November 5, 2018 | Achin Vanaik and Anuradha M. Chenoy

( Achin Vanaik, former professor, University of Delhi and Anuradha Chenoy, former professor JNU, Delhi)

Major trends of changing geopolitics impact Asia and Europe and provide space for positive interventions from peace movements for people’s security. Even as the rise of Asia is seen as impacting international geopolitics the current reality in the Asian Continent is as follows:

1. Most riven by nationalist tensions of various kinds, religious, ethnic or otherwise.
2. Uncertain implications of China’s general rise even as no other country has so many neighbours (14) although border demarcations with most (12) have been agreed upon.
3. Four of the five most significant world powers (as evaluated by population size/total GDP/military strength) operate here – Russia, China, India, Japan – plus two other emerging powers of Turkey and Indonesia.

Geopolitically, Domination of Eurasia is the Key to Greater Global Pre-eminence

The one and only power that has, since the end of World War II, sought to establish such military-political dominance is the US which militarily operates on both maritime flanks (from West Europe to East Asia) as well as on the Eurasian landmass through:

• an unmatched structure of foreign military bases (Over 800);
• external emplacement of nuclear weapons and delivery systems in other countries;
• the widest network of political and military alliances from NATO expanding eastwards to the ‘near abroad’ of Russia, as well as in alliances in East/Southeast Asia to contain China;

seeks to stabilize and maximise its control of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) because

(i) geopolitically it is at the heart of Eurasia as well as being the site of most popular political upheaval and resistance to US control; and
(ii) because control of its hydrocarbon wealth, provides leverage over Europe, India, China, Japan (who will for some considerable time be reliant on this) while also enabling the persistence of a ‘petro-dollar’ economy.

Developments and Challenges: Geo-economic and Geopolitical to the US

1. Belt Road Initiative (BRI/OBOR)

China’s reasons for pushing this massive infrastructure and communications plan is that: -it is of great economic benefits for itself, domestically and geo-economically. Its links China’s internal regions to the globalized economy. ( China is one of the greatest supporters of globalization, followed by India).

— is a geopolitical strategy to counter US containment efforts.

— makes China a new economic hegemon. China is leveraging this for its geopolitical interests with strategic alliances with Russia, Pakistan and others.

However, for other countries that have joined the BRI, taken loans, made investments there are on the one hand, progressive possibilities, economic and political; but on the other hand there are the dangers of enduring and deepening indebtedness to China that are real and probably stronger. Recent cases of Sri Lanka and Djibouti’s indebtedness to China are real and have enhanced threat perceptions (Malaysia, Myanmar and Indonesia, stepped back from several projects with China; Pakistan is seeking an IMF loan bailout and more aid from China).

2. There is a minor trend of a ‘De-dollarization’ process. Countries that face US sanctions like Russia, Iran, Venezuela, China have successfully traded in national currencies and are willing to accept China’s currency as a medium of payment. There is a fillip to intra-Asian trade/investment with the rise of other currencies especially of the Renminbi possibly backed by gold. This kind of trade had been practised earlier between the Soviet Union and some Developing Countries like India (Rupee-Rouble trade). There are small attempts to encourage this trend by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the New Development Bank (NDB) and proposals to put in place its own SWIFT banking exchange system.

3.Expanding BRICS and SCO?

Regarding BRICS, this body has not proved to be a serious counter to Northern exploitation. Economically, politically and militarily, Brazil, India and South Africa are closer to the West than to each other or to BRICS. Indeed, India is ‘balancing’ whereby it can be part of the US containment strategy vis-a-vis China while at the same time it is dependent for oil from Iran and defence imports from Russia (Russia, India, Iran have planned a North-South trade and transport Corridor, the INSTC linking Indian Ocean to the Persian Gulf via Iran. Within Iran it overlaps with the BRI). Even while BRICS has developed several institutions like New Development Bank (NDB), its capital base and operational principles are not any challenge to the IMF/WB/WTO which still lay down the principles and rules ensuring that global economic activity is governed along neoliberal lines.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) designed by China, Russia and the Central Asian Republics for regional security organization has grown to include new members and mandates. However contradictions between Iran, Pakistan and India, and the paradoxical nature of Russia-China relations have made it more declaratory forum as opposed to an active regional structure. Of interest were the steps taken to merge the Russian led Eurasian Economic Union with China’s Belt and Roadway Initiative in 2015, and the recent Free Trade Agreement between Russia and China. The Russian narrative on the strategic partnership between Russia and China includes the narrative that US led sanctions are the driver for this uneven partnership. Russia has discomfort of China’s increasing influence in Central Asia and economic domination. SCO does not have the enabling structures of other regional organizations.

Other regional organizations have been unable to push ahead because of disputes, security and economic differences. The South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation is mired in the India –Pakistan disputes. ASEAN, despite 50 years of attempting economic integration, has been unable to manage its diversity or address common issues of security and people’s concerns like labour migration, rights, and climate change.

New Dilemmas in the international system

1. Iniquity of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS).
2. Migration and Human rights.
3. Climate Change.
4. Dangers of Nuclear Arms Race and War.

While the dilemmas listed as 2/3/4 are widely recognized, much less is known about UNCLOS.

UNCLOS is the accepted major international legal framework governing the open seas/oceans, but it is double-edged. Before this Convention came into existence in 1982, maritime countries only had sovereignty over 12 nautical miles from their coastlines. UNCLOS, in true neoliberal fashion, extended the privatisation of global waters through the establishment of ‘exclusive economic zones’ (EEZs) that extended maritime sovereignty to 200 nautical miles which means that some 40% of the world’s waters are now privatized when these global waters should be defended as the ‘common heritage of humankind’. The result is threefold.

• Disputes now arise where EEZs overlap.
• Since uninhabited islands (not rocks) also have associated EEZs, five countries – in order the US, France, Australia, Russia, UK along with New Zealand — altogether control 54 million square kilometres based on their mainland and their overseas possessions. Without in any way defending Chinese claims over the seas, it should be noted that New Zealand with less than 5 million people has double the sq. kms of China with a 1.4 billion population.
• Promotion of this privatized exploitation of marine resources will greatly worsen the global eco-system, reinforce economic injustices as well as creating avoidable political-military rivalries and conflicts.

Alternative Perspectives
On the Economic and Ecological Front

1. Regarding BRI/OBOR negotiations – To secure benefits for countries other than China the Southeast Asian countries should try and collectively bargain so as to get much better terms than China would otherwise give. In the absence of this, China’s economic control (and therefore political influence) can grow to a damaging extent and therefore there is a strong case to be made for Southeast Asian countries to consider not going along with China’s BRI plans.

2. Establish an Asian Clearing Union along the lines of Keynes ‘Bancor’ scheme. This Asian ‘Bancor’ is not an alternative currency for trading but a common unit of account for all intra-Asian trading in a Clearing Union holding accounts for all member countries and which through this monitors the trade balances and the movement of compensating capital flows for the countries. This Union sets limits to the size of deficits and surpluses that are allowed and has rules and penalties for ensuring that these imbalances in trade and capital flows are not permanent but are corrected in favour of deficit countries and poorer nations.

3. De-privatization of atmosphere and seas/oceans

— declare them the ‘common heritage of humankind’.

— end carbon trading and EEZs.

— regional cooperative mechanisms to set limits to fishing and NO to seabed mining.

Reject the Neoliberal model of economic growth in favour of equitable and ecologically sustainable development.

On the Political and Military Front

• The Indian Ocean and South China Seas – declare these as ‘Zones of Peace’ with no foreign military bases.
• Oppose US sanctions against North Korea, Iran and other countries.
• BDS against Israel.
• Regarding the Paris Agreement on carbon emission reductions:
  – Intended Nationally Determined Contributions or INDCs to be seen as a ‘floor’ not as a ‘ceiling’.
  — move to a treaty with legally binding commitments and penalties.
• Humane and sympathetic treatment of all ‘distress’ migrants everywhere.

Regarding Nuclear Weapons:

1. Call on all countries of Europe and Asia to sign and ratify the TPNW.
2. Reject the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) under which the US selectively, hypocritically and self-servingly, forcibly boards merchant ships it suspects of having materials related to the production of weapons of mass destruction.
3. Oppose Ballistic Missile Defences (BMDs) and Theatre Missile Defences (TMDs).
4. Call on US to normalise political relations and arrange a peace treaty with N. Korea without demanding that this be preceded by full denuclearization of North Korea.
5. India and China should host an international conference with Non-Nuclear Weapons States (NNWSs) to call for other NWSs to declare a No first use (NFU) policy.
6. Call on India and Pakistan to accept Kashmir on both sides of the border as a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (NWFZ).

The momentum towards fair and equitable cooperation, economically and politically, will be enhanced by a) practical successes on both fronts; b) stronger moves towards institutionalising sub-regional cooperation for specific purposes at e.g. South Asian level; c) pursuit of strategic autonomy and engagement, not alliances directed implicitly or otherwise against others.

A combination of social, climate, fair trade and peace movements should adopt these principles as their common goal for a just, ecologically sustainable and more equal world order.

October 24, 2018 | Jordi Calvo Rufanges

Global Campaign on Military Spending

(Centre Delàs – International Peace Bureau and Vice President International Peace Bureau.)

Military spending in the world

We have reached a new maximum on military budgets in the world. SIPRI estimates that global military spending was 1,739 billion dollars in 2017. Year after year the main five military budgets are from USA, China, Saudi Arabia Russia, India, followed mainly by Western Europe (UK, Germany, France). Japan and South Korea close to the top ten list.

We also have to pay attention to military spending of other NATO countries such as Turkey, Italy, Spain, and Canada, which make possible that NATO members are responsible for more than half of military spending in the world. EU becomes the second largest military spender in the world, just after USA. By regions, military spending increases in Eastern Europe, Central and South Asia and East Asia.

Military spending creates insecurity and intensifies mistrust

In opposition to the old idea of deterrence and security doctrines based on an increase of military capabilities as a way to get more security, militarization and armamentism are creating an arms race in the world.

Higher and growing military arsenals and the strength of military capabilities in more countries are promoting mistrust and suspicion among the entire international Community, moving International Relations towards old paradigms that were already outdated, based on anarchist (Realism) relations among countries, conceptualized on competition and balance of power.

Military budgets militarize relations between countries. More militarization means bigger armies, easier to mobilize, to be sent anywhere in the world. High rates of military spending makes more likely the use of military instead of diplomacy. As a result, cooperation, multilateralism and preventive diplomacy are in risk of being totally ineffective.

Militaries are useless to respond to real security threats

A recent and conclusive example of how military responses are not the best response to fight against security threats is the Global War On Terror. Among all threats identified by most national security and defence doctrines world over, terrorism is perhaps the main threat to security.

Nobody doubts about the need of an answer after the 2011 attacks in USA and hundreds of terrorist attacks of the same nature in Europe, Asia, Africa and Middle East. The main military power worldwide, United States, drive the so-called Global War On Terror, that meant that at the end, the military occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq by US Army and its allies, or direct and indirect military interventions in Libya, Syria, Mali or Yemen, among others. It’s crystal clear that terrorist threats are much higher nowadays than when the Global War On Terror started, in 2011.

Who’s creating terror, then? Civilian casualties and humanitarian personnel bombed by militaries, victims of drone attacks, and all innocent people running away, forcefully displaced from all mentioned wars, know very well what the terror is about.

We need to question with conviction that military security doesn’t create security, but the opposite. Almost all threats to our security identified even by militaries are related to the term Human Security developed by the UNDP in 1994, but sadly forgotten by most of the leading political leaders in the world.

Governments don’t work on the Human Security framework because the security they prioritize is the security of States, meaning in most of the cases not to question political, social or economical status quo, and elites refusing the possibility of loosing privileges.

Military and Defence Economics

Military spending serves mainly to militarize societies and politics but also economics. Public military budgets are the only relevant source of incomes for military industry. Thus, arms businessmen need to keep the military security approach in governments to assure their activity and future profits.

Military industrial complex production is difficult to calculate in an accurate way. Nevertheless we have data for 2016 from SIPRI about the main 100 arms companies in the world. Regarding their origin, it happens that the same as with military budgets. Main military companies are from the biggest and main military spenders. The biggest come from USA, Western Europe and Russia, but there are also from China, India, Japan, Israel ,South Korea, Turkey,… And only these have sales every year close to 400 billion dollars. Another indicator also given by SIPRI of arms business is related to the worldwide amount of arms exports, that reaches around 30 billion dollars of arms exports every year.

Despite doubts of efficiency of military response to security threats, military companies are able to get from governments public contracts, grants for military research, and support from foreign affairs services of a country, from Ministry of Defence, and even from Heads of States. This is achieved because of the influence and lobby of the so-called military-industrial complex. Which includes not only arms businessmen, middlemen, but also militaries and politicians. It’s possible, thanks to a phenomenon known as “revolving doors” which allows an easy transition of key people from arms business to government high responsibilities in Defence and even militaries that become CEOs of military industries.

In addition military companies have a complete network of think tanks and management organizations physically based close to the main centers of political decision-making. As an example we can mention hundreds of military lobbyists in Brussels, that “help”, “give support” and “help to reflect” on security matters European parliamentarians, members of the European Commission and civil servants, through publications, reports, conferences, congresses and recommendations about defense and security in Europe.

We can explain one of the main successes of this lobby, which is related to securitization of refugees and all kinds of migrants’ arrivals to Europe. What should have been a humanitarian crisis that needs a humanitarian response, has become a security problem for Europe, and the reaction has been to increasing miltarisation of the Union that includes a new and costly military budget to help military companies to develop new weapons and military equipment to manage migrants movements.

Securitization is not done only in relation to migration policies, but also to some of the main challenges for humanity, like climate change. If everything is placed under a securitization perspective, military responses will be more likely. Securitization, or what is the same, considers all social, human or environmental aspects as military threats and militarized solutions, which is definitely the best marketing for the arms industry.

Global Campaign on Military Spending

The International Peace Bureau (IPB) has worked for a long time to demilitarize politics, societies, economies and international relations. Its Global Campaign on Military Spending (GCOMS) works every year to promote national and international actions to reduce military budgets. The main action of the year is the Global Day About Military Spending (GDAMS), coinciding with the release of annual Military Expenditure data done by SIPRI. Last year, in 2017, this event took place with 134 actions in 26 countries and a common press release in Sydney, Tokyo, Helsinki, Berlin and Barcelona.

GCOMS motivates national campaigning on military spending creating dissemination materials such as infographics, selfie campaign for social networks, a handbook on campaigning about military spending, among other actions of coordination. GCOMS has a 25 members International Steering Commitee, and 118 partners and collaborators from all continents that has made possible and global this campaign.

The growing militarisation of international relations in the last few years are characteristic of an armed peace, which together with the rise of populist nationalisms all around the world is creating a dangerous prewar scenario.

Changing this trend is a common responsibility. Regarding military and security, it seems we cannot rely in our governments; changes are not likely to come from the top.

A strong social movement against Military Spending is needed to reduce militarization and armamentism worldwide. A strong movement is needed to avoid war and its preparation.

July 15, 2018 | Farooq Tariq

With the fortunate exemption of Nepal, various forms and formations of religious fundamentalism is finding a considerable social and political support and space in all countries of South Asia. The rise of Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist religious fundamentalism have made the lives of the millions miserable and pushing them further to chronic poverty and ignorance. It has emerged as one of the major challenges confronting the governments and people in South Asia.

Religious Fundamentalism and terrorism has emerged as one of the most dangerous challenge to the progressive and democratic forces not only in Asia particularly, it has also taken grip on several European countries. The spread of fundamentalism has resulted in lynching religious minorities into death, mass migration and terrorist attacks on regular basis in Asia and Europe.

The pace of Islamist regression since 9/11 attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq has accelerated; extremism, fundamentalism and fanaticism increased immeasurably in the Indian sub-continent and Muslim countries.

During the cold war, the USSR was only an emblem of the enemy of the capitalist society. Nationalism, humanism, secularism, and socialism were also enemies. Muslim fundamentalists collaborated with the West because they too were scared of liberal and secular ideas and the West happily promoted these reactionary forces as a counter force to Socialism and progressive nationalism.

Breeding of religious fundamentalism in Muslim countries by the imperialist forces was their greatest political and organization blunder in forming strategies to safe capitalism from opposite ideologies.

Religious fundamentalism is not just a phenomena spread by individuals, groups, mosques, madrassas or cluster of these groups: they were able to use the state powers like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, sometimes for a short period and in other cases, they have consolidated their grip on state structures. The aim is not to spread it to one continent or over the entire world, but they will continue the struggle for implementation of their political Islamic agenda till the “judgment day”.

Fundamentalism of whatever variety-Islamic, Hindutva, Christian or Jewish, is always a reactionary force. Fundamentalists are intolerant of everybody else. They reject evolution and theories on the origin of life.

Fundamentalism is counter-modernist, is generally assertive, clamorous, and often violent, is “the Chosen”, “the Elect”, “the Saved” and as such, they are “privileged” or “burdened” with a special mission on behalf of their God and for the benefit of the world.

Religious Fundamentalism is anti-science by nature or science is the outcome of materialist philosophy and the religion is outcome of idealism so there is historical contradiction between science and religion. Progress in science is the retreat of the religion.

Islamic fundamentalism is now a reactionary, nonscientific movement aimed at returning society to a centuries-old social set-up, defying all material and historical factors. It is an attempt to roll back the wheel of history. Fundamentalism finds its roots in the backwardness of society, social deprivation, a low level of consciousness, poverty, and ignorance.

Religious fundamentalism is a new form of fascism which has carried out some of the worst atrocities. Suicidal attacks have become the norm. Muslim Fundamentalist groups have a political agenda – a Muslim world. Fundamentalism is a deep-rooted philosophy that acts on the minds of its adherers. Its propaganda works through education and training.

The state is ambiguous when it accepts a state religion as well as adheres to secularism in the constitution as in Bangladesh. Pakistan and Maldives are Islamic republics. Sri Lankan constitution gives primacy to Buddhism above all other religions. India and Nepal are secular republics. However, secularism in India has been dealt a severe below by the rise of Hindutva.

Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism in shape of ISIS, Al-Qaida, Bokoharam, Taliban and many more are the examples of violent incident of unprecedented level. Rashtariya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Vishva Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal are the major players of Hindu violent and nonviolent fundamentalism in India. This has resulted in increased violent action against Muslim minority and increased insecurity among the religious minorities in India.

Rohingya Muslim’s persecution by the Buddhist majority in Myanmar (Burma) is also another instance of violent Fundamentalism. Thousands have to migrate to Bangladesh in most inhuman conditions in one of the worst human migration crisis.

Though none of the eight south Asian countries have monarchy or military dictatorship today, however; there is growing militarization in the region. Religious fundamentalism and political use of religion have emerged as independent social and political forces with might of their own. They are in alliance with state apparatus rendering the functioning of non-party politics of secular and non-religious kind untenable.

The rise in relations between some countries are also matched by the souring relations between erstwhile neighbors. Afghan citizens who were once welcome in Pakistan as pilgrims, traders and students face severe restriction because the Pakistani state believes that Afghanistan is the breeding ground of terrorism and vice versa. A visa regime is been installed for the citizens of Pakistan, Bangladesh and India to restrict the social movements to flourish in these countries.

Countering Religious fundamentalism

The way out of the uneasy relation of state with religious fundamentalism is opening the borders to people, state freezing all relation with fundamentalists, nationalizing madrassas which were once centers of religious training and halt militarization of civilian life.

One way to counter the religious culture of fundamentalism is with a secular culture of solidarity. This is especially relevant since fundamentalism has an international angle to it. The use of a softer version of religion to counter a harder version is mistaken. We need to take up the issues of inequalities and exploitation. We should be able to say, a Muslim worker is being exploited by a Muslim Capitalist. So, it is not Islam we need to focus on. We are not against Islam or any religion but against the use of religion for political means. This is different from old Marxists approaches.

Fundamentalists are not anti-imperialists, hence no alliances with religious or religious extremist forces at any level.

The use of force to eliminate fundamentalism is a myth. There is no military solution to stop the rise of religious fundamentalism. It is a political struggle between the two rival camps. A whole package is needed. The state must break all links with fanatic’s groups. The mindset that religious fundamentalists are “our own brothers, our own people, our security line and guarantee against “Hindus”, some are bad and some are good” and so on must be changed. The conspiracy theories are most favorable arguments among the religious right wingers. They do not want to face the reality.

There is no short cut to end religious fundamentalism. It has to be a political fight with dramatic reforms in education, health and working realities in most South Asian countries. Starting from nationalization of madrassas, it must go on to provide free education, health, social security and transport as one of most effective means to counter fundamentalism.

We have reached a new maximum on military budgets in the world. SIPRI estimates that global military spending was 1,739 billion dollars in 2017. Year after year the main five military budgets are from USA, China, Saudi Arabia Russia, India, followed mainly by Western Europe (UK, Germany, France). Japan and South Korea close to the top ten list.

Farooq Tariq
General Secretary
Pakistan Kissan Rabita Committee
Spokesperson
Awami Workers Party Pakistan
farooqtariq@hotmail.com
www.farooqtariq.org
12/1/2018

June 17, 2018 | Anuradha Chenoy

This brief paper analyses civil society processes that strengthen the network of peace movements and their linkages with peoples’ organizations in Asia and Europe. In the first part I do a brief analysis of the situation of peace and security, and how it impacts peoples’ lives on the two continents of Asia and Europe. In the second part I look at the tasks of peace and civil society.

The aim for civil society movements is to seek peaceful, negotiated and just solutions to problems, especially for those living in zones of conflict; to build and popularise ideas for ending conflicts through just and equitable peace. To strengthen international solidarity against mindless militarism that continues to threatens human development and human security. We believe that participatory democracy strengthens the cause of peace and that peace is a holistic social process involving deliverable justice which is sustainable when people themselves are part of these processes.

Background

Neo liberal globalization has led to an extraordinary concentration of finance capital and political power with deep inequalities and exclusions. The consequences are new instabilities, insecurities, and threats as participatory democracy has declined in many countries and has been absent in others. This has deep consequence on the international system and geopolitics.

Post globalization there are three broad sets of impacts and reactions:

1. One reaction has prompted neo-nationalisms, authoritarianism, xenophobia, and the rise of identity movements, Islamophobia and fundamentalisms. This reinforces the rise of the far Right that constructs a civilizational discourse and hatred for the other. This phenomenon has encouraged the rise and election of populist and authoritarian leaders to power in many countries of Asia, Europe and world over (select examples: Hungary, Turkey, India, Philippines). In many countries the insecurities of neo liberalism have led to a substantial group of citizens turning against the other. So substantial numbers that constitute this ‘other’ live in a state of fear. In these circumstances there is insecurity for all.
2. The second broad set of impacts is the liberal fight back. Cosmopolitan institutionalism that laid the foundations of liberal institutions and liberal ideas see the dangers of the neo –right in their political practice. But the liberal idea remains divided about the neo liberal economic agenda. Many analysts (Fraser, Patnaik 2018) collapse the liberal and neo liberal positions as they see this as a combination of economic neo liberal/ hegemonic economics combined with domestic liberal discourse of rights. Other liberals and neo liberals want an expansion of globalization with a liberal domestic agenda in a ‘blended’ fashion.
3. The third broad set of ideas, is that of resistance that seeks international solidarity, seeks alternatives to hegemonic policies and endorses democratic, peaceful, non-violent and just solutions. The task of critical progressive thinkers is to examine and reject the first set of ideas, and to strengthen and build solidarity with all forces who believe in just peace and deepening democracy in both civil as well as political society. This is a challenge to CSOs and political formations.

Characteristics of the Contemporary International Geopolitical System

Briefly summed up the current international geopolitical system despite its complexity, contexts and specificities, has broad and common characteristics that we can sum up. These include:

• Relative slow growth of the US and EU and growing demand of protectionism from ruling regimes for themselves, without changing neoliberal globalization for the others. (President Trumps’ critique of the G-7 and trade disputes for ‘America first).
• Despite austerity, the USA with some allies continue to work on militarized regime change in several countries; proposes military intervention in several others; retain eight hundred military bases and client states; imposes unilateral economic sanctions; dominate international narrative with a network of interlinked media and social media control. Asserts itself as a state of exception and disregard international law.
• The stabilization, reassertion, and securitization of Russia. Russia continues to return to its roots because of insecurities fueled by threats of further territorial disintegration, encirclement and sanctions; isolated by an expanding NATO. In return for sovereignty and an elusive Eurasian ‘difference’ and exceptionalism, Russian citizens have given up many rights and freedoms. They have endorsed the reassertions for regaining bits of Soviet (Russian) territory and renewing zones of influence on its vast borders (Brenton, 2018). This has meant the breakup of Ukraine and Georgia. The re-emergence of Russia as a regional power/ player in West Asia and Central Asia. However, given its economic slowdown, and sanctions from the West, Russia is getting increasingly strategically and economically allied with China, (trade in renminbi, gold backup of currency, direct oil pipelines, communication and defense links, economic and trade ties). Russia maintains close strategic and economic relations with a number of countries in the Global South including India and Vietnam. (India, Vietnam, China and others have ignored the sanctions on Russia, and continue trade with them).
• China after an amendment (After the 19th Chinese Communist Party Congress) narrowed its power elite command and control, constitutionally endorsing a single leader for his lifetime. China has declared a clear plan for economic global domination as well as an official narrative that China ‘will play a greater international role’. The major steps include: geopolitically and geo economically linking South, South East and Central Asia with a trillion dollar infrastructure transport corridor (Belt Roadway Initiative or Silk Route); This BRI will link China’s interior provinces with a globalized world economy and support financial monopolization favorable primarily to China; a series of hub and spokes relations with ‘satellite states like Pakistan; and closer strategic relations with Russia. A key strategic goal is increasing its naval domination over the South China Sea, asserting its control over the many islands and communities, making a string of ports with logistic facilities through the Indo-Pacific. China is moving towards a G-2 position of pressure-compromise-pressure with the US. Trade wars and retributions. China puts pressure through financial debt to developing countries. (Example, the inability of Sri Lanka to repay Chinese debt has led to Sri Lanka give over their port of Humbantota to China).
• The comparative high growth in the ‘emerging countries’ like India, Brazil, Indonesia and others, are all accompanied by extraordinary levels of inequalities and exclusions of communities. All these countries project medium to great power status and influence over their region and beyond. The countries symbolized by the BRICS, believe they have gained from neoliberal policies and view globalization favorably. The creation of BRICS, as a transactional grouping, with assertions for a more equitable share in global financial institutions, and with new institutional structures like AIIB, NDB ( China, Russia, India hold 48% of shares and 62 countries are members). This is not an alternative but gives an option to countries of the global South of a choice between similar paradigms. Other groupings like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), ASEAN, BIMSTEC, are competing with traditional alliances. The ASEM does not have the same level of dynamism as these cited above.
• In a context where the United Nations system requires reforms, dominant multilateral institutions like the World Bank and IMF have a hegemonic disposition. Regional associations including ASEAN and ASEM, SAARC, have been comparatively weakened because these are not accompanied by strong institutional mechanisms. The EU has suffered a blow from BREXIT. BRICS is hedged by the unresolved issues between India and China. These organizations have focused and are dependent on free trade and financial flows, and in some cases more on economic integration. Their regional security, cultural relations and people to people linkages are mediated by more powerful countries (US and increasingly China) and ranges from weak, stagnant or dependent. Some Asian and ASEAN countries try and maintain some semblance of an independent foreign policy by balancing between the US, EU, and China; or even between US, Russia ( India and Vietnam) Further, these regionalisms remain weak because these are not sufficiently backed by people to people movements. (The People’s movements’ are also restricted because of decline in democratic spaces).
• More than eighty armed conflicts rage in different parts of the globe, but largely in the Global South. Insecurities from terrorism and unresolved frozen conflicts lead to destruction, displacement and environmental damage.

In sum the international system, now called the multipolar system has characteristics whereby:

• Economic neoliberalism has supported the rise of political authoritarianism in many countries, and in others turned significant populations against others. It has given fresh lease of life to neo-conservative neo realism. Neo realism, is the underlying strategy of neo conservatives and seeks to dominate in multiple and different ways.
• The focus of such geo strategy is based on competitive and even conflictual geostrategic goals, policies and aspirations.Continuing militarisms.
• Geostrategic maneuvering has replaced foreign policy.
• Regional assertion/hegemony is undermining regional cooperation.
• There are no real cuts in defense spending. Nuclear weapons continue to viewed as a currency of power, status and defense.
• Unresolved, frozen conflicts and liberation struggles in Asia and Europe; in addition to new dangerous conflagrations in West Asia lead to further regional wars, instability, forced migrations and insecurities.
• Neorealism as the dominant narrative has prevented us from an intersectional/ holistic explanation of viewing international system and security.
• Globalization has weakened internationalism, independent foreign policies.
• Wars are leading to ecological damage and breaking down societies.
• There is a threat of the return of great power competition as counter-hegemonic power like China is building the capacity to dominate the Asia –Pacific militarily and is being countered by new groupings.

Alternatives and Role of Peace and Social Movements

At this conjuncture peace and social movements have a critical role to play. First they have to evolve an acceptable alternative.

• There is a need for linking of movements in a rainbow alliances like AEPF with movements, progressive political formations. Civil society by its very nature is plural and fragmented. It has multiple issues and methods. These cannot be homogenized, but on key issues, they need to see how their aims and objectives intersect and thus they need to have solidarity with each other.
• Deepening intellectual engagements with progressive movements and partners. Social movements, progressive academics and others, have to develop more methods of solidarity and more convincing arguments and advocacy.

Developing independent analysis and arguments for greater synergy between academia, researchers, social movements, policy makers.

• The peace movement has seen a recent success, in that the Nobel Peace prize was awarded to the Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). Further, the first sign of success in the peace talks between the US and North Korea, backed by the South Koreas and China, and Russia, (in a distant background) has moved de-nuclearization one step forward. It is important to note that peace and women’s groups are playing a role in this.
• The peace and social movements continue to reinforce support to liberation movements including Palestine, the Kurds and many others for peaceful self determinism and autonomy.
• Peaceful resolution of claims in South China Sea

Global end to Nuclear weapons

• Continue to show the link between social and defense expenditures and broaden the horizon of peace and security.
• Supporting honest and critical alternate media to build rainbow alliances like AEPF and others.

It is these steps that can add to the much needed peace and security in service of people.

References

Brenton, Tony, Russia and the West on the Brink, Lob Log, at: https://lobelog.com/russia-and-the-west-on-the-brink/

Frazer, Nancy, (2017) Interview available at: http://politicalcritique.org/opinion/2017/emancipatory-movements-must-have-a-populist-dimension-an-interview-with-nancy-fraser/

Rufanges, Calvo Jordi (2018) Stop Military Expenditure to Stop War, AEPF, at: https://aepf.info/single-post/2018/04/29/Stop-military-expenditure-to-stop-war

Patnaik, Prabhat, Is Imperialism still relevant Concept? See for example discussion on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRvcGP1ALvI

June 17, 2018 | Pham Van Chuong

Vietnam Peace and Development Foundation

Almost two years have elapsed since the 11th Asia-Europe People’s Forum in Ulaan Baatar, Mongolia, and developments related to peace and security in the world, and in Asia in particular, still face us with more questions than answers.

Many Asian countries (Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, and others) were among the first to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons last September. The Treaty marks an encouraging step toward a world free of nuclear arms, but the reduction of risks remain only symbolic, since all nuclear-armed States, including the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and most of their allies stay out. In such a context, efforts toward effectuation and promotion of the Treaty, like those of the Japan Council Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs (Gensuikyo), deserve our support.

Also related to nuclear weapons, directly or indirectly, are the upcoming inter-Korean and DPR Korea – United States summits. Let us hope that these much spoken of events would impact positively peace and security in Asia and elsewhere, directly or indirectly.

The situation in Western Asia leaves little room for hope, unfortunately.

Along the Gaza-Israel border, at least 18 Palestinians were killed and some 1,700 wounded on 30 March 2018 when Israeli forces opened fire on defenseless demonstrators commemorating their “Land Day”. Pope Francis and UN Secretary-General António Guterres raised their voices against the mass murder. The UN Security Council held an emergency meeting on the same day, but failed to agree even on a joint statement. The land of the Palestians remains in fragments and their life in tatters.

In Syria, despite heavy losses suffered by IS forces, the war still drags on, with the participation of land, air and naval forces from big powers, many of them UN Security Council permanent members. Life continues to be nightmarish for the Syrian people, especially women, children and the elderly.

Elsewhere in Asia, the people are also faced with multiple threats – traditional and non-traditional: ethnic and religious conflicts, internal and border clashes, military buildup and deployment, terrorist attacks and land grab, climate change and environmental destruction, trafficking in drugs, arms and persons, piracy, harassment of fishing activity and depletion of marine resources that render fisherfolk’s livelihood insecure.

Let us have a look at the South China Sea, by the side of which our workshop is taking place. The Sea looks quite calm on the surface, but beneath lie numerous challenges.

There are territorial and jurisdictional disputes that need peaceful solutions in keeping with agreements between two or more countries directly concerned and as provided for by instruments of international law; and pending settlement, self-restraint from all related parties, abstention from the threat or use of force and from acts that may further complicate the situation.

There are issues related to safety and freedom of navigation in and overflight above the Sea, through which about half of the world’s merchant shipping tonnage passes every year. Those issues, likewise, need peaceful solutions in keeping with international law, notably the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The high seas are open to all States, and no State shall validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its territory.

There are also, but often overlooked, issues related to the preservation and exploitation of the Sea’s maritime resources, upon which rely economically the life of 60% of the population of the 8 Southeast Asian countries bordering it. Related instruments of international law should be observed. All acts that may damage resources and harm the people’s livelihood, e.g. overfishing, or large-scale land reclamation leading to environmental destruction, should be avoided.

Thus, across Asia, there are so many issues that need to be tackled. Concerning their resolution, allow me to venture a few ideas:

1. The life and livelihood of the people are part and parcel of peace and security. The rights and interests of the people should be taken into due consideration in the process of tackling peace and security issues. NGOs could and should serve as a channel for the people’s voice to be heard.
2. Instruments of international law are made and signed by States, and States are duty-bound to ensure that they are respected and observed. In this connection, bigger and stronger States are expected to assume a larger share of responsibility. For their part, NGOs are expected to serve as a reminder in the form of advocacy, caution, warning, pressure, or protest, if necessary.

June 1, 2018 | Kamal Mitra Chenoy

AEPF, Vietnam Peace and Development Foundation
Vietnam
14-16 April, 2018

The peace that seemed to have come to the fore after the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, has been unexpectedly difficult. Besides the hundreds of intra and inter-state conflicts, the most dangerous conflict currently is in the West Asia region, with ramifications for all of Asia, Europe and globally.

Currently, there is a major conflict on in Syria, in which Turkey, the Free Syrian Army FSA), Al Nusra now called Al Shams, are involved in a bitter conflict in which the Kurdish formations Kurdish Peoples Protection Units (YPG) and Women’s Protection Force (YPJ) are fighting a grim battle versus the Turkish alliance. The US, under President Trump continues to make attempts at regime change in Syria. In response to an alleged chemical weapon attack by President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, the US and its allies France and UK targeted Damascus’s chemical weapon facilities with over a hundred cruise missiles. This further militarises West Asia, firms up military intervention as a model for regime change and is a step against conflict resolution through negotiated and political agreemnts.

This conflict is in the classic mode of earlier conflicts where military interventionism and great power geo-politics as opposed to people’s lives, peace and security matter. It involves (i) capturing resources like oil (by Turkey) as well as olive oil (from northern Syria where Kurds control ) (ii) territorial expansionism (by Turkey) (iii) Regional great power aspirations (Iran and Saudi Arabia) (iv) Great power hegemony and intervention (USA, Russia), (v) Arms sales and weaponry (EU to Turkey); (vi) shifting geo-strategic moves (Russia, USA, Israel’s relations with Turkey) (vii) Attempts at regime change (of Syria’s Assad) (viii) Attempts to retain military and authoritarian control by a singular elite (by Assad) (ix)Rise and shifting locations of lethal terrorist groups (ISIS into Al Nusra and Al Shams) (x) Invisibilization and oppression of a national liberation struggle(Kurds) (xi) Humanitarian crises and genocide (Kurds and sections of Syrian people) (xii) Possibility of military intervention by using doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (xiii) Resulting in exacerbating the civil war, increasing anarchy, fragmentation of the Syrian State (like Iraq, Libya); creating another ‘failed state’. (xiv) Keeping West Asia in a continuous state of crises. (Rising militarisation and use of chemical weapons) (xv) Creation of humanitarian crises, displaced and forced migration, effects of genocide.

Background

It is well known that Recip Erdogan was involved in buying smuggled oil from the ISIS which was transferred via large convoys to be sold at a profit. BMZ –the huge shipping company involved is still headed by Erdogan’s son Bilal. (Philips, 2015) It has also been established that Turkey has allowed free travel of militant groups linked with Al Qaeda through Turkey to cross over to Syria since several years, with the aim of regime change in Syria. (Mahalingam, 2018) There is hostility by the Turks against the Kurds, who have been struggling for autonomy and have waged a national liberation struggle for decades. Erdogan claims that the Kurdish workers Party PKK is trying to destabilise Turkey. The PKK’s leader Abdullah Ocalan has been in Turkish jails for years. A party the HDP that was sympathetic to Kurds and had some Kurdish membership, was bombed in Turkey and 50 people including Kurds were killed. The Kurds claim that this was an attack initiated by Erdogan.

The real problem started when ISIS was defeated in its strongholds in Raqqa and Fallujah. Kurdish forces called the YPG were active in the defeat of the ISIS. But instead of the defeat of ISIS leading to more peace and possibilities of resolving differences, the reverse happened. The USA wants to remove Bashir al Assad from the leadership of Syria and possibly to intervene in the re-making of a Syria with boundaries favourable for their own and their allies’ interests. Russia supported status quo with Assad at the helm.

Around that time several things happened in quick succession. There was an alleged attack by a large group of Turks who were followers of Gulen, who is based in the US supported by hundreds of exiled Turks and a significant number of soldiers who entered Turkey. This intrusion legitimised Erdogan’s urge to concentrate more power in his own person. In the first few months more than 60,000 people were arrested. Arrests continue of liberal academics, journalists and various strata for working people.

In this situation Erdogan believes that in a seemingly stable Turkey, he could invade Northern Syria and wipe out the Kurdish militia who had been armed by the US to fight the ISIS in Raqqa and Fallujah, under the pretext that they were loyal to the PKK and allied groups hostile to Turkey. Turkey launched attacks on the Kurdish areas of northern Syria since January 2018.

The situation is still confused and delicate. President Vladimir Putin has stated that Syria’s borders must remain intact and inviolable. The US are also worried about the situation as they do not want a conflagration there. Many observers and journalists feel that Erdogan is trying to change the boundaries in that part of Asia. However, the Iranians who are a major power are watching the situation carefully. Their allies the Hezbollah who some years ago had repulsed the Israeli army that sought to capture large swathes of Lebanese territory were given a rude shock by the coalition of Lebanese forces. Including the Christian Maronite forces, the Druze, the Shia and Sunni forces apart from Hezbollah and a small but committed unit of the Lebanese Communist Party that also formed the pro-Palestine front . Clearly, no peace in the West Asian region is possible without Iran on the negotiating table.

The so called Free Syrian Army who were initially armed by the Americans managed to get arms also from the fleeing and disrupted ISIS. But Al Nusra/ Al Shams remain a potent ally of the FSA. The arms meant for the FSA went in large measure to Al Nusra. The defence forces in Afrin are the Peoples Protection Units (YPG) and Women’s Protection Units (YPJ). In later stages of the fighting against ISIS the Kurds were armed by the Americans particularly to help in the fighting in Raqqa and Fallujah.

So it is clear that this area continues to be volatile despite the defeat of ISIS. There are major powers apart from the US like Russia, Iran who are totally against the disintegration of Syria. Turkey which tried to build an alliance with Israel was soon disappointed and the alliance broke.

From all journalistic and information sources it is quite clear that in the area of the city and outskirts of Afrin in northern Syria, where the Kurds are a majority is a multi-ethnic province, and where they have had autonomy since 2012, when the Assad regime lost control of the region. The Turks are now systematically attacking. The Kurds state that there is ongoing genocide conditions (Koc, April, 2018). There is a medical and humanitarian emergency.

Experienced observers are warning against a revival of ISIS or a strengthening of Al Shams, which will lead to major conflicts in the confused fighting particularly in Afrin. If Afrin falls, the Syrian state will be even in more difficulty. The Kurds have been fighting fundamentalist-terrorist forces, along with the Syrian troops. But given the numbers of Turkish troops and their virtual allies make things are difficult. The Turks in recent years bought sophisticated German Leopard tanks, whereby the Germans asked for a guarantee from the Turks that these highly modern tanks should not be used in any neighbouring country. That notwithstanding, Turkey has moved a large number of tanks and weaponry into the northern Syrian war zone.

In sum what does this mean. First it was thought that Iraq was a danger to that area of West Asia, particularly when it used mustard gas against the Kurds, where hundreds died. Later Saddam Hussain himself was defeated charged in court and summarily hanged. Then, Hilary Clinton was secretary of state she ordered the removal of Munnawar Gaddafi. Gaddafi was killed but within months Libya collapsed and is currently considered to be controlled in large part by ISIS. Even Iraq, it was only because of Western help and fire power that the ISIS was defeated. One of reasons for ISIS’s hostility to Iraq was its Shia majority. Thus Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi the major leader of the ISIS was an Iraqi Sunni. Therefore the belief that this area could be given adequate relief, armaments and Western support altogether being sufficient to control the situation in this area has turned out to be a pyrrhic hope.

It is clear that Afrin is now in a pincer attack. If the international community does not move to give succour to the Kurdish population and the Syrians in the Afrin area, the situation might get further destabilised. There is no indication that the Russians will watch and stand by, when it is quite possible that this area may again fall into sectarian strife, skirmishes and regional wars.

The lessons from ISIS had not yet been fully understood. In the societies of West Asia and its neighbours there has to be a clear sense of justice and all possible material help to get their countries and troubled areas back into a peace mode. The region has to be looked holistically. For instance there cannot be an attitude that existing trouble spots will be looked at first and other outbursts can be ignored until they become too difficult to handle in the short run. This is what happened in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya and all claims that the regime change would lead to stability and peace have turned out to be palpably false.

This really is a matter that the UN and the Security Council must deal with very strongly before the current firestorm and another which will inevitably follow lead to further regional wars and humanitarian crises. The idea of executing a leader whether it be Saddam Hussain or Gaddafi or anyone else is highly misguided. Apart from the individual leader or dictator, there is always an army and punitive police force and armed gangs based on religion or sub religions or local identities and rivalries. If this way of looking at things had been done two years ago, the situation would not have been so grim. If done five years ago, it would have been relatively easy.

It is high time that the international community buckled down and asked for negotiations from all the warring parties and when necessary UN peacekeeping to snuff out local hotspots. But as history has shown, this cannot be a one time effort. There will have to much more dedication much more aid and whenever necessary intervention to save the people of this region from their terrible existence.

The international peace movement has an important role to play. They must ask for:

• A ceasefire in Afrin and all of Syria, as requested by the UN Security Council.
• Immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Turkey from Syria
• The participation of all parties in this Syrian conflict, including the Kurds to come to the negotiating table.
• A UN led peace process.
• Urgent humanitarian assistance.
• Investigation into war crimes and use of chemical weapons.
• Jihadi groups and states who indulged in war crimes be tried in the International Criminal Courts.

* Kamal Mitra Chenoy is a Professor, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

References.

Koc, Nilufer, (2018) Co-Chair of the Kurdistan National Congress, Interview with author, April 10, 2018. Also interview with Nilufer Koc at: https://peaceinkurdistancampaign.com/2015/12/10/kurdistan-report-interviews-nilufer-koc-co-chair-of-the-knk/

Mahalingam, Brigadier V. (2018) “Has Trump and the US Allies Done the Right Thing by Attacking Syria?”, Centre for Land Warfare Studies, New Delhi, at http://www.claws.in/1899/has-trump-and-the-us-allies-done-the-right-thing-by-attacking-syria-v-mahalingam.html

Philips, David (2016) Turkey-ISIS Oil Trade, Huffington Post at: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/research-paper-turkey-isi_b_8808024.html

May 22, 2018

Asia Europe Peoples Forum
&
Vietnam Peace and Development Foundation
Vietnam 14 April, 2018
“Peace and Security in Asia and Europe: Challenges Ahead and a Peoples Vision”

Recommendations for ASEM leaders:

1. Sign, ratify and implement the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons thus stopping research, development, production, and use of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. Provide all necessary assistance to Hibakusha, victims of Agent Orange and other war victims in their daily lives and their struggles for justice.
2. Significantly reduce military expenditures and increase budgets for social and public services such as health, education, employment and climate change.
3. Strengthening dialogue and information sharing with all other stakeholders, including academic sector and people’s organizations/CSOs, especially the grassroots movements and organizations for a peaceful Asia, Europe and the world as a whole. Practice transparency and accountability in its relations with civil society organizations and social movements. Follow a rule-based international legal regime.
4. The rights and interests of the disadvantaged and oppressed must be fully protected in the process of tackling peace-security issues. Civil society could and should serve as a channel for the peoples’ voice to be heard.
5. Support the resolution of disputes and tensions by peaceful means. This should include respect for diplomatic and legal means to deal with all South China Sea disputes. We support all efforts towards dialogue and peace building on the Korean Peninsula, including the participation of civil society.
6. Inequalities, exclusions, between groups, races, religions, gender in states and among nations should be addressed by a clear and balanced definition of rights amongst those groups in the light of their constitutions and international laws).
7. Reinforce self-determination and autonomy and all legal support for liberation movements including Palestine, the Kurds and many others in accordance to international law.
8. Stop using or threatening to use force and violence in all setting, contexts and circumstances.

Strategy of people’s organisations/ peace movements

1. Deepening intellectual engagements with progressive movements and partners.
2. Developing independent analysis and arguments.
3. Reinforce support to liberation movements including Palestine, the Kurds and many others for peaceful self-determination and autonomy.
4. Strengthen peace education and the promotion of peace culture and ideology of peace among all people, especially the younger generation. Eliminate all kinds of violence against people.
5. Reviving peace movements, anti-nuclear and alternative movements; linking of movements in rainbow alliances like AEPF, and progressive political formations. Supporting honest and critical alternate media.
6. Enhance exchanges and information sharing, both bilaterally and multilaterally, especially face-to-face and through digital means.
7. Launch solidarity campaigns outside and inside countries and among countries.

May 13, 2018 | Marc Batac and Gus Miclat

Initiatives for International Dialogue (IID)
Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict-Southeast Asia (GPPAC-SEA)

In the last few years, since 9/11 and the Global War on Terror, there has been a resurgence in interest in discussing and addressing violent extremism (VE) and its prevention. In the Southeast Asian region, the most recent precursors are the Marawi siege in Southern Philippines and the Rohingya crisis in the Rakhine state in Myanmar.

Let me provide emphasis on the Rohingya.

As you may remember, in early May 2015, the world watched as Southeast Asia was rocked by a humanitarian crisis involving hundreds of Rohingya refugees. Having been subjected to systematic discrimination in their home country of Myanmar since the 1950s, the Rohingya have been forced to flee for their lives and attempt to seek refuge in any country that would take them in. Last year, on 25 August, violence dramatically escalated in northern Arakan/Rakhine State, aTer the Tatmadaw / Myanmar military’s heavy-handed response to an attack by a newly formed armed group, the Arakan Rohingya Salvadoran Army (ARSA). The aftermath of the ferocious military action has led to hundreds of innocent civilian people being killed and hundreds of thousands displaced. Over 600,000 civilians from northern Rakhine State, mostly members of the Rohingya community, have been forced to flee their homes. Most alarming are the “clearance operations” conducted by the Tatmadaw / Myanmar military, during which various independent reports have documented systematic burning of Rohingya villages, sexual violence against Rohingya women, and opening fire on unarmed civilians. Within Arakan and Myanmar itself, the rift between Muslims and Buddhists, and between Rohingya and non-Rohingya ethnics have also widened, with discrimination against the Rohingya raging especially on social media.

But let us echo and emphasized the argument of partners working at the grassroots level on this issue: the Rohingya issue is not merely a lateral, social conflict that came about because of coincidental, essentialist disagreement between religious beliefs (Buddhist versus Muslims) or racial interests (between the various ethnic nationalities in Myanmar). What ultimately drives this is not just reactionary, unscientific tendencies of communities. Rather (which is part of the reason why we chose to emphasize on the Rohingya) it showcases how in many contexts as Southeast Asia, conflicts are manufactured and enabled by governments and political elites through interchanging use of assimilation and of segregation /divide-and-rule strategies.

At the center of this, of course, is the Myanmar government, particularly its military, which has also received immense criticism for its policies against other non-Bamar ethnics, and its widely documented human rights violations in other regions of the country, particularly in Kachin and Northern Shan states, where serious crimes continue to persist and security forces have targeted civilians with extrajudicial killings, rape, and sexual violence, arbitrary detention, and forced displacement.

While the Rohingya issue best illustrates the contradictions of ASEAN’s regional integration project, this problem is not limited to the Rohingya issue, or to Myanmar’s treatment of some of its minoritized ethnic and religious communities. We see this in other SEA countries and beyond, in various forms and gravity but with the same element of systematized discrimination enabled and at Dems perpetrated by states.

For decades, the region has been hounded by a history of hegemonic nation-building tactics by governments post-colonization, which often led either to repressive and violent assimilation programs or to discriminatory segregation programs against minoritized communities. In response, various self-determination struggles were born in Timor, Aceh, Bangsamoro/Mindanao, West Papua, Patani/South Thailand and Burma/Myanmar, with many of these violent conflicts continuing until the present. In the last years, we have also witnessed in Indonesia and Malaysia, the rise in intolerance fueled by the politicalization of religion and race for narrow political gains of one or several competing elites, which have in turn undermined the democratic instituition in and pluralistic nature of these societies.

While we indeed need to talk about the immediate threat of VE, we, especially civil society and peoples’ movements, must not forget about the struggle for human security and self-determination of peoples that is intertwined with this issue.

And as we tackle VE, we must continue to talk about its causes. We will talk about poverty, joblessness, alienation, marginalization, and intolerance as some of the drivers of the VE phenomena. But we need to also talk about accountability of governments and political elites in the politicalization of race and religion for narrow interests.

Radicalization and Violent Extremism

It is worth emphasizing that violent extremism is not a new phenomenon. When we talk about VE, our minds have been virtually conditioned to picture Muslim fighters such as ISIS/Daesh, Al Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah, Abu Sayyaf or the Maute Group. While their methods and actions are indeed brutal and yes, terroristic, we tend to forget that terrorism is also employed by states or their agents.
Thus we need to be candid with each other that the understanding of violent extremism is contested and, still in many quarters, remain misunderstood and prone to confusion. When some of those who avow Islamic beliefs perpetrate VE, it is called terrorism. But if a Caucasian male who does it, he is called a crazed or disturbed person, and if a state conducts it, is called national security or national interest.

This should not be taken as a justification of any of these, rather a challenge for all of us to clarify our understanding of very disputed concepts.

When we say that accurate conflict analysis is critical, we do not mean this just in a rhetorical sense; we mean this in very concrete terms. For some, this seems to be sophistry, but to conflate and mix these concepts and these contexts with each other is a critical mistake we can make as allies and advocates of peace.

Fundamentalism means “Changing from the roots”. While Radicalization is a process of developing extremist ideologies and beliefs.

1. Extreme – deviation from the norm
2. Norm – informal understandings that govern the behavior of members of society

It is important to note however that there was a time when the concepts of human rights, democracy, the calls for racial and gender equality and the right to self- determination of peoples, to name a few, were also a deviation from the “norm” of the times.

Violent extremism. on the other hand, is an “ac?on pathway” or as a process of engaging in violence.

So while Radicalizedtion remains to be just in the area of idea/belief, Violent Extremism entails an “action”.

Moreover, Terrorism, another controversial concept, and trend, is just one form of VE; it is the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence to create terror/fear, in order to achieve a political/ religious/ideological aim.

Sociological and political science theories still do not have a consensus on the causality between radicalization on the one hand, and VE on the other. One school of thought argues that radicalization per se does not lead to the violence.

b.1. Not all those who have radical ideologies, take part in violent extremism.

b.2. Also, not all those who take part in VE, are radicalized due to an ideology or belief; in fact, some members of Al Qaeda/IS are not ideologues or deep believers in nuanced, extremist doctrine. In fact, a recent analysis of the background of Americans and Europeans who partake in violent extremism does not show that they have a background on radical ideological doctrine and training.

Thus, while there is a relationship between radicalize?on and VE, we should not jump into assuming the linear relationship between these two.

Conclusion

So how does the misplaced antagonism toward any belief that is perceived by mainstream culture and society as “deviant” and extreme”, and how does the conflation of the meanings of “radicalization” and “violent extremism” affect(s) civil society and peace building’ work?

For example, most of the VE tendencies we face in the SEA region (in the various ethnic states in Burma/Myanmar, in South Thailand, in Mindanao in the PH; before, in Aceh and Timor) are ethno-nationalist struggles in nature that is driven by the assertion of their right to self-determination. Focus in the process of transformation of “ideas/beliefs”, rather than addressing the “acDon pathway”, may lead to crackdown of perceived “radical” beliefs, i.e., crackdown on madrasas (e.g. attempts by governments toward nationalisation of madrasas without community participation and ownership are counter-productive in transforming these ethno-nationalist conflicts), and on legiDmate and peaceful expression or practice of cultural, linguistic and religious characters, of self-determination, all are protected under international law; further discriminating against and radicalizing minoritized communities and sectors in society.

In cracking down on “peaceful” pathways, such as direct but non-violent actions to express legitimate dissent, states push peoples and communities towards other pathways, some of those are violent.

As a final message, we call for a fundamental change in how we perceive violent extremism and violent conflict. Rather than addressing manifestation of these, we should work to address the conditions that give rise to these. We should ensure spaces and conditions for the respect for diversity, equality and peoples’ right to self-determination. We call for a shift from reaction to prevention, from state-centered security towards human- and people-centered security.

GPPAC has developed 10 Human Security Guiding Prac?ces for Countering/ Preven?ng Violent Extremism, which may be useful to consider, to wit:

1. Human security guards the essential freedoms, safety, identity and human dignity of all people. It reflects the values in the preamble of the UN charter and encompasses development, humanitarianism, human rights, and security. It calls for holistic and context-specific strategies to counter violent extremism.
2. The ultimate goal and responsibility of any security policy, including counterterrorism policy, should be the preservation and protection of the freedoms, safety, identity, and dignity of individuals and their communities.
3. Terrorism must be fought within the rule of law and with respect for human rights. Police and military functions must be distinguished and operate within the rules of national and international law.
4. Military strategies to eradicate terrorism oTen harm innocent civilians. Such strategies must be amended to prioritize individual freedoms, safety, identity, and dignity.
5. Militarized counterterrorism measures do not change radical ideologies. They oTen backfire, further radicalizing vulnerable populations, and should be used only as a last resort.
6. Both victims of terrorism and counterterrorism measures should receive international recognition and reparations.
7. To effectively address terrorism, the security policy must address root causes and focus on conflict prevention and transformation.
8. Civil society organizations are essential partners in countering violent extremism. Local civil society actors have valuable knowledge and relationships that are essential for transforming conflict.
9. Restricting civil liberties and civil society space in the name of security creates the conditions of repression that fuel violent extremism.
10. Listing practices have the unintended consequence of impeding peacebuilding and humanitarian access. Civil society must have legal and political space to engage with armed parties and the communities in which they operate.

As we in GPPAC and hopefully the rest of civil society endeavour to internalize and practice these principles, we call for a partnership and engagement between and among governments, multilateral, civil society and even with non-state actors to promote pluralism, prevent and transform conflict, and build a durable peace.

Not one player can do it alone.

***This was delivered during the Asia-Europe Peoples’ Forum (AEPF) Peace and Security Circle Workshop last April 14-15, 2018. This is an abridged and updated version of the piece entitled “promoting Pluralism In Countering Violent Extremism: A View from Civil Society” delivered during the Conference on Peace and the prevention of Violent Extremism (PVE) in Southeast Asia held in Manila, Philippines last September 23, 2017.

May 13, 2018 | Kalle Sysikask

During the last few months there has been some positive developments in relation to the situation in the Korean Peninsula. Even if President Trump and Kim Jong Un may be considered as unpredictable leaders it seems that both have faced restricting pressure domestically and regionally and in the coming times we have to assess the impact and see what this means.

President Putin announced in March that Russia has developed new nuclear weapons – an announcement no doubt as a reaction to the US Nuclear Posture review which was released in February, 2018.

Amid these developments many politicians and observers worldwide worry that nuclear weapons are back as a currency of geopolitics.

But we know and are trying to get people all over to understand that these weapons of mass destruction, never really left. The total stockpile numbers have come way done from their Cold War high but the mad strategic rationale for nuclear weapons remains.

Well over 100 states were supporting the new UN treaty to ban the nuclear weapons. It opened new ways to apply pressure on the nuclear powers and industry. But there remains a problem with the signings and ratifications. The only European countries until now who have signed the treaty are Austria, Ireland and Liechtenstein. In Finland the right-wing government is not going to sign but the situation may change after general election next year. In Sweden which is an important non-aligned country in Europe the government is considering the signature but there are problems, The Trump administration has said they will punish Sweden if they sign. Probably it is the same with Finland even if the government does not admit and is unwilling to sign because it wants to keep a close relationship to NATO. That is their policy because an overwhelming majority in Finland is opposing the NATO membership. In Sweden there is a split not only between the parties but in the prime minister’s socialist party too.

In Helsinki we arranged a goodwill Pippi Longstocking demonstration front of the Swedish embassy encouraging Sweden to sign the treaty and had a good discussion with the ambassador but these kinds of demonstrations are needed all over Europe – and why not in Asia, NZ and AUS – because if Sweden would sign it would make the atmosphere better in other European countries too.

So we need a lots of campaigning, lobbying, talking, writing, education, training and media attention still.

But we can also support and offer small steps in the right direction in preventing the nuclear catastrophe and making the situation better for further disarmament talks between the nuclear powers and in strengthening the international disarmament efforts.

There is the US-Soviet Agreement on the Prevention of Nuclear War from 1973, the two sides the US and Russia could use the agreement as the basis for a new political understanding by reaffirming it and asking China, France and UK to join. Adam Sherman who was Obama’s representative on nuclear arms issues has proposed this recently and I think it would be wise to constructively support these kinds of small steps too in order to break the current deadlock internationally and of course especially in US-Russia relations. This would be more symbolic but anyhow a step forward.

We have had talks on military spending here in Vietnam and In Ulan Bator AEPF Forum about two years ago. The major figures for nuclear weapons have not changed much except that China’s share is clearly increasing in both nuclear and arms expenditure. Further the militarization of the Indo Pacific Oceans has increased. The volume of international transfers of major weapons and other weapons is going more up too.

But on the positive side, the peace movements are strengthening campaigning against the arms trade especially in relation to the Middle East and to nearby areas Further, during this millennium we have achieved agreements on arms trade and small arms and such arms control should continue.

In Europe we have an increasing problem with The European Defence Fund, which the European Commission established in June 2017. The purpose of this Fund is to channel money for military products and technologies. The main beneficiaries of the Fund are the arms industry and their connected researchers.

For the years 2017-2020, 590 million euros will be channeled to the fund. For years 2021-2027 the minimum sum is estimated at 10,5 billion euros. In addition the member states are supposed to give altogether 30 billion euros from their own budgets. The fund consist of two parts.The fund supports the military capability of the member states and on the other hand it contributes to the economic growth and employment and innovations in the military field.

The establishing process of this Fund has been criticized because of lack of transparency. The Fund was planned by a working group where the Commission, against the rules never revealed who were the members of the group. Probably they were from the arms companies and during the last years the European arms industry has almost doubled its lobbying machine in Brussels. It seems that after the BREXIT, European security is being tried to be built by military means instead of the soft power and development co-operation.

It seems that The European Commission tries to make the arms industry like a normal part of businesses without really thinking or caring about the consequences. But the decisions are not final and there is a strong opposition in the European Parliament and by the peace movement.

In the Baltic Sea there is an increasing number of permanent groups and war exercises. That is why we have a campaign to call upon all governments in every country around the Baltic Sea to use their financial means to save the Baltic Sea. instead of financing armament and other environmentally polluting activities. We want to engage politicians, peace institutes, researchers, artists, well-known personalities and NGO’s to take part in our project to make the Baltic Sea a Sea of Peace.

Finally of course all these questions go back to the basic issue of the understanding that peace is absence of fear and presence of justice.

*** AEPF and Vietnam Peace and Development Foundation | Quang Ninh, Vietnam, 14-16 April 2018 | The Peace Union of Finland AEPF’s Peace and Security Coordination Group

May 13, 2018 | Yayoi Tsuchida

In the present world, we are witnessing fierce conflict over nuclear weapons: Whether we go forward to achieve a nuclear weapon-free peaceful world or we continue to remain living under the danger and threats of nuclear weapons?

Humanity is heading for a world without nuclear weapons

The adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons on July 7, 2017 is a historic advance towards a world without nuclear weapons. With this treaty, nuclear weapons became illegal for the first time in human history and a basis for the elimination of nuclear weapons was established. The treaty prohibits all activities relating to nuclear weapons, including their development, testing, production, manufacture, acquisition, possession, and stockpiling.　Please imagine how much safer the world would be if the treaty prevails in the world and, for instance, in the ongoing exchanges between US and North Korea and South Korea.

Reality and danger over nuclear weapons

Then, why did the international community move to the adoption of this treaty?

First, nuclear weapons are inhumane weapons inflicting enormous calamity on humankind. Since the 2010 NPT Review Conference, the humanitarian initiative of nuclear weapons to raise awareness of their inhumanity, promoted by many governments, the Hibakusha (A-bomb survivors) and civil society, has revealed that irrespective of the cause, any nuclear weapon explosion would bring the immediate, mid- and long-term catastrophic damage to human health, environment, infrastructure, food security, climate, development, social cohesion and the global economy beyond borders; and no national or international response capacity can adequately respond to the human suffering and humanitarian harm that this causes. It is common knowledge that for the very survival of humanity, nuclear weapons must never be used again under any circumstances; and the elimination of nuclear weapons is the only guarantee for avoiding the risk of nuclear weapons use.

In spite of such a conclusion about the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons, about 15,000 nuclear weapons still exist on earth. Thousands of these are put on the hair-trigger alert. Their existence entails risks and likelihood of the authorized or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons. We need to remember that there was a mistaken warning of an incoming ballistic missile attack in Hawaii; such a matter may lead to a possible breakout of nuclear war.

Second, because the current world is very dangerous. A grave example is the US-North Korea confrontation in which both sides do not rule out using nuclear weapons. Ex-Secretary of Defense of the US William Perry said that if military option was taken, “it could be the huge consequences of a war; as bad as the first Korean War was, a war in the Korean Peninsula that extends to Japan and that goes nuclear would be 10 times worse; and we’re talking about casualties that equal those of World War II.” Fortunately, at this moment, there are moves for dialogue between North and South Koreas and between North Korea and the US. Of course, we hope that they will open up the way for peaceful settlement. However, the situation is still unpredictable.

Since Trump took office, confrontation between US and Russia has intensified with the escalation of nuclear arms race. The US Nuclear Posture Review, released in February 2018, is a head-on challenge to worldwide efforts to proceed to a world without nuclear weapons. It sets out the blurring of the distinction between conventional and nuclear war; the development and deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons like Hiroshima-type bomb for their actual use in war; and even making preemptive nuclear strikes to conventional weapons attacks. In Europe, conflict between Russia and US-NATO has deepened over the encirclement of Russia by US missile defense system. To counter this, Russia has developed new modernized anti-missile system. In addition, there are the involvement of nuclear powers in Syrian and other disputes. In Asia, there are China, North Korea, India and Pakistan. They are involved in territorial disputes and confronting each other. Asia is also a region where a nuclear-free order should be established.

Nuclear possessing states and nuclear umbrella states are opposed to the prohibition treaty. The US has put strong pressure on its allies and aid receiving countries not to sign and ratify it. In spite of having experienced the A-bomb attack, Japan is opposed to it. Even among US allies, it stands out in subordination to the US. Japan only focused on provocations and military threats over the North Korean nuclear issue, trampling underfoot the peace Constitution.

From the prohibition treaty to the abolition of nuclear weapons

In order to ensure peace and security of the world, we have to overcome this reality, with confidence that people’s long-term persistent effort brought about the treaty; and as the treaty was adopted by the support of 122 states, the overwhelming majority of states support and are trying to go forward towards a peaceful world without nuclear weapons. Those opposing and resisting it are just about 30 countries. If they are broken down by region, they are only USA and Canada in North-South American continent, only South Korea and Japan in Asia and only Australia and Micronesian Federation in the Pacific.

There is also hopeful development over the North Korean issue, which shows that the argument of nuclear weapon states that nuclear deterrence ensures security does not hold water; like Japan, those obstructing peaceful settlement only get isolated.

We have to proceed to the abolition of nuclear weapons based on the achievement of the treaty. The key is to develop public support and people’s campaigns for banning and eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide. Because a nuclear explosion affects everybody in the world, we have to mobilize more than 7 billion world population to this task. Such action is most needed now and it will greatly contribute to the effectuation of the treaty leading to a world without nuclear weapons.

For this objective, I will propose the following people’s campaigns:

• To carry out the Hibakusha Appeal signature campaign for the elimination of nuclear weapons. The signature campaign is an effective way to build up public opinion from grass-roots. This international campaign was launched by the Hibakusha in 2016 to build up support for their Appeal for the elimination of nuclear weapons in their lifetime. In Japan, more than 5 million signatures, including those of more than1000 mayors and governors, were collected in the past 2 years; the signature campaign promotion committee, consisted of wide range of local government heads, civil society organizations and individuals, was established in 24 prefectures, which accounts for more than half of all prefectures. The campaign has spread to 42 countries. And the collected petitions have been submitted to the UN, contributing to the adoption of the treaty.
• To make known to people of your country the A-bomb damage of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We the movement of A-bombed country will send out A-bomb photo sets and booklets/DVDs of testimonies of the Hibakusha abroad. Please hold A-bomb exhibitions and organize meetings to hear the Hibakusha’s stories at your communities and schools, etc. We will send the Hibakusha, too.
• To urge your government to sign and ratify the prohibition treaty.

The Hibakusha wish to collect hundreds of millions of signatures worldwide. Let’s work together for achieving a nuclear weapon-free world.

*** PEACE AND SECURITY IN ASIA AND EUROPE: CHALLENGES AND PEOPLE’S VISION | Quang Ninh, Vietnam, 14-16 April 2018

Yayoi TsuchidaAssistant is the General Secretary Japan Council against A and H Bombs (Gensuikyo)