DEMOCRATIC WORLD FEDERALISTS
PEACEFUL | JUST | SUSTAINABLE | WORLD
|
|
Articles in this Issue:
Why Reforming the United Nations Is Critical
Ramzy Baroud
How to Turn a Friend into an Enemy: a Brief History of US-Russia Relations
Edward Lozansky
War to Peace: Imagining a Way from One to the Other in Ukraine
Action Alert: New York Times Celebrates Ukraine's Neo-Nazi Azov Unit
Earth Constitution, the UN General Assembly, and a "new UN"
Roger Kotila
Einstein on Peace: "...I have become a kind of enfant terrible in my new homeland, due to my inability to keep silent and to swallow everything that happens there." "Unfortunately, the most farsighted among the people in this country have been so intimidated by the pseudo-patriotic pressures to which they have been exposed that their scope for effective action has been greatly reduced."
|
|
Why Reforming the United Nations is Critical
|
|
The 77th session of the United Nations General Assembly was, in many ways, similar to the 76th session and many other previous sessions: at best, a stage for rosy rhetoric that is rarely followed by tangible action or, at worse, a mere opportunity for some
This should surprise no one. For many years, the UN has been relegated to the role of either a cheerleader for the policy of great powers, or a timid protester of sociopolitical, economic or gender inequalities. Alas, as the Iraq war proved nearly thirty years ago, and as the Russia-Ukraine war is proving today, the UN seems the least effective party in bringing about global peace, equality and security for all. READ MORE
|
|
Editor's note - Dr. Edward Lozansky is a former Russian nuclear scientist who became a US citizen, but who has worked persistently to establish friendly USA - Russia relations. What caught my attention was that Lozansky witnessed first hand, at the highest level of government, an opportunity for the USA and Russia to become permanent friends.
Lozansky, respected by both Moscow and Washington, DC., personally coordinated a series of high level meetings. In the end, without
explanation, the Bush Administration rejected friendly relations with Russia. -- Roger Kotila, PhD, DWF NEWS
|
|
How to Turn a Friend into an Enemy:
a Brief History of US-Russia Relations
By Edward Lozansky
|
|
EXCERPTS
However, there was a brief historical moment when America and Russia could return to the good old days of friendship. This was when in 1985 a new Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev came to power and it took him a few years to realize that his country needed fundamental political and economic reforms.
Gorbachev stopped the war in Afghanistan, negotiated with Reagan and Bush on arms control, but his messages to Washington about desire for much broader cooperation were not taken seriously.
His right hand man Alexander Yakovlev decided then to add the “back channels” in this process. In April 1989 he spoke to a group of visiting influential American politicians and public opinion makers, and some of his remarks were absolutely astonishing. Senators Phil Gramm (R-TX), Bob Kasten (R-Wi), Ambassadors Frank Shakespeare and Faith Whittlesey, plus well-known foreign policy experts and journalists were told that Moscow was ready to dissolve the Warsaw Pact, let the East European countries go free, no longer spread communism around the world, and is ready for a full rapprochement with the West.
Following this meeting an informal US-Russia expert team has been formed under the leadership of Washington’s political insider Paul Weyrich and Gorbachev’s science advisor Yurl Ossipyan who was well known in the American scientific community. My role was to be a coordinator of these meetings.
There were many exchange visits by American and Russian delegations, including meetings in the White House with Vice-President Dan Quayle, Members of Congress, State Department officials, and other VIPs on both sides. As a result, a comprehensive proposal for Russia’s integration with the West was presented directly to President Bush by Paul Weyrich.
Here is what Paul told me after the meeting. “Bush listened attentively until his Russia adviser, Condoleezza Rice, walked into the Oval Office and dismissed these ideas out of hand.”
Condi was obviously speaking for those in Washington who were not interested in the ideas of Russia’s rapprochement with the West, and regrettably, they prevailed. READ MORE
|
|
War and Peace: Imagining a Way from One to the Other in Ukraine
|
|
Ukrainian officials attend the opening of the Joint Coordination Centre (JCC) for Ukrainian grain exports in Istanbul. - Turkey formally opened a joint coordination centre for Ukrainian grain exports under a UN-backed deal aimed at resuming shipments for the first time since Russia's February invasion of its neighbor. (Photo by OZAN KOSE/AFP via Getty Images) |
|
EXCERPTS:
Those who say that no practical alternative to war has yet been proposed are probably right. Both sides now want victory, not compromise. Elites and societies on both sides are confident victory will be achieved (according to all the latest polls). Realizing that this impasse exists, however, should only motivate peace-seeking minds to help get out of it.
So let’s imagine for the few minutes it will take to read the text below that the parties to the war in Ukraine declared a ceasefire in the situation “as is” and ended up at the negotiating table (which is what most of the “mediators” propose) in Istanbul, Almaty, Minsk, or even in Portsmouth. What conditions or at least hypotheses should be set before their eyes to persuade them not to spit at one another at the first meeting, but to talk constructively?
Probably, we need to start by dividing the papers on the discussion table into four baskets: humanitarian issues (prisoner exchange, the fate of refugees, etc.); economic security issues (trade security and infrastructure restoration); military security issues (how in a post-conflict settlement to satisfy the military security interests of both sides and third countries); and territorial issues. Of course, the last basket will be the most difficult to discuss, but the first three sets of papers can be drafted, read, edited, and discussed right now. Moreover, some of these issues are already part of the meagre dialogue between the two belligerents. READ MORE
|
|
ACTION ALERT: New York Times Celebrates Ukraine's Neo-Nazi Azov Unit
Jim Naureckas FAIR [Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting]
|
|
Three years ago, describing an Australian white supremacist charged with massacring 49 people in New Zealand, the New York Times
(3/15/19) wrote: “On his flak jacket was a symbol commonly used by the Azov Battalion, a Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary organization.”
|
|
The New York Times (10/4/22) shares a “handout photo” from a paramilitary organization that was founded to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade…against Semite-led Untermenschen.”
|
|
What a difference a war makes! A Times story (10/4/22) in the paper’s Ukraine War news roundup began:
Commanders of Ukraine’s celebrated Azov Battalion have held an emotional reunion with their families in Turkey, Ukrainian officials said, honoring the fighters released from Russian confinement last month as part of the largest prisoner swap since the start of the war.READ MORE
|
|
October 13, 2022
Earth Constitution, the UN General Assembly,
and a "new UN"
Roger Kotila, PhD DWF NEWS
|
|
The United Nations works with one hand tied behind its back. The seriously flawed UN Charter makes it hard for the UN to end war, eliminate nukes, or protect human and environmental rights. Because of the outdated Charter, only 5 nations are allowed real voting rights while the other 188 nations are stuck in second-class citizenship.
Although the UN Security Council's P-5 veto powers are supposed to give us peace and security, instead we get war and more war. If one examines Conventions passed by the UN General Assembly (such as the rights of women, and children; no biological or chemical weapons; test ban treaty; etc.) we find that the General Assembly does a superior job compared to the P-5.
The UN Conventions provide universal standards of behavior, but lack enforcement authority. Unfortunately for the UN, its Charter is not a world constitution, hence the Conventions remain "recommendations" rather than enforceable international law.
The World Constitution & Parliament Association's visionary Constitution for the Federation of Earth (aka Earth Constitution) is available to the UNGA which should compare the EC to the UN Charter. Article 109-3, according to the Center for UN Constitutional Research (CUNCR), could open the door to the urgently needed review by the General Assembly of the Charter
Peace activists take note. Let's empower the UN General Assembly by using the Earth Constitution as a guide and model for the creation of a "new UN". The UN General Assembly could adopt the EC's House of Nations which would for the first time give voting rights to 188 nations at the UN. Imagine India, whose population is comparable to China, allowed to vote! Imagine smaller nations also allowed meaningful voting rights.
Countries like the USA, China, India, and Russia all claim to have a form of democracy. Let them prove it at the UN by supporting a goal of real voting rights for the General Assembly. Let them take the Earth Constitution as their guide to form a "new UN", one with the power to bring world peace.
Roger Kotila, Ph.D. is a psychologist (ret.), President of Democratic World Federalists, and co-editor of DWF NEWS.
|
|
Follow us on social media & Share this Important Information with Others
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌