SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
peace talks
'War Is Not Green': Climate Groups Call On Biden to Support Peace Talks in Ukraine
"We must stop this madness before it's too late!" said climate organizers. "For the sake of future life on this planet, we urge you to initiate peace talks to end this war now."
Apr 27, 2023
From greenhouse gas emissions stemming from rocket attacks to the threat of "the ultimate environmental crime" of nuclear war, U.S anti-war and climate action groups on Thursday told President Joe Biden and members of Congress that the long-standing call for peace talks in Ukraine is "all the more urgent" as the damage the Russian invasion has done to the planet so far becomes clearer.
CodePink led more than 2,300 "people of conscience" and groups including Amazon Watch, Rainforest Action Network, and Extinction Rebellion DC in a letter to Biden saying that "based on climate justice reasons alone," the U.S. government can and must use its power to ensure that peace talks between Russia and Ukraine happen swiftly.
The groups detailed a number of harmful effects the war has had on the planet in its first 14 months, including the apparent sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, which the United Nations Environment Program said may have caused the largest-ever single leak of methane, the potent greenhouse gas that can trap 87 times more heat than carbon dioxide in its first two decades in the atmosphere.
On a day-to-day basis, the war is contributing to further fossil fuel emissions as hundreds of thousands of soldiers, their munitions, and people who have been forced to flee their homes make millions of trips across Ukraine. The conflict has also had a considerable impact on public health as communities face the long-lasting byproducts of war even after soldiers retreat from their cities and towns.
"As the fighting has now gone on for a year with no end in sight, Ukraine braces itself for further disruption of local ecosystems, forest fires, blackened trees, air pollution, sewage leaks, and chemical contamination of rivers and groundwater in Ukraine," said the groups in the letter.
"If any leader of a nation is even remotely serious about protecting the sanctity of life, they would push for a cease-fire and use their influence to establish peace talks."
Lennard de Klerk, a Dutch carbon accounting expert who is preparing a report on the war's climate impact that's expected to be presented to the U.N. in June, toldTime in February that the carbon footprint of the conflict in its first year was an estimated 155 million metric tons—the equivalent of the Netherlands' yearly output—due to explosions, the reconstruction of buildings, transportation, forest fires, and other factors.
The Thursday letter also points out that Western sanctions on Russian oil have led the U.S. to increase its energy exports to Europe, doubling liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from 2021 to 2022 and sending 1.75 million barrels of crude oil across the Atlantic Ocean daily—a 70% increase from 2021.
CodePink reported that when organizers delivered the letter to congressional offices on Thursday, they encountered Capitol Hill staffers who "were unaware of the deadly environmental consequences of militarism and active war."
"We will continue to educate, organize, and disrupt until not only the connection is made but action is taken to save people and the planet," said CodePink organizer Teddy Ogborn. "War can no longer be a policy option for nations. If any leader of a nation is even remotely serious about protecting the sanctity of life, they would push for a cease-fire and use their influence to establish peace talks."
The more than $100 billion the U.S. has spent on aid to Ukraine in the last year—and billions more spent by European countries—has come with an opportunity cost, said the groups, as the Global South has been left waiting for wealthy countries to fulfill "their 2009 promise to invest $100 billion a year to help poorer countries adapt to climate change."
"Now the world is looking to the wealthier nations for a loss and damage fund," they wrote. "Instead of pouring our resources into war, we should be investing these resources into seriously addressing the climate crisis."
The letter was delivered to the White House and Congress a day after CodePink co-founder Diane Wilson received the Goldman Environmental Prize for her work to hold petrochemical giant Formosa Plastics accountable for illegally dumping toxic waste on the Gulf Coast of Texas.
During the award ceremony at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., CodePink organizer Olivia DiNucci walked onto the stage as Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) addressed the crowd. DiNucci carried a sign that read, "War Is Not Green," while other activists chanted: "Stop the war in Ukraine. We need peace talks."
\u201cBREAKING NEWS: Pelosi disrupted! \n\nShame on you @SpeakerPelosi for speaking about the environment at a ceremony @kennedycenter. \n\nThe Pentagon is the biggest polluter in the world and your nearly $1 TRILLION war budget is fueling the climate crisis.\n\n#WarIsNotGreen\u201d— CODEPINK (@CODEPINK) 1682557471
"It's a huge hypocrisy to have Nancy Pelosi speak at an environmental ceremony," said DiNucci. "Pelosi voted for almost a trillion-dollar Pentagon budget. That money should go for climate justice. The people awarded today represent communities that have been devastated by our war machine."
Prior to the event Pelosi had explicitly told CodePink co-founder Medea Benjamin, "We don't need peace talks. We need victory."
U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency documents leaked earlier this month showed that American officials believe that "negotiations to end the conflict are unlikely during 2023 in all considered scenarios."
"We must stop this madness before it's too late!" said the groups in their letter on Thursday. "For the sake of future life on this
planet, we urge you to initiate peace talks to end this war now."
Update: This article has been adjusted to correctly identify some of the backers of the letter.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Achieving Peace in Ukraine
We must redouble our work to move back from the brink of nuclear war and work earnestly to abolish these weapons before they abolish us.
Feb 24, 2023
Today marks the beginning of the second year of the war in Ukraine. As a career physician, lifelong peace activist, and nuclear abolitionist, I have been pondering this day and just how to respond.
In my early schooling in molecular biology and later in medicine, I learned of the effects of radionuclides on the human genome and the fact that there is no safe level of exposure in excess of background radiation when it comes to the potential for adverse health effects. These early years in my studies shaped me as the Vietnam War entered its final years. I was often involved in war protests between my exams. At the height of the Cold War, and with the birth of my first son, I recognized the obsolescence of war in a nuclear-armed world. Any conflict had the potential to turn nuclear and ultimately end life as we know it. I worked with the non-partisan Beyond War movement in the 1980s which took to heart Albert Einstein’s famous saying at the outset of the nuclear age, “With the unleashed power of the atom, everything has changed, save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe.”
The movement recognized that we must change our way of thinking and this was articulated in their guiding principles: 1. War is obsolete, 2. We are one on this planet, 3. The means are the ends in the making, meaning that you can’t advocate for nuclear weapons abolition while you are rebuilding your nuclear arsenals but must lead by example.
For my entire professional life, I have worked with Physicians for Social Responsibility whose foundational issue is the abolition of nuclear weapons and has evolved to connect the co-existential threat of climate change and its impact on health and conflict through a health lens under the umbrella of social, environmental, economic, and racial justice.
So today, 77 years after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 39 years after the recognition of the obsolescence of war, and entering the second year of the Ukraine war, where are we? This war has no end in sight and has brought us the closest we’ve been to nuclear war since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. This has resulted in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moving their Doomsday Clock forward to 90 seconds till midnight last month. What is the solution? I have heard suggestions from pundits on all sides, including an immediate cease-fire with pushback expressed about concerns over Ukrainian territories lost, to arming the Ukrainians in their fight for their homeland, to just walking away and allowing events to play out.
The predicted outcomes range from a stalemate or perpetual war to a Ukrainian victory, or Russian victory, each of which has significant global implications for decades to come if we do survive.
Absent mankind’s serious discussions or insights on ending this war and world leaders unable to move beyond their Cold War thinking, I decided to turn to artificial intelligence in the form of ChatGPT. This would remove egos, personalities, ownership, and biases.
So herein is the question I posed last night to ChatGPT and the response:
Question: As the war in Ukraine enters its second year, supported by the nuclear-armed nations of Russia and the United States, which maintain nuclear arsenals of 3100 weapons ranging from 6 to 50 times the Hiroshima bomb size, how and will peace be achieved and what does peace look like?
ChatGPT response:
As an AI language model, I must make it clear that I do not have the ability to predict the future. However, based on historical examples and current geopolitical dynamics, achieving peace in Ukraine may require a combination of diplomatic efforts, economic incentives, and a willingness from all parties to negotiate and compromise.
Some possible steps towards peace could include:
1. Negotiations: Diplomatic talks between the conflicting parties could be a crucial step in resolving the crisis in Ukraine. The negotiations could aim at achieving a ceasefire, exchanging prisoners, and addressing the root causes of the conflict.
2. International mediation: International organizations such as the United Nations or the European Union could play a role in mediating the conflict and encouraging parties to come to the negotiating table.
3. Economic incentives: Economic incentives such as sanctions relief or increased aid could be offered to parties that agree to cease hostilities and engage in negotiations.
4. Disarmament: Demilitarizing the conflict zone and disarming both sides could help reduce the risk of further violence and create a more stable environment for negotiations.
5. Reconciliation: Promoting reconciliation between the conflicting parties could be essential in building long-term peace. This could involve addressing the grievances of both sides and promoting dialogue and cooperation.
6. International support: International support and recognition for a peace deal could help legitimize and strengthen the agreement.
Ultimately, the shape of peace in Ukraine will depend on the details of any eventual agreement. However, a durable peace is likely to require addressing the root causes of the conflict, promoting reconciliation, and ensuring that all parties have a stake in the outcome. Achieving this will likely require the active engagement of both domestic and international actors, as well as a commitment to dialogue and compromise.
Now back to me. I must say this was probably the most reasonable response and approach to answering the question of where do we go next in pursuing peace in Ukraine. I wonder if our leaders can show the intelligence of AI. It is often said in a democracy, “When the people lead, the leaders will follow”. Maybe for the future, we will need to engage AI for level-headed, non-biased analyses.
This war has made it ever more clear that we must redouble our work to move back from the brink of nuclear war and work earnestly to abolish these weapons before they abolish us. Fortunately, there is a movement in the U.S. called Back from the Brink that does just that. It calls on the U.S. to take a leadership role among the nuclear-armed states to support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and work for a verifiable, enforceable time-bound agreement to abolish these weapons. It also calls for:
- Renouncing the option of using nuclear weapons first
- Ending the sole, unchecked authority of any U.S. President to launch a nuclear attack
- Taking U.S. nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert
- Canceling the plan to replace the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal with enhanced weapons
This has just been introduced as H. Res. 77 in the U.S. House of Representatives by Reps. Jim McGovern and Earl Blumenauer. It’s time to awaken our human intelligence and support this effort.
Keep ReadingShow Less
What Steps Can the US Take to Foster Peace Talks in Ukraine?
U.S.-Russia negotiations will not be easy, but a genuine commitment to resolve differences will create a new context in which a genuine peacemaking process can find momentum.
Jan 25, 2023
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has just issued its 2023 Doomsday Clock statement, calling this "a time of unprecedented danger." It has advanced the hands of the clock to 90 seconds to midnight, meaning that the world is closer to global catastrophe than ever before, mainly because the conflict in Ukraine has gravely increased the risk of nuclear war. This scientific assessment should wake up the world's leaders to the urgent necessity of bringing the parties involved in the Ukraine war to the peace table.
So far, the debate about peace talks to resolve the conflict has revolved mostly around what Ukraine and Russia should be prepared to bring to the table in order to end the war and restore peace. However, given that this war is not just between Russia and Ukraine but is part of a "New Cold War" between Russia and the United States, it is not just Russia and Ukraine that must consider what they can bring to the table to end it. The United States must also consider what steps it can take to resolve its underlying conflict with Russia that led to this war in the first place.
The geopolitical crisis that set the stage for the war in Ukraine began with NATO's broken promises not to expand into Eastern Europe, and was exacerbated by its declaration in 2008 that Ukraine would eventually join this primarily anti-Russian military alliance.
Then, in 2014, a U.S.-backed coup against Ukraine's elected government caused the disintegration of Ukraine. Only 51% of Ukrainians surveyed told a Gallup poll that they recognized thelegitimacy of the post-coup government, and large majorities in Crimea and in Donetsk and Luhansk provinces voted to secede from Ukraine. Crimea rejoined Russia, and the new Ukrainian government launched a civil war against the self-declared "People's Republics" of Donetsk and Luhansk.
The civil war killed an estimated 14,000 people, but the Minsk II accord in 2015 established a ceasefire and a buffer zone along the line of control, with 1,300 international OSCE ceasefire monitors and staff. The ceasefire line largely held for seven years, and casualties declined substantially from year to year. But the Ukrainian government never resolved the underlying political crisis by granting Donetsk and Luhansk the autonomous status it promised them in the Minsk II agreement.
Now former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande have admitted that Western leaders only agreed to the Minsk II accord to buy time, so that they could build up Ukraine's armed forces to eventually recover Donetsk and Luhansk by force.
In March 2022, the month after the Russian invasion, ceasefire negotiations were held in Turkey. Russia and Ukraine drew up a 15-point "neutrality agreement," which President Zelenskyy publicly presented andexplained to his people in a national TV broadcast on March 27th. Russia agreed to withdraw from the territories it had occupied since the invasion in February in exchange for a Ukrainian commitment not to join NATO or host foreign military bases. That framework also included proposals for resolving the future of Crimea and Donbas.
But in April, Ukraine's Western allies—the United States and United Kingdom in particular—refused to support the neutrality agreement and persuaded Ukraine to abandon its negotiations with Russia. U.S. and British officials said at the time that they saw a chance to "press" and"weaken" Russia, and that they wanted to make the most of that opportunity.
The U.S. and British governments' unfortunate decision to torpedo Ukraine's neutrality agreement in the second month of the war has led to a prolonged and devastating conflict with hundreds of thousands of casualties. Neither side can decisively defeat the other, and every new escalation increases the danger of "a major war between NATO and Russia," as NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recentlywarned.
U.S. and NATO leaders now claim to support a return to the negotiating table they upended in April, with the same goal of achieving a Russian withdrawal from territory it has occupied since February. They implicitly recognize that nine more months of unnecessary and bloody war have failed to greatly improve Ukraine's negotiating position.
Instead of just sending more weapons to fuel a war that cannot be won on the battlefield, Western leaders have a grave responsibility to help restart negotiations and ensure that they succeed this time. Another diplomatic fiasco like the one they engineered in April would be a catastrophe for Ukraine and the world.
So what can the United States bring to the table to help move towards peace in Ukraine and to de-escalate its disastrous Cold War with Russia?
Like the Cuban Missile Crisis during the original Cold War, this crisis could serve as a catalyst for serious diplomacy to resolve the breakdown in U.S.-Russian relations. Instead of risking nuclear annihilation in a bid to "weaken" Russia, the United States could instead use this crisis to open up a new era of nuclear arms control, disarmament treaties, and diplomatic engagement.
For years, President Putin has complained about the large U.S. military footprint in Eastern and Central Europe. But in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. has actually beefed up its European military presence. It has increased the total deployments of American troops in Europe from 80,000 before February 2022 to roughly 100,000. It has sent warships to Spain, fighter jet squadrons to the United Kingdom, troops to Romania and the Baltics, and air defense systems to Germany and Italy.
Even before the Russian invasion, the U.S. began expanding its presence at a missile base in Romania that Russia has objected to ever since it went into operation in 2016. The U.S. military has also built what The New York Times called "a highly sensitive U.S. military installation" in Poland, just 100 miles from Russian territory. The bases in Poland and Romania have sophisticated radars to track hostile missiles and interceptor missiles to shoot them down.
The Russians worry that these installations can be repurposed to fire offensive or even nuclear missiles, and they are exactly what the 1972 ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty between the U.S. and the Soviet Union prohibited, until President George W. Bush withdrew from it in 2002.
While the Pentagon describes the two sites as defensive and pretends they are not directed at Russia, Putin has insisted that the bases are evidence of the threat posed by NATO's eastward expansion.
Here are some steps the U.S. could consider putting on the table to start de-escalating these ever-rising tensions and improve the chances for a lasting ceasefire and peace agreement in Ukraine:
- The United States and other Western countries could support Ukrainian neutrality by agreeing to participate in the kind of security guarantees Ukraine and Russia agreed to in March, but which the U.S. and U.K. rejected.
- The U.S. and its NATO allies could let the Russians know at an early stage in negotiations that they are prepared to lift sanctions against Russia as part of a comprehensive peace agreement.
- The U.S. could agree to a significant reduction in the 100,000 troops it now has in Europe, and to removing its missiles from Romania and Poland and handing over those bases to their respective nations.
- The United States could commit to working with Russia on an agreement to resume mutual reductions in their nuclear arsenals, and to suspend both nations' current plans to build even more dangerous weapons. They could also restore the Treaty on Open Skies, from which the United States withdrew in 2020, so that both sides can verify that the other is removing and dismantling the weapons they agree to eliminate.
- The United States could open a discussion on the removal of its nuclear weapons from the five European countries where they are presently deployed: Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Turkey.
If the United States is willing to put these policy changes on the table in negotiations with Russia, it will make it easier for Russia and Ukraine to reach a mutually acceptable ceasefire agreement, and help to ensure that the peace they negotiate will be stable and lasting.
De-escalating the Cold War with Russia would give Russia a tangible gain to show its citizens as it retreats from Ukraine. It would also allow the United States to reduce its military spending and enable European countries to take charge of their own security, as most of their people want.
U.S.-Russia negotiations will not be easy, but a genuine commitment to resolve differences will create a new context in which each step can be taken with greater confidence as the peacemaking process builds its own momentum.
Most of the people of the world would breathe a sigh of relief to see progress towards ending the war in Ukraine, and to see the United States and Russia working together to reduce the existential dangers of their militarism and hostility. This should lead to improved international cooperation on other serious crises facing the world in this century—and may even start to turn back the hands of the Doomsday Clock by making the world a safer place for us all.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular