War Prevention Initiative: “Nonviolent alternatives must be pursued in Ukraine to deescalate war.”

February 25, 2022; Contact: Kelsey Coolidge; kelsey@jubitz.org

War Prevention Initiative: “Nonviolent alternatives must be pursued in Ukraine to deescalate war.”

PORTLAND, OR The War Prevention Initiative is deeply distraught and condemns the Russian military invasion of Ukraine. This situation is complex, evolving, and much is still unknown. We echo the sentiment of our friends and colleagues at Peace Direct, Win Without War, Global Zero, FCNL, and others in our support for the Ukrainian people. Even with the uncertainty surrounding the crisis and the direct Russian military action, a militarized response would only fuel the conflict and lead to further death, destruction, suffering, trauma, and environmental damage. Nonviolent alternatives must be pursued to leave the path of war.

First, the stakes of a military confrontation between Russia and NATO member countries, especially the United States, are too high. Diplomacy must never stop to avoid a catastrophic military confrontation between the countries with the world’s largest nuclear arsenals. The use of nuclear weapons is an option on the table, per a thinly veiled threat from the Russian President this week. Since their inception, nuclear weapons have remained one of the world’s greatest existential threats. The predictable devastation associated with the use of nuclear weapons is not limited to the warring parties (i.e., Russia, Europe, and the United States). Even a limited nuclear war could trigger a nuclear winter, plunging Earth’s temperature and leading to wide-spread crop failures, famine, and ecosystem destruction. All life on earth is threatened by a nuclear war.

This further demonstrates the necessity for nuclear non-proliferation and the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. The notion of “nuclear peace”–namely the assumption nuclear-armed countries would avoid waging direct war with one another–has always been flawed. Rather, the provision of nuclear weapons is emboldening military action. We are witnessing this in real-time.    

Second, rather than further militarizing the conflict by increasing the importation of military equipment, foreign support for Ukraine must also prioritize alternatives such as nonviolent civil resistance[1] and civilian-based defense[2]. Emphasizing military support fundamentally ignores the power and effectiveness of nonviolent resistance and risks further escalation to a nuclear conflict. Evidence from nonviolent resistance research has demonstrated:

• Nonviolent civil resistance and civilian-based defense are a smarter approach by flipping conflict dynamics and contributing to war termination.
• Nonviolent civil resistance and civilian-based defense garners widespread support, incorporates the whole-of-society, and is already a more popular option among Ukrainians.
• Nonviolent civil resistance and civilian-based defense saves lives.
• There is a strong tradition of nonviolent resistance in Ukraine (the Orange Revolution and Euromaidan protests).

Third, targeted sanctions[3] are an important tool in this context to make on-going or additional hostile action too costly for the Russian leadership and elites–but we cannot ignore the tremendous human costs of the sanctions regime. Russian civilians, many of whom have demonstrated against this war despite the high personal costs of doing so in a repressive context, will suffer. Financial and economic costs will reverberate around the world.

However, financial and economic costs are just one and comparatively small element demonstrating the utter destructiveness of war. More important are the human and social costs­­–the loss of lives, the tearing apart of families and communities, personal and collective trauma, the deterioration in trust, the destruction of ecosystems, and countless more. All of which fall immediately on Ukrainians. War is undoubtably fostered by a global culture of militarism where violence is the primary means to manage conflict. Militarism anywhere is a threat to peace everywhere. Norms related to multilateralism and state sovereignty, those concepts central to founding of the United Nations, have been waning for decades (in part due to U.S. hostility to the institution and military action disregarding the use of force prohibition outlined in the UN Charter[4]). There is another way other than perpetuating vicious cycles of violence and global empire. 

At the War Prevention Initiative, we remain steadfast in our resolve to relentlessly advocate for peace and nonviolence: the costs of war are too high and the opportunities for peace are too plentiful to continue down a path of global destruction. It is precisely in moments of crisis that advocates for peace should speak the loudest. We call on our friends and colleagues in the larger peacebuilding community to do the same.  

Additional Resources

Bartkowski, M. (2021, December 27) Ukrainians vs. Putin: Potential for nonviolent civilian-based defense. ICNC. Accessed on February 24, 2022, from, https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/blog_post/ukrainians-vs-putin-potential-for-nonviolent-civilian-based-defense/

Cortright, D. (2012, November 5). What happened to smart sanctions? https://davidcortright.net/2012/11/05/what-happened-to-smart-sanctions/

ICAN. The world’s nuclear weapons. Accessed on February 24, 2022, from, https://www.icanw.org/nuclear_arsenals

Peace Science Digest. (2016, April 1) Sanctions as a tool for peace. Accessed on February 24, 2022, from, https://peacesciencedigest.org/sanctions-as-a-tool-for-peace/

Peace Science Digest. (2018, February 28) Nonviolent resistance, war termination, and conflict transformation in Nepal. Accessed on February 24 2022, from, https://peacesciencedigest.org/nonviolent-resistance-war-termination-conflict-transformation-nepal/

Peace Science Digest. (2020, January 22) Nonviolent resistance movements, national identity, and security force defection. Accessed on February 24, 2022, from, https://peacesciencedigest.org/nonviolent-resistance-movements-national-identity-and-security-force-defection/

Peace Science Digest. (2022, February 14) Threatened or actual harm can provoke an adversary rather than coerce them. Accessed on February 24, 2022, from, https://peacesciencedigest.org/threatened-or-actual-harm-can-provoke-an-adversary-rather-than-coerce-them%EF%BF%BC/

Sharp, G. (1985) National security through civilian-based defense. Accessed on February 24, 2022, from https://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/NationalSecurityThroughCivilian-BasedDefense-English.pdf

Witze, A. (2020, March 16) How a small nuclear war would transform the entire planet. Nature. Accessed on February 24, 2022, from, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00794-y

Organizations to Follow

Global Zero: https://www.globalzero.org  

Beyond the Bomb: https://beyondthebomb.org  

ICAN: https://www.icanw.org  

ICNC: https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org  

Nonviolent Peaceforce: https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org

The War Prevention Initiative aims to transform the global peace and security paradigm to one that is built around viable alternatives to war and all forms of political violence.

For further comment or questions, please contact Kelsey Coolidge, War Prevention Initiative Director at kelsey@jubitz.org

[1] “Civil resistance is a powerful way for people to fight for their rights, freedom, and justice—without the use of violence. When people wage civil resistance, they use tactics such as strikes, boycotts, mass protests, and many other nonviolent actions to withdraw their cooperation from an oppressive system.” (International Center on Nonviolent Conflict)

[2] “Civilian-based defense indicates defense by civilians (as distinct from military personnel) using civilian

means of struggle (as distinct from military and paramilitary means). This is a policy

intended to deter and defeat foreign military invasions, occupations, and internal

usurpations.” (Sharp, 1985)

[3] The purpose of targeted sanctions is not only to avoid unintended humanitarian consequences but to minimize the risk of a rally-round-the-flag effect. When sanctions harm the innocent, they lose legitimacy and political support. Targeted sanctions, for example, freeze the assets and ban the travel of officials and entities responsible for acts of war. They do not hurt ordinary people. Sanctions that target those complicit with the invasion of Ukraine are smart. Those that harm innocent civilians are counterproductive and should be abandoned. (Cortright, 2012; modified based on the Ukraine crisis)

[4] UN Charter Article 2, Section 4 states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” (https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CTC/uncharter.pdf)

Diplomacy and De-escalation is the Real Solution to Solve the Ukrainian Crisis

February 20, 2022; Contact: Patrick Hiller; patrick@jubitz.org 

War Prevention Initiative: “Diplomacy and De-escalation is the Real Solution to Solve the Ukrainian Crisis”

PORTLAND, OR The Russian military buildup and maneuvers around Ukraine and the simultaneous U.S. and NATO militarized responses by sending troops and military hardware to the region are worrisome. The possibility of war is real and must be prevented at all costs. The human, social, economic, and environmental costs of war are too high, especially for the Ukrainian people.

In times of crisis, we stand with and support our colleagues at Win Without War, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, Peace Action, and World Beyond War who seek to move the U.S. to a less militaristic foreign policy (the U.S. is without doubt a major actor in the Ukrainian crisis). Those organizations can mobilize citizens, challenge the hawkish “expertise” and media narratives, and reach lawmakers and administration officials with a loud and clear message for continued diplomacy and de-escalation.

As a research and advocacy organization, we advance our platform on demilitarizing security and managing conflicts without violence to change militarism as the driving force leading us (yet again) to the cusp of war. Applying this critical view of wars and violence to the current crisis between the U.S. and Russia over Ukraine we observe the following: 

First, official U.S. and Russian narratives, often uncritically and ahistorically repeated in the respective corporate and government media landscapes, need to be scrutinized for misinformation. Historically, both the U.S. and Russia have used their official platforms to spread disinformation to advance their respective agendas and justify military action. As we are writing this, we do not know what will happen. We do know, however, that there are ways to counter the “warist” bias in mainstream reporting and commentary–namely, through cultivating peace journalism, which frames conflicts in terms of their real complexity. While peace journalism cannot prevent war in and of itself, it can ensure that a public is not “prepped” through official propaganda for a “necessary war.”   

Second, if the U.S. administration is serious about diplomacy and de-escalation, it needs to act accordingly. Threats of severe sanctions, amassing troops, and sending arms into the conflict context can encourage, rather than prevent, a war. Recent research finds that threatened or actual harm can provoke an adversary rather than coerce them. These actions also make misperceptions and accidents more likely in that both sides view the other’s actions as provocation. Any conventional war would be disastrous for the Ukrainian people. An escalation to where nuclear weapons are potentially used would cause an existential crisis for all life of earth.  

Third, we must commit to long-term structural change in U.S. foreign policy so that diplomacy and de-escalation are the first response to future international crises. Pursuing those processes half-hearted and through the skewed defense and security “peace through strength” paradigm directly undermines what diplomacy and de-escalation can achieve. To advance in this area, we must continue elevating the voices of diplomats. This can be achieved by prioritizing funding of the State Department’s Diplomatic Programs, which currently have an annual budget of $9.5 billion, one third of which is allocated to security programs. At the same time, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) showered $777.7 billion into the Department of Defense and other related programs. 

Lastly, we must seriously question if we would find ourselves in the same crisis had the U.S. consistently pursued a feminist foreign policy. This approach de-centers military force, violence, and domination and instead offers an intersectional rethinking of security through direct changes, priorities, and practices. If the militaristic foreign policy paradigm where peace and security are projected through strength remains, crises like the one we are witnessing in Ukraine, regardless of what direction it takes, will happen over and over again. Diplomatic and de-escalation processes along with a fundamental reorientation of foreign policy are necessary to achieve common security for all.

For further information we recommend the following pieces: 

Fettweiss, C. (2022, January 19). On Ukraine and Misperception. Inkstick. https://inkstickmedia.com/on-ukraine-and-misperception/ 

Helfand, I. (2022, February 8). Ukraine and the Threat of Nuclear War. https://www.thenation.com/article/world/ukraine-russia-nuclear-threat/ 

Matlock Jr., J. F. (2022, February 15). I was there: NATO and the origins of the Ukraine crisis. Responsible Statecraft. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/02/15/the-origins-of-the-ukraine-crisis-and-how-conflict-can-be-avoided/ 

Thompson, L. (2020). Feminist Foreign Policy: A Framework. Washington, DC: International Center for Research on Women. https://www.icrw.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FFP_Framework_EN_June2021update.pdf  

The War Prevention Initiative aims to transform the global peace and security paradigm to one that is built around viable alternatives to war and all forms of political violence.

***

For further comment or questions, please contact Patrick Hiller, Ph.D., War Prevention Initiative’s Executive Director at patrick@jubitz.org

120 Organizations Worldwide Call for a Moment of Silence at the Olympics

We are proud to join with 120 organizations across the world and call on @iocmedia to remember the inhumane use of nuclear weapons against the people of Hiroshima on it’s 76th anniversary this August 6th. A moment of #OlympicSilence is the least we can do. https://beyondthebomb.org/campaigns/ioc/ 

See the press release: https://beyondthebomb.org/120-groups-join-in-call-for-olympic-moment-of-silence/

Repeal of 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) in Iraq. More can be done to end forever wars and achieve authentic security

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Monday, June 21, 2021

Contact: Kelsey Coolidge; kelsey@jubitz.org 

War Prevention Initiative: “Repeal of 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) in Iraq. More can be done to end forever wars and achieve authentic security.”

PORTLAND, OR – The U.S. House of Representatives voted in a bipartisan fashion to repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) in Iraq. We acknowledge the role of peace activists who disputed the need for the AUMF in the first place, have worked for years to repeal the AUMF, and have built a coalition to end forever wars. As the U.S. Senate considers this bill, the War Prevention Initiative (WPI) believes that more can be done to end forever wars and achieve authentic security rooted in the daily, lived experiences of Americans.

1. Repealing the 2002 AUMF helps to reassert congressional powers over military action. It is largely recognized that the 2002 AUMF has outlived its intended purpose, chiefly giving Congressional authorization for the military invasion of Iraq, and was abused by the Trump Administration to justify the assassination of Iran’s military official Qassem Soleimani in early 2020.
   
   
2. However, this repeal does not address the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which continues to justify covert U.S. military action around the world against vaguely defined “terrorist threats.” The current presidential administration calls for the 2001 AUMF to be updated by a more “narrow and specific framework that will ensure we can protect Americans from terrorist threats while ending forever wars.” Anything short of congressional authorization of military action, pursuant to the War Powers Act, is unacceptable. Consider drone warfare. The 2001 AUMF offers the legal basis for U.S. drones strikes in countries against which it has never declared war nor publicly justified hostile action, including Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Syria, and Pakistan. According to data from the Bureau for Investigative Journalism and Airwars, civilians overwhelmingly bear the costs of drone strikes.
   
   
3. Decrease and right-size military spending to invest in much needed healthcare, infrastructure, energy, education, and other social service spending. In the past year, over 600,000 Americans have died from COVID-19 due to leadership failure and wide negligence. Millions more have lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic, with many unwilling to re-enter the workforce. Significant racial and gendered disparities persist in COVID deaths and the labor market that affect the race to get back to “normal.” At the same time, cyberattacks targeting critical infrastructure, like the ransomware attack on the Colonial Pipeline in May 2020, or the failure to update energy grids, like in Texas, threaten the well-being of Americans. Within this context, the largest threats to Americans’ security come from the long-term underinvestment in social services—not from vaguely defined “security threats” from abroad.
   
   
4. Climate change is the world’s preeminent security threat and right-sizing military spending, as well as the global impact of the U.S. military, is critical to addressing climate change.[1] The Department of Defense (DoD) has identified climate change as a threat to national security and rightly so: a recent joint study between NASA and NOAA found that the earth has doubled the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere in just 15 years. The planet is inching closer to the 1.5-degree-Celsius increase in global temperature identified by the IPCC expected to result in catastrophic environmental and human consequences. The U.S. is already experiencing the effects of climate change. Yet, the DoD, as result of its global military activity, is “the world’s largest institutional user of petroleum and…the single largest institutional producer of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the world,” according to research by Neta C. Crawford. We cannot combat climate change without addressing military spending and the direct impact of the U.S. military on the environment.
   
   
5. Adopting a feminist foreign policy offers an alternative to the politics of domination and oppression that guide U.S. national security thinking. According to the Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy, a feminist foreign policy moves away from “traditional foreign policy thinking and its focus on military force, violence, and domination by offering an alternative and intersectional rethinking of security from the viewpoint of the most vulnerable.” This alternative focuses our attention to direct and indirect harm experienced by the most vulnerable resulting from our national security policy both at home and abroad. It offers a meaningful way to end forever wars and move toward authentic national security. Several countries have adopted or plan to adopt this approach, including Sweden, Canada, France, Luxembourg, and Mexico.

[1] The existence of nuclear weapons—particularly the catastrophic consequences for humans and life on the planet if they are used—is another existential threat. We do not discuss it further in this context since it is removed from the focus on the AUMF.

War Prevention Initiative Statement on the May 2021 Violence in Palestine and Israel

War Prevention Initiative Statement on the May 2021 Violence in Palestine and Israel

May 27, 2021

PORTLAND, OR – The renewed violent escalation in the conflict between Israel and Palestine painfully reminds us to challenge militarism as the underlying driving force for repeated and ongoing political violence. Viewing this conflict from a position of feminist curiosity, the War Prevention Initiative (WPI) refuses to take for granted the current social and political status quo and supports peace efforts that halt violence, center justice, and reaffirm the human rights and dignity of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.  

Applying a critical view of wars and violence to the Israeli-Palestinian context suggest the following:

1)          This conflict does not have a quick resolution and a long-term transformative peace process is critical to address suffering and trauma. Research shows that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict inflicts transgenerational trauma that inhibits current and future peace efforts. Long-term approaches to peacebuilding and reconciliation must address how collective memories of social traumas inform fear, hatred, othering, and oppression among Palestinians and Israeli Jews alike[1]. Long-term solutions must recognize the power asymmetries between the states of Israel and Palestine and address oppression and occupation of the Palestinian people, Israeli settler-colonialism, as well as Israel’s right to exist.

2)          The violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is disproportionally committed by the heavily militarized Israeli state against an oppressed and occupied Palestinian population. Nobody in the region should live under the fear of being hit by bombs or rockets. Violence, especially the disproportionate exercise and constant threat of violence by the Israeli state against Palestinians, undermines government level peace negotiations and is counterproductive to any prospect of constructive transformation of the long-term conflict. Violence by Palestinian groups against Israel undermines the many facets of Palestinian nonviolent resistance against the occupation. 

3)          Through its provision of military aid to the Israeli government, the United States government is complicit in the ongoing structural and direct physical violence against the Palestinian people. U.S. taxpayer money should not be used for military support but for diplomatic solutions and locally led, justice-centered peacebuilding approaches. In the long-term, the U.S. must move toward a Feminist Foreign Policy framework that  “defines its interactions with other states, as well as movements and other non-state actors, in a manner that prioritizes peace,  gender equality and environmental integrity; enshrines, promotes, and protects the human rights of all; seeks to disrupt colonial, racist, patriarchal and male-dominated power, structures; and allocates significant resources, including research, to achieve that vision[2].” Such a framework centers the lived experiences of marginalized communities and is anti-racist, anti-imperialist, and elevates the voices of the oppressed.

4)          Neither the use of military force by the Israeli government nor the launching of rockets by Hamas militants represent the Israeli Jews and Palestinian people respectively. WPI rejects the idea of homogenous conflicting parties wherein the most violent actors are representative of the beliefs of the entire population. Instead of listening to leaders who often benefit from the maintenance of fear, hatred, othering, and violence, we must listen to the voices and support those groups in the region who work for peaceful coexistence and justice. 

5)          Reflecting inward on overtly militarized policing in the United States, WPI supports efforts to redefine security away from militarization to cooperation and de-escalation of conflicts. There is a continuum between domestic militarized policing and U.S. government support for the state of Israel that translates into violence against Palestinian people by the Israeli police and military. At home and abroad, the alternative to militarized security is a new paradigm based on the lived experiences of those who are least powerful, most exposed to harm and remain under-represented in traditional national security discourse. The Black Lives Matter movement has drawn attention to the interlocking injustices of institutional violence and racism, which are relevant for understanding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The U.S. government can demonstrate true leadership in embracing and enacting a new national security paradigm that is rooted in the human rights and dignity of non-dominant, oppressed, and/or marginalized people to achieve genuine security for all people.

WPI remains steadfast in our commitment to work for a world in which all people can co-exist peacefully, and where injustice, oppression, and occupation like that experienced by the Palestinian people is challenged nonviolently and vehemently.

The Team of the War Prevention Initiative

###

For further comment or questions, please contact Patrick Hiller, War Prevention Initiative’s Executive Director at patrick@jubitz.org.  

[1] Chaitin, Julia, & Steinberg, Shoshana. (2014). “I can Almost Remember it Now”: Between Personal and Collective Memories of Massive Social Trauma. Journal of Adult Development, 21(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-013-9176-4

[2] Thompson, L., Patel, G., Kripke, G. and O’Donnell, M. (2020). Toward a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States. Washington, DC: International Center for Research on Women.

War Prevention Initiative Statement on Events at U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, January 7, 2021

Contact: Kelsey Coolidge; kelsey@jubitz.org

War Prevention Initiative Statement on Events at U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021

PORTLAND, OR – The War Prevention Initiative (WPI) strongly condemns the far-right mob threat to democracy that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, in an attempt to overturn the results of a free and fair election. We are disgusted by the violent extremists’ proud display of white supremacist imagery, appalled by the incitement to violence by the sitting President of the United States and the entire apparatus that supports him, and disheartened to see our friends, colleagues, and elected officials under threat.

While what transpired at the Capitol was clearly an unprecedented event, we are not shocked that it happened. In the run up to the presidential elections in November 2020, we identified that the United States exhibits many of the key factors associated with election-related political violence: an electoral process that is perceived as corrupt, compromised, or unfair; an incumbent’s fear of losing power; the use of threats to influence results; the spread of disinformation; forced “protection”; and little or damaged institutional constraints. Our colleagues in the field have echoed these concerns (see for example: Hold the Line network, the TRUST Network, the Alliance for Peacebuilding). Many of our fellow experts in peace and security have warned about the pattern of escalation – including the dehumanization of political rivals and the abject failure to repudiate lies about election fraud. Simply put, our country has reaped what it has sowed.

In reflection, yesterday’s events heighten the urgent need to build peace with justice in the United States, reject white supremacy, and re-evaluate the meaning of security.  

Security is determined by power and the powerful. We are haunted by the images from last summer when the National Guard, police, and other state security actors from DHS, ICE, and other federal agents indiscriminately fired upon crowds of Black Lives Matter protesters in Washington D.C. These images are a reminder that the coercive power of the state is readily available on Capitol grounds when the Executive decides the security threat is great enough to warrant the response. The delayed response, the permission to violent white supremacist rioters to casually roam inside the Capitol for hours is a tell-all on who the sitting President sees as a threat and who he sees as an ally. 

To say “this is not who we are” is to invalidate the experience of Black Lives Matters, indigenous peoples, undocumented immigrants, and countless other non-dominant individuals and communities who regularly experience direct and indirect violence in the United States. Rather, democratic ideals call on us to listen to the better angels of our nature, to radically envision what our society can be, and work tirelessly to shape our reality to become a more just and peaceful future.

We echo the call from the Alliance for Peacebuilding to:

AfP calls on President Trump to directly address the American people to demand a stop to the violence and illegal actions to inhibit the constitutional process of certifying the results of the Electoral College, and to unequivocally insist on respect for the rule of law. Additionally, we call on leaders from both sides of the aisle and all sectors of society, including business, civil society, and faith groups, to condemn violence and demand the democratic process be preserved.

War Prevention Initiative: “Ensure atrocities prevention measures and support long-term peacebuilding efforts in Ethiopia”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 10, 2020

Contact: Mulugeta Haiybano (mulay@warpreventioninitiative.org) or Patrick Hiller  (patrick@jubitz.org)

 War Prevention Initiative: “Ensure atrocities prevention measures and support long-term peacebuilding efforts in Ethiopia”

PORTLAND, OR – At the War Prevention Initiative, we call for urgent and long-term responses to address the civil-military conflict between Ethiopia’s central government and the Tigray People Liberation Front (TPLF). This war is pointless, a military victory is not possible, and civilians in a country of 100 million people already bear the brunt of consequences. While the crisis is dynamic and we cannot predict all immediate developments, this conflict is in danger of destabilizing Ethiopia with ramifications for the entire region. Ethiopia’s stability is crucial for the stability of the Horn of Africa.

After weeks of deadly military conflict between the two sides killing thousands of people and prompting more than 43,000 refugees, the Ethiopian federal government has declared that its law and order enforcement operation has come to an end except for reconstruction work and the ongoing search for TPLF senior leaders, which were labeled as criminals. The TPLF announced its intent of launching guerilla warfare strategies and tactics.  

Key issues of the conflict can be identified in the policies of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and his Prosperity Party (PP) and the “old guard” of the TPLF, which held largely unchallenged power in the Ethiopian ruling party coalition between 1991 and 2018. “The ‘reformist’ Prime Minister, Dr. Abiy Ahmed, is the outcome economic exploitation by TPLF elite groups and people’s mass struggle for human rights,” says Mulugeta Haiybano from the War Prevention Initiative. The TPLF refused to join Abiy’s coalition and the two sides have had increasingly hostile relationships which resulted in the current state of affairs. The reform policies by Abiy and the loss of power by the TPLF respectively are the key immediate issues. The importance of recognizing internal dynamics, such as the different ethnic groups and their aspirations to manifest themselves in different manners within in Ethiopia, are long-term root causes that need to be addressed.

From a US perspective, the current and incoming administrations must pursue the following paths:

• Support peace efforts and ensure atrocity prevention response measures envisioned under the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018 as a key focus of U.S. foreign policy.
• Long-term support for peacebuilding and inclusive governance to address root causes by resuming foreign assistance which, among other areas, is targeted toward addressing the root causes of the Ethiopian conflict.

Peacebuilding scenarios include providing humanitarian aid; holding timely, fair, and transparent elections; social dialog over ethnic and territorial disputes; managing the politicization of ethnic identities; and re-humanization of (ethnic) adversaries. While some of these measures require international support, it is of utmost importance that all peacebuilding measures are locally-led. That means they must be envisioned, developed, and implemented based on the needs of those affected by the violent conflict in Ethiopia and consider the power dynamics among them.

75 years ago Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit by US atomic bombs. We must remember the past to make progress toward eliminating nuclear weapons

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tuesday, August 4, 2020

Contact: Patrick Hiller; patrick@jubitz.org 

War Prevention Initiative: “75 years ago Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit by US atomic bombs. We must remember the past to make progress toward eliminating nuclear weapons”

PORTLAND, OR – This week we commemorate 75 years of immense harm and suffering caused by the atomic bombs detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The hibakusha – those who survived the bombings – continue to share their stories. We must listen to remember the terror of what happened on August 6 in Hiroshima and August 9 in Nagasaki. We must honor the hibakusha who have stood at the forefront of the movement to eliminate nuclear weapons for seven decades. Honoring and thanking the hibakusha is not enough. We rise with them and strongly support their call to eliminate nuclear weapons. We have done so humbly but with full dedication by joining the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).

The moment is unique. The youngest hibakusha are now 75 years old. We owe it to them to end the threat of nuclear weapons in their lifetime. We have the momentum to end the age of nuclear weapons and the legal framework to do so in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). 40 nations have ratified the treaty which will become international law when 10 more join. The TPNW will reach a historic 50 ratifications by the end of this year. The TPNW already has impact with financial institutions divesting from nuclear producers. Yet, nine countries still hold the threat of more Hiroshimas and Nagasakis over our heads every day. “We refuse to accept a narrative on keeping nuclear weapons that essentially implies ‘we are OK with what happened 75 years ago happening again,’” said Patrick Hiller, Executive Director of the War Prevention Initiative. “As long as nuclear weapons exist, we cannot speak about authentic security at a global level. No one is safe, until all are safe. The hibakusha know they are witnessing a new nuclear arms race and they know how this ends. Instead of risking the lives of millions and making the planet inhabitable for many, we must redirect resources to where they are needed. The Covid-19 global pandemic has made this clearer than ever”, says Hiller.

The US spent $35.1 billion on nuclear weapons in 2019, or 300,000 beds in intensive care units, 35,000 ventilators, and the salaries of 75,000 U.S. doctors and 150,000 U.S. nurses. In our home state of Oregon, taxpayers are paying $211.73 million in tax dollars for nuclear weapons and associated costs. That money could have paid for 5.89 million Coronavirus tests for 1 year, or 7,057 hospital stays for Covid-19 patients for 1 year, or 62.27 million N95 respirator masks for 1 year, or 14,703 monthly relief payments of $1,200 for 1 year.

It is time to get our national priorities right. We must demand from our government to stop investing billions in weapons that are incompatible with life on earth and the planet. We must demand ending the nuclear threat.

Please join us for a week of global virtual events at https://www.hiroshimanagasaki75.org/. We urge you to support the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. Under the hashtag #stillhere, we honor the survivors and acknowledge that the weapons are still here.

Our work is not done until nuclear weapons are gone, and communities affected by their testing, production and use are receiving justice.

The War Prevention Initiative aims to is to transform the global peace and security paradigm to one that is built around viable alternatives to war and all forms of political violence.

***

For further comment or questions, please contact Patrick Hiller, Ph.D., War Prevention Initiative’s Executive Director at patrick@jubitz.org.

Dismantling racism means dismantling militarism

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Friday, May 30, 2020

Contact: Patrick Hiller; patrick@jubitz.org 

War Prevention Initiative: “Dismantling racism means dismantling militarism”

PORTLAND, OR – At the War Prevention Initiative, we are saddened and outraged by the deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna Taylor. Their deaths remind us that the evils of racism and white supremacy are omnipresent in United States. As result, we have observed nationwide protests, including those in our hometown of Portland, Oregon, some of which have turned violent. While we know from peace research that violence is counterproductive to the goals of protest movements, we understand that systemic racism poses a daily threat the lives of communities of color throughout the United States. This is made apparent when comparing the police response to those heavily-armed white men protesting stay-at-home orders that were allowed to parade into state capitols, while those protesting a brutal pattern of racism were greeted by police in riot gear and tear gas. This is a blatant display of ongoing racism fully sanctioned and actively driven by the White House.

Drawing again from insights in peace research, we believe that the militarization of security by the white dominant group against “the other”—whether people of color in the United States or “enemies” abroad—fuels a spiral of violence that we work to prevent. Our goal is to change this system of domination away from militarized peace, but towards peace with justice. Kelsey Coolidge, Associate Director of the War Prevention Initiative stated: “In moments like these, we feel frustrated that we can’t do more organizationally. At the War Prevention Initiative, our work takes the long view. We understand that there are key structural conditions—namely those of white supremacy and militarism—that lead to the violence we see across the United States. As peace scholars and advocates, we cannot call for peace without also calling for the dismantling of those very structural conditions that perpetuate white supremacy and normalize violence against communities of color. By confronting the militarization of our society (including the militarization of police), our work is not only to respond to the moment, but to contribute to the dismantling of those structural conditions that result in the untimely death of far too many black and brown lives.” 

Those conditions maintain the ongoing and institutionalized deprivation of needs, well-being, identity, and freedom. Those conditions are built into an inhumane social order and visible in the ongoing forms of racism, sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia. Those systems maintain militarism and wars. At the War Prevention Initiative, we are committed to strengthening our efforts to demilitarize security and manage conflicts without violence while simultaneously acknowledging the disparities in harm directed towards non-white and non-dominant groups.

The War Prevention Initiative aims to is to transform the global peace and security paradigm to one that is built around viable alternatives to war and all forms of political violence.

***

For further comment or questions, please contact Patrick Hiller, Ph.D., War Prevention Initiative’s Executive Director at patrick@jubitz.org or Kelsey Coolidge, War Prevention Initiative’s Associate Director at kelsey@jubitz.org

War Prevention Initiative joins civil society groups urging immediate sanctions relief and legal reform

The War Prevention Initiative is a signatory to a letter urging for an overhaul in sanctions regimes. You can see the letter here:

https://www.liftsanctionssavelives.org/ 

+++

For Immediate Release

Press Contact: Daniel Jasper

414-465-9865, djasper@afsc.org

Civil Society Groups Urge Immediate Sanctions Relief and Legal Reform

Amid COVID-19 pandemic a group of nonprofit organizations sends letter to President Trump urging an overhaul in sanctions regimes

 Washington, DC (April 23, 2020): Today, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, 70 organizations representing humanitarian, research, peacebuilding, faith-based, human rights, and other civil society groups with over 40 million supporters sent a letter to President Trump, Secretary Mnuchin, and Secretary Pompeo urging the administration to provide emergency sanctions relief for countries such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and other heavily-sanctioned locations. Emphasizing the need for a global approach in dealing with the pandemic, the letter points out the “critical state of health infrastructures and economies” in many of these places.

“The pandemic has illustrated that isolating populations for decades and continuously strangling national economies has left millions of people vulnerable to disasters such as a COVID-19,” said Daniel Jasper, Asia Public Education and Advocacy Coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee. “Denying people access to lifesaving resources now represents a risk to the entire world. The U.S. must rethink its approach to sanctions.”

The letter puts forth a framework for universal safeguards that include six specific categories. These include aid that is directly related to containing and providing treatment for COVID-19 (such as testing kits, personal protective equipment, ventilators, etc.). The letter also calls for safeguarding aid needed to address simultaneous challenges exacerbated by the pandemic, such as providing adequate water supply, food security, and urgent health services for other infectious diseases.

The 70 organizations, some of which have decades of experience operating in heavily-sanctioned contexts, highlight the fact that sanctions can prevent the delivery of medical supplies and goods needed for things like childcare or food security projects, as well as limiting communication and partnerships necessary to deliver the aid and monitor ongoing projects.

The letter also urged authorities to address the concerns of financial institutions, which have been reluctant to work with humanitarian agencies. “While sanctions contain exceptions for food, medical supplies, and other humanitarian goods, in practice these exceptions do not work. Banks often block purchases for these items out of fear of running afoul of sanctions, in what is known as over-compliance,” said Teri Mattson, the Latin America Campaign Coordinator for CODEPINK. “Over-compliance is one of the many ways that innocent civilians end up being harmed by sanctions regimes.”

The signatories say that more is needed than just emergency safeguards, however. The letter notes that the effectiveness of sanctions regimes is not properly assessed by U.S. government agencies, referencing a report by the Government Accountability Office which called into question official monitoring procedures for sanctions as well as the impact of sanctions on human rights abroad. To understand these impacts, signatories to the letter recommend putting into place “reporting protocols that monitor the impact and human cost of sanctions.”

Citing a growing body of independent literature that shows the impacts of sanctions on civilians, the letter also urges the administration to suspend “broad-based and sectoral sanctions that cause significant economic damage and leave populations more exposed to sickness and disease, food insecurity, and other humanitarian emergencies.”

“Sanctions kill innocents indiscriminately just like bombs. Historically, this type of economic warfare fails to positively affect the behavior of governments. During this pandemic crisis, the U.S. needs to remove all barriers, like sanctions, so countries can counteract COVID-19,” stated Paul Kawika Martin the Senior Policy Director for Peace Action.

“Across the world, COVID-19 is deepening existing gender inequalities. Women and girls, who are typically tasked with caregiving, face an increased workload and heightened risk of contracting the disease when family members fall sick. They’re also the most exposed to the economic shocks we’re seeing,” said Yifat Susskind, Executive Director of MADRE. “These gendered impacts are only compounded by economic sanctions, which put lifesaving medical equipment and aid out of reach.”