By World BEYOND War
We are heartened to learn that the U.S. government is communicating with the Russian government, and are only sorry that such a basic step seemingly required a presidential election, when a glance at the Doomsday Clock ought to have been sufficient.
Having set the bar so low that speaking at all seems a tremendous accomplishment, we must nonetheless insist that the proper things be said, and be heard, and that they be followed with verifiable actions.
The popular demand in Western media that Ukraine be listened to in, and be part of, any negotiations should be applauded, but radically expanded. The president of Ukraine is severely violating the rights of the people of Ukraine to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, conscientious objection, and the right to form political parties that represent their interests. He is preventing elections through the imposition of martial law. The nation of Ukraine is deeply divided in opinions, and those divisions often correspond with geographic locations. A majority of Ukrainians, according to polls -- and despite crackdowns on speech that opposes warmaking -- say they are open to peace negotiations that remove territory from Ukraine, something the President of Ukraine sides with a minority in opposing in the name of "democracy." More Ukrainian voices than one should be at the negotiating table.
In fact, not
everything should be decided at a single negotiating table. Disputed
territories should be permitted to determine their own fates through
public referenda, to be overseen by authorities acceptable to all
interested parties. The options available to them should include limited
or complete independence from any existing nation. Such autonomy is
critical to achieving a lasting and sustainable peace, as well as for
diminishing the risk of world-engulfing nuclear war, as well as to
restore some dignity to a vocabulary that it has been rendered
disreputable around the world through a gargantuan feat of hypocrisy --
the vocabulary of "democracy," "nonviolence," and "rule of law."
Also critical will be disarmament by all parties. And central to that must be restricting, if not scaling back, if not eliminating the reach of the world's leading arms-dealing institution, NATO, which exists in gross violation of the United Nations Charter, and whose own rules forbid adding members without the uncoerced approval of all existing members. The acceptance of a neutral Ukraine outside of NATO would have prevented the war in the first place, according to countless authorities, including the then-Secretary General of NATO.
Peace
negotiations in Ukraine would also be aided by, and in turn be of aid
to, negotiations to take the steps recently promoted by the U.S.
President, to cut military spending in half and get rid of nuclear
weapons. These would be accomplishments worthy of the gratitude of all
humanity.
Nuclear disarmament is required by law,
and is readily available to negotiate or to begin unilaterally. When
the United States engaged in unilateral disarmament under Presidents
John F. Kennedy and George H.W. Bush, Russia quickly reciprocated.
Negotiated multi-party disarmament has worked in the past and can work
now -- even more easily, given the extent to which surveillance
technology has made cheating more difficult.
Of course, this agenda is at odds with President Trump's demand for dramatically increased military spending, with the reconciliation legislation proposed in the U.S. Congress to dramatically increase military spending, with the ongoing U.S.-led nuclear arms race, with the new nuclear bombs being deployed by the United States in Europe, and with Trump's penchant for threatening the use of nuclear weapons. We support the peace agenda and condemn the war agenda, regardless of them both coming out of the same mouth.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
Post Article Comment and Rate This Article
