidence that nuclear arms treaties are just meant to reach an imbalance designed to preserve the positions of the possessors of powerful arsenals — with the USA at the head—, that can destroy humanity, while making life more vulnerable and the world more dangerous and unsafe.

This only comes to underscore the destructive tendency that predominates in the history of the great empires, undisguisedly more menacing in defense of their hegemony, especially in moments of greater hardships and crises, when they become more hostile and belligerent.

Maintaining grandiose nuclear arsenals equally represents huge expenses on miniaturization, high precision and the production of a variety of charges for these weapons to make them operational in local wars — the only type of imaginable war since the perverse destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The countries — the overwhelming majority of the UN States Party — hampered by the excluding action of the imperialist hegemony, should seek to broaden the space of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes at the negotiation tables, duly informed that this position goes against the armed countries, which refuse to share decisions when it comes to security.

For we know that in the backstage of these negotiations prevail formidable and mighty economic interests hiding under the theme of nonproliferation of nuclear weapons to bar new pretenders from achieving protagonism in the international economic arena.

The 8th Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) revealed that there is much resistance against the agenda of the powers armed against humanity, yet NATO’s nuclear member- states (the USA, the United Kingdom and France), with the occasional support of Russia, quite arrogantly reaffirmed that nuclear dissuasion persists as the great powers’ key defense strategy.

Notwithstanding the reaffirmation of the hegemonic policy at the 8th NPT Review Conference, we highlight four sensitive aspects for the world resistance among the Conference’s decisions, which, however minute, require greater attention:

1 -The nuclear disarmament debate will proceed, on account of the already-designed correlation, in the UN Disarmament Committee.

2 -The formulation, still prospective, of a legally-binding instrument that ensures the non-use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against countries lacking these weapons.

3 - A resolution calling for the holding of a conference, adjourned to 2012, to debate the implementation of a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in the Middle East.

4 - A, as yet, timid and insufficient demand that Israel — the greatest obstacle to peace-building in the region, a country that even sold nuclear weapons to South Africa’s apartheid regime — join the NPT and place its arsenals under IAEA surveillance.

In this concert of world resistance, we thus consider it that the struggle should proceed for the inalienable right of each State Party to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and in defense of the complete elimination of all nuclear arsenals.

Sisters and brothers, ladies and gentlemen, we live in a world mired in deep economic and social crises, which generate great conflicts.

Interimperialist and class contradictions may lead to more tension and armed conflicts. The US imperialism and its NATO allies frantically prepare intervention plans and wars in every region of the world, with potentially tragic effects to national sovereignties and the rights of the peoples that threaten the very survival of humanity.

The new sanctions on Iran approved by the UN Security Council, and the additional unilateral sanctions imposed by the USA and the European Union, aim to maintain the current world power system, characterized by the US hegemon.

The US military and national security strategies maintain their aggressive character and belie the cooperation and multilateralism rhetoric. These strategies consist in plans to impose, mainly by force and if necessary by war, the hegemonic interests of the United States. According to these new strategies, the USA, claiming a priority for nuclear proliferation prevention, authorizes itself, in the name of its “vital interests” or its allies’, like Israel, to carry out an attack with nuclear weapons, in “extreme” conditions, against any country. Actually, it is the continuation of George Bush’s “preemptive war” and “infinite war”. In other words, withhold the US power by military force, whatever the cost for humanity.

In 2011 the USA will invest US$ 780 billion in its army, a record budget since the end of the Second World War which is 49% higher than the 2000 budget and larger than the military expenditures of all the rest of the countries of the world added together. The USA insists on keeping bases all over the globe, in every sea and ocean. Lately it has intensified the installation of military bases in Latin America, Africa, the Indian Ocean, and in Central Asia.

The USA and NATO build their capabilities for what they call “Conventional Prompt Global Strike”. With this new strategy NATO will begin to operate in every continent and sea, and even the Malvinas Islands and other territories close to South America might become actual or potential military bases for the aggressive alliance. US special forces, specialized in covert war operations and intelligence, subversion and “destabilization” missions, are already operating in 75 countries, up from 60 countries only one year ago. “The world is the battlefield”, said a high-ranking officer of the US special forces.

Preparations for the aggression against Iran are underway. For imperialism it is necessary to contain Iran, to reinforce Israel’s power to avoid compromising its control in the Middle East and Central Asia. The USA and Israel are making preparations for a possible military intervention, redeploying navy forces through the Suez Canal toward the Persian Gulf, close to the Iranian sea coast. Meanwhile, the US negotiates with Saudi Arabia the use of air space in potential bombings.

The US script is similar to that of the war against Iraq, with diplomatic pressure, restraining measures at the UN, media campaign based of slander, alleged noncompliance with sanctions, and the launching of a plan for a military intervention either directly or through Israel. Many political leaders, intellectuals and specialists in military issues, including in the USA, raise the possibility that the war against Iran will be “Obama’s war”, just as the war in Afghanistan and Iraq were Bush’s wars, which are now continued by Obama.

In Central Asia and in the Middle East, a strategic region for global imperialist domination, the USA and its NATO allies surge their troops in Afghanistan, prolong the war and the military occupation of Iraq and adopt measures to set up military bases in Central Asia.

The USA and Israel threaten Syria and the patriotic forces in Lebanon, back the occupation in Palestine and the criminal blockade against the Gaza Strip, even as the humanitarian flotilla, cowardly attacked by Israeli military, accurately denounced.

In East Asia the USA recently held large-scale joint military maneuvers with South Korea in the Korean Peninsula. Next, the two countries accused the North-Korean government of sinking a South-Korean warship while strong suspicions arose that US own military and intelligence forces had put a mine in the vessel to artificially create tension with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and try to isolate the country internationally. Two weeks ago, US hostile actions in the region escalated with further military maneuvers in the Peninsula and the adoption of yet more sanctions against North Korea.

In addition to these objectives the US, after much pressure, succeeded in maintaining its military bases on Japanese territory, in particular the Okinawa base.

A deal between the governments of India and the United States to, in their words, “contain terrorism" was signed on July 23, in New Delhi.

According to the deal, the security and intelligence services of both countries will be shared in areas such as maritime security, great events and “to fight together on a global basis against a common enemy, against terrorism ". This is yet another demonstration of US interventionism and preparations of anti-democratic measures in the name of the “fight against terrorism”.

In Latin America pressure intensifies against the Cuban Revolution, the Bolivarian Revolution of Venezuela and the democratic, people’s and anti-imperialist processes across the region. After the 4th Fleet was reactivated, the United States set up new military bases, as in Honduras, which helped a coup d’état to be staged. Under the pretext of humanitarian aid to Haiti in the wake of the earthquake that shook that country early this year, 15,000-strong US military forces disembarked in the country.

In the past days more than seven thousand US soldiers, 46 warships, aircraft-carriers, submarines and helicopters set up camp in Costa Rica, purportedly to fight drug trafficking. The Colombian government signed a military agreement with the United States whereby seven US military bases will remain in Colombian territory, thus following the plan made by the USA of transforming the country into an Israel of Latin America and the Caribbean.

The resistance of the oppressed peoples and countries has imposed defeats on imperialism, in the Middle East, in Central Asia and in other corners of the world. In Latin America, the people’s democratic and anti-imperialist forces continue to flourish.

The recent provocations of the Colombian government against Venezuela obey a cunning and sinister plan masterminded by Washington. The United States is interested in the war and seeks to create the conditions for warfare in the region.

The world, Latin America in particular, is undergoing a moment of transition and change. In Latin America several progressive governments were elected that, however different the levels, contest the US hegemony and seek to open way to sovereign development and the region’s political and economic integration.

With the economy in shambles and in a historical process of decadence, the United States resorts to military power — a terrain in which its superiority is indisputable — as a last resort to maintain world domination. War is, today, imperialism’s main tool. This explains a military budget that corresponds to half of the military expenditure of the rest of the world and which, in spite of the crisis, was stepped up (further worsening the imperial government’s financial imbalances and deficit), as well as rising aggressiveness against the peoples.

We must not underestimate what is happening in Latin America and in the world. Peace is indeed seriously threatened.

At the same time there is reason for historical optimism. Everywhere the peoples are moving and struggling and opposing the tendencies to throw over the shoulders of the workers the effects of the crisis, resisting coups and threats of war, rejecting imperialism’s interventionist policies and in many cases advancing toward securing democratic and patriotic accomplishments. The conviction is spreading that it is necessary to fight for a new political and economic world order. Increasingly the zeitgeist is one of anti-imperialist struggle and union of broad pro-democracy, progress, national independence, and peace forces.

The fraternal presence of the WPC in Japan, on the occasion of the 65th anniversary of the nuclear bombings, is a manifestation of solidarity to the Japanese people and of the unity of the peace movement in the world. It is a fitting occasion to reflect and to organize the anti-imperialist and peace struggle. We renew our hope that we shall accomplish in the present a future of peace, harmony and social prosperity in Japan and worldwide.

World peace, national sovereignty and social progress have never been more necessary for humanity.

Thank you very much.

Socorro Gomes,

Chair of the World Peace Council

August 2010

Speech of World Peace Council President

2010-05-06T14:06:00.001-04:00

Disarm Now! For Peace and Human Needs

International Conference

For a Nuclear Free, Peaceful, Just and Sustainable World

April 30 – May 1, 2010

Riverside Church, New York City

(See Speech of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon here)

Speech of World Peace Council President

Socorro Gomes

New York, May 1^st, 2010.

The rose of Hiroshima

(By Vinícius de Moraes and Gerson Conrad)

Think about the children

Mute and telepathic

Think about the girls

Blind and inexact

Think about the women

Changed routes

Think about the wounds

Like balmy roses

But oh don't forget

The rose of the rose

Of the rose of Hiroshima

The hereditary rose

The radioactive rose

Stupid and invalid

The rose with cirrhosis

The atomic anti-rose

Without color or perfume

Without rose or anything

Ladies and gentlemen,

Comrades,

The mobilization of hundreds of social organizations of the peace movement and international solidarity all over the world in face of the nuclear weapons issue is of the greatest importance. The World Peace Council takes part in the Disarm Now initiative with the conviction that the debates held here may contribute, with so many others, to strengthen the movement for peace, disarmament and the elimination of all nuclear weapons from the face of the earth. It is with that same spirit that the World Peace Council, as a member of UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) will attend all talks in the review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and will submit its deliberations to be debated by pacifist movements, social movements, non-governmental organizations, personalities and political, cultural and academic institutions. Forming a collective awareness on the threats that loom over the rights of the peoples, the sovereignty of nations and world peace is indispensable and cannot be postponed. We are an organization that has been fighting for 60 years for peace and for the abolition of nuclear weapons. We have joined all who fight for a new international order, for a peaceful solution of disputes and conflicts. As one of the legitimate expressions of civil society, we consider our main duty to strengthen international cooperation, which is based on equal rights, peoples’ self-determination, sovereign equality of national States and the good will in fulfilling international obligations, which should constitute the grounds for all governments and multilateral organizations.

Those principles, consecrated by international right, form the backbone of the United Nations and are aimed at maintaining peace and international security. They are, however, flagrantly disrespected by imperialist powers, which use their mighty clout to promote nuclear blackmail, perpetrate wars, military interventions, to threaten weaker countries and impose resolutions and treaties that are not based on the consecrated criteria of balance and equality. We understand that this fight must be essentially anti-imperialist, for it derives from the conception according to which the system oppressing sovereign peoples and nations is the main cause of wars and the main stimulant to militarization and arms races.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is one of those international agreements characterized by unbalance, inequality and asymmetry.

As a pacifist movement, we have always saluted with enthusiasm the initiatives aimed at disarmament, the reduction of nuclear weapons and non-proliferation. We have made a principled stand for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. 60 years ago the World Peace Council issued the Stockholm Appeal, which is still impressively up to date. That document, which famously traveled the world collecting the signatures of 600 million people, stated clearly and simply:

“We demand an absolute ban on nuclear weapons, which are aimed at aggression and the mass extermination of people.

We demand the establishment of a rigorous international control to ensure the application of such ban.

We believe that the first government to make use of the nuclear weapon, no matter against which country, would commit a crime against humankind and should be treated as a war criminal.

We call all people of good will in the world to sign this appeal.”

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, effective since 1970, was ratified by 188 countries, one of which, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, withdrew later. Only three countries – Israel, India and Pakistan – have not ratified the treaty. This Treaty, to a certain extent, could have constituted a step towards peace, but there were some flagrant contradictions in its very conception and in the political conditions to which its application is submitted.

Criticisms regarding the NPT in a moment when the United Nations are once again reviewing the Treaty are related to its asymmetric character.

Theoretically, the NPT would be based on three points – non-proliferation, disarmament and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. However, as long as the practical effects are concerned, that is essentially a non-proliferation treaty to which disarmament and the peaceful use of nuclear energy are merely accessory aspects. Countries that do not have nuclear weapons accept not to import, build or acquire nuclear weapons and those that possess weapons accept the duty of not transferring nuclear weapons to those that do not have them. And here lies the main negative aspect of the NPT – the monopoly of nuclear weapons is frozen and the issues of disarmament and the peaceful use of nuclear energy are merely addressed in formal terms.

Article 6^th of the NPT states that all signatory states are obliged to carry out negotiations on efficient measures regarding the cessation of the nuclear race and nuclear disarmament. Likewise, they commit to conclude a treaty on generalized disarmament under a strict and efficient international control. At this point, the generality, rhetoric and contradiction become clear.

The world needs disarmament and the elimination of all nuclear weapons, not only non-proliferation, not only vague appeals to the good faith of those that possess such weapons so that agreements are made, according strictly to their conveniences and needs, on reducing arsenals.

The Review Conference of the NPT in 2000 offered the hope of disarmament by adopting 13 steps that stated verifiable and irreversible measures for disarmament and the reduction of the role of nuclear weapons in the defense strategies of great powers. Those 13 steps also included the implementation of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Unfortunately, however, those efforts made by the countries of the Coalition for a New Agenda, among which non-aligned countries, were frustrated.

The abandonment of commitments made in the NPT Review Conference in 2000, the exclusive emphasis on non-proliferation, the prioritization of nuclear weapons in defense strategies, the inefficiency and lack of transparency in agreements to reduce strategic weapons and the United States’ insistence in creating defense shields, as well as its refusal to the commitment of not being the first to use nuclear weapons, reveal that the great powers holding nuclear weapons, especially the United States, are not willing to take significant steps towards disarmament. Since 2001 nuclear blackmails has increased as the United States, by announcing its new doctrine of national security based on preventive war, reaffirmed its right to resort to all kinds of weapons, including nuclear ones. Our main preoccupations concentrate in that aspect. The NPT has not resulted in significant or concrete steps towards disarmament and the abolition of nuclear weapons.

The emphasis on non-proliferation has led to another serious distortion in terms of pressures to force countries to adhere to the additional protocol and renounce to the irrevocable right to develop nuclear technology with peaceful ends, a right that is formally acknowledged in the NPT. This right, on which grounds non-nuclear nations – mainly underdeveloped and developing countries – agreed to ratify, is being flagrantly violated as we can see by the attempt to sanction and threaten countries that are trying to develop nuclear weapons with peaceful ends.

Ladies and gentlemen, Comrades,

As we approach another review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the pacifist movements express their fair concern with the maintenance of great arsenals of nuclear weapons. The presidents of the United States and Russia have just announced a bilateral agreement to reduce strategic weapons, which is considered the most significant in the last 20 years, agreeing to reduce arsenals to 1,550 strategic warheads in seven years. The agreement has nothing but a symbolic meaning as it is connected to the bilateral relations between those countries in the geopolitical field – it has no meaning in terms of reducing the danger of destroying the world.

As a demonstration that the announced reduction of warheads has nothing to do with the efforts for peace, the development of the “Prompt Global Strike” project was announced a few days ago. That is a new weapon to be assembled in long-distance missiles that are able to fly in a speed several times faster than the sound. Therefore, as they are launched in the United States, they are able to hit any place on the earth in less than an hour. The justification is to maintain the so-called dissuasive power, even as the nuclear arsenal is reduced.

The world’s largest nuclear power has announced its new defense strategy and held an international conference in Washington a few weeks ago on nuclear security with the proclaimed objective of fighting “nuclear terrorism” and preventing terrorist networks from acquiring the capacity of producing and handling the atomic bomb.

Amid the rhetoric on disarmament, the United States proclaimed once again that it has the right to use nuclear weapons in circumstances viewed as “extreme” in order to “defend the vital interests of America and its allies.” And once more the superpower refused to declare that it would not be the first to use nuclear weapons. Under such circumstances, to what use are speeches that favor non-proliferation? Before such threats, how the government of countries that do not possess nuclear weapons should behave? Should they succumb to blackmail and pressure or affirm their sovereignty and their rights demanding international treaties where the key is equality and commitments are valid for all?

As a movement of pacifism and solidarity to countries and peoples attacked or under the threat of aggression, we could not silence before the evidence that, as a new defense policy is launched and as a nuclear safety conference is held, two countries were placed under international suspicion and threatened with war in case they do not submit to imperial designs.

Six and a half decades ago, when it entered the international stage as a superpower willing to dominate the world and organize it according to its own interests, the United States perpetrated a nuclear attack against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, causing the death of more than 200 thousand people and incalculable destruction. That was an unnamable crime against humankind for which that country has not been punished. Today, that same empire makes threats of using again its nuclear weapons against countries viewed as “violators” of international laws that do not accept its impositions. With an infinitely greater arsenal, which price peoples and nations would pay in case those threats are carried out? Such distress is justified since, as we have highlighted, the United States, while launching its new defense policy a few weeks ago, has refused to commit to not being the first country to make use of nuclear weapons.

The progress of the international situation is characterized by war actions and impregnated with new threats. Not a long time ago, under the pretext of preventing a country from using weapons of mass destruction, in spite of international law and without an authorization by the UN Security Council, the United States started a war of occupation with objectives that had nothing to do with what was proclaimed, as it became clear shortly after. The occupation forces admitted that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. In Central Asia, under the pretext of hunting terrorists and preventing the return of a fundamentalist force to power, another war is carried out, charging a high price in terms of human lives and material losses. In Palestine, a country that possesses nuclear weapons – although it would not confirm that fact – submit that people to an indescribable martyrdom. In Lebanon, during the attacks of the Israeli air force three and a half years ago, the Secretary of State of the allied power in the occasion declared that those were the “birth pains of the new Middle East.” Today humankind listens to slogans on peace and disarmament, but until now the announcements of a world free from wars and without nuclear weapons are nothing but rhetoric or the manifestation of a vague ideal. In practice, blackmail and threats still prevail, demanding attention and combativeness from our part.

Ladies and gentlemen, comrades,

The severity with which we face historical experience and the dangers and threats looming over peoples are not disconnected to our convictions that peace and disarmament are possible. Those convictions date to the origins of the World Peace Council and to its founding document issued 60 years ago, the Stockholm Appeal, which besides demanding the abolition of nuclear weapons, condemns countries that make use of those weapons as perpetrators of crimes against humankind.

The cause of peace, disarmament and the abolition of nuclear weapons is, first and foremost, an issue for peoples and nations that fight to consolidate their sovereignty and development, a struggle that demand collective awareness, unity and broad social mobilization. It is a struggle for all humankind.

Thank you very much.

Socorro Gomes, President of the World Peace Council

«National Struggles Against the Violence of Global Imperialism»

2010-05-06T14:02:00.000-04:00

From a Workshop at the Disarm NOW! For Peace and Human Needs Conference, 1 May 2010, Riverside Church, New York City.

Speech by Socorro Gomes, President

Brazil Peace Council (CeBraPaz) and World Peace Council

Comrades,

The development of the situation in Latin America is now one of the main issues for peace movements and organizations of international solidarity, such as the WPC.

Two years ago the Fourth Fleet of the US Navy was reactivated to sail the seas of Latin America and the Caribbean.

The military presence in the region is already colossal. With the Fourth Fleet this presence is significantly increased. First, we should highlight the existence of military bases: seven bases were installed in Colombia, a decision that caused instability and political crises, aggravating problems involving Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador. Iquitos (Peru), Queen Beatriz (Aruba), Hato (Curazao), Comalpa (El Salvador), Guantanamo (Cuba), Soto Cano (Honduras) and the new bases in Panama are among the American military facilities in the region. Add to that the fact that there are plans to reopen the Vieques base in Puerto Rico, which was shut down in 2004 after the heroic struggle of the movement for independence, and to build a new base in Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. There has also been intense pressure to turn the military airport of Marshal Estigarribia, in Paraguay, into a military base. We must remember that not a long time ago, in the 1990’s, they tried to turn the satellite-launching base of Alcântara, in the state of Maranhão, Brazil, into a military base in Brazilian territory. Apart from the bases, the United States exert its military presence by means of exercises in Cabanas, Aguila, Unitas, Céu Central, Novos Horizontes, among others. The militarization of the Falkland Islands by Great Britain is also a source of preoccupation, as much as the trend to renew military agreements between governments, of which the signature of a military agreement between the United States and Brazil in April this year is a disastrous example.

The existence of the Fourth Fleet is directly related to the new political situation in Latin America, which, since the first election of Hugo Chavez in 1998 and president Lula’s in 2002, has become a “rebellious continent” where the rise of democratic and progressive forces are taking power in many countries. From north to south, democratic and popular governments are in power in Latin America. In Venezuela there is a revolution going on with a popular and democratic character, proclaiming socialism as its goal. In Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua political processes are developing with a trend to consolidate the new experiences of popular governments. In Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina and El Salvador progressive forces move on and take steps to support the struggle for broadening and improving democracy, national sovereignty and social justice.

The militarization carried out by the United States in the region has a clear objective: curb the advances of countries and peoples in the continent and the achievement of democracy, national sovereignty and social progress, control natural resources, such as the Amazonian biodiversity, water sources, such as the Guarani aquifer, large mineral deposits and oil. Add to that the control of markets and regional geopolitics.

Interventionism is a permanent characteristic of the policy of the United States regarding Latin America since the end of the 19^th century to our days. After the hard interventionism of Theodore Roosevelt’s “big stick” came a period when, despite diminishing direct interventions, great enterprises acquired a decisive hold on the Department of State. The 20^th century also witnessed Woodrow Wilson’s “missionary diplomacy”, the formation of the Pan-American system, the “dollar diplomacy,” Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “good neighborhood” policy, the “doctrine of national security” in the second half of the 20^th century and finally, after the Cold War, the “hemispheric security” policy. All those policies and stages had a common denominator – interventionism, tutorship and Latin America’s and the Caribbean’s submission to strategic interests of the United States – and none of those excluded the military option.

The first victims of such militarized interventionism in Latin America and the Caribbean were Cuba and Puerto Rico, under the pretext of fighting Spain in the last days of the colonial period.

Another precocious target of that interventionism was Panama, in 1903. The US marines entered Panamanian territory in different occasions in the first half of the 20^th century – 1917, 1918 and 1925. More recently, they invaded again that country in 1989.

From 1915 to 1934 the United States sent their marines to Haiti.

Neighboring Dominican Republic, which shares the same island with Haiti, was another Caribbean country to suffer military intervention by the United States, which remained in that country from 1916 to 1924. Since 1930, the United States sponsored one of the cruelest, long-lasting and corrupt dictatorships of the 20^th century in Latin America.

The marines occupied Nicaragua from 1912 to 1926 and were fought by Augusto Cesar Sandino, the “general of free men.”

Mexico, which had a great part of its territory stolen during the process of formation and expansion of the United States during the 19^th century, also endured several interventions in the 1910’s and 1920’s.

The period after World War II saw the United States intervening once again in Latin America and the Caribbean to impose itself as a dominant power. In 1947, allied to treacherous sectors of the Armed Forces, the Venezuelan government of Romulo Gallegos was unseated. In 1954 the election of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala was followed by a coup d’état. In 1961 Cuba was invaded, and the marines were repelled by the revolutionaries under the command of Fidel Castro in Playa Girón. In 1965 the Dominican Republic was invaded with the support of the Brazilian military dictatorship.

From 1964 to mid 1980’s, beginning with the military coup in Brazil, the United States sponsored, supported and offered financial aid to coups d’état and cruel dictatorships such as those of Pinochet in Chile, and Argentinean, Uruguayan and Brazilian fascist generals. In that period counter-revolutionary wars were waged in Central America, Grenada was invaded in 1983.

That history of interventions indicates the permanence of interventionism in Latin America, which assumes new traits in the present time with the Fourth Fleet and military bases.

Thank you very much,

Socorro Gomes, President of the World Peace Council

2009 Trilateral Conference

2010-01-19T12:04:00.012-05:00

Second Trilateral Peace Conference

of the

World Peace Council

Canada ~ Mexico ~ United States

October 2-4, 2009 ~ Toronto, Canada

View/Download:
2009 Trilateral Conference Final Declaration

On awarding of a Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama. Statement by U.S. Peace Council

2009-12-11T16:06:00.015-05:00

After less than a year in office, President Barack Obama flew to Norway to accept the Nobel Peace Prize.

Upon evaluating that Prize, the Greater New Haven Peace Council drew up a list of goals that President Obama should champion to evidence his contributions to Peace:

• The President would not only call for abolition of nuclear weapons at some vague time in the future but lead the Nuclear NonProliferation Review at the United Nations this coming May to agree that the year 2020 would be the target date, as demanded by the Mayors of thousands of the world’s cities (Mayors for Peace ).

• The President would invoke Article 6 of the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty and begin serious negotiations towards reducing conventional armaments and demilitarization.

• The President would de-escalate the occupation of and war on Afghanistan, end the illegal bombing of Pakistan and ensure the recall of all foreign troops from Iraq.

• The President would sign and urge Senate ratification of the treaty banning anti-personnel land mines.

• The President would sign and urge Senate ratification of the treaty banning cluster bombs.

• The President would immediately negotiate agreement with Russia to take nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert.

• The President would act to end the illegal embargo against Cuba.

• The President would call not only for ending torture by U.S. operatives but also for prosecuting those who condone and are complicit in torture.

• The President would close secret and brutal prisons in Afghanistan, such as Bagram, and wherever else they exist.

• The President would close the thousand U.S. military bases on foreign soil whose presence threatens peace and the sovereignty of nations and reverse the decision to build military bases in Colombia.

• The President would end economic, diplomatic and military support for the coup leaders and their lieutenants in Honduras.

• The President would pursue a treaty ensuring demilitarization beyond earth’s atmosphere.

• The President would state that since NATO no longer fulfills its mission of protecting Europe he will work toward abolishing NATO.

• The President would end the U.S.’s one-sided treatment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and pursue action on UN resolutions to justly end the conflict.

• The President would join members of Congress to dramatically cut the one trillion dollar U.S. military budget.

• The President would rebuke and end the nuclear materials agreement with India, which violates U.S. Obligations under the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty.

• The President would press the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and work to amend it to include the banning of virtual testing.

• The President would instruct his Ambassador to the United Nations to end U.S. obstructionism and work on and vote for disarmament resolutions .

• The President would support strong international environmental treaties, such as Kyoto.

• The President would submit to and urge the Senate to ratify the International Covenant On  Economic, Social And Cultural Rights; also the Convention on the Rights of the Child; also the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

Using his authority on these and other issues the President could make great strides toward peace worthy not only of a Nobel Prize but to gain the enthusiastic approval and support of the world’s peoples.

2009-11-11T17:43:00.003-05:00

http://ctcow.org/sites/ctcow.org/files/COW--EconomicConversionConference--20091114.pdf

Symposium on

Conversion to a Peace Economy in Connecticut

Sat., November 14, 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM
Konover Auditorium, Dodd Research Center, UConn/Storrs
Continental Breakfast as of 8:15
Public invited free of charge.

Presentations:
Christopher Hellman, Director of Research, National Priorities Project, Northampton, MA
Heidi Garrett-Peltier, Political and Economic Research Institute, UMass.
Marie Lausch, President, CT Statewide United Electrical Workers Union, Member, National Executive Board, UEW

II. Panel Discussion:
Moderator: Henry Lowendorf, Chair, Greater New Haven Peace Council
Bill Shortell, International Association of Machinists, Local 700, Pratt & Whitney
Jean deSmet, First Selectman, Willimantic
Susan Johnson, Representative to the Connecticut Legislature, Windham Area.
Denise Merrill, Representative from Mansfield/Storrs, House Majority Leader

III. Action Plans: Possible examples-- Request that a State Commission for Conversion be set up that would include both legislators and knowledgeable others; disseminate the Rev. Don Hoyle’s Conversion Resolution to generate grassroots support; establish Working Groups, organize a follow-up Symposium, Spring 2010.

This is the first Connecticut conversion meeting in 20 years! Listen to economists, public policy experts, business and labor leaders explain how peace conversion can create jobs, protect the environment and improve national security. Tabling available on a first-come, first-serve basis. Parking available in the South Garage at $1/hour within a short walk to the Dodd Center. For handicapped access, use contacts below.

INFORMATION: mimbck@yahoo.com or 860-429-3107

Sponsored by: Citizens for Global Solutions, the United Nations Association, Dodd Research Center/UConn

U.S. Peace Council Statement to WPC Exec Committee, Damascus, 2009 October

2009-11-01T21:11:00.000-05:00

Henry Lowendorf

U.S. Peace Council

Thank you to the National Council of Peace Partisans in Syria for hosting this meeting and for its generous hospitality.

The USPC is not oblivious to the continued threats of war and imperialism. Yet what I hope to convey are the new opportunities for peace and justice that have arisen since last year and the actions of USPC to take advantage of these opportunities.

One year ago, the outcome of the U.S. presidential election was uncertain. Although the Bush administration was extremely unpopular, some of its commonly-used manipulations – fear mongering, telling and re-telling lies, turning reality on its head and the politics of division and racism, all broadcast by the mass media – were having a significant effect on U.S. voters. One of the two candidates, an old war horse who in the 1960’s bombed peasants in Vietnam, represented more of the same policies we had seen for 8 years. The other candidate, relatively young and new to Washington politics, who was also the first person of color to be nominated by a major U.S. party, countered the country’s gloom with high energy and soaring rhetoric calling for hope, change and an end to the occupation of Iraq.

A year ago, the major financial institutions in the United States were facing bankruptcy and threatened to drag the whole country and much of the rest of the world into a major economic depression. A year ago global oil prices had recently peaked at U.S. $130 per barrel, severely debilitating the U.S. economy but of course damaging the economies of the rest of the world and devastating the non-oil producing developing countries.

A year ago, those in the U.S. on the left measured the gloomy threat of another 4 or 8 years of reactionary – even neo-fascist – dictatorial, militarist, imperial policies against the possibility that our mega-power country would begin, begin to change course toward diplomacy, discourse, negotiation, conciliation. While we in the Peace Council clearly understood that the overall goals of imperialism were accepted by both major presidential candidates and their parties and were certainly not being debated, we also recognized in the Barack Obama candidacy an important challenge to the insanity of continuing the disastrous course of the previous 8 years.

The center-left coalition that supported candidate Obama worried with good reason that another national election might be stolen, or that the voters might be so terrified by hateful ad campaigns and fears about handing the presidency to an African American that the rightwing candidate would win.

We in the U.S. were not the only ones who feared the worst. Many of the world’s people looked to Barack Obama to peel the world back from the brink of more wars, climate catastrophe, social and economic chaos.

A year ago the outcome of that election was far from certain. For all of us our worst fears did not materialize.

Comprehending the results of last years U.S. national elections is fundamental to today’s context for peace.

We have now had 9 months or so to assess the meaning of that election. And overall it is apparent that the people of the U.S. and of the world were right in their thinking. In particular, the Peace Council correctly concluded that the balance of forces adjusted to an important degree in our favor.

While the aims of imperialism haven’t changed since last year, the outcome of the U.S. presidential election reflects a joint recognition: on the one hand the voters began to understand that their own interests did not coincide with those of the rightwing. On the other hand, the outcome also strongly indicates growing recognition by corporate power that the political and military methods being used by the Bush administration to maintain and build the empire constructed for them a disastrous trajectory and were counterproductive. And for many reasons the tools the empire had been using were wearing thin.

The economic crisis of bank failures, personal bankruptcy and job loss is a measure of and indeed in great part caused by unsustainable personal, corporate and national debt now estimated to reach $48 Trillion. That crisis is compounded by continuing unwinnable wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and by unsustainable military spending. The multiple crises are exacerbated by and further propel the weakening of the U.S. dollar. Add to these the breaking away of much of Latin America from imperial domination. The United States, its empire and the whole world are confronted by these facts.

The Peace Council understands that while some things emanating from Washington remain the same, others have changed.

For example, in Cairo in June President Obama called for a viable two-state solution and an end to settlements. Yet we see that Obama’s policies toward Israel and Palestine have not yet risen to his rhetoric. The Obama administration has so far proven unwilling to insist that Israel stop building more settlements and close existing ones, thus foreclosing real negotiations. Nor is there visible pressure to end the deplorable prison conditions of the residents of Gaza. Nor is there movement on returning the Golan plateau to Syria. Huge U.S. military and other subsidies continue to prop up the Israeli militarists. It is our responsibility to ensure that Obama’s actions begin to match some of his rhetoric.

Obama said he would talk with Cuba. His administration is talking with Cuba. Obama did reverse the Bush administration restrictions on travel to Cuba and remittances of money by Cuban Americans. But he hasn’t removed tight restrictions on travel to Cuba by the vast majority of U.S. residents. Regrettably, he extended for another year the cruel embargo against Cuba, despite the fact that the majority of people, labor unions and corporations want it ended. Obama is moving toward closing the prison and torture camp at Guantánamo, but isn’t contemplating returning Guantánamo to Cuba. Obama hasn’t addressed the unjust trial and punishment of the Cuban 5. They languish in prison. It is our responsibility to ensure that Obama’s actions not only reflect his rhetoric, but expand beyond it to meet international law and justice.

Obama broke a disgraceful 30-year tradition and is talking with Iranian leaders. Yet Obama continues to mimic the previous administration in criticizing Iran, which is abiding by its obligations under the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, while he ignores the actions of Iran’s neighbors India, Israel and Pakistan, all of which refused to sign the NPT and represent 3 of the 4 states that developed nuclear weapons arsenals since the NPT was ratified in 1970. It is our responsibility to challenge the U.S. administration’s hypocrisy and to call for nuclear weapons abolition as a required condition of nonproliferation.

Let me turn to nuclear weapons, conventional weapons, disarmament and statements and actions by President Obama. For the first time since 1945 a U.S. president stated “I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” Most significantly he stated “as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act.” Obama said that the U.S. “can lead” and “can start” the effort to abolish nuclear weapons, perhaps not in his lifetime. He further stated that his “administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.” Can the peace movement ignore such statements by the leader of the imperial camp? How can the peace movement not welcome such statements? Moreover, we can wish Obama a long life and at the same time insist that nuclear abolition take place long before it ends.

Abolition of nuclear weapons has vaulted to first place on the peace table as a result of 1) the increasing threat of continued nuclear proliferation by state and non-state actors; 2) the call by former right wing cold warrior leaders, Kissinger, Perry, Schultz and Nunn for abolition; and 3) the overwhelming conventional armaments superiority of the U.S. and its allies. It is apparent that nuclear weapons abolition will fail unless the stunning imbalance in conventional weaponry is addressed.

The USPC recognizes the distance between rhetoric and action. We understand that Obama is not an anti-imperialist. He has made that clear. He supports NATO’s expansion to the borders of Russia. He has expanded the war on Afghanistan and threatens to expand it further. At the same time that he says the U.S. does not want military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, he is silent about the future of the thousand or so other U.S. military bases around the world. In fact he has announced the construction of seven new U.S. military bases in Colombia and he is directing the re-emergence of the 4^th Naval Fleet to patrol the waters surrounding South America. The peace movement insists that foreign military bases be closed and the 4^th Fleet again be mothballed.

Despite such significant defenses of imperialism, we view Obama’s presidency and his statements as an opening providing space for the peace movement to flex its muscles, an opportunity to grow. It is our responsibility in the peace movement to take advantage of such opportunity. We can and need to insist that words imply actions and that such actions approach the world’s needs. And we are joined in this view by most of the U.S. peace movement.

The Peace Council has since its inception participated in the nuclear abolition movement. This movement has historically been highly motivated, minutely focused and very well organized. It has in recent years, however, largely aimed its work at research, publication, discussion and lobbying at the United Nations.. The Peace Council advocates expanding this approach to mobilize mass action.

In May 2009, for the first time this decade the United States under Obama’s administration did not block the creation of an agenda for the Nuclear NonProliferation Review. Thus next May, there will in fact be a UN Review of progress, or lack thereof, under the NPT.

Anticipating the NPT Review as it did in 2000 and 2005, the U.S. Peace Council proposed to national nuclear abolition and broader peace organizations that we organize a march and rally supporting nuclear abolition to take place immediately before the Review. Furthermore the Peace Council supported a proposal for an international conference of peace forces. These proposals were accepted. Most importantly, the USPC proposed that the conference not only discuss and promote nuclear abolition, but also link abolition with the broader issues of disarmament, ending the waste of Trillions of dollars each year that no country can afford, and resulting in the release of Trillions of dollars of resources for human needs and development. This proposal too was accepted.

Today we are engaged in preparations for that international peace conference, march and peace festival scheduled for next April 30, May 1 and May 2 in New York. Thousands from Japan and Europe will join many thousands for North America.

The Call to participate in these actions carries the title “DISARM NOW!” and the slogan, “Nuclear abolition should serve as the leading edge of a global trend toward demilitarization and redirection of resources to meet human needs and restore the environment.” (repeat.) The Call and slogan, focused on nuclear abolition, clearly connect to general disarmament and transferring funds to human needs. They invite participation by the social justice, the trade union and the environmental movements.

Copies of the Call were earlier distributed by the WPC Secretary to member groups. No peace organization should sit on the sidelines. We urge the WPC to participate in these pivotal events and, just as important, in their planning.

This grand coalition will not coalesce automatically, nor will it easily be sustained. The stakes, however, could not be higher for nuclear weapons threaten sudden annihilation and continued armaments spending and production threaten both short-term localized devastation and long-term global suffocation. We believe that the time is right and that we must seize the time.

Thank you.

Signers to the Call may be found at

<http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AVAwF1wsfpTdZGdqN3M3azVfMGNiOGY5Z2c2&hl=en>