There is no place in a democratic society for an opaque government institution, with an unknown budget, operating for the benefit of powerful corporations and beholden to no one except corporate investors.

by Jim Tarbell

In the early 1900s, after corporate money took over our political system, Wall Street corporate
lawyers became the chosen political appointees to run the US State and War Departments and later created the Council on Foreign Relations as a think tank to develop pro-corporate military and foreign policies.

In the second half of the 20th Century, the next generation of Wall Street lawyers developed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to serve the interests of their corporate clients and the multi-national corporate class.

Wall Street corporate lawyers Bill Donovan, Bill Casey and Allen Dulles worked to create the CIA. Donovan ran the World War II Office of Strategic Services (OSS) that morphed into the CIA, along with its staff of scions of American wealth. Casey served as Donovan’s right-hand man at OSS and served as CIA Director from 1981 to 1988. Dulles met Donovan at a Republican gathering of Wall Street lawyers and soon joined the OSS as a flamboyant agent in Switzerland.

After the war, Allen Dulles and his brother John Foster Dulles worked as members of the famously corporate/imperial Sullivan and Cromwell Wall Street legal firm. They carried on that work when President Eisenhower appointed Allen Dulles Director of the CIA, and his brother, John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State in 1953. Together they made the CIA a covert military operation to benefit their corporate clients. 

In 1953, the CIA overthrew the democracy in Iran for the benefit of the investors in British Petroleum. The next year, the CIA ousted the elected Guatemalan President Arbenz to benefit the United Fruit Company. 

As European colonial empires collapsed in the late 1950s, the Belgian corporation Union Miniere, that mined copper and supplied the uranium used in atomic bombs, hired mercenaries to break away the mineral-rich Katanga province from the Congo. Days before John F. Kennedy (JFK) became president, the CIA helped assassinate the Congolese President Patrice Lumumba, who opposed the Union Miniere's efforts in Katanga Province. As the Congo exploded in war, United Nations Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld worked to bring peace to the region, which caused Dulles to say, "Dag is becoming troublesome … and should be removed." In September 1961, Dag Hammarskjöld died in a plane crash blamed on the CIA.

Trying to get control of the CIA, JFK forced Dulles to retire. The new CIA Director, John McCone, famed war profiteer and cofounder of the military industrial giant Bechtel, took oversight of the CIA out of the hands of the corporate lawyers and into the hands of the military-industrial-complex.

Bemoaning his lack of control over the CIA, JFK moved ahead to bring peace to the world. He
started pulling US forces out of Vietnam. He embraced a global peace where all nations “live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement.” He built relationships with his political adversaries: Nasser in Egypt; Sukarno in Indonesia; and
Castro in Cuba. He also embraced “general and complete disarmament.”

Many movies and books on the assassination of JFK, implicate the CIA in his murder a few month after he made his Peace for All Time speech at the American University. It leads one to conclude that the murders of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy and, who both promoted global peace, may have been at the hands of the CIA. It also leads one to wonder how active the CIA and the military-industrial-complex are in shutting down all current efforts to bring about global peace.

The time has come to clear up all these questions. There is no place in a democratic society for an opaque government institution, with an unknown budget, operating for the benefit of powerful corporations and beholden to no one except corporate investors. We should terminate the CIA, open all its records for public scrutiny and make a place for global peace now!
​
(See Part 1 of this article here.)

Nonviolent movements succeeded twice as often as violent armed movements, against armed
authoritarian regimes.

​by Dave Lewit

The handwriting is on the wall. Centrist President Joe Biden notwithstanding, disaffected millions of Americans seem willing to consider the likes of Donald Trump in the 2024 election. Can pro-democracy Americans prevail?

Harvard political scientists Erica Chenoweth and Zoe Marks are not sure. They want pro-democracy people and sympathizers to be prepared and active. Their 34-page comprehensive, no-nonsense October 2022 report Pro-Democracy Organizing against Autocracy in the United States: A Strategic Assessment & Recommendations is essential and practical. 

Chenoweth is well qualified: she and colleagues studied 323 significant twentieth century (1900-2006) revolutionary movements worldwide, finding that nonviolent movements succeeded twice as often as violent armed movements against armed authoritarian regimes. But supporting authoritarian regimes are “corporations, business and economic elites, media, party officials and staff, civil servants, security personnel, cultural influencers, foundations and philanthropists, religious leaders, organized labor, and other elite and local authoritarians.”

Drawing on their scrutiny of these nonviolent pro-democracy, revolutionary movements,
Chenoweth and Marks prescribe actions in four essential categories:

• Build and maintain a large-scale, multiracial, cross-class, pro-democratic United Front;
• Protect, hold, and build local and community power through alternative institutions;
• Build pressure to induce defections among autocrat loyalists;
• Strengthen resilience against increased state “security” or paramilitaries.

Wow, a tall order! The authors then go into important details for each action. These are helpful because they can engage the talents and drives of the mere five percent necessary for a winning movement, who otherwise might despair of the complexity of effective organized activity. Broadly, a United Front “will require a general secretariat with a federated structure. . . a resource bank that can fund legal support, strike relief . . . and other support for chapters to organize and mobilize people.” It should “develop intelligence, community power building, scenario planning, communications, education, training, conflict resolution, and diplomacy.”

Where to begin? First may be calling out illegal, mendacious, and antisocial behavior by authorities’ agents. When too many municipal and state institutions become controlled by a system of white-only, law-and-order, elitist officers and their favored institutions, people seek companionate support. Some nonprofit organizations can help, but face-to-face, left/populist, movement groups—anti-corporatist, ecological, localist, anti-racist, police-reforming, anti-sexist, pro-immigrant, anti-war, socialist—may be more amenable to “intersectionality’s” call for collaboration, and form alternative institutions.

As corporate and government institutions depend more and more on digital controls, physical proximity of local people may encourage “economic cooperatives, fresh food provision, public health institutions, mutual aid, community safety, strike funds, and other forms of cooperation that dramatically reduce the reach, impact, and legitimacy of the authoritarian state.” To promote defections they emphasize “mapping” of authoritarians’ structures and networks to identify key persons and links to overlapping neutral or pro-democracy groupings. Partnering with foreign resistance groups can provide moral authority for local movements, partly by engaging certain international agreements.

But Chenoweth and Marks outline so much more than we can discuss here. For the short and longer terms we must survey what resistance structure we have, and quickly build a more deliberate, comprehensive “pro-democracy infrastructure.”

We know that our movement, our United Front, must be nonviolent. Mahatma Gandhi’s nonviolent movement was top-down — personally driven. Politically, it failed. He had heart and drive, but lacked social infrastructure. Martin Luther King had Gandhi’s drive, and engaged existing organizations like churches as rudimentary infrastructure. Chenoweth and Marks offer a spreadsheet with dozens of critical infrastructure elements, but lack participatory fire — drive, staging, and progressive dynamism. A Trumpist president in 2024 may be a slap in the face — a sting for serious infrastructure building.

Dave Lewit is Professor Emeritus and frequent contributor to Justice Rising. He is the Ombudsman of the Alliance for Democracy.

by Jim Tarbell and David e. Delk

Establishing peace in a world without war requires building a culture of peace while
implementing public policy to rid the world of war. Paul Chappell and his Peace Literacy
Institute published seven books in their Road to Peace series that establishes a clear, doable
path for establishing a culture of peace. Book five in that series, Soldiers of Peace, will turn us all into non-violent warriors for peace. It builds hope, one of their most important muscles of peace, by outlining the sweeping cultural transformations democracy and education can nourish. Their Peace Literacy program can instigate similar changes to our antiquated acceptance of war as inevitable.

After the horrors of both World Wars, politicians, jurists, scientists and publishers were
all enthusiastic to create both a culture of peace, and public policy to make global peace
a reality. Notables from Albert Einstein to Senator J. W. Fullbright endorsed the rationale
and route to international peace laid out in Emery Reves' 1945, world-wide, best selling book, The Anatomy of Peace. Reves, internationally known author, publisher, and close friend of
Churchill and others, calls out the failures of capitalism, socialism, religion and fascism, along with the evils of nationalism and the nation state system. He then goes on to declare “we can protect ourselves against international wars only through the establishment of constitutional life in world affairs by freely elected and responsible representatives.”

World leaders planned for the United Nations to become such an institution. But the UN bogged down in the “evils of the nationstate system.” It took fifty years for the movement calling for international democratic decision making on global issues to reemerge. Now that idea has been updated in A World Parliament: Governance and Democracy in the 21st
Century by international parliamentarian Joe Leinen and Democracy Without Borders co-founder and director Andreas Bummel. They point out that the need for a world parliament goes way beyond just international peace. Now we need this international, democratic institution to deal with the climate crisis, migration, depletion of global resources, pollution of the earth, multinational corporate tax evasion, and so many other world-wide problems that the nation-states can not deal with.

Unfortunately, the international peace movement is being stifled by multinational corporations and their allied military-industrial complexes. Joan Roelofs lays out how this
works in her book The Trillion Dollar Silencer: Why there is so little Anti-War Protest in the
United States. She documents how corporations and their military allies have infiltrated every level of American society with unlimited funds to compromise any movement toward global peace. Then she shows her readers on how to educate themselves and reverse the trend by
hounding their politicians, joining a peace group, creating a peace culture with a national
service organization, and pushing a green New Deal that will convert our war economy into a peace economy.

Medea Benjamin, probably the greatest peace organizer in the United States, and Nicolas
J.S. Davies bring all this together in their seminal book War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a
Senseless Conflict. While condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine, they also point out that the West helped cause the conflict by reneging on promises to not expand NATO into Eastern
Europe, before relentlessly pushing NATO bases toward Russia's border. The West's courting of Ukraine aims at completing that process, while ignoring President Kennedy's warning not to corner a nuclear power, leaving nuclear war as its only option, and causing the annihilation of life as we know it.

Meanwhile, Norman Solomon’s new book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the
Human Toll of Its Military Machine is a must read. Americans don’t know how the US military dominates America and the world, fighting or inciting endless wars, spending the
American taxpayers tax dollars without being held accountable.

How can the US military and its corporate contractors receive more than half of federal discretionary funds while the American people are kept in the dark, unable to rise up to say “Enough is Enough?” Norman's book shows how the American “free” press hides all
stories, which would inform the American people, and helps explain how and why our
“free” press makes invisible the American military death machine.

We can create a culture in a school, workplace, family, community, and society that strengthens Peace Literacy and nurtures the full development of our humanity.

Excerpted from an interview with Paul Chappell, hosted by Zoe Weil for the Institute for Humane Education, April 2022

Peace Literacy offers a deep and accurate understanding of the many subjects relevant to the creation of a more peaceful and just world. Peace Literacy consists of the idea that peace is not merely a goal, but a competency — a literacy — similar to reading and writing, which we can learn to use with greater and greater effectiveness. In the Twenty-First Century, we can no longer settle for peace as an abstract concept or sentimental wish. Peace Literacy is a rigorous and strategic approach to peacemaking that is based on the recognition that we must take waging peace at least as seriously as the military takes waging war.

Peace Literacy consists of three basic elements:

The first is the development of human capacities, which we call the muscles of our humanity. One of these capacities is hope, which is like a muscle, because it requires strengthening and development, and can become more powerful in degrees. Peace Literacy cultivates realistic hope based on evidence, experience, and ideals. Realistic hope is proactive and connected to action.

The muscles of empathy and conscience drastically affect how we think and reason. In Peace Literacy, we say that stewardship is the highest expression of the muscle of appreciation, because appreciation allows us to not take the gifts of life for granted. Gifts such as health, friendship, and democracy are fragile, and can be damaged and destroyed when we are not behaving as responsible stewards and protectors. Appreciation encourages us to never take these gifts for granted, to savor and make the most of them, and to do our best to protect them.

The second element of Peace Literacy is the building of skills to flex the muscles of our humanity. To offer just one example, listening is a skill that requires me to flex my muscle of discipline, to focus my mind and concentrate. In order to truly listen, I must also flex my muscle of empathy. When I flex my muscle of empathy, I am capable of hearing not only your words, but also your humanity.

The third element of Peace Literacy involves increasing the accuracy of our understanding of how the world works. When people with empathy and conscience don’t have an accurate understanding of the root causes of problems, they can cause harm. As the old saying goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Soldiers of peace must understand the tangles of trauma; the root causes of aggression; the
critical importance of our non-physical needs such as purpose, meaning, belonging, and self-worth; the relationship between our human vulnerability and our technology; the behaviors that can reliably build shared trust between individuals, communities, and nations; the limitations and risks of waging war, and the power and potential of waging peace.

The elements of Peace Literacy can be taught in three ways. They can be taught through curriculum, scaffolded in age-appropriate ways for pre-K through adult education. They can be taught through example, when adults lead by example by practicing Peace Literacy. The third way that Peace Literacy elements can be taught is through culture. We can create a culture in a school, workplace, family, community, and society that strengthens Peace Literacy and nurtures the full development of our humanity.

Paul K. Chappell is an American activist. He is the Director of the Peace Literacy Institute. A graduate of West Point and a veteran of the war in Iraq, he created the idea of Peace Literacy after his time in the military.

Working together, we can build the foundations for a more peaceful, equitable, sustainable world.

by Riane Eisler
(Excerpted and abridged from The Kosmos Journal, Spring/Summer 2014)

Can we build a more peaceful world where our great human potential for consciousness, caring, and creativity are realized? What would this more equitable, less violent world look like? How can we build it?

To answer these questions, my examination of social systems looks at the whole of humanity, including the thousands of years we call prehistory. This more complete picture makes it possible to see two historical social systems — a domination system and a partnership system.

Until just a few thousand years ago, archeological records show we lived in a partnership system. Archeology shows no signs of warfare; houses and burials do not reflect large gaps between haves and have-nots; and these earlier societies were neither patriarchies nor matriarchies, but cultures where women and men were equally valued in partnership.

However, archeology and myths since that time show a major cultural shift toward the domination system. Fortunately, over the last centuries there has been strong movement to reverse this shift in cultural direction back toward a partnership system.

One modern progressive movement after another has challenged the oppressive features of this dominator system. These include democratic challenges against: the “divinely-ordained” right of despotic kings to rule their “subjects;” the anti-colonial liberation movements that challenged the “divinely-ordained” right of one race or nation to rule over another; the women’s rights movement that has challenged the right of men to rule women and children; all the way to the environmental movement challenging man’s “divinely ordained” right to dominate and conquer nature.

Unfortunately, the focus of these progressive movements toward a more equitable and peaceful society has only been on dismantling the top of the domination pyramid. The primary relations between men and women, and between them and their daughters and sons, on which the pyramid keeps rebuilding itself, has remained largely in place. Since these relationships have been ignored, we lack the solid foundations for a peaceful and caring society.

Moving toward the partnership side of the continuum requires a more democratic organization in both the family and state or tribe, where both halves of humanity are equally valued, and stereotypically feminine values such as caring and nonviolence (which are considered “unmanly” in the domination system) are highly regarded, whether in women or men.

The relationships of women and men shapes families, education, religion, politics, and economics. The social construction of gender roles and relations also shapes a society’s guiding values.

As long as boys and men learn to equate “real masculinity” with violence and control we cannot realistically expect an end to the arms build-ups that are today bankrupting our world, and the terrorism and aggressive warfare that in our age of nuclear and chemical warfare threaten our survival.

A peaceful way of living fosters mutual respect and accountability. It uses power to empower rather than disempower others. The partnership configuration is a blueprint for a more equitable, caring, and peaceful future.

We must show that the struggle for our future is not between religion and secularism, right and left, East and West, or capitalism and socialism, but within all these societies between traditions of domination and a partnership way of life.

Every one of us can play a role in the cultural transformation from domination to partnership. Working together, we can build the foundations for a more peaceful, equitable, sustainable world, where all children can realize their capacities for consciousness, caring, and creativity — the capacities that make us fully human.

Riane Eisler is a social systems scientist, cultural historian, futurist, and attorney whose research, writing, and speaking has transformed the lives of people worldwide. She is president of the Center for Partnership Systems (CPS), and Editor-in-Chief of the Interdisciplinary Journal of Partnership Studies.

graphic: Raj Phairembam

Young feminists took the stage with rousing singalongs and demands to demilitarize, denuclearize, decarbonize, decolonialize, and defund militaries.

By Cindy Piester

In November 2022, I headed out to COP 27 in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt, as an NGO delegate with the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF). I hoped to move forward the conversation on the need for the United Nations to count all emissions, including military emissions, so that we might limit warming to the 1.5 C (2.7 F) rise above pre-industrial times by this century’s end.

Our military is the world’s largest institutional user of fossil fuels and the world’s largest institutional producer of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Yet, thanks to the US government, these emissions have flown under the radar since the Kyoto Accords in 1997. Globally, military emissions are 5% of total annual emissions, yet reporting them remains optional, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) protocols serve to intentionally obscure any military emissions reported, by mixing them in with civilian emissions.

COP 27’s opening day was also the annual International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict. Coinciding with that, WILPF partnered with the International Peace Bureau (IPB) and World BEYOND War (WBW) to release two bold letters. One called for, while the other requested, that the UNFCCC add the impacts of military emissions and military expenditures on climate to its 2023 agenda.

Our days began with informative and inspirational gatherings of feminists at the well-attended Women and Gender Constituency (WGC) meetings, where we mixed and mingled with women leaders from around the world. At times, the young feminists took the stage with rousing sing-alongs and demands to demilitarize, denuclearize, decarbonize, decolonialize, and defund militaries. Inevitably, these concerns were also included in WGC’s negotiations and reports.

We must understanding how quickly the planet and oceans are warming and how devastating the impacts — among them, droughts, desertification, fires, ice melt, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, catastrophic storms, hurricanes, flooding, and loss of keystone species and biodiversity — are to life on the planet. Clearly all emissions, including military emissions, must be counted and reported. So, when the US State Department called an informal meeting with all US delegates at COP 27, I raised the issue that, because of pressure from the US government, military emissions were exempted from mandatory UNFCCC reporting. These emissions and their reduction targets need to be included in our Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) consistent with GHG emissions protocols.

Among other questionable reporting mechanisms: emissions from hundreds of US overseas military bases are charged to host nations rather than to the United States; emissions from overseas transport associated with military supply lines are not charged to the US Department of Defense (DoD), but reported separately as “bunker fuels;” and war-related emissions are ignored entirely. The US State Department noted these issues as concerns, and moved on. Many US delegates, however, paid careful attention. Axel Michaelowa, senior founding partner of the Perspectives Climate Group, called for solutions that included reporting military and conflict-related emissions in the Global Stocktake — a long, hard look at the state of our planet, Stocktake charts a better course for the future, and for COP 28, held in Dubai, November 30 – December 12, 2023.

Our Department of Defense with its unsustainable annual budgetary allotment and global emissions is a disaster for our country and for the world. We seriously need to rethink our national security as we speed past climate tipping points dooming our youth to triple nightmares of out-of-control climate change, unbearable debt, and permanent war. 

Cindy Piester participates in the alternative media, documents US war crimes, and stands with VFP, WILPF, the Unitarians, Code Pink and justice lovers everywhere.

graphic: Women's International League for Peace and Freedom 

by Bruce Gagnon

The 1967 U.N. Outer Space Treaty prohibits ‘weapons of mass destruction’ in space or on ‘celestial bodies’ like the moon. Virtually all warfare on the planet is now directed by space technology.  Thus, filling up the increasingly limited parking spaces in various orbital regions will determine which nation has an advantage.

Anti-satellite weapons (ASAT) have been tested by India, US, Russia and China. ASAT’s need no explosives. At orbital speeds, kinetic energy — one thing smashing into the other— does the job.

Elon Musk’s SpaceX makes rockets and satellites to build Starlink, a roadband Internet system that once completed will cover the entire world. SpaceX has so far put 12,000 satellites into orbit and plans for 40,000 satellites in low-Earth orbit (LEO), occupying 80% of this space.

The Pentagon funds and tests Starlink for its military capabilities. Starlink satellites are being utilized by the Ukrainian military to communicate, as well as help guide drones, artillery shells, and missiles into Russian positions and at civilian targets. Very recently Musk has begun to slightly restrict the use of Starlink by the Ukrainian military as he feared that Russia might take action against the Starlink constellation.

In early 2023 China announced that it was preparing to launch close to 13,000 satellites into LEO in a move to counter Musk’s SpaceX network. China stated that they intend to: “ensure that our country has a place in low orbit; and prevent the Starlink constellation from excessively preempting low-orbit resources.”

NATO in 2019 announced a new doctrine calling space a ‘fifth operational domain’. NATO maintains that the US-led bloc will use commercial satellites as a military booster. Russia has issued a warning to the US-NATO that they are “exposing civilian space assets to potential attack by utilizing them for military purposes.”

In early February, Ukrainian troops fired rockets from a US-made HIMARS system which hit a hospital in Novoaydar, killing 14 Russian ethnics and injuring 24. Russia claimed that Kiev used western satellites operated by NATO personnel to target the hospital.

Currently, “weapons of selective destruction” fall outside of the Outer Space Treaty. Thus, a new treaty is urgently needed. Russia and China have been leading the effort at the UN to create a new treaty to ban all weapons in space for many years. But the US and Israel have been blocking such a step for peace in space. The official US line, through Republican and Democratic administrations, is “there is no problem in space, and no new treaty is needed.”

Bruce Gagnon is coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space and lives in Brunswick, Maine. 
​

On January 24, 2023, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced they had moved the hands of the Doomsday Clock from 100 to 90 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been

by Nancy Price

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded in 1945 by Albert Einstein and the University of Chicago scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project and the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Created two years later, the Doomsday Clock symbolically shows how close humanity is to the point of nuclear catastrophe. The clock was originally set at seven minutes to midnight. 

On January 24, 2023, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced they had moved the hands of the Doomsday Clock from 100 to 90 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been to zero. This is “largely – though not exclusively – because of the mounting dangers of the war in Ukraine.” The press statement explained the four areas of concern for this new setting: nuclear risk; climate change; biological threats; and disruptive technologies. This was before war broke out in Israel/Palestine, threatening to engulf the Middle East in war. No doubt this will move the Doomsday Clock even closer to zero.

In "The Doomsday Clock Has Never Been So Close to Midnight: What’s on the other side?" Frida Berrigan includes the chronology of seventy-six years of the Doomsday Clock. Frida’s parents, “Elizabeth McAlister and Philip Berrigan, a former nun and priest: refused to pay “war taxes;” trespassed onto military installations to protest our world-ending ways; held vigils at weapons manufacturing plants; and protested during stockholder meetings of giant weapons-making corporations. They also took care of the victims of skewed US policies by organizing soup lines and opening their doors to the unhoused. Frida writes, “by reminding me of where
the hands on the Doomsday Clock stood at any moment, my dad helped me integrate concerns about nuclear weapons into my daily life.”

Time to Ban Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear arsenals are expected to grow over the coming decade, and these weapons are many times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. A single nuclear warhead could kill hundreds of thousands of people with devastating humanitarian and environmental consequences. Today, nine countries possess nuclear weapons: Russia; United States; China; France; the United Kingdom, Pakistan; India, Israel; and North Korea. They have a total of 12,700 nuclear warheads with 9,400 in active military stockpiles. Five other nations host nuclear weapons, and 27 endorse their use.

With the Ukraine-Russian war and threat of widening war in the Middle East, the danger of the tactical use of small nuclear weapons increases the risk they could be used by accident, intention, or miscalculation. Often described as “smaller” or “low-yield” weapons that would cause less damage, these bombs can have yields 20 times that of the one dropped on Hiroshima. See this page on the International Committee to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) site for more information.

ICAN, a coalition of non-governmental organizations in one hundred countries, works to stigmatize, prohibit, and eliminate nuclear weapons and supports the ratification of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Their challenge is to build a global movement by getting politicians in the nuclear countries to sign ICAN's Parliamentary — or Legislative — Pledge supporting the TPNW, leading to all nuclear countries ratifying the TPNW.

The US and the other nuclear nations boycotted the TPNW negotiations and refused to sign. Nevertheless, the Treaty opened for signatures on September 20, 2017 and entered into force on January 22, 2022 after the fiftieth  ratification. There are currently 93 signatories, 69 states parties and 4 accessed countries.

Nancy Price is co-chair of the Alliance for Democracy.

​For a .pdf of this article, click here.

The social solidarity economy takes the best practices of our present system and transforms them to serve the welfare of the community.

by Jim Tarbell

An economy and culture of peace must be built on cooperation, mutual respect, and mutual aid. It needs solidarity support for a sustainable political/economic system respecting diversity, and promoting social and economic equity. The Global Network of Continental Networks Committed to the Promotion of Social Solidarity Economy (RIPESS) is establishing this economy around the world.

Social solidarity economy (SSE) participants from Latin America, the Caribbean, North America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Oceania shocked me at the Atlanta World Social Forum in 2007. They laid out a fully-formed and functioning alternative economy I had never heard of, even though I had been writing about economics and politics for forty years. They told tales of worker-owned businesses and co-op networks that utilize innovative and highly successful financial systems to support a world where the power of money nurtures healthy and sustainable socio-economic and environmental communities, instead of corporate profits and a bulging military-industrial colossus.

Paraphrasing their website: The Global SSE movement is emerging as a rapidly growing, transformative, citizen-led alternative to market-driven capitalism. It is aimed at systemic change, building an economy and society serving people and the planet. SSE is grounded in locally rooted initiatives that are increasingly globally networked, with a broad political (but not ideological) framework.

RIPESS members address the enormous, unaddressed, social and environmental costs generated by a capitalist, neoliberal economy based
on extractivism and unlimited growth of consumption and production. Today, more people are becoming aware that capitalism has turned our lives and planet into an environmentally unsustainable and socially unjust system, unable to guarantee happiness and dignified life conditions to all persons on the planet.

In SSE, ordinary people play an active role in shaping the social, cultural, political, and environmental dimensions of life. SSE exists in production, finance, distribution, retail, consumption and governance. It transforms the social and economic system to overcome all inequalities. SSE takes the best practices of our present system (such as efficiency, use of technology and knowledge) and transforms them to serve the welfare of the community.

SSE places people, communities and the environment above capital and its accumulation. It holds a world-wide vision with shared values
and principles based on reciprocity, solidarity, equity, self-determination, mutuality, cooperation; and human and Earth rights.

SSE's combined local and global scope gives RIPESS legitimacy to promote SSE, foster intercontinental cooperation, and advocate at different levels. RIPESS members believe in the importance of the globalization of solidarity, and the ability to build and strengthen an economy that places people and planet at the center of its activities.

It is the perfect model for moving from our war economy to a peace economy, where cooperation replaces competition, and solidarity replaces militarism. Check them out at www.ripess.org and join the effort.

Jim Tarbell is editor of the Alliance's journal, Justice Rising, and a founder of the GrassRoots Institute in Mendocino County, California.

You can download a .pdf of this article here.