Nuclear Ban Treaty Will Enter Force 

The Nuclear Ban Treaty Will Enter Force

By Ryan Swan

In the United States, we regularly hear about the “threats” posed by Russia and China.  The former is corrupting our elections and pursuing aggressive ambitions in the Baltics, while the latter is stealing our intellectual property and jeopardizing “our interests” in Asia.  Both are committed to “challenging the liberal democratic world order.”

Behind this rhetoric, which at best is misleading, if not outright propagandistic, both the Republican and Democratic parties support astronomical military budgets (close to $750 billion for FY2020 – more than the next 11 highest military spending states combined) and the advancement of dangerous and morally questionable military capabilities (autonomous weapons, militarization of space, etc.).

Most dangerous and morally questionable is the overwhelming bipartisan support for continued maintenance of nuclear weapons with civilization-ending potential as a centerpiece of U.S. “deterrence policy.”  The Obama Administration kicked off a $1 trillion renovation of the American nuclear arsenal, and the Trump Administration has picked up from there to further expand the initiative (which would certainly continue under a potential Biden Administration with hawks, like Michele Flournoy – a possible Biden Secretary of Defense pick, shaping administration policy).

In 2017, more than 120 countries came together in the United Nations to reject a continual life under the nuclear shadow.  Tired of this status quo, they concluded the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).  The Treaty’s rationale was simple – the common interest of mankind in avoiding the calamitous consequences of nuclear weapons outweighs any strategic benefits such weapons confer upon specific states.  Accordingly, nuclear weapons must be banned.

The TPNW provided that once 50 states actually ratify the treaty, it would enter into legal force 90 days thereafter.  This past week, that noteworthy milestone was reached.  With Honduras’ ratification, the Treaty will now become legally effective in January 2021.

Both the Republicans and Democrats have summarily dismissed the TPNW and supported the practice of pressuring allies into not signing it.  Their refrain is that the Treaty runs counter to U.S. national interests.  However, an important and rarely asked question should be just what exactly are U.S. national interests and do they include the desires and best interest of the American people, or simply advance an agenda favorable to the powerful military-industrial complex?

What do the American people – those who have thought about this existentially important issue – want?  Well, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that a full 87% of respondents to a 2019 survey desired that the government conclude an agreement with Russia to limit nuclear arms.  Approximately two-thirds of surveyed Americans favored remaining a party to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and 80% called for extension of the New Strategic Arms Reduction (New START) Treaty.  Furthermore, the majority of respondents to a 2019 YouGov opinion survey thought the U.S. “should work with the other nuclear armed countries to eliminate all nuclear weapons from all countries, in line with the [(TPNW)].”

Instead, the Trump Administration has rejected arms control wholesale, unilaterally withdrawing the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (Iran Nuclear Deal), the INF Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty, while denouncing the TPNW and refusing to take up negotiations on New START extension (the last remaining bilateral nuclear treaty between the U.S. and Russia).  For their part, the Democrats continue to support enormous military budgets.  Disappointingly, Democratic members of the House recently voted to kill the Lee-Pocan Amendment, calling for a paltry 10% reduction in military spending and redirection of those funds to health and human services amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

In contrast to the two major parties continually subjected to heavy special interest lobbying, the Green Party refuses all corporate campaign contributions and, accordingly, is uniquely situated to genuinely pursue what most Americans want – a more peaceful and cooperative world.  To this end, the Green Party advocates for concrete steps, including adoption of a no-first-use of nuclear weapons policy, considerable cuts to the nuclear arsenal to the minimum point required for effective deterrence, large cuts to military spending, and implementation of a broader foreign policy that is based on principles of international law, not rooted in the brute force of might-makes-right egoism.  All of these steps are actively opposed by Republicans and Democrats alike.

For this reason, and many others, I support the Green Party and its presidential ticket of Howie Hawkins and Angela Walker.  I encourage those interested in peace – as well as real democracy, sustainable environmental policy, social and economic justice, racial and gender equality, election and campaign finance reform, and more – to check out the national Green Party platform, as increasing numbers of Americans are now doing.  I invite you to consider joining us in our effort to make the world a better and more peaceful place for all its inhabitants.

Ryan Swan is a California Representative on the Peace Action Committee of the Green Party of the United States.  He holds a J.D. from the UCLA School of Law and a Master’s in international relations and politics from the University of Cambridge (Trinity Hall).

 

Position Paper on Violence in the BLM Movement 

 

 

By Rusty Tomlinson

One of the principles of the Green Party is nonviolence. We believe strongly, and research shows, that it is a much more effective tool for change than violence. We are concerned with the degree to which violence is being manifested in the BLM protests, therefore, we the Green Party Peace Action Committee (GPAX) offer this position paper, a collection of suggested defenses against and alternatives to violence.

The police must be held accountable for their use of brutality, chemical and impact weapons and their failure to protect protesters and others against assailants. The use of tear gas against military enemies is illegal; it should not be used against Americans exercising their First Amendment rights. Rubber bullets and beanbags are potentially lethal. Protesters and others should keep their cameras ready to document any brutality or other misdeeds by police. Any misdeeds should be reported to the police Internal Affairs Division or, if necessary, the state police. If that doesn’t work, there is litigation. The people should continue to push for the establishment of citizen’s review boards, with the power to investigate and hold the police accountable.

The push to defund the police must continue. Of particular importance is to demilitarize the police, taking away their military weapons and combat armor. If police show up in their dress uniforms, there will be much less violence!

Trump used active duty personnel, the 82nd Airborne, to clear protesters from Lafayette Park, so that he could walk to a church for a photo op. They used chemical weapons and physical abuse to clear the park. Trump made noises like he was going to enact the Insurrection act, which would have made his use of active duty troops legal. As it was, his use of them was illegal. Trump later backed off on the use of active duty troops, and none have been used since then, but if any are ever again deployed, they must be reminded that they took an oath not to obey any illegal orders. Many military members have expressed displeasure at being deployed against protesters and we believe many would step down and maybe join the protesters. If any obey orders to deploy against protesters, they and their chain of command must be held accountable for deploying illegally and for any violence or brutality committed against the protesters.

Unlike the use of active duty forces, the use of National Guard forces is legal, but we feel it is immoral. We believe that a good percentage of the National Guard have more in common with the protesters, than they do with the militaristic mindset of the National Guard. Therefore, we call on the members of the National Guard to break the law, stand down and join the protesters. We realize that any members who take our advice will face some immense legal problems and we will refer them to organizations who can help, such as the GI Rights Hotline, Courage to Resist, Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War and Stand Down! Refuse to Deploy!. As always, National Guard who do not take our advice and who deploy against the protesters must be held accountable for brutality, chemical and impact weapons, so, as always, keep your cameras ready.

The Trump regime initiated what they named Operation Diligent Valor, threatening to send a coalition of personnel from different Department of Homeland Security divisions, who were trained in special operations and SWAT tactics, along with US Marshals. They soon became infamous for pushing non-offending protesters into vans and employing chemical and impact weapons. Organizers in Portland, OR proved very adept at devising non-violent responses, such as the Wall of Moms, who would place themselves between the protesters and the federal law enforcement personnel, the Wall of Dads, who brought leaf blowers to disperse the tear gas and the Wall of Vets. The DA in Philadelphia swore that any of the federal personnel who broke the law in his city would be arrested. The Facebook group Stand Down! Refuse to Deploy! tweeted the DAs in the other cities threatened by the Trump regime, asking that they swear similar oaths. Once again, accountability is essential.

And yet another threat has appeared. Right wing, racist militias, often armed, have started appearing at the BLM protests. Confrontations between protesters and militia have resulted in at least five shootings and four deaths. When armed militia show up, the most important thing is to avoid angry confrontations and taunts. Use your cameras to document police interactions with the militia. Are they working in concert with the militias? Are they allowing militia members to commit violent acts and walk away freely, while the police harass non-violent protesters? Use cameras, legal observers and the press to document such behavior. If you know where the militia will be, schedule your event where they are not. It is a lot easier to stay on message, when there are no violent counter-protesters.

Remember, that BLM is a movement OPPOSING violence. Agent provocateurs try to sabotage our message by committing violence against people and destruction of property and making it appear that we are doing it. Let’s not help them. Leave your firearms and firebombs at home.