Against Weapons & Nuclear Armament and For Peace and Disarmament.

I am against Weapons & Nuclear Armaments. I may sound Vehement in my expressions here. I just call them "Monkeys", with violent instincts and you just can't expect them to find a way out for a peaceful existance. Can't blame them also if we go deep into their history. They have only kill, grab and rule in their history and killers are their heros and guns are their toys and what else can we expect from them? So friends let us think first, feel for the events that is happening, feel for the fate of our "mother earth" who has provided us with every thing that helped us to become what we are, and feel for our future inocent generations that will came, and start acting from to day. If we delay it may be too late. You are not alone. There are very many like us and together we can do some thing!! Read on to see why and how.

We are in the 21st century and still the history of war and strife is being repeated. War is an age old method that are being followed to resolve conflicts even in these modern times! We are still witnessing many countries that have not learned anything from the past and rather than seeking to understand the root cause of the conflicts and finding a peaceful resolution they are still thinking of resolving the issues through the threat of war. This is primitive. Added to this the search for new threat and a enemy as a means to reinforce their military capabilities and at times, even exaggerating the threat in order to justify their arms buildup. Media has never been a help in educating the masses on important issues that threaten our very existance and instead, they try to make any news sensational, keeping their main concern on profit.

We must try and understand the current global situation of growing violence, and in particular about the risk that nuclear arsenals represent in this context, with the aim of contributing to the world's people becoming conscious of such issues. In order to facilitate an integral comprehension about these themes, a deep study was made by some of my friends.

Possibly many people know, or at least imagine the destructive potential of the nuclear arsenals distributed today around the planet, capable of blowing it up several times.
Possibly many people know, or at least imagine, that no country of the world, even though it wasn’t the target of a nuclear attack, would be safe from its terrible consequences.
But surely what the majority of people don’t know or dare to imagine, is that the possibility of such attacks materialising, is closer than ever at the moment. If they were to realise this, if they were to be conscious of the gravity of the situation, this theme would become a central concern.
We are saying that the hour has come for the people to go into the streets to change the course of events that day by day, through lack of control by irresponsible governments, is leading us ever-quickly towards nuclear disaster.

Surely, some people mistakenly think, that the genocide of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an unrepeatable fatality of the past, or that the danger of a nuclear conflagration came to an end with the end of the Cold War. Nevertheless, since that time, nuclear arsenals have not only grown in quantity and destructive power, they have also become more sophisticated and have proliferated, to the point of being able to end up being used by a very wide variety of madmen. Today, governments of so-called “serious countries” (principally the arms producers), as well as those catalogued as “failed” states, as well as any terrorist organisation could end up using these weapons at any moment.
Can you imagine a neucler bomb in the hands of a monkey?!!! And not only are they able, they have already demonstrated, explicitly or implicitly, their intentions to do so. The rollout of a space shield in Europe, by the USA and her allies has no other purpose than to prepare for a counterattack (which means that they are thinking to attack someone). The uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the possibility of transporting them even in suitcases, also leaves us at the mercy of them falling into the hands of terrorists (as irresponsible as the supposed “serious governments”).

Once it was thought, that with the fall of the Berlin Wall, we would enter into a “New World Order”, where the hypothesis of war would sensibly diminish. Like in the best Hollywood propaganda soap operas, once the “communist villains” were defeated, peace and prosperity would dominate in the paradise of the “end of history”. Instead of this, we have been swallowed by a “New World Disorder”, where cultural clashes, religious fanaticism, separatisms, xenophobia, and madness provoked by globalised capitalism, have multiplied the chaos and violence.
The arrogance of the USA and her allies, to try to impose a cultural and economic hegemonic model, has not only generated disasters as a result of the application of such a model, but also, it has generated violent reactions of all kinds. The growing popular support for warmongering leaders, and the multiplication of terrorism, are a few of the reactions that are being produced in many places where people feel trampled on by the so called “first world”.
Faced with these reactions, far from withdrawing in their arrogance, the central powers, use them as a pretext to give themselves the right to intervene militarily in any country, arguing for the “fight against terrorism” and the “defence of democracy”, at the same time as they entrench themselves in territories rich in energy resources. Of course this policy does nothing more than strengthen new reactions, in a vicious circle of violence that will lead us to disaster.
In India our politicians shamelessly provock separatism and people foolishly follow the fascists since in that they reconcile their frustrations against the living conditions our leaders have ably provided during the past 62 years.
As Silo, the founder of the idiology of New Universal Humanism who Launched the Humanist Movement to work towards a Universal Human Nation already anticipated in 1993 (Sixth letter to my Friends): “By now big capital has exhausted the stage of market economies, and has begun to discipline the society to accept the chaos it has itself produced. Yet in the presence of this growing irrationality, it is not the voices of reason that we hear raised in dialectical opposition. Rather, it is the darkest forms of racism, fundamentalism, and fanaticism that are on the rise.”

Today there are no longer borders to this violence, because the military powers as much as terrorism, consider the whole world as a single battle field, and no country is exempt.
Today cultural humiliation, lack of future and economic subjugation, are producing a growing number of people who feel that they have nothing left to loose, and who are totally willing to immolate themselves in a terrorist attack against any interest that, for them, represents the “first world” of a privileged few.
Today the overwhelming need to maintain their political and economic power by force makes a few leaders of central countries, who respond to the dictates of big capital (linked in many cases to the military-industrial complex), justify with arguments of national security and the defence of a way of life, the new invasions and massacres in other countries, in front of their people.
But a much-worse tomorrow can follow on from a today that is already terrible enough. Because the present international financial collapse, that is no more than the thunder of an economic system that collapsed a while ago, will strengthen the violence and disorder even more, putting humanity on the edge of a nuclear catastrophe.
It may be worth saying that the formidable present economic crisis was the complete responsibility of “serious countries” and was not foreseen by their “prudent analysts and opinion makers”. This makes us suspect, that a future nuclear disaster, will be difficult to predict or controlled in time, by such irresponsible and inefficient people, who have been given the right to manage the world.

Much is said now, as the crisis intensifies, of the decadence of some economic powers like the USA, assuming that the only implication of this will be that they will have to adjust their levels of consumption. Unfortunately for the world, each time that some powers start to lose power and the global political map is destabilised, a violent outbreak is unleashed. The two world wars of the 20th century are a demonstration of that. But this time humanity cannot allow a new “natural violent outbreak”, as a consequence of the interaction of the disordered forces of economic power, and the violence of imperial armies, or terrorism. Humanity cannot allow a new outbreak of war; in first place because it is necessary, once and for all, to stand up and leave behind human pre-history. And in second place, because nuclear proliferation, combined with growing disorder and violence, should make us remember the famous quote of Einstein: “I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

What must be done?
It is clear that the old system based on violence of all kinds has failed. A new system has to replace this. Numerous and profound are the changes that this world and this society needs; profound transformations in politics, economics, in social matters including law and justice, in healthcare, education, the environment, and a broad range of other matters.
There is a lot that must has to be transformed in order to overcome the violence in all its aspects: physical violence, racial violence, psychological violence, religious violence, economic violence, gender violence, moral violence and so many forms of violence that exist within society.
But in order to set in motion a decisive process of changes and in order to be on time with solutions, the number one priority is to deactivate the time bomb that is today on the points of exploding.
And in order to deactivate this time bomb, it is essential to start from now with the nuclear disarmament of all countries that possess this type of weapon and it is the necessary condition, that invading troops in occupied countries withdraw immediately.
Nothing will be possible if we don’t start with this.
The very existence of nuclear arsenals, implying a position of strength and blackmail by some countries over the rest, imposing relationships of domination, is translated into politics and economics. The dissuasive strength of nuclear weapons, which served during the Cold War to maintain a delicate equilibrium between the two super powers, today serves to try to impose certain international rules of the game. But in the measure that the centres of power feel that they are losing control and international hegemony in politics and economics, they will believe it necessary to show off their destructive power, so that the world returns to being under its domination. And the necessary consequence of all of this will be a greater worsening and globalisation of terrorism.
Therefore it is necessary that the nuclear powers be the first to set an example and withdraw from the race of violence and arms. And, in first place, this is nothing less than dismantling nuclear arsenals and withdrawal from occupied territories, right now.
This is what governments should do. But we already know that in this system of farce, formal and lying democracies, it is rare to see a government that will do what the people need. Except in those places where the people rise up and demand it, and this is necessary in order to change governments. Therefore, when we speak of what must be done, we should say, rather, that it is what the people who must demand from their governments to do.
Of course, this is the great challenge that the peoples of all countries that possess nuclear weapons have. Starting with the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (the supposed guarantors of peace): the USA, China, Great Britain, Russia and France; accompanied by the rest of the nuclear club: Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea.
But for governments of these countries to dismantle their nuclear arsenals, so that no other countries build them, it will be necessary to listen to the clamour of all the peoples of the world. Because all the inhabitants of the planet are hostages to the nuclear threat, and we demand our right to live in peace and liberty, and we don’t live in liberty when we have to live under threat.
And of course starting from nuclear disarmament and the withdrawal of troops from occupied territories, the general progressive disarmament of all types of weapons should be initiated. The war industry, the industry of death, must be converted into an industry for life. We can Justify this by saying that with 10% of the global budget spent on weapons, we could resolve hunger on the whole planet.
And of course while the threat of war and destruction moves away; we would have to also speak about resolving – in a nonviolent way – the problems of injustice, poverty, healthcare and education, the environment and so many others, from the vision of Universal Humanism.
But we know that the construction of a Universal Human Nation starts with peace and active nonviolence as the base.
The World March for Peace and Nonviolence is launched towards achieving this end.

The World March for Peace

The Humanist Movement which bases its proposals and action on the philosophy of Universalist Humanism, takes to its own the initiative of one of its organisms, the foundation “World without Wars” to promote and carry out a World March for Peace and Nonviolence.
All the organisms and fronts of action of the Humanist Movement, articulated with numerous other social, cultural, educational, governmental, sport organisations, and others of all kinds, have already started to work on promoting this March, with unique characteristics in history.
For the first time there will be a march through more than 100 countries, starting on the 2nd of October 2009 (International Day of Nonviolence) in New Zealand, and culminating on the 2nd of January 2010 in Argentina (Punta de Vacas, Mendoza). Throughout the world, over three months, there will be marches through cities, festivals, forums, conferences and all sorts of events that will serve to make people aware of the overwhelming need for nuclear disarmament, withdrawal of occupying troops, and to work to end all forms of violence in the world. But even if this World March has a formal time scale, we can say that the activities related with its aims have already started and will continue to multiply beyond 2010, as a phenomenon that will not stop until it has achieved disarmament and peace in the world.
This World March will be done to denounce the dangerous global situation that is taking us towards nuclear war, so that the voices of millions of people on the streets, which those in power want to silence, can be heard. So that the whole humanity becomes conscious of the nuclear threat, and from therepeople start questioning the warmongering and violent policies of some governments, and/or condemn the complicit silence of others. Since the violent ones have globalised their irrationality and today the whole world is threatened by them, the response of the peoples also must be worldwide, must cover all countries, and must involve all the people because life is for all.
The World March in India.
It is for sure that there are as many people in India as in the rest of the world who are unaware of the imminent danger that nuclear weapons and military escalation means. In the case of India probably this lack of awareness is even greater. It’s enough to say that 60% of her inhabitants, either were not born or were just children when the Cold War ended.
India is a country that has, nuclear weapons. It is a highly armed country and has conflicts with its neighbouring countriesand has armed conflicts on the horizon. It is a country that has histiry of preaching peace and using violence itself within its periphery. Its population, is far from feeling responsible for any armed conflicts, will freely support the warmongering leaders and they believes that thay are far from the consequences of war. Nevertheless, the bloody attacks by the terroeist do not serve them as a warning due to ignorence and indifference.
No country is free from this globalised violence. In turn, the examples of political violence produced in the country, the friction with Pakistan who are clearly nurtured by the US government, should serve us as a warning: when the interests of global economic power are affected, imperial violence always appears.
The irresponsible ones, who manage the world, are a threat to all peoples of the world and India is no exception. And if in this moment, the death throes of an economic crisis generated in the “first world” are felt in all the remote countries, we should know that the consequences of a global nuclear disaster will be much worse.
That’s why the Indian people, just like peoples all over the world, should become aware of the need for global disarmament and go into the streets to demand for Peace and Non-violence. The Indian people must demonstrate, adding their clamour to that of other peoples to ask for global disarmament and ask that in international forums their government works energetically in this direction. e belong to the Nation where Gandhiji was born and prooved the effect of a non-violence resistence to power.
Therefore, we will have to convoke the whole of society, people without distinction, that live in every small town or in every big city, so that they move and participate in marches, festivals, events and forums. We will have to convoke all social organisations of all kinds, so that they become involved in the organisation and dissemination of these activities. We will have to ask the government at different levels, municipal, provincial and national to become involved and collaborate in dissemination and logistics. We will have to ask businesses to collaborate with a contribution and their participation. And above all , we will have to get young people to make this March their own, because in them lies the strength of the future.
ANNEXES
ANNEXE I: IMMINENCE OF NUCLEAR RISK IN THE PRESENT GLOBAL SITUATION
Starting from the pre-existing disparities, at the start of the last century, international financial capital tended to be concentrated more and more rapidly in a disproportionate manner in increasingly few hands.
Progressively, this capital has been displaced in large measure from production to financial speculation.
Today, of the 100 biggest world economies, 51 are multinational corporations, and only 49 are countries. They have at their disposal economic, technological and political resources that are enormously disproportionate to the interests they represent. This fact is determining the growing breach between the “north” and “south” of the world.
The declared objective of big capital is economic profit, in such a way that such resources are applied towards the consolidation and growth of profit. In fact, this relegates to a secondary level, considerations regarding environmental impact, quality of life, healthcare, education, and as can be seen in these days, international peace.
One of the cardinal points of capital is to search for security in its investment. So, in order to protect, consolidate and increase this power that tends towards a virtual economic monopoly, international financial capital also needs to aim to generate and maintain organisational and ideological monopolies.
The GATT agreements, OPEC, the WTO, IMF, the World Bank, etc, fulfil these functions. The protectionisms that are created and dissolved, as required, are not done out of principle, but rather out of convenience. In the “ideological front”, the so-called “Pensée unique” 4 (literally: single thought) in all its expressions5, is functional to this supremacy. The UN itself is not exempt from the influence of oligopolies6.
So, international financial capital resorts to direct or indirect control of the formal democracies that gives legal framing and serves these monopolies and oligopolies. A combination of connivance, extortion or rather impotence, signs into obsolescence the decision making power of the nation state.
“As the regional and world power of multinational companies continues to grow, as international finance capital continues to concentrate, political systems lose autonomy and their legislation must adapt to the dictates of these new powers7.”
“Today, we are no longer dealing with feudal economies, national industries, or even regional interests. Today, the question is how the surviving economic forms will accommodate to the new dictates of international finance capital. Nothing escapes, as capital worldwide continues to concentrate in ever fewer hands8.”
Such supranational concentration was conditioned increasingly on nation states that tended to favour capital at the expense of the citizens. In turn, the nation states received internal pressure from local, ethnic, cultural, religious, and separatist, etc demands that erode the power of the state even more. In this framework, the nation state loses room to manoeuvre and tends to abandon old policies that are intended to guarantee certain rights and services for the whole population. So efficiency and economist models are imposed and we witness the dismantling of the “welfare state” (benefactor), the privatisation of public services, the sell off of state assets and drastic monetary manipulation, etc.
Globalisation and regionalisation are driven and directed by big capital, primarily to serve their own interests. The economic models that states adopt are proposed by those who support the interests of big capital. So, they try one model after another, which then fails with disastrous results for the people.
In this way the common citizen has been left in a situation of vulnerability and neglect, exposed to all sorts of misfortune, risk and abuse. Under the slogan “Everything for capital, nothing for the people”, only this tiny percentage of the population which is useful and sufficient for the economic model will be able to enjoy its benefits and privileges.
Formal democracies, in turn, make available the use of force to the monopoly. This is the case of armies that act, according to the case, to smooth the path for the advance of international financial capital, or rather to defend its global interests when either the resources of formal democracy or the current “legal” system have failed in such a purpose.
The arms race continues to inflate State’s military spending, way above the resources destined, for example, to areas of healthcare and education.
“As education, healthcare, and the means of communication are privatized along with goods and services, natural resources, and even significant areas of public safety, this continues to erode the importance of the traditional State. It follows that if the administration and resources of a nation are removed from the sphere of public control, that the legal and judicial system will follow suit, reducing the armed forces to the role of a mere private militia assigned to defending only parochial or multinational financial interests.”9
“In the traditional conception of these issues, the armed forces are assigned the function of safeguarding the nation’s sovereignty and security and granted the authority to use force in accordance with the mandate of the duly constituted powers. In this way, the State’s monopoly on violence is transferred to the military services.
But this brings us to a key point in the discussion of what should be understood by the terms “sovereignty” and “security”. If a nation’s sovereignty and security or, in more modern terms, its “progress” are said to require extraterritorial sources of raw materials, indisputable rights of maritime passage to protect the flow of commerce, and the control of strategic points or the occupation of foreign territory with these same objectives, then what we are faced with is the theory and practice of colonialism or neo-colonialism.”10
To this they respond with the “defence of strategic interests” (that don’t recognise borders), “preventive wars”, “humanitarian wars”, the “reestablishment of freedom and democracy”, “free trade”, “stability”, and other concocted justifications cynically used by military power with ulterior motives.
The interests of international financial capital need – like the colonial empires of yesteryear – sources of energy, raw materials, markets, etc, in conditions that are increasingly advantageous for their profit. In the measure that the interests of international financial capital became global, the need increased for military defences that were proportional to the defence and amplification of such interests. In this way, conventional weapons are no long enough and we come to the nuclear threat that provides the last line of defence for the economic monopoly. And this threat of nuclear terror acts like blackmail due to the simple affirmation of the will to use it if other measures – warlike or not – fail. This also explains the interest of some in maintaining the monopoly of nuclear weapons. The same group of powers that should control their proliferation is the largest producer and possessor of nuclear weapons.
And so international financial capital consolidates and advances thanks to the opportune use of agreements under the coercion of their monopolies as well as more crude military action when agreements are not possible. And as recent history teaches us, this is often done with total disregard for international law, which is violated with impunity.
All of this finds its correlate in the aspirations and imperial actions of the foreign policy of the world’s biggest nuclear power, the USA. With only 5% of the world’s population, this leading power represents 40% of the total military spending. The USA and her allies in turn can differ occasionally in the tactics to employ, but not in the basic strategy of which they are beneficiaries. And in any case, the USA already, demonstrated herself inclined to employ military power, dispensing with the support or approval of her allies or international organisms.
The monopoly power of international financial capital, concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, generates increasing numbers of dissatisfied and disaffected people. Some of these don’t hesitate in calling on the same resources with which they have been repressed – or others – in order to oppose or take revenge. Others do the same, but in order to aspire to their own parcel of power within the global framework, thereby competing with others to be regional allies of the powers that defend international financial capital.
So arms races emerge or are renewed, also exacerbated by the affirmation of cultural, national, ethnic, religious or other interests.
“By now big capital has exhausted the stage of market economies, and has begun to discipline society to accept the chaos it has itself produced. Yet in the presence of this growing irrationality, it is not the voices of reason that we hear raised in dialectical opposition. Rather, it is the darkest forms of racism, fundamentalism, and fanaticism that are on the rise.”11
In an organisational paradox characteristic of a closed system, like the current one, the greater the attempt to impose a determined “order” (pax romana12), the greater the disorder or entropy is.
State terrorism (also called “official” or “structural”) and irregular or parastatal terrorism feed each other, as both faces of the same violent system. Both declare that they are acting in the name of values that they place above the people who suffer the extortion of terror and death that are generated. Both end up functioning according to a dynamic in which tension, instability, volatility, disproportion between action and reaction, irrationality of the responses, and disregard for legality, human rights and “collateral damage” all increase.
Today we are witnessing a global situation of “perpetual war”13 close to that imagined by George Orwell in his celebrated novel “1984”. This is also a psychosocial situation of pandemic nihilism that is leading to a paroxysm of values, anti-life and anti-humanist interests and attitudes. Resentment, frustration, impotence, greed, fear, etc push towards the use of violent resources. In this condition of general mental and emotional alteration, collective insanity creates a very favourable playing field for the detonation, accidental or not of nuclear devices. This danger becomes even more serious because of the blindness of the media, among others, to the theme and its gravity. The voices of reason and the clamour of the people become inaudible.
The great international financial crisis in progress, on threatening economic interests, puts even more favourable conditions for the use of war as has been seen repeatedly throughout history.
Everything becomes complicated in a confused and volatile global situation where there are more and more protagonists of different sorts: industrial countries and military powers; industrial countries and militarily weak, but with sufficient energy reserves to create global instability; and parastatal organisations (Al Qaeda, ETA, IRA, Chechen separatists, etc.) with the capacity to unleash uncontrolled reactions through attacks on large human groups or on important infrastructure. Nor should the possibility of dissent and armed conflict in the heart of the armed forces of a particular country be ignored.
All of these actors have the possibility to access different sorts of nuclear weapons, and many of them are showing their willingness to do so. It turns out to be alarmingly easy to get hold of materials and knowledge to produce nuclear items today. Today, nuclear weaponry is not only traditional (of fixed placement) but also accessible, economic, light and transportable with relative ease in avoiding controls. Under the pretence of conserving the monopoly of nuclear weapons in the hands of a few, there has been a corresponding proliferation and lack of control in production and availability. In all of these cases, apart from the willingness or not to use nuclear weapons, there is the danger of accident through flaws, inexperience, etc, during testing, maintenance, storage, transportation, etc.
Secondly, the phenomenon of terrorism presents a danger of some magnitude, considering the firepower to which these relatively specialized individuals and groups now have access. This threat could take the form of high explosives and even nuclear devices or chemical and biological weapons, all of which continue to become less expensive and easier to produce.14
In this disorder of things, where no one controls anything and yet they try to do so through violent means, the probabilities of accidental or intentional detonation of nuclear devises of any sort are too high. The tragic events that this could unleash on a global scale are unforeseeable and beyond the government of any of the protagonists of the nuclear threat. Today this could happen in any moment and without prior warning.
ANNEXE II: ARMAMENTISM AND ANTIHUMANIST ECONOMICS
Traditionally, until the Second World War, the military pushed states for a bigger portion of the global budget in each country. Generally in relation to the spending and assignment of money on armaments that were observed in their neighbours and potential adversaries. The conception that “war is a continuation of politics by other means” (Clausewitz15) once more became reasonable for governments – many times also for the population – resulting in the growing assignment of resources for weapons. It was one more expense of “a need” created by others and which was putting national security in danger.
After the world wars – with much more care after the second one – and with the so-called Cold War between the United States of America, her allies and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) the situation changed radically. The weapons expenditure started to be considered as an investment in industrial production and an important source of employment. The production of arms transformed into an important element of the economy and this tendency grew until becoming a key component. The name emerged – attributed to President Eisenhower – of the “military-industrial complex”.
After the Second World War in which the United States “tested” the effects of the atomic bomb on the defenceless civilian population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki “defence” budgets grew exponentially in the USA as much as in their opponent the USSR. Aviation started to be developed from this time, and the necessary rockets for nuclear weapons to be delivered as far as possible, so that they could be fired from nuclear submarines and so military bases were built in allied countries in order to get closer to enemy targets. An arms race began that required strong investment in nuclear research, conventional military technology and growing industrial demands, subject to the cycles of obsolescence of military hardware and the weapons systems produced through the advances of the enemy.
The space race also derived as an option for military use and even today this technology is present in the Space Shield that the USA is attempting to install in Eastern Europe16.
In the final years of the Cold War this competition ended up occupying two thirds of the Gross Industrial Product in “defence” spending leaving only a third for what is called the “domestic economy”. This was understood when the USSR, through Mikhail Gorbachev, pushed for disarmament that was accepted but not fulfilled by the United States.
The USSR, that really started the efforts for disarmament and the conversion of the military industry, found many problems that revealed how far the arms industry had infiltrated the general economy and structure of the State. To give one example of the level of specialisation that the production of nuclear weapons and missiles requires, the USSR found themselves with a million technicians out of work and on the job market, newly unemployed and in need of re-training, something which demanded time and money.
The weapons industry within the economy is a subject that is more complex than disarmament because there is an interaction between the weapons industry as a producer which provides employment and the weapons industry as a way to achieve political-ideological objectives through military means. It is possible to break this enchainment and isolate the weapons industry from an economy that has been called a “death economy” by some analysts.
To the above we must add that political objectives of the states have bowed to military primacy, in general and in particular when it is united to the economic objectives like the appropriation of strategic natural resources. Such is the case of the wars that the USA unleashed in the Persian Gulf.
These are not insoluble problems. The conversion of the “military-industrial complex” must be planned in a gradual and non-traumatic process. But it’s clear that it is an essential and urgent task.
The reasoning of anti-humanism
We are not going to be detained by this point of view that some cynics have, but it is necessary that we have it in mind. The reasoning, based on common sense, that it would be possible to eliminate hunger in the world if we were to target even just a part of the resources assigned to weapons, is refuted by the modern followers of the Malthusian theories17. According to whom, war, epidemics, hunger and natural catastrophes are the procedures through which the population of the planet is self-regulated.
Hunger is the cheapest way of eliminating the excess population that, were they to survive, would cause an exponential population growth, rapidly exhausting food resources.
The racist and elitist connotations of this position are evident when one thinks about the countries whose minerals are more important than their people, as is the case of Africa. Hunger, war and epidemics are a reality imposed for centuries and judging by the inaction of the European states that colonised this continent and the indifference shown by the rest of the world, anti humanism is a reality; but modifiable if there is an intentionality to change it.
The problems of a demographic explosion could be overcome with scientific support and a new moral perspective. But there is a need to start by deciding if we really want a world at the service of the human being or human beings at the service of a death economy. These are times of definition and action.
ANNEXE III: THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF VIOLENCE
Violence is a methodology of action.
Silo in the Dictionary of New Humanism defines violence as: “The simplest, most frequently employed, and most effective mode for maintaining power and supremacy, for imposing one’s will on others, for usurping the power, property, and even the lives of others…” and later on adds:
“Violence has penetrated all aspects of life: it appears continually and on a daily basis in the economy (exploitation of some human beings by others, coercion by the State, material dependency, discrimination against women in the workplace, child labour, unjust taxes, etc.); in politics (domination by a single or small number of parties, the power of certain leaders, totalitarianism, the exclusion of citizens from real participation in decision-making, war, revolution, armed struggle for power, etc.); in ideology (the imposing of official viewpoints, the prohibition of free thought, subordination of the communications media to particular interests, the manipulation of public opinion, propaganda for ideas that are inherently violent and discriminatory but convenient to the ruling elite, etc.); in religion (subjection of the interests of the individual to clerical edicts, stringent thought-control, prohibitions against divergent beliefs, persecution of heretics, etc.); in the family (exploitation of women, dictatorial control or stifling of children, etc.); in education (authoritarianism of teachers, corporal punishment, prohibition of diversity in curricula and teaching methods, etc.); in the armed forces (arbitrariness of officers, unthinking obedience of soldiers, punishment, etc.); in culture (censorship, the prohibition of innovative currents and movements, prohibitions against publishing or performing certain works, edicts by the bureaucracy, etc.)”
“When people speak of violence, generally what they mean is physical violence, the most overt expression of corporal aggression. Other forms of violence, among others, economic, racial, religious, and sexual violence, can sometimes take place while their character is hidden, nevertheless resulting in the submerging or enslavement of human intention and liberty. In cases where these forms of violence are exercised openly, they are also at times then applied through physical coercion.”
On a daily basis we can recognise that the majority of these forms of violence mentioned are exercised in an underhand way, and thereby difficult to identify as such by the population at large.
We observe that all acts of physical violence find their origin in these other forms of violence. Definitely they are the germs that end up triggering responses of physical violence.
And when this “visible” response arrives, governments usually attempt actions to take advantage of it, without saying that this is only the consequence, the last link in a chain of other forms of violence that pass unnoticed by others apart from those who suffer it.
And this response can come from the powerful; exercising violence over those who rebel and who can no longer be disciplined, or rather it can be the expression of those who have suffered violence of all kinds.
Economic violence, for example, exercised by governments over the population, generally over the most disenfranchised strata of society, does not show its true face from the start. Rather governments disguise it as they need to win the “trust” and votes of the people, and they don’t mention the germ of violence that that was already installed.

Now, when desperation is growing through the loss of jobs, access is restricted to healthcare and education. Marginalisation, child labour and school truancy, to mention just a few starts to grow. So the population react and the powers “discipline” all attempt at condemnation with repression.
The established powers always have resources to use within the country, or externally to threaten and extort when faced with even a minimal attempt at “disobedience”. They threaten invasion and war in order to impose conditions.
So the chain of violence that starts in one place, over a sector of society or a whole people, finds no limit in its deployment with the aim of concentrating political or economic power. If to this we add the ingredient that globally economic power is built on one of the most profitable businesses as is the case of weapons production, the panorama is complete.
So they show us the violence that was already there at the beginning of its process.
So it can be understood that the physical violence that has been unleashed has its origin in the economic violence exercised by those in power.
Nevertheless from where we are, the ill-fated consequences of the physical violence that has been unleashed can no longer be cured, it is unstoppable.

Also in the Dictionary of New Humanism it says: “For those forces that are authentically humanist, it is a task of special importance to overcome the aggressive features of contemporary social life: to build harmony, nonviolence, tolerance, and solidarity.”

There is an attitude of rejection generalised by violence.
However, we ask ourselves, where is this society that is sick of violence, when at every set of traffic lights you can see a line of children and adolescents asking for money, knowing that they are at the mercy of any offer that is made in exchange for a coin?
And where, in its justified morality, does it put the image of so many children that are seen daily, searching through rubbish, eating garbage and gathering cardboard boxes; exploited and abused from all sides?
Where is the sensibility of a society that is not moved even minimally to promote policies that could change the situation for these children?
How can they not say that a breeding ground is being generated here that will unleash a process of violence of unpredictable consequences for them and the rest of society?
And when told, how is it that society does not organise itself to demand a drastic change of conditions as an imperative to end the violence?
The campaigns and actions against violence towards the environment and animals have gained more adepts than a combined action to banish violence towards human beings.
In Argentina in recent years, the only thing that shows massive signs of solidarity and condemnation, are acts of physical violence; the death of innocents at the hands of delinquents.
In fact, there are no massive marches in which the whole of society is involved indiscriminately, to demand that rights for children are brought into effect, or to condemn child exploitation – so visible to all – or for equal opportunities for young people or against the drugs trade.
In the mean time, sensitive citizens proudly form human chains to defend the “rights of whales”.

Surely if society as a whole knew about this multiplicity of forms of violence that affect broad sections of the population and were to argue convincingly and decidedly for their disarticulation, they would no longer be working on the consequences but rather on the causes of violence thereby avoiding irreparable evil.
If we want to work on the factors that generate violence we must say that when an act of physical violence is produced, it’s already too late. This process that is generated within people had already been unleashed, surely generated from outside, and so leaving the truly responsible person to act with impunity.
The prior step is the recognition of this germ that all we can also recognise in each one of us, and can be disarticulated, avoiding a situation of undesirable consequences.
We need to stop for a moment and observe the social injustice and consider that such violence will necessarily have catastrophic consequences: social disturbances, massive clamourings, with a high component of violence (impotence) and will surely be met with brutal repression.
We have the right to live without violence, without suffering and without others suffering in order to achieve the ideal of peace.

This requires a combined action of the International Community, of each government, every nation and every person. To this effect, Silo has said what the action is that is required of each person:
“Something needs to be done,” is what you hear everywhere. Very well then, I will tell you what must be done…
I say that at the international level, all who are invading territories of others should withdraw immediately and comply with the resolutions and recommendations of the United Nations.
“I say that at the internal level of each nation, an effort must be made to make law and justice function, as imperfect as they may be, before making laws tougher and enacting repressive measures that play into the very hands of those who now obstruct law and justice.”
I say that at the domestic level people should practice what they preach and leave behind the hypocritical rhetoric that poisons the new generations.
I say that at the personal level each person should strive to make their thoughts coincide with their feelings and their actions, shaping a coherent life and thus escaping from the contradiction that generates violence.”18
ANNEXE IV: NONVIOLENCE
“Nonviolence” is an attitude in front of life whose fundamental characteristic is the rejection and repudiation of all forms of violence.
It’s methodology of action is “active nonviolence”.
This methodology promotes a profound transformation of the social conditions that generate suffering and violence for human beings.
The most well-known historical forefathers are found in the figures of Leo Tolstoy, M. K. Gandhi and Martin Luther King, as exemplary and the most famous precursors of the nonviolent struggle in front of institutional violence.
Also today there are thousands of daily examples of nonviolent action that are carried out around the world in different levels of social action, where individuals, institutions and organisations are working daily with the aim of denouncing and eradicating different expressions of violence in society and working for peace.
“Nonviolence” as a methodology of personal and social action, promotes concrete actions in order to create awareness of the problem of violence, of its real roots, of its different forms of expression such as; physical, racial, economic, religious, psychological and moral violence, at the same time as it encourages exemplary actions that tend to eradicate violent practices from the face of the Earth.
Some its principle tools of personal and social action, are:
The rejection and creation of a void in front of different forms of discrimination and violence.
Non-collaboration with violent practices.
The denunciation of all acts of discrimination and violence.
Civil disobedience in front of institutionalised violence.
Social organisation and mobilisation based on volunteer work and solidarity of those who promote it.
Organised, united and mobilised “nonviolence” constitutes the only force capable of modifying the violent and inhuman direction of the dangerous events in today’s world.
Proposals to be promoted by Non-violent action
The dangerousness of the present world situation and the possible consequences in the immediate future, bring with them the urgent need to demand the setting in motion of concrete and immediate actions.
Some of them are:
Immediate nuclear disarmament that puts the breaks on the danger unleased by the new nuclear arms race, through the dismantling of existing arsenals under the supervision of the United Nations.
The immediate withdrawal of troops from occupied territories and the respect for the resolutions and recommendations of the United Nations.
The immediate advance in the presentation of regional proposals that include progressive disarmament of regions and the replacement of armies of war, by regional forces of peace that would collaborate in situations of catastrophe and the resolution of the basic problems of the population.
To advance in an immediate way towards international legislation to declare nuclear weapons illegal and their development and use included among crimes “against humanity”.
To demand, as an urgent measure, the redirection of national and international public funds towards the development of campaigns that have as a priority the eradication of the terrible and inhuman problems of hunger, healthcare and education that today affect vast zones of the planet and generate hundreds of thousands of deaths every day.
To promote a sustained action from individuals and organisations of all kinds and levels, in the social, political and cultural fields with the aim of raising awareness of the dangerous present situation and with the aim of organising exemplary actions in the direction of a “culture of peace and nonviolence”.
ANNEXE V: OBJECTIVES OF THE WORLD MARCH
The WM will serve to give expression and joint visibility to all those who aspire to peace and nonviolence.
Besides all the individuals that join the WM, there will also be the participation of an enormous gamut of organisations, such as social and cultural groups, NGOs and the voluntary sector in general, communities and collectives of all kinds, ethnic groups, unions, government sectors, state and private media, political parties, groups that defend human rights and civil liberties, etc. There will be no lack of personalities well-known in different fields of social endeavour that will give their backing to the WM (for example, sportsmen and women, journalists, writers, artists, scientists, etc). There will be room, not only for those who have an international reach, but also those that operate in regional, national and local levels.
The convergence of such diversity in a joint denunciation together with the other themes of the World march will have an enormous impact in the social environment, and on the participants themselves who will see their social protagonism in favour of peace and nonviolence strengthened, something that today passes unheard and evaded.
The WM will serve to raise awareness of the serious danger that the two priority factors that are most opposed to peace and nonviolence: nuclear weapons and the occupation of foreign territories, represent.
The seriousness of the danger represented by nuclear weapons and the occupation of territories has no attention in the media in all its magnitude; or rather it is suffocated by other themes. This doesn’t happen only in the media, but also with international or national organisms that should deal with this pressing theme. In the light of events, no one has done what is necessary or sufficient to eliminate this danger. Therefore, the WM urges the installation of the correct perception of this seriousness in the media. This correct perception of the gravity and imminence of the danger is what can mobilise nonviolent actions and set off a chain of positive events that reverses the situation.
The WM will serve to generate condemnation of everything that works against peace and nonviolence, with a priority put on nuclear weapons and the occupation of foreign territories.
The theme of the World March does not affect just a few individuals, sectors or countries, but rather the well-being and survival of all human beings without distinction. Violence as a global phenomenon in growth, including the nuclear threat, knows no exceptions. In the measure in which we become aware not only of the seriousness of the theme, but also see that it is connected with the destiny of every one of us and everything we hold dear, a condemnation will be generated that will be felt by all those who work for peace and nonviolence. Also this condemnation – as an authentic expression of active nonviolence – and not only the simple endorsement of peace and nonviolence will be the motor of actions and changes.
The WM will serve to convert this generalised condemnation into non-violent actions that will tend to reverse the situations being denounced. These actions will have their full effect when they start to occur in different institutional levels and fields.
Given the urgency of the world situation, and although it would represent a great advance, it would not be enough to create a consciousness in favour of peace and nonviolence – simple pacifism – if in addition this were not accompanied by a manifest and militant condemnation of everything that acts against peace and nonviolence; in other words, non-violent resistance to all kinds of violence. In this way, a consciousness for peace and nonviolence would not remain isolated within every peace-loving person, but would translate into effective changes in social organisation and practice (for example, in the signing of treaties between countries, in electoral results, in national budgets, in law, in education, in the resolutions of international organisms, etc. In other words, the World March is an enormous “exemplary action” (a “valid action”) that will inspire and encourage many, many more exemplary actions with their positive consequences.
ANNEXE VI: CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE NUCLEAR THEME ININDIA and global terror
On Sunday, the 7th of December, 2008, on page 26 of the newspaper Clarin in Argentina there was an article by DPA and AFP, the German and French news agencies respectively, who are usually well informed. The news referred to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai and the headline ran “India and Pakistan almost go to war through a fake call”.
In the article it explained that someone who got into the Indian Foreign Ministry called the President of Pakistan and announced that “India would take military action if Islamabad doesn’t act immediately against the authors of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai”, that were suspected to have come from Pakistan.
The call was verified by Pakistani security as coming from the Indian Foreign Ministry; the voice was identical to that of the Minister, it wasn’t the first time that this has happened (there had been three other situations in recent history) and the threat was taken seriously, to the point that the armed forces were immediately mobilised and Washington advised. It was a situation “of extreme gravity” – the cable explained – because they are nuclear powers.
Speaking with many people and consulting other media we found out that: a) the news was published by the magazine Dawn and not denied; b) few people knew about these events and it was given no importance in Argentina. As if the problem was only between two distant countries.
This is the point to consider. The infantile attitude to put one’s head in the sand when in danger seems to be a behaviour that is accepted by the population around the world, not only in India. Mumbai was the only one to react strongly to the situation..
The bombs that exploded in Buenos Aires, the other part of the world, in front of the Israeli Embassy and in front of the Jewish Community Centre (AMIA) on Tuesday the 17th of March 1992 and Monday the 18th of July 1994 respectively, shook the city with their power. More serious though was the shaking of the consciousness due to the horror of the events and even more, the uncertainty; the attack blew up the belief in people of Argentina as a country far away from international terrorism.
No one was expecting it, it hadn’t even been considered as a fantastical hypothesis and those who believed that the first attack was an exception were left without argument two years later. It was evident that distance from the centres of power or our indifference would not protect us.
One hundred and fourteen fatalities. But it wasn’t the end of innocence but rather the confirmation of a denial of reality. The last military dictatorship had already given them the opprobrious status of “aggressor country” in the Falklands War, based on a just claim but used by the Argentine military to cover up their crimes against humanity against other Argentineans.
The attacks on the Israeli Embassy and AMIA were the tragic consequence of the foreign policy “against nature” of Carlos S. Menem, a tragic and useless clown.
The then President Menem did not act either to prevent the second attack or after it had happened. The following governments went into inertia – to leave things alone – as if the appropriate policy were to not disturb the aggressors in order to not have more problems later.
Several years’ later society continues to be defenceless and, in addition, distracted. As citizens we are watching other things, other “spectacular” realities that are proposed to us by the “communication media”. Very few consider that these crimes could return in the future and many of them as well as us don’t even remember them. As Argentineans we have the right to be afraid; not only of international terrorists but principally of the competence of our judges and police. Also of the ineptitude of bureaucrats that protect the inefficient police, the judges and the criminals.
Now, with the events in Mumbai, we are starting to realise that any one contry be the victims of the residual effects of a nuclear attack between political and religious opponents with this type of weaponry. Radiation, of course, knows no administrative divisions between countries, and will go everywhere.
The “Sceptics-optimists” who argue that we cannot be the target of a direct nuclear attack must bear in mind that at least those cities that are between the radius covering Mumbai and Delhi, are considered targets for nuclear bombs during the confrontation with Pakisthan. The possibility has existed and could have happened any time after the Facist govt. hurried to explode five bombs at one go.
It’s good to reflect on our fears and on our ineffectiveness. Globalisation has converted us – and all countries – into exposed places. We can be the victims of new terrorist attacks and suffer the consequences of nuclear confrontations ant time.
Starting from the Cold War where mutual threats between superpowers reached a point and then returned to equilibrium, precisely in order to avoid a nuclear confrontation that they knew to be final, three very serious things occurred: one, there was a dispersion of nuclear weapons upon fragmentation of the USSR into new countries; two, there are strong indications that there are atomic bombs under the power of untrustworthy groups of different persuasions; and three, ideological disputes have become, in the 21st century, political-religious struggles.
So, like in the Cold War, political disputes have reached a point, where they are confrontations between religious fanatics. It’s not easy to foresee them and much less to stop them. More than in other moments, at the start of the 21st century, humanity is in danger.
While nuclear weapons exist there is the possibility that they be used; that someone attacks and someone else responds. Either on purpose or by mistake, but with the same result. There is no security for anyone in any place of the world in front of this demented militarism. The weapons are there, it only needs a monley to get there!
Maybe it could be useful for every single individual to dedicate some time to work for nuclear disarmament, before it’s too late.
There is an urgent need to inform the youngest.
Taking the year 1985 as reference, the year in which Perestroika started, and with it the start of a stage of relaxation in the nuclear theme, we can observe the following:
In the time of Perestroika we didn’t have, cable TV, internet or cell phones on a massive scale in our country. The greater part of information circulated through written media (newspapers and magazines) and through the few TV channels through their news programmes.
The situation in 1962 wasn’t very different except that TV had not reached all the homes, and by 1985 technology had managed to insert itself into the daily life of the population.
In any case, the information “offer” had the same character as that of today, where local issues (preferably irrelevant) take up the most space and where international information doesn’t catch the headlines which are instead taken by more spectacular items (plane crashes, attacks, etc.)
One issue that has to do tangentially with communication is the degree of politicisation and social participation in organisations of different kinds. Participation, besides promoting certain social dynamics, generates environments for information gathering. Although this information is strongly tainted by political interests, in any case it is information.
After the so-called “fall of the Berlin Wall” the nuclear theme fell (for the mass media) into a shadow, as if nuclear weapons no longer existed and if the arsenals were not being permanently renovated.
Simultaneously a deactivation of social participation in political and social organisations is produced, thereby leaving them as places to gather information.
Since the above mentioned periods, a process of destructuring was already in motion in those times which started to accelerate. One of the principle fields affected by it is the generational field. With it, global vision and consciousness of processes has diminished to nothing. If there is globalisation it is not conceived as an interchange and inter-penetration on a planetary scale, in all the fields of human endeavour, but rather as a simple interchange of computer bits to maintain capital markets in action 24-hours a day.
From the above some consequences can be deduced:
1.The greater part of the population of India has little or no news about the nuclear theme. It is probable that a broad questionnaire about the issue would put its importance in the category of “others.”
2.Young people make up 66% of the country’s population. We understand by “young people” a generational stratum that covers infancy to 39 years of age. We understand it this way because they are the ones who have practically never heard about the theme (except for current news about North Korea or Iran or the possibility of an attack, with these events placed in the margins with respect to world of “serious countries”).
3.Current information technology allows for a great variety of approaches and media to disseminate the theme. The majority of these media channels (Internet, Cable TV, cell phones) are the technological formation landscape of the majority of young people.
4.The current destructuring, complemented by a great difficulty to perceive global phenomena, could be a very favourable factor. On one hand there is no sound from other broad visions (until financial globalisation is under threat) on the other hand, structured and global thinking could be well accepted among the young population due to its originality. In some way, through its absence of framing, through its “dislocation” with respect to “important themes” of the moment.
5.It is necessary to tell everything, as if we had never spoken about the theme before, but to do so in the most simple and didactic way possible, illustrating with examples close to home.


1.
Statement of International Conference against the Asia Pacific Missile Defense
and for the End of the Arms Race
Seoul, South Korea
April 17, 2009

Here we have come together, facing a new decade in the 21st century where the history of war and strife is being repeated. We are witnessing many countries and regions, having learned nothing from the conflict and hostility-ridden Cold War era, still tenaciously pursue arms buildup. Especially the nation with military hegemony and its many followers, rather than seeking to understand the roots of conflict and finding peaceful resolution, search for new threat and enemy as a means to reinforce their military capabilities, and at times even exaggerate the threat in order to justify their arms buildup.

This is shown by the expansion of military networks and countless military bases around the globe and by the space militarization activities. However, we want to make it clear that this militaristic approach is a worn-out strategy obstructing prevention and peaceful settlement of conflict and a losing hand triggering a vicious cycle of global arms race.
We are especially observant of how the US missile defense system triggers not only space militarization but also unnecessary arms race and political and diplomatic strain between nations. Proposed missile defense installations in Czech Republic and Poland are generating massive public dissent in the region and infuriating Russia to the point of a “new Cold War.”
Planned US missile defense system in the Asia Pacific poses a burden to regional attempts to alleviate Cold War tensions, thereby further provoking confrontation between sea powers and land powers. In the Asia Pacific where the US leads the Asia Pacific missile defense efforts, supported strongly by Japan and Australia, Korea is next in line with its cutting-edge weaponry and a new set of roles. As a result, China, Russia, and North Korea all have expressed enormous opposition, fueling an arms race in the Asia Pacific. Such an arms race also risks undermining the war-renouncing Article 9 of Japan’s peace constitution, a key foundation for peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region.
The controversy over North Korea's long-range rocket launch that has become a key factor in the current tension pervading the Korean Peninsula leaves room for discussion. North Korea's rocket launch should be seen as a byproduct of both a divided Korean peninsula and the arms race in the Asia Pacific. However, this aspect has been ignored. Instead there is exaggerated interpretation of threat and stirring up of security fears, mobilizing the justification for developing a missile defense system in the region. North Korea's long-range rocket launch, on the contrary, reveals the utmost need and urgency for placing confidence building and normalization of relations among nations, as well as cooperative mutual disarmament, on top of our agenda.
Above all, we are aware that the logic behind “absolute security” through the missile defense system does not differ from other aggressive military thinking. Furthermore, the missile defense system is a risky plan which has yet to prove its effectiveness. As a project requiring astronomical costs, the system is based on the logic of unlimited military spending expansion, solely for the benefit of the military-industrial complex. This, we must not forget, sacrifices many resources to be invested for improving the welfare and the quality of life of the many people suffering from economic, public welfare, and environmental crisis.
Many nations and people throughout the world today are suffering from the economic crisis and the climate change. These crises must be taken as opportunities for each country to stop the wasteful arms race and turn its attention to the daily living of its citizens who are taking heavy blows from the economic crisis and the climate change. The development of unnecessary and offensive weapons, including the missile defense system, must be halted first. National security that neglects the safety of the people and community is meaningless.
We, therefore, resolve to act jointly against the missile defense system and the arms race which impede the peace and security of the Korean Peninsula, East Asia, and the international community. We will inform people about the falsehood of the missile defense and the damage caused by the consequent arms race and military conflict. As a member of the international community, we pledge to develop a new peace mechanism starting from where we stand, in our local communities, to bring about peaceful coexistence and conflict resolution in place of military confrontation. We declare we will do our duty and part to turn the coming decade into a period of transformation for overcoming the worn-out military paradigm.

17 April 2009

The Korea Organizing Committee
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
GPPAC Northeast Asia


2.
Reently the Spokesperson for the “World March for Peace and Nonviolence and Nuclear disarmament”, gave a talk

He said "We are starting to see signals from different sectors about the urgency for nuclear disarmament, the first of the objectives of the World March for Peace and Nonviolence.
In Prague, Obama presented his vision of a world free of nuclear weapons, at the same time as he was accompanying his speech with a series of specific proposals to reach this goal, such as the reduction of current arsenals, updating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and new controls to avoid terrorist groups gaining access to nuclear weapons. He said: “The basic bargain is sound: countries with nuclear weapons will move toward disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them; and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy.”1
However, Obama did not define, in this same speech, whether he would definitively renounce the installation of the antimissile shield planned for the Czech Republic and Poland. This demand has been demanded in the Czech Republic with a strong popular campaign led by the Nonviolent Movement against the Bases “Europe for Peace”.
That these declarations may be accompanied by an agreement reached with the Russian President to ratify the reduction of strategic weapons has revived hopes for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons.
We congratulate the courage of Obama to take the initiative of nuclear disarmament. Obama has initiated a path of dialogue and nuclear disarmament of historic transcendence, that continues the process started by Gorbachev in the 80s.
In this direction, SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) is contributing positive recent experiences in matters of denuclearised countries. Such as the case of countries who previously possessed nuclear weapons like South Africa and the ex-Soviet states of Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Ukraine. The fact that these States were denuclearised by virtue of a programme of secure disarmament and with guarantees, constitutes a valiant lesson.
To set in motion a gradual process of nuclear disarmament, that shows us the path to follow is very much needed, supplying us at the same time with the opportunity to strengthen non-proliferation mechanisms and to establish a new system of world security without nuclear weapons.
To set in motion a gradual process of nuclear disarmament, that shows us the path to follow is very much needed, supplying us at the same time with the opportunity to strengthen non-proliferation mechanisms and to establish a new system of world security without nuclear weapons.
With this proposal Obama has taken a direction that points towards reduction of tension, but for this to be strengthened other measures will be necessary like the withdrawal of troops that today invade foreign territories, progressive and proportional disarmament and other steps that can really carry us to a new world. We know that this implies negotiating around great difficulties, but this is a moment of open possibilities and, today, the voice of the people can be heard and converted into the best support for change.
Nuclear disarmament and the other points constitute the proposal of the World March for Peace and Nonviolence http://www.theworldmarch.org in order to enter a new stage in relations between countries, a new stage in human history".
Rafael de la Rubia
World without Wars
Spokesperson for the
“World March for Peace and Nonviolence”
http://www.theworldmarch.org
www.worldmarchindia.info; www.worldmarch.info

3.
This is a testimony by -Fernando Jimenez a musician from Costa Rica

Hello,
I recently knew about you here in my country, Costa Rica.
I am a musician and composer and a few months ago I wrote a song to contribute to a local
campaign for peace called "Let's get peace back". So I wanted to tell you about it and offer you
my song so it could be considered to be included in some of the activities that you have
planned to take place as part of the World March. The message of the song is just about the
ideal of such great march.

I've already contacted the persons in charge of the World March here in my country, and they
suggested me to write to you since my song is written in english. so you could use it to get
to the people that will understand it even better.

My song is called "Let the guns go to sleep", and I'm attaching the audio as well as the lyrics
to this email.

Well, I really really thank you in advance for your time to read me and for giving my song and
my yearnings for helping a chance.

I'll end with a fragment of my thoughts about the song and the Peace matter that was published
here in the Peace Campaing's website.

Thank you again and may peace rain down on you

Fernando Jimenez
Costa Rica

PS: The World March guys in Spain answered my email and uploaded my contribution here in their
website: http://marchamundialcreative.blogspot.com/2009/04/deja-que-las-armas-vayan-dormir.html

"... I hope that now that my song leaves my hands it can by its own steps get as far as
possible, not only in geographical distance but also in depth inside each one that can be
touched by its message for the good of this world that we all share.

Something that makes this song even more meaningful for me is having my 10 years old son
singing with me in its chorus. I think it's a great way to teach him about peace by
making him part of it, just like my song says about teaching peace to the young generations.

The need of our world for peace is as big and evident as the sky above us.

We need that the guns go to sleep right now. Those guns that are not only the ones that fire
bullets or missiles but also those that hurt with fists, words, humiliation, inequality, hate,
indifference, and a long list of sad qualities and actions that certainly move us further
from where we all dream of.

And if there is no hope of peace for us who have built the present, let's do as much as we can
to leave hope for those that will survive us: those who are just begining their pathway and
those who are still waiting for their turn.

There is no doubt that they will need peace as much as we do.

And there is one peace that we all need for sure, and that is the inner peace.
If we exhale peace from ourselves, it will be a lot easier for us to fill up the world with it.

-Fernando Jimenez


LET THE GUNS GO TO SLEEP
(Fernando Jiménez - (c) 2008)

Born free in this promised land
to build we've got these hands
One life is all we get
to make the best we can

By now we ought to know
By now we ought to know
By now we ought to know

Violence breeds from violent seeds
keep deadly toys away from kids
They learn from what they see
we'd better show them respect and peace

By now we ought to know
By now we ought to know
By now we ought to know

We are sons, we are daughters
We are fathers and mothers
We are friends, we are lovers
We are sisters and brothers

Let the guns go to sleep
Hush now violence, we've had our fill
Let the guns go to sleep
May peace rain down on you and me

By now we ought to know
By now we ought to know
By now we ought to know

We are sons, we are daughters
We are fathers and mothers
We are friends, we are lovers
We are sisters and brothers

Let the guns go to sleep
Hush now violence, we've had our fill
Let the guns go to sleep
May peace rain down on you and me

Let it wash away our million tears
Put an end to our million fears
Let the guns go to sleep
you said it John, let's give it a chance

May peace rain down on you and me
and wash away our million tears
May peace rain down on you and me
This is the day we're breaking free

Born free in this promised land
to build we've got these hands
One life is all we get
Let's make the best we can

- VIVAN SIEMPRE, EL TRABAJO Y LA PAZ -