Search Results for: ukraine

From Beyond the Death of Beyond Vietnam

Remarks in New York City, May 21, 2023

About a year-and-a-half before I was born down in midtown, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave a speech up at Riverside Church called Beyond Vietnam. “A nation that continues year after year,” he said, “to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” He was well aware that the military was not being used in defense, but the language of war acceptance was by that point well-established. read more

From Beyond the Death of Beyond Vietnam Read More »

Home

Email Signups

Action Alerts  ⚫  Articles  ⚫  Press Releases  ⚫  Press Releases About Charlottesville  ⚫  World BEYOND War Alerts  ⚫  World BEYOND War Press Releases  ⚫  RootsAction Alerts

Latest Articles

Talk World Radio: Peter Manos on Choosing Between ICBMs and Humanity Read More »
10 Embarrassment-Free Methods of Flipping to Peace on Ukraine Read More »
There Is No Right Side in War Read More »
Two Events Thursday for Peace Read More »
Bury the Monroe Doctrine at the University of Virginia Read More »

Home Read More »

Ending War on Earth in Illinois (Or Any Other Locality)

Al Mytty in Illinois during webinar for which these remarks were prepared.

By David Swanson, World BEYOND War, May 12, 2023

We very much need World BEYOND War educational and activist events and campaigns in Illinois (and every other location). We also need the people of Illinois (and every other location on Earth) as part of the global movement to end war.

I say that having been in Chicago many times and at least once to Carbondale. Interstate 64 which comes by my house also cuts through Illinois, so a few cups of coffee and I’m there.

We started World BEYOND War in 2014 to work with thousands of existing peace groups but to do three things a bit differently. One is to be global. Another is to go after the entire institution of war. Another is to use education and activism, both and together. I’ll say a few words about each of these things.

First, on being global. There’s a great peace activist named Bill Astore who has an article this week at TomDispatch where he suggests that if we rid the world of nuclear weapons he could like his country better. I also read yesterday a book by my old philosophy professor Richard Rorty, probably the smartest person in many ways I’ve ever met, who simply obsesses over the need to view U.S. history as a glass half full, even if it means believing in myths and ignoring ugly facts. Unless one does that, he writes, we cannot do the work of creating a better country. He never even entertains long enough to reject it the possibility of staring at all the facts head-on and doing the work regardless (is the question of whether a country has done more harm or more good even answerable?). Nor does he ever even consider the possibility of identifying with the world or a locality more so than a nation.

What I love most about online World BEYOND War events is that people use the word “we” to mean we people of the Earth. Now and again, you’ll have someone — always it’s someone from the United States — use “we” to mean a military — always it’s the U.S. military. As in “Hey, I remember you from that jail cell we were in for protesting the fact that we were bombing Afghanistan.” This assertion would seem like a riddle to a Martian who might wonder how one can bomb Afghanistan from a jail cell and why one would have also protested one​’s own action,​ but it’s understandable to everyone on Earth who all know that U.S. citizens recount the Pentagon’s crimes in the first person. No, I don’t mind if you feel responsible for your tax dollars or your so-called representative government. But if we don’t start thinking as world citizens I see no hope for the survival of the world.

World BEYOND War’s book, A Global Security System, describes the structure and culture of peace. That is to say, we need laws and institutions and policies that facilitate peace; and we need a culture that respects and celebrates peacemaking and nonviolent changemaking. We also need structures and cultures of peace activism​ to get us to that world​. We need our movement to be global in organization and decision making ​in order ​to be strong and strategic enough to defeat the global and imperial business of war. We also need the culture of a global peace movement, because people who want life on Earth to survive have more in common with people on the other side of the globe who agree with them than they do with the people running their own country.

When a U.S. peace activist identifies with the world, he or she gains billions of friends and allies and role models. It’s not just presidents of distant countries proposing peace in Ukraine; it’s fellow humans. But the biggest hurdle is humility. When anyone in the U.S. proposes that the U.S. government do better on nuclear weapons or environmental policies or any topic under the sun, it is almost guaranteed that they will ask the U.S. government to lead the rest of the world in a better direction, even though much or even all of the rest of the world has already headed off in that direction.

Second, on the entire institution of war. The problem is not just the worst atrocities of a war or the newest weapons of a war or the wars when a particular political party is on the throne in the White House. It’s not just the wars a particular country is involved in or indirectly involved in or supplying the weapons for. The problem is the entire business of war, which risks nuclear apocalypse, which thus far kills far more through directing money away from useful programs than through violence, which is a leading destroyer of the environment, which is the excuse for government secrecy, which fuels bigotry and lawlessness, ​and ​which impedes global cooperation on non-optional crises. So, we don’t just oppose the weapons that don’t kill well enough or insist on ending a bad war to be better prepared for a good one. We strive to educate and agitate the world out of the very idea of preparing for or using war, and into viewing war as something as archaic as dueling.

Third, on using education and activism. We do both and try to be doing both together as often as possible. We do online and real-world events and courses and books and videos. We put up billboards and then do events at the billboards. We pass city resolutions and educate the cities in the process. We do conferences, demonstrations, protests, banner displays, blocking of trucks, and every other sort of nonviolent activism. We work on campaigns for divestment, such as for the City of Chicago to cease investing in weapons — on which we’re working in a coalition and with the lessons we’ve learned from many successful and unsuccessful divestment campaigns elsewhere. We plan local real-world and online educational events, lectures, debates, panels, teach-ins, courses, and rallies. We pass resolutions and ordinances for conversion from military spending, for ending wars, for banning drones, for establishing nuclear free zones, for demilitarizing police, etc. We help with lobbying elected officials, generating handouts and graphics, reaching media outlets, and creating media.

We answer the same relentless questions transmitted through everyone’s minds by the U.S. media about a topic like Ukraine, and encourage you to tell others who might tell others who might tell others so that someday the questions might change.

We do campaigns to close or to block the creation of military bases, as we’re doing right now in Montenegro. And we work across borders to provide solidarity. In a small country like Montenegro, any sign of support from the United States is of vastly more value than you’d likely imagine. Activism that you can easily do may not move the U.S. Congress but may have a huge impact in a place whose fate is determined by U.S. Congress Members who couldn’t find it on a map.

In a place called Sinjajevina, the U.S. military is trying to create a new military training ground against the wishes of the people who live there and who have been risking their lives to prevent it. They would be super grateful and it might even make the news in Montenegro if you were to go to worldbeyondwar.org and click on the first big image at the top to get to worldbeyondwar.org/sinjajevina and find the graphic to print out as a sign, hold up, and take a picture of yourself, in an ordinary place or at an outdoor landmark, and email it to info AT worldbeyondwar.org.

If you don’t mind I’ll say a few words about Sinjajevina. The flowers are in bloom in the mountain pastures of Sinjajevina. And the U.S. military is on its way to trample them and practice destroying things. What did these beautiful sheep-herding families in this European mountain paradise do to the Pentagon?

Not a damn thing. In fact, they followed all the proper rules. They spoke in public fora, educated their fellow citizens, produced scientific research, listened carefully to the most ludicrous contrary opinions, lobbied, campaigned, voted, and elected officials who promised not to destroy their mountain homes for the U.S. military and a new NATO training ground too large for the Montenegrin military to know what to do with. They lived within the rules based order, and they’ve simply been lied to when not ignored. Not a single U.S. media outlet has deigned to even mention their existence, even as they’ve risked their lives as human shields to protect their way of life and all the creatures of the mountain ecosystem.

Now 500 U.S. troops, according to the Montenegrin Ministry of “Defense,” will be practicing organized murder and destruction from May 22 to June 2, 2023. And the people plan to nonviolently resist and protest. No doubt the United States will involve some token troops from some NATO sidekicks and call it an “international” defense of “democracy” “operation.” But has anyone involved asked themselves what democracy is? If democracy is the right of the U.S. military to destroy people’s homes wherever it sees fit, as a reward for signing onto NATO, buying weapons, and swearing subservience, then those who scorn democracy can hardly be faulted, can they?

We’ve also just released our annual update of what we call Mapping Militarism, a series of interactive maps that let you examine the shape of war and peace in the world. That, too, is on the website.

In conclusion, I’ve told you nothing and am probably incapable of telling you anything that isn’t said better on our website at worldbeyondwar.org, and if anyone can ask me a question today that hasn’t already been answered better than I can answer it on our website it will be an historic first. So I encourage spending some time reading the website.

But there are some bits that are only for chapters. ​W​e can work with you to create a chapter webpage. We can work with you to create a chapter account in the online tool we use called Action Network, so that you can create petitions, email actions, event registration pages, fundraisers, emails, etc. As a chapter, you get all of our public resources plus some that nobody else gets, plus assistance from our staff, our board, and all our other chapters and affiliates and friends and allies around the world who stand in solidarity with you as a global community for sanity and peace. Thank you.

Ending War on Earth in Illinois (Or Any Other Locality) Read More »

War and Murder Since Vietnam

By David Swanson, World BEYOND War, May 5, 2023

Remarks from May 4th webinar with Green Party Peace Action Committee; Peoples Network for Planet, Justice & Peace; Green Party of Ohio 

I’m going to be brief and generalize and give some tentative conclusions in order to fit into 10 minutes what I think happened in Vietnam and what I think are some of the key lessons for peacemaking now from peacemaking at the time of what the Vietnamese call the American War.

I think that the U.S. public has been much more aware from that time to now of the extent to which the U.S. government is principally the world’s primary war machine. We all sometimes get some facts wrong. Sometimes exaggerate. Some make the mistake of imagining that the rest of the world’s warmakers are admirable, just as some peace activists made the mistake of cheering for the Vietnamese side of the war on Vietnam — though they had the excuse we do not of far less knowledge of the superior power of nonviolent action.

(Now, as everyone prepares to ask me how a friendly little sit-in can stop bombs from landing on your head, I encourage you to envision a completely different approach of noncooperation with occupation and to see the list of successes at worldbeyondwar.org/list )

But mostly, I think, people fail to quite grasp just the extent to which the U.S. government is responsible for the institution of war. In the latest numbers on military spending, of 230 other countries, the U.S. spends more than 227 of them combined. Russia and China spend a combined 21% of what the U.S. and its allies spend on war. Since 1945, the U.S. military has acted in a major or minor way in 74 other nations. At least 95% of the foreign military bases on Earth are U.S. bases. Of 230 other countries, the U.S. exports more weaponry than 228 of them combined. Most places with wars manufacture no weapons.

The war on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia remains the worst thing the U.S. military has done. The U.S. dropped more than three times the bombs it had in WWII, combined with a massive ground war, plus spraying from the air tens of millions of liters of Agent Orange, not to mention napalm. Tens of millions of bombs remain unexploded, and increasingly dangerous, today. An estimated 3.8 million people died violently just in Vietnam. Some 19 million were wounded or made homeless in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Many millions more were forced to live dangerous and impoverished lives, with impacts lasting to this day.

The U.S. soldiers who did 1.6% of the dying, but whose suffering dominates U.S. movies about the war, really did suffer as much and as horribly as depicted. Thousands of veterans have since committed suicide. But imagine what that means for the true extent of the suffering created, even just for humans, ignoring all the other species impacted. The Vietnam Memorial in Washington D.C. lists 58,000 names on 150 meters of wall. That’s 387 names per meter. To similarly list 4 million names would require 10,336 meters, or the distance from the Lincoln Memorial to the steps of the U.S. Capitol, and back again, and back to the Capitol once more, and then as far back as all the museums but stopping short of the Washington Monument. To get U.S. society to not think it would be insane to put Vietnamese names on the Vietnam Memorial would require a revolution of values.

In Laos, about a third of the country’s land remains ruined by the heavy presence of unexploded bombs, which continue to kill large numbers of people and which were originally intended to wipe out farms in order to starve people or were simply littering by bombers unable to make it to Vietnam due to the weather. Then there’s the growth of the Khmer Rouge, as much a result of war as ISIS or the empowerment of rightwingers in Ukraine and Russia. Then there are all the results for the U.S. and the world that I must leave to other speakers today — the financial tradeoffs, the bigotry, the violent culture, the damage to the ideas of law and cooperation — also (not necessarily a bad thing) the boost to independence and resistance to U.S. domination around the world.

What have we learned? To some extent we’ve learned, and not forgotten, that governments lie. But we still talk about “a war based on lies” as if some other war could be based on something else. We’ve started to learn that a Venn diagram of human decency and government interests would have a tiny and bizarre overlap. We’ve come to understand that governments are rarely moved by moral arguments. But we’ve also largely failed to learn that the public pressure needed to move governments is itself very much driven by moral arguments — as it was successfully during the war on Vietnam.

During the wars since Vietnam, U.S. peace activists have generally failed to tell the U.S. public that wars are immoral one-sided slaughters, choosing to focus on the damage the wars have been doing to U.S. troops, and the financial cost to taxpayers. This is the boomerang result of the spitting lies and other wild tales and exaggerations of mistakes of blaming the rank-and-file troops who destroyed Vietnam. A smart peace movement, its elders have believed, would stress sympathizing with troops to the point of not telling anyone what the basic nature of the wars was. Of course anything can be used against you by an ever-worsening media, but even as polling shows that people in the United States care less and less about patriotism, competing pro- and anti-war rallies I witnessed on a sunny day in Crawford, Texas, some years back were nearly indistinguishable swarms of U.S. flags.

When we’ve reached the point of not being allowed to mention that mass shooters are disproportionately veterans, or of cheering for a veteran who murders a man on a subway, we’re in danger, not so much of creating prejudices against veterans (many of whom are wonderful peace activists) as of glorifying participation in mass-murder. By the way, I think the Washington Post and Secretary of State Blinken should hold a conference on the foot-dragging developing nations where the backward governments will charge you with murder merely for killing people on subways. That would show them.

Young people, in particular, do not require flags or crosses or political parties to believe that slaughtering families is worth standing up against. But someone has to tell them that families are being slaughtered — and not only by Russia. During the war on Vietnam, peace activists did that.

The media, awful as it was, was better than now. People in the U.S. saw a U.S. ally shoot someone in the head. But did they know that that shooter was brought to Northern Virginia to live near the CIA for decades, neighbor to the once and hoped-for future royalty of Afghanistan and Iran, not to mention the one true unelected president of Venezuela, the would-be ruler of Libya, and a whole prop-room of puppets?

What we need to learn most is that, difficult and confused as it was and is, activism worked, won a vote to end the bombing of Cambodia, swayed public opinion, dominated politics, helped force through a progressive agenda of domestic policies, and helped compel Congress to hold a president accountable in a manner that seems thoroughly foreign to the U.S. Congress today — as does the integration of peace as part of a package of sane transformations away from racism, sexism, authoritarianism, consumerism, etc.

We need to learn that uncomfortably large coalitions work better than prioritizing canceling people, that changing an entire culture works, that placing peace over political party works, that youth get things done, that peace should be made part of human identity, not just a passing topic in the news. That this was done during the war on Vietnam is evident from how many current peace activists were peace activists then — many, such as Daniel Ellsberg — a whistleblower then — not with us much longer. The cultural change was so great that the war mongers called it an illness, the Vietnam Syndrome. And then they partially cured the country of it. Unfortunately it wasn’t an illness but a wellness on which all life depends.

We need to unlearn the weird idea that a draft is a tool of peace. Drafts facilitate wars. The warmongers want one. The Democrats want women forced to register. The Vietnam War not only persisted for many years during the draft, killing far more people than any U.S. war since, but also continued for two years after the draft ended. Yes, people opposed a war with a draft who say nothing about a proxy war or a drone war, but I’d like to use education and organizing to try to get them active before resorting to a tool that kills millions and risks apocalypse.

In 1965 there was a song called Nowhere to Run to. Tribes of humans used to be able to flee each other. Then they filled the habitable land. Refugees used to be able to flee danger for a land with a secure future. In 1849 a man could mail himself in a box from Richmond to Philadelphia and freedom. In 1958 a black journalist could escape Mississippi to Chicago in a casket. There’s no escaping a world hellbent on nuclear or environmental destruction. Delusions of space travel won’t help you. Our only help is to learn what’s worked and adapt and improve it. People come up to me at peace events to tell me all is already hopeless. But if they believed that, they wouldn’t be there. Our job is not to predict the future, but to change it as much as we can.

War and Murder Since Vietnam Read More »

An Active, Growing, and Succeeding Movement to Abolish the Monroe Doctrine

By David Swanson, World BEYOND War, April 29, 2023

Imagine a world where a broad coalition of people and groups unites against militarism and oligarchy, and where there are as many successes as failures to discuss.

Or just look at Latin America.

In a recent book, and in numerous articles, I’ve argued for burying the Monroe Doctrine after 200 years, and for supporting those at work doing so.

Right now, in Washington DC, CODEPINK has organized a gathering of people and organizations to advance this cause. Today’s forum has been streaming live on Facebook.

What we can see in these videos (or in person if you were here) is a movement that has energy and organization, that has done its research, recruited its experts and advocates, made its case, and won victories that can be built on, a movement that can quote statements of elected officials, such as the President of Mexico, that are indistinguishable from those of activists.

Of course a great deal remains to be done. One session on Saturday addressed the deadly use of sanctions with a great deal of solid research establishing the murderous intentions and results of economic sanctions — something about which most people in the United States, whose “democratic” government is responsible, have no idea.

The people of Latin America are winning over their own publics, and their own governments, and creating effective resistance to U.S. imperialism without winning over the U.S. public or the U.S. government. Can you imagine the greater success the pink wave of Latin America might have if the U.S. public were seriously supporting it — or even cheering for it as though it were a war in Ukraine or some tough talk toward China?

As discussed on Saturday, there are international organizations — most of them based here in Washington, D.C.,  in need of reform and dismantling, from the IMF to the OAS — the OAS with a statue of Queen Isabella out front that was donated by a Spanish dictator; it came in for some serious criticism:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The trouble is that many object more to the Trump gang praising the Monroe Doctrine than to the Trump and Biden gangs acting on it. The Monroe Doctrine is not simply military conquest, but permanent bases, training of troops, propagandizing of elites, application of economic pressure through sanctions and withdrawal of (or increase in) investment, interference in elections, imposition of loan conditions, corporate trade agreements, etc. Ending all of these practices is not within sight, but the idea is alive and advancing.

When Chile nationalizes its lithium mining, as recently announced, U.S. corporations can still buy the stuff; they just can’t STEAL it. This ought to be an easy decision for people who imagine they support democracy. There ought to be no question which side we are all on. The OAS, after all, also has a statue of Simon Bolívar.

As much discussed on Saturday, the Catholic Church’s renunciation this year of the Doctrine of Discovery — put into U.S. law in 1823, the year of the Monroe Doctrine — ought to inspire not only renunciation (that would be nothing new) but the actual abandonment by the U.S. government of both of these twin doctrines of imperialistic horrors.

An Active, Growing, and Succeeding Movement to Abolish the Monroe Doctrine Read More »

Having Enemies Is a Choice

By David Swanson, World BEYOND War, April 23, 2023

What’s something that nobody can give you unless you want it?

An enemy.

This ought to be obviously true in both the personal sense and the international sense.

In your personal life, you acquire enemies by seeking them out and choosing to have them. And if, through no fault of your own, someone is cruel to you, the option remains of not behaving cruelly in return. The option remains of not even thinking anything cruelly in return. That option might be extremely difficult. That option might be one that you believe is undesirable — for whatever reason. Maybe you’ve consumed 85,000 Hollywood movies in which the greatest good is revenge, or whatever. The point is purely that it is an option. It is not impossible.

Declining to think of someone as an enemy will often lead to that someone not thinking of you as an enemy. But perhaps it won’t. Again, the point is purely that you have the option to not view anyone in the world as an enemy.

When peace activist David Hartsough had a knife to his throat, and told his assailant that he would try to love him no matter what, and the knife was dropped to the ground, it may or may not be that the assailant ceased thinking of David as an enemy. It may or may not be that David managed to love him. David could have easily been killed. The point is, again, merely that — even with a knife on your throat — your thoughts and deeds are your own to control, not somebody else’s. If you don’t accept having an enemy, you have no enemy.

A Sandinista leader named Tomás Borges was forced by the Somoza government in Nicaragua to endure the rape and murder of his wife, and the rape of his 16-year-old daughter who would later commit suicide. He was imprisoned and tortured for years, with a hood over his head for nine months, handcuffed for seven months. When he later captured his torturers, he told them “The hour of my revenge has come: we will not do you even the slightest harm. You did not believe us beforehand; now you will believe us. That is our philosophy, our way of being.” You may condemn that choice. Or you may think it too difficult. Or you may imagine you’ve somehow disproven something by pointing to the Sandinistas’ use of violence. The point is only that, no matter what someone has done to you, you can — if you want — choose to take pride in NOT mirroring their repulsive behavior, but rather in asserting your own better way of being.

When murder victims’ families in the United States advocate for joining most of the rest of the world in abolishing the death penalty, they are choosing not to have enemies that their culture expects them to have. It’s their choice. And it’s one that they apply as a political principle, not just a personal relation.

When we move to international relations, of course, it becomes dramatically easier to not have enemies. A nation doesn’t have any emotions. It doesn’t even exist except as an abstract concept. So the pretense of some human impossibility to behave or think better can’t even get a toehold. In addition, the general rule that enemies must be sought out, and that behaving respectfully to others leads to them doing the same, is far more consistent. Again, there are exceptions and anomalies and no guarantees. Again, the point is purely that a nation can choose not to treat other nations as enemies — and not what those other nations might do. But one can be pretty darn sure what they will do.

The U.S. government is always very eager to pretend it has enemies, to believe it has enemies, and to generate nations that actually view it as an enemy. Its favorite candidates are China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

Even when not counting free weapons to Ukraine and various other expenses, U.S. military spending is so enormous (as justified by these enemies) that China’s is 37%, Russia’s 9%, Iran’s 3%, and North Korea’s kept secret but relatively tiny, compared to the U.S. level of spending. Looked at per-capita, Russia’s is 20%, China’s 9%, Iran’s 5%, of the U.S. level.

For the U.S. to fear these budget militaries as enemies is like you living in a steel fortress and fearing a kid outside with a squirt gun — except that these are international abstractions which you’d really have little excuse to allow fears to distort even if the fears were not ludicrous.

But the numbers above radically understate the disparity. The United States is not a country. It is not alone. It is a military empire. Only 29 nations, out of some 200 on Earth, spend even 1 percent what the U.S. does on wars. Of those 29, a full 26 are U.S. weapons customers. Many of those, and many with smaller budgets too, receive free U.S. weapons and/or training and/or have U.S. bases in their countries. Many are members of NATO and/or AUKUS and/or are otherwise sworn to jump into wars themselves at the bidding of the United States. The other three — Russia, China, and Iran, (plus the secretive North Korea) — are not up against the U.S. military budget, but the combined military budget of the U.S. and its weapons customers and allies (minus any defections or fits of independence). Looked at in this way, as compared to the U.S. war machine, China spends 18%, Russia 4%, and Iran 1%. If you pretend these nations are an “axis of evil,” or you drive them, against their will, into a military alliance, they’re still at a combined 23% of the military spending of the U.S. and its sidekicks, or 48% of the U.S. alone.

Those numbers suggest an inability to be an enemy, but there’s also the absence of any inimical behavior. While the U.S. has planted military bases, troops, and weaponry around these designated enemies and threated them, none of them has a military base anywhere near the United States, and none has threatened the United States. The U.S. has successfully sought out a war with Russia in Ukraine, and Russia has disgracefully taken the bait. The U.S. is intent on a war with China in Taiwan. But both Ukraine and Taiwan would have been much better off left the hell alone, and neither Ukraine nor Taiwan is the United States.

Of course, in international affairs, even more than in personal, one is supposed to imagine that any violence engaged in by one’s chosen side is defensive. But there is a stronger tool than violence for defending a nation under attack, and numerous tools for reducing the likelihood of any attacks.

So preparing for the possible emergence of enemies can only make sense for a government organized around the principle of desiring enemies.

Having Enemies Is a Choice Read More »

Warheads to Windmills

Warheads to Windmills!

https://actionnetwork.org/events/warheads-to-windmills-webinar?source=direct_link&referrer=group-world-beyond-war

Warheads to Windmills webinar

Start: Sunday, May 07, 2023• 4:00 PM • Eastern Daylight Time (US & Canada) (GMT-04:00)

End: Sunday, May 07, 2023• 5:30 PM • Eastern Daylight Time (US & Canada) (GMT-04:00)

A link to attend this virtual event will be emailed upon

read more

Warheads to Windmills Read More »

Illinois for a World BEYOND War Chapter Event featuring David Swanson

I’ll be speaking at this upcoming event that’s meant for anyone in Illinois.

Join the Illinois for a World BEYOND War chapter for a statewide online meeting on Thursday, May 11 at 7:00pm Central, featuring WBW’s Co-Founder & Executive Director David Swanson!

The meeting will kick off with opening remarks by David Swanson, who will discuss the work of WBW globally, from the U.S. to Montenegro, Canada to Ukraine to Latin America, and more, and how WBW chapters can take action.

Then we will discuss and adopt a vision statement for the Illinois for a World BEYOND War chapter, and go into breakout rooms to discuss chapter activities, related to 1) peace education, 2) countering the dominant pro-war media narrative, and 3) influencing our elected officials to stop supporting and financing militarism and war.

Join us on May 11 to learn more about World BEYOND War and get involved with the new Illinois chapter!

SIGN UP.

 

Illinois for a World BEYOND War Chapter Event featuring David Swanson Read More »

New York Times Is Now Telling Bigger Lies Than Iraq WMDs and More Effectively

By David Swanson, World BEYOND War, April 11, 2023

The New York Times routinely tells bigger lies than the clumsy nonsense it published about weapons in Iraq. Here’s an example. This package of lies is called “Liberals Have a Blind Spot on Defense” but mentions nothing related to defense. It simply pretends that militarism is defensive by applying that word and by lying that “we face simultaneous and growing military threats from Russia and China.” Seriously? Where?

The U.S. military budget is more than those of most nations of the world combined. Only 29 nations, out of some 200 on Earth, spend even 1 percent what the U.S. does. Of those 29, a full 26 are U.S. weapons customers. Many of those receive free U.S. weapons and/or training and/or have U.S. bases in their countries. Only one non-ally, non-weapons customer (albeit a collaborator in bioweapons research labs) spends over 10% what the U.S. does, namely China, which was at 37% of U.S. spending in 2021 and likely about the same now despite the highly horrifying increases widely reported in the U.S. media and on the floor of Congress. (That’s not considering weapons for Ukraine and various other U.S. expenses.) While the U.S. has planted military bases around Russia and China, neither has a military base anywhere near the United States, and neither has threatened the United States.

Now, if you don’t want to fill the globe with U.S. weaponry and provoke Russia and China on their borders, the New York Times has some additional lies for you: “Defense spending is about as pure an application of a domestic industrial policy — with thousands of good-paying, high-skilled manufacturing jobs — as any other high-tech sector.”

No, it is not.  Just about any other way of spending public dollars, or even not taxing them in the first place, produces more and better jobs.

Here’s a doozie:

“Liberals also used to be hostile to the military on the assumption that it skewed right wing, but that’s a harder argument to make when the right is complaining about a ‘woke military.’”

What in the world would it mean to oppose organized mass murder because it skews right wing? What the hell else could it skew? I oppose militarism because it kills, destroys, damages the Earth, drives homelessness and illness and poverty, prevents global cooperation, tears down the rule of law, prevents self-governance, produces the dumbest pages of the New York Times, fuels bigotry, and militarizes police, and because there are better ways to resolve disputes and to resist the militarism of others. I’m not going to start cheering for mass killings because some general doesn’t hate enough groups.

Then there’s this lie: “The Biden administration touts the size of its $842 billion budget request, and in nominal terms it’s the largest ever. But that fails to account for inflation.”

If you look at U.S. military spending according to SIPRI in constant 2021 dollars from 1949 to now (all the years they provide, with their calculation adjusting for inflation), Obama’s 2011 record will probably fall this year. If you look at actual numbers, not adjusting for inflation, Biden has set a new record each year. If you add in the free weapons for Ukraine, then, even adjusting for inflation, the record fell this past year and will probably be broken again in the coming year.

You’ll hear all sorts of different numbers, depending on what’s included. Most used is probably $886 billion for what Biden has proposed, which includes the military, the nuclear weapons, and some of “

Homeland Security.” In the absence of massive public pressure on a topic the public hardly knows exists, we can count on an increase by Congress, plus major new piles of free weapons to Ukraine. For the first time, U.S. military spending (not
read more

New York Times Is Now Telling Bigger Lies Than Iraq WMDs and More Effectively Read More »

The Collapse of the War System Is Not Outpacing the Collapse of the Earth’s Climate and Ecosystems

By David Swanson, World BEYOND War, April 5, 2023

The Collapse of the War System: Developments in the Philosophy of Peace in the Twentieth Century by John Jacob English, published in 2007, describes the collapse, or the beginning of the collapse, in Western culture, of the inevitability of war. In other words: the popularization of the idea that war might be ended. Unfortunately, we cannot yet recount the collapse of the practice of war, with war spending, weapons dealing, conflict between major militaries, and the risk of nuclear apocalypse all on the rise. While people in the United States afflicted with televisions are focused on the collapse of Donald Trump, the Earth’s ecosystems are collapsing at the rate at which we need barbaric practices to collapse.

It’s a funny word, barbaric. I use it to mean stupid and violent. But it can also mean foreign. The notion that the foreign is stupid or violent is a central pillar of the war system, and a weakness in most Western analyses thereof. Many human cultures have not included a war system, few have given war the prominence given it by the West, and none have devoted themselves to war with weapons and levels of destruction remotely approaching those of the culture in which the war system is rumored to be collapsing.

To be more accurate, it’s not Westernism or Eurocentrism that limits analysis of peace thinking, but imperio-centrism. Asian and other societies are given consideration, as long as they have made use of war. Indigenous cultures that have not used war are not mentioned.

But John Jacob English’s book is a great introduction to how some people on Earth got (back) to the point of widespread questioning of war. The subtopics in this field are so numerous and rich, that the first section of the book consists of numerous very short summaries of ideas and authors, each a prompt for further study. Four topics receive longer treatment: Tolstoy, Russell, Gandhi, and Einstein. Yes, they’re all male and dead, and perhaps such a book couldn’t have been published in 2023, and probably — on balance — that’s a good thing. But there remain on Earth many millions of people who have not overcome the war-thinking that those four guys, to varying degrees, overcame.

It can potentially be helpful to someone announcing their very original justification for arming Ukraine to discover that the same thing was articulated more clearly 1700 years ago and decisively debunked 100 years ago. At least one has to hope that that would be the case if people were to read books. Here are some to start with:

The War Abolition Collection:

War Is Hell: Studies in the Right of Legitimate Violence, by C. Douglas Lummis, 2023.
The Greatest Evil Is War, by Chris Hedges, 2022.
Abolishing State Violence: A World Beyond Bombs, Borders, and Cages by Ray Acheson, 2022.
Against War: Building a Culture of Peace by Pope Francis, 2022.
Ethics, Security, and The War-Machine: The True Cost of the Military by Ned Dobos, 2020.
Understanding the War Industry by Christian Sorensen, 2020.
No More War by Dan Kovalik, 2020.
Strength Through Peace: How Demilitarization Led to Peace and Happiness in Costa Rica, and What the Rest of the World Can Learn from a Tiny Tropical Nation, by Judith Eve Lipton and David P. Barash, 2019.
Social Defence by Jørgen Johansen and Brian Martin, 2019.
Murder Incorporated: Book Two: America’s Favorite Pastime by Mumia Abu Jamal and Stephen Vittoria, 2018.
Waymakers for Peace: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Survivors Speak by Melinda Clarke, 2018.
Preventing War and Promoting Peace: A Guide for Health Professionals edited by William Wiist and Shelley White, 2017.
The Business Plan For Peace: Building a World Without War by Scilla Elworthy, 2017.
War Is Never Just by David Swanson, 2016.
A Global Security System: An Alternative to War by World Beyond War, 2015, 2016, 2017.
A Mighty Case Against War: What America Missed in U.S. History Class and What We (All) Can Do Now by Kathy Beckwith, 2015.
War: A Crime Against Humanity by Roberto Vivo, 2014.
Catholic Realism and the Abolition of War by David Carroll Cochran, 2014.
War and Delusion: A Critical Examination by Laurie Calhoun, 2013.
Shift: The Beginning of War, the Ending of War by Judith Hand, 2013.
War No More: The Case for Abolition by David Swanson, 2013.
The End of War by John Horgan, 2012.
Transition to Peace by Russell Faure-Brac, 2012.
From War to Peace: A Guide To the Next Hundred Years by Kent Shifferd, 2011.
War Is A Lie by David Swanson, 2010, 2016.
Beyond War: The Human Potential for Peace by Douglas Fry, 2009.
Living Beyond War by Winslow Myers, 2009.
The Collapse of the War System: Developments in the Philosophy of Peace in the Twentieth Century by John Jacob English, 2007.
Enough Blood Shed: 101 Solutions to Violence, Terror, and War by Mary-Wynne Ashford with Guy Dauncey, 2006.
Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War by Rosalie Bertell, 2001.
Boys Will Be Boys: Breaking the Link Between Masculinity and Violence by Myriam Miedzian, 1991.

The Collapse of the War System Is Not Outpacing the Collapse of the Earth’s Climate and Ecosystems Read More »