Global Ethics


チビリガマの破壊 by limitlesslife
September 20, 2017, 11:50 am
Filed under: 戦争(責任、賠償、禁止)

沖縄のチビリガマを破壊したのは地元の少年たちだったんですね。
動機は肝試しで、集団自決が行なわれた事を知らなかったそうです。
何とも残念な話です。

大義なき冒頭解散、マスコミはもっと批判すべき。
恐らく真意を聞くとしてまた安倍首相を出演させ、説明させるのでしょう。
ああ、腹が立つ。

MLホームページ: http://www.freeml.com/uniting-peace

ーーーーーーーーー
コメント:同じことを誰かやってる、悪意で大規模に。
Advertisements


日米は、なぜ北朝鮮に武力による脅ししか考えないのか? by limitlesslife
知人友人の皆さんへ
       杉浦公昭
平和こそ我が命

  日米は、北朝鮮になぜ武力による脅ししか考えないのか?

杉浦公昭

昨日、北朝鮮がまたミサイルを発射しました。

どうして日米は、国際紛争解決の手段として、武力による脅ししか考えないのでしょうか? (それは、人殺しの兵器生産で儲けようとしているからと考えます。)

その結果は、今直面しているように、脅された北朝鮮が、脅しから逃れるために核兵器を開発することになります。

もし、誤って核ミサイル発射ボタンを押せば、米朝ばかりか、日本や韓国も巻き添えを食い、滅亡することになるでしょう!

国際紛争の解決法は、根気よく外交による対話を追及する以外にありません。日本国憲法は、この道を指し示しています。

戦争と干ばつの続くアフガンで井戸を掘り水路を引いて人々の命を守るために奮闘している中村医師は、「武器によっては身の安全は保障されません。命を大切にするために自分は何ができるか考え見付け実行する中にこそ平和があリます。」と述べています。

私は、命を守るために人殺しの基地を造らせないと沖縄の辺野古の座り込みに行ったり、陸海空軍その他の戦力は保持しないと謳った憲法を改悪させない運動に参加する中で、平和に生きる権利を不断に守っています。

一年前、元自衛官で、防空ミサイル部隊所属の故泥憲和さんは、「ミサイル防衛は、『銃弾を銃弾で撃ち落とす』様なもので、全くと言っていいほど不可能です。」と述べていました。

  一年前に見た原子力空母レーガンは、数日前、北朝鮮を脅すために日本海に向けて出港していきました。

 日米とも愚かな政治を行っています。 政治を市民の手に取り戻しましょう!



東京新聞 ウェブ 戦争法、共謀罪、改憲など報道 URL89(2017_9_1 ~9_15) by limitlesslife
September 16, 2017, 5:28 am
Filed under: アベノミス, 戦争(責任、賠償、禁止), 東京新聞

【URL89】東京新聞ウェブ-戦争法など(2017_9_1 ~9_15)
★2017年9月15日 21時42分
上空通過を「領域侵入」と伝達 政府、エムネットを訂正
★2017年9月15日 21時33分
「共謀罪」廃止訴え3千人集会 「テロ対策とうそつくな」
★2017年9月15日 20時53分
「軍事と学術」今後も審議 日本学術会議
★2017年9月15日 19時15分
  教員の君が代不起立、減給認めず 戒告処分超え「重過ぎる」
★2017年9月15日 17時50分
  陸自パワハラで国賠提訴、長崎 退職の元自衛官
★2017年9月15日 17時42分
  Jアラート番組変更で対応追われ テレビ各局
★2017年9月15日 17時05分
  ジブチで邦人保護訓練 武器も使用し今月末、防衛省
★2017年9月15日 夕刊
  Jアラート 発射3分後に情報発信
★2017年9月15日 12時54分
12道県にミサイル発射情報 政府のJアラート
★2017年9月15日 12時14分
加計計画、新設4条件踏まえ申請 文科省が見解
★2017年9月15日 11時58分
鉄道各社、一時運転見合わせ 10分程度で再開も「迷惑」
★ 2017年9月15日 朝刊  2017年9月15日 07時08分
英、伊議員が改憲議論に助言 衆院憲法審 欧州視察概要メモ
★2017年9月15日 朝刊
米イージス艦に洋上給油 日米一体化把握できず 新任務非公表
★2017年9月14日 19時31分
日米印の安保協力を強化 両国首相が共同声明
★2017年9月14日 16時49分
  沖縄女性殺害、初公判は11月に 元米軍属、殺人罪は否認
★2017年9月14日 夕刊
  米イージス艦に洋上給油 海自、安保法の新任務
★2017年9月14日 10時57分
海自、米イージス艦に洋上給油 安保法の新任務
★2017年9月14日 朝刊
安倍首相提案の9条改憲は困難 公明代表が指摘
★2017年9月14日 朝刊
  国税庁長官の罷免求める署名再開 森友問題 市民団体、要望受け
★2017年9月14日 朝刊
  朝鮮学校の無償化除外は「適法」 東京では原告敗訴判決
★2017年9月14日 00時39分
首相提案の9条改正困難 公明・山口代表が表明
★2017年9月13日 夕刊
  幻の「スマトラ新聞」復刻 日本占領下の暮らし 刻々
★2017年9月13日 夕刊
  故大島渚監督「憎みつづけている、戦争を。」 息子への詩発見
★2017年9月13日 朝刊  2017年9月13日 07時04分
  自民、来月にも9条改憲案 支持率復調の中、議論再開
★2017年9月13日 朝刊
9条改憲、首相案支持が大勢 自民本部 石破氏ら異論少数
★2017年9月13日 02時02分
  日印2プラス2実施へ調整 中国にらみ、閣僚級で
★2017年9月12日 21時20分
自民、10月にも9条改正案 自衛隊明記へ反対意見も
★2017年9月12日 19時55分
元徴用工350人日本企業提訴へ 韓国の団体、追加で
★2017年9月12日 19時51分
沖縄戦跡で遺品破壊 集団自決の壕「チビチリガマ」
★2017年9月12日 19時03分
  対北朝鮮、日米連携揺るがず 米大使「同盟は盤石」
★2017年9月12日 18時42分
  九州でオスプレイ参加訓練を検討 日米共同、菅官房長官「準備」
★2017年9月12日 18時34分
沖縄知事、政府の姿勢を批判 米軍事件巡り「当事者能力ない」
★2017年9月12日 17時39分
共謀罪の政府回答、事実に反する 対策弁護団
★2017年9月12日 12時17分
  無届けデモ容疑で男逮捕、警視庁 経産省前で脱原発訴え
★2017年9月12日 12時05分
陸自の共用端末5台に日報データ 7月末の監察結果では公表せず
★2017年9月12日 10時28分
オスプレイ緊急着陸に抗議 沖縄県宜野湾市議会
★2017年9月12日 朝刊
  オスプレイ、給油ホース接触 過去にも同様トラブル
★2017年9月12日 00時18分
沖縄県が地位協定見直し案提出 捜査主導など、日米に
★2017年9月11日 19時37分
  オスプレイ、15年にも事故 空中給油中にプロペラ接触
★2017年9月11日 16時51分
  「共謀罪」懸念は不当と政府反論 国連特別報告者に回答文書
★2017年9月11日 15時34分
  籠池夫妻を詐欺罪で追起訴 国有地の売却問題が焦点に
★2017年9月11日 14時28分
首相「北朝鮮抑止へ行動」 ミサイル防衛強化踏まえ
★2017年9月11日 夕刊
オスプレイ大破「操縦ミス」 沖縄・名護 米が最終報告書
★2017年9月11日 13時11分
  北の核開発「最後の目標まで」 労働党高官が猪木氏に語る
★2017年9月11日 11時35分
オスプレイの大破は操縦ミス 米の報告書「安全飛行が困難」
★2017年9月10日 11時17分
  防衛相、「核保有完了の可能性」 北朝鮮巡り認識
★2017年9月10日 朝刊
「来年発議」自民変えず 改憲日程ありき 首相否定したが…
★2017年9月10日 朝刊
「基地 沖縄県外で引き取ろう」 東京など5都府県で市民団体が運動
★2017年9月10日 朝刊
オスプレイ、岩国から沖縄帰還 沖縄知事「原因公表を」
★2017年9月9日 夕刊
  今も響く 桐生悠々発行「他山の石」 親族警鐘「戦前の雰囲気」
★2017年9月9日 13時29分
修理のオスプレイ、普天間に帰還 大分に緊急着陸のトラブル機
★2017年9月9日 朝刊
9条改憲阻止へ連帯呼び掛け 「市民アクション」中野で始動
★2017年9月9日 朝刊  2017年9月9日 07時07分
「国批判の番組に国から賞」 文化庁職員「受賞いかがか」
 芸術祭賞の審査が始まる直前の昨年十一月。南スーダンPKO派遣の陸自部隊に安保法に基づく「駆
★2017年9月8日 夕刊
オスプレイ大分離陸 米軍着陸10日 「いつ再び…」地元警戒
★2017年9月8日 朝刊
「共謀罪廃止を」14団体結束 野党と連携も模索
★2017年9月8日 17時57分
  学校の安全計画見直し要請 北朝鮮ミサイルで文科省
★2017年9月8日 17時52分
  大分、オスプレイ警戒継続 防衛省に、沖縄帰投の情報要請
★2017年9月8日 11時44分
米軍オスプレイ、10日ぶり離陸 試験飛行、大分から岩国基地へ
★2017年9月8日 11時20分
警視総監に吉田氏 沖田氏は勇退
★2017年9月8日 11時18分
漁船にミサイル発射速報 水産庁が新システム導入
★2017年9月8日 10時55分
  田原氏提案「冒険」は首相訪朝 7月、面会の際
★2017年9月8日 朝刊
  日米地位協定 沖縄が17年ぶり見直し案 日本側の捜査主導要求へ
★2017年9月7日 22時00分
  アントニオ猪木議員が訪朝 党幹部と会談、スポーツ交流
★2017年9月7日 20時32分
四日市ラジオで「ミサイル発射」 Jアラート誤送信
★2017年9月7日 19時21分
  米オスプレイ、大分から離陸延期 整備終わらず
★2017年9月7日 17時37分
  海自、ヘリ墜落は人為的ミス 青森沖3人不明
★2017年9月7日 夕刊
北朝鮮へ「異次元の圧力」 日韓首脳会談 緊密な連携を確認
★2017年9月7日 13時40分
米軍オスプレイ、大分離陸へ 試験飛行兼ね岩国に
★2017年9月7日 12時22分
  新司令官「問題点、迅速に正す」 事故相次ぐ米第7艦隊
★2017年9月7日 12時21分
  北朝鮮の発射に備えPAC3訓練 空自、米軍三沢基地で
★2017年9月7日 12時13分
強力な安保理制裁決議を追求 日韓首脳、挑発阻止へ連携
★2017年9月7日 12時08分
  海底の旧海軍潜水艦24隻を特定 長崎・五島列島沖
★2017年9月7日 08時31分
「3補選は改憲に影響せず」 自民・高村氏
★2017年9月7日 朝刊
世界遺産調査「辺野古の環境議論必要」 勧告機関が沖縄県に伝達
★2017年9月7日 朝刊
米の核、日本配備の是非議論を 石破氏、北抑止策で発言
★2017年9月7日 01時19分
オスプレイ最終検査を開始 米軍、7日以降に試験飛行
★2017年9月7日 00時00分
世界遺産調査で辺野古の議論必要 国際自然保護連合、沖縄県に伝達
★2017年9月6日 21時35分
  民進・前原氏、共闘見直し指示 10月の3補選が試金石
★2017年9月6日 20時05分
加計、来年4月開学に自信示す 今月末に補正申請書提出
★2017年9月6日 18時29分
菅官房長官、非核三原則を堅持 石破氏の国内配備発言で
★2017年9月6日 17時04分
  沖縄・宜野湾市長が10月訪米へ 普天間飛行場の返還時期ただす
★2017年9月6日 16時48分
  「辺野古」投稿、バス会社に警告 運転中のスマホ、沖縄総合事務局
★2017年9月6日 15時49分
「共謀罪」対策弁護団を結成 「廃止実現の弾みに」
★2017年9月6日 14時07分
  旅券返納、カメラマンの控訴棄却 シリア取材を計画
★2017年9月6日 夕刊
北核実験、規模160キロトン 防衛相「広島原爆の10倍」
★2017年9月6日 夕刊
  「不屈」辺野古に脈々と 米軍抵抗の象徴・瀬長亀次郎氏、映画に
★2017年9月6日 12時55分
  核実験、160キロトンに修正 防衛相「広島原爆の10倍」
★2017年9月6日 12時38分
隠岐の島でミサイル避難訓練 最大規模の2千人参加
★2017年9月6日 12時36分
石破氏「米軍核国内配備議論を」 北朝鮮核実験を踏まえ
★2017年9月6日 朝刊
  北核実験 規模120キロトン 防衛相 水爆級に上方修正
★2017年9月5日 21時00分
  首相、「国民的な疑念招いた」 加計学園問題で
★2017年9月5日 20時39分
  オスプレイ、6日に最終検査 試験飛行へ大分空港で
★2017年9月5日 17時11分
  参院委も北朝鮮への抗議を決議 核実験「容認できず」
★2017年9月5日 14時00分
  衆院委で北朝鮮に抗議決議 核実験「断じて容認せず」
★2017年9月5日 夕刊
  70キロトンから上方修正も 北朝鮮の核実験規模で防衛相
★ 2017年9月5日 夕刊   2017年9月5日 14時00分
  思想弾圧の証人残して 小林多喜二ら収監 旧中野刑務所正門 撤去の可能性
★2017年9月5日 13時12分
70キロトンから上方修正も 核実験規模で防衛相
★2017年9月5日 朝刊
  北制裁圧力強化 首相、各国協議で温度差
★2017年9月5日 朝刊
  「島根ミサイル落下」発言 竹下氏「どこが不適切」
★2017年9月5日 朝刊
  9条守れ 市民団体結束 3000万人署名目標
★2017年9月5日 05時27分
無根拠ネット投稿を拡散呼び掛け 自民・長尾敬議員、削除し謝罪
★2017年9月4日 17時53分
  オスプレイ近くテスト飛行、大分 緊急着陸、5日で1週間
★2017年9月4日 夕刊
対北、圧力強化を確認 日韓首脳「国際社会全体で」
★2017年9月4日 13時33分
  首相、さらなる挑発警戒 ミサイル防衛力向上に意欲
★2017年9月4日 13時18分
被爆者が抗議の座り込み、広島 北朝鮮核実験で
★2017年9月4日 朝刊
政権支持、横ばい44% 民進新代表には51%「期待せず」
★2017年9月4日 朝刊
非核 なぜ伝わらぬ 北朝鮮核実験に被爆者らショック、憤り
★2017年9月4日 00時54分
  被爆地・広島、核実験に非難 「大きな過ち」「またか」
★2017年9月3日 22時03分
麻生氏発言に「閣僚の資質ない」 野党が批判、本人は撤回
★2017年9月3日 20時40分
   核実験、自民―恐怖に陥れる暴挙 民進―不測事態へ備えを
★2017年9月3日 18時15分
  北の地震、エネルギー前回の十倍 過去の核実験と波形類似
★2017年9月3日 17時50分
  内閣支持率横ばい44% 民進前原代表51%期待せず
★2017年9月3日 17時21分
  竹下氏「島根落下は意味ない」 北朝鮮ミサイルで発言
★2017年9月3日 朝刊
  反核の柱、相次ぎ失う 盟友・谷口さん死去から3日
★2017年9月3日 朝刊
  土山秀夫さん死去 長崎で被爆 核廃絶運動の理論的支柱 92歳
★2017年9月2日 18時41分
元長崎大学長、土山秀夫氏が死去 平和運動で要の被爆者
★2017年9月2日 18時14分
オスプレイ修理3日も 離陸見通し立たず、大分
★2017年9月2日 13時30分
オスプレイエンジン修理作業続く 緊急着陸の大分空港で
★2017年9月2日 02時00分
アントニオ猪木氏、7日から訪朝 ミサイルで要人会談も
★2017年9月1日 21時15分
  森友国有地で弁護士ら鑑定書提出 ごみ撤去、「3億円超の値引き」
★2017年9月1日 20時51分
  射撃訓練で余った実弾隠す 3等海尉ら停職処分
★2017年9月1日 19時45分
民進、野党共闘見直しを検討へ 前原代表「新党、共鳴なら連携」
★2017年9月1日 18時57分
  元朝日の植村隆氏、調停申し立て 産経にコラム訂正求める
★2017年9月1日 18時27分
作家の林えいだい氏死去 強制連行、炭鉱公害記す
★2017年9月1日 17時16分
  抑留死亡者41人を追加特定 シベリア地域や樺太、HPで公表
★2017年9月1日 夕刊   2017年9月1日 14時03分
  虐殺の歴史、直視して 朝鮮人追悼式 都知事文書なし
告書は、犠牲者数を、約十万五千人に上る震災死者数の「1~数%」と推定している。
★2017年9月1日 夕刊
  防災の日 避難訓練、ミサイルまで
★2017年9月1日 11時48分
  米軍、オスプレイの修理に着手 普天間所属、大分に緊急着陸
★2017年9月1日 10時43分
賢人会議、11月に広島開催 政府、核軍縮機運を醸成
★2017年9月1日 朝刊
「オール沖縄会議」平和賞 非暴力で辺野古反対
********************************
近藤ゆり子 k-yuriko@octn.jp
********************************
Subject: 東京新聞 ウェブ 戦争法、共謀罪、改憲など報道   URL88 (2017.8_16~8_31)
  【URL88】東京新聞ウェブ 戦争法など (2017.8_16~8_31)
★2017年8月31日 23時33分
米軍、エンジン交換へ 大分空港のオスプレイ
★2017年8月31日 20時37分
  日英、圧力強化と非核化へ連携 共同宣言、産業政策対話を新設
★2017年8月31日 19時31分
日韓、米軍機と共同訓練 「目に見える形」でけん制
★2017年8月31日 14時58分
  英メイ首相が護衛艦を視察 小野寺防衛相と、海自横須賀基地
★2017年8月31日 14時22分
  改良型迎撃ミサイル取得を要求 防衛費、過去最大5兆2千億円
★2017年8月31日 夕刊
北に圧力「見える形で」 日米、午後に共同訓練 防衛相電話協議
★2017年8月31日 夕刊
迎撃態勢重視し5.2兆円 防衛省概算要求 北朝鮮に対応
★2017年8月31日 12時18分
  日米が共同訓練実施へ 北朝鮮のミサイルけん制
★2017年8月31日 11時54分
米軍オスプレイ、整備に遅れ 大分空港緊急着陸、3日目
★2017年8月31日 11時20分
  中韓客に「車貸さないで」 沖縄・宮古島署員が発言
★2017年8月31日 09時33分
対北朝鮮巡り日米防衛相電話会談 「目に見える」圧力で一致
★2017年8月31日 朝刊
過去にもナチス言及 麻生氏「ヒトラー発言」撤回
★2017年8月31日 朝刊
圧力強化で日米一致 対北朝鮮 2度目電話会談
★2017年8月31日 朝刊
  オスプレイ 当面大分に 緊急着陸、6月も同一機
★2017年8月31日 朝刊
「森友」事前協議音声か 民進チーム入手
★2017年8月31日 朝刊
値引き根拠写真を開示 国交省 不鮮明「根拠にならない」民進
★2017年8月31日 朝刊   2017年8月31日 07時07分
  歴史から目背けないで 都知事が朝鮮人追悼文取りやめ 波紋
★2017年8月31日 00時45分
日米首脳が再電話会談 北朝鮮へ圧力強化で完全一致


戦争廃止2017と核兵器禁止条約の会議は一週間後 by limitlesslife
September 16, 2017, 12:44 am
Filed under: 戦争(責任、賠償、禁止), 核兵器禁止条約
 In 1 week: Treaty to Ban Nukes Opens, as does #NoWar2017

World Beyond War via WorldBeyondWar.org info@worldbeyondwar.org via sg.actionnetwork.org 

8:01 AM (2 hours ago)

 

Tell U.S. to join treaty banning nuclear weapons possession(米国に核兵器禁止条約に参加するよう告げよ)


Click here to easily send an email to your U.S. Representative and your two Senators.(

(簡単に上下両院議員に電子メールを送るにはここをクリック)

**********

No War 2017: War and the Environment

(戦争廃止2017:戦争と環境)

September 2224 Conference in Washington, D.C.

(九月22~24ワシントン特別区での会議)

Just following the International Day of Peace, and in the tradition of

No War 2016: Real Security Without Terrorism, (戦争廃止:テロなしの本当の安全保障)and the best speech any U.S. president ever gave, (大統領の今までの最善演説)this year’s conference will focus on activism, including activist planning workshops, addressing how the antiwar and environmental movements can work together.

WHO: Speakers will include: Medea Benjamin, Nadine Bloch, Max Blumenthal, Natalia Cardona, Suzanne Cole, Alice Day, Lincoln Day, Tim DeChristopher, Dale Dewar, Pat Elder, Bruce Gagnon, Will Griffin, Seymour Hersh, Tony Jenkins, Larry Johnson, Kathy Kelly, Jonathan King, Lindsay Koshgarian, Peter Kuznick, James Marc Leas, Annie Machon, Ray McGovern, Rev Lukata Mjumbe, Bill Moyer, Elizabeth Murray, Anthony Rogers-Wright, Alice Slater, Gar Smith, Susi Snyder, Mike Stagg, Jill Stein, David Swanson, Robin Taubenfeld, Eric Teller, Brian Terrell, Brian Trautman, Richard Tucker, Donnal Walter, Larry Wilkerson, Ann Wright, Emily Wurth, Kevin Zeese. Read speakers’ bios.

(登壇者の履歴)

And special guest: Chelsea Manning.

Music by The Irthlingz Duo: Sharon Abreu and Michael Hurwicz, and by Emma’s Revolution, and by Bryan Cahall.

WHERE (場所)American University Katzen Art Center
4400 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20016
All events in the Recital Hall. Workshops on Sunday in the Recital Hall, and in Rooms 112, 115, 123, and 128. How to get there.

Lodging and rides board.

WHEN (日時):
Friday, Sept 227-10 p.m.
Saturday, Sept 23: 9 a.m. – 9 p.m.
Sunday, Sept 24: 9 a.m. – 9 p.m.

Click here to register (includes 2 catered vegan meals and a copy of the new 2017 edition of A Global Security System: An Alternative to War).

〔登録)

Click here to become a sponsor (スポンサー希望者はクリック)(includes a literature table and free registrations if desired).

Sponsors include (スポンサー):
   EndWarForever.com 

 Steve Shafarman 
LIVESTREAM (ライブストリーム):

We will use Facebook Live to stream this conference. To watch the livestream simply visit facebook.com/worldbeyondwar at the time of the conference. If you miss it you can watch it anytime later at the same page. Numerous groups around the world are organizing events to watch the livestream. You can do the same and let us know to help promote your event.

Use this flyer to spread the word about this conference: PDF.

Share on Facebook (フェイスブックでシェア)as a graphic or as a Facebook event and on Twitter.Or share this video.

You might also like to join the flotilla for the environment and peace in front of the Pentagon on the Potomac on September 17, 2017.

Sign the Declaration of Peace. (平和宣言に署名)

Find events all over the world that you can take part in. (世界でのイベント)

Join us on Facebook and Twitter. (NO WARのフェイスブックやトイッターに参加)

Support World Beyond War’s work by clicking here.

Find out why we support World Beyond War:
    



米イージス艦に初補給 “米軍と一体”で自衛隊は格好の標的 by limitlesslife
September 16, 2017, 12:42 am
Filed under: アベノミス, 戦争(責任、賠償、禁止)

03年、テロ特措法に基づき米艦船(右)に洋上給油する海上自衛隊の補給艦「ときわ」(C)共同通信社
03年、テロ特措法に基づき米艦船(右)に洋上給油する海上自衛隊の補給艦「ときわ」(C)共同通信社
拡大する

 14日、海上自衛隊の補給艦が日本海で北朝鮮による弾道ミサイル発射の警戒に当たる米イージス艦に給油をしていることが明らかになった。昨年3月に施行された安保関連法に基づく初の補給任務で、今年4月から、月1回程度のペースで洋上で給油活動を実施しているという。米側の要請で非公表としていたが、今回、菅官房長官が認めた。

「海自と米軍のイージス艦は現在、24時間態勢で北朝鮮の動向を警戒監視しています。補給活動の場所と時期を明かすことは、北朝鮮にイージス艦の位置を特定されて作戦に支障をきたしかねません。それでも今回、政府が認めたのは、隠蔽しようとしていると疑われるのを避けるためでしょう。4月の任務から半年が経過し、今、米軍の運用に影響が出る可能性は低い。米軍の了承を得たうえでのことだと思います」(軍事ジャーナリストの世良光弘氏)

しかし、半年間も正確な情報を国民に知らせてこなかった事実は変わらない。海自が今年5月に米補給艦に行った「米艦防護」もいまだに正式に公表されていない。しかも、日米の軍事一体化はますますエスカレートしている。今年6月には米空軍特殊作戦機が航空自衛隊のヘリコプターに対し、初の夜間空中給油訓練も行った。

「『チーク・ジェット』と名付けられた夜間演習は、暗視ゴーグルを使用するなど実戦さながらのハイレベルな訓練でした。空中給油を行ったのは米側ですが、演習の目的は米軍の作戦に自衛隊を動員すること。15年4月に日米両政府が締結した『新たな日米防衛協力のための指針(新ガイドライン)』に基づくものです」(自衛隊関係者)

日米の運用が一体化すればするほど、自衛隊のリスクは高まっていくことになる。

「政府は何かにつけて“後方支援”であることを強調しますが、米イージス艦への給油は紛れもない兵站です。北朝鮮は自衛隊を米軍と同じ集団と見なしているはずです。米軍に対して軍事行動に出る時は真っ先に自衛隊に矛先を向けるでしょう。例えるなら、狙いやすい騎兵の馬が狙われるようなものです」(世良光弘氏)

燃料補給中は艦船が最も防御しにくいタイミングとされる。このまま米軍と行動を共にしていたら、自衛隊は格好の餌食だ。

<



平和の利益に比べれば戦争に金を使うのは気違いじみている by limitlesslife
September 14, 2017, 1:11 am
Filed under: 戦争(責任、賠償、禁止)
OpEdNews Op Eds 

Compared to the Benefits of Peace, Spending Money on War Is Insane

By        Message Robert Anschuetz     Permalink

 (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ;(more…) Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 9/12/17

Become a Fan
(3 fans)
From flickr.com: World Peace | It doesn't matter if they say that world peace | Flickr1024 Ã-- 576 - 254k -
World Peace | It doesn’t matter if they say that world peace. | Flickr1024 Ö 576 – 254k – jpg
(Image by flickr.com)
   Permission  Details   DMCA

While war is perceived by many as an inherent institution of the nation state, few people fail to recognize and regret the horror, death, destruction, suffering, and misery it inflicts. Another consequence of war, however, is less often considered, though it is in the long run even more damaging to the cause of human well-being. That is the waste of resources in preparing for, and waging, war that could otherwise be used to help meet the physical, economic, social, and cultural needs of ordinary people.According to a reliable online information source the U.S. accounted for 37 percent, or about $592 billion, of the more than $1.6 trillion in world military spending in 2015. (See https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-military-spending-vs-world/). That outlay amounts to roughly the size of the next seven largest military budgets combined. (On September 11, 2017, a new defense spending authorization bill calling for a budget of $692 billion in fiscal year 2018 was introduced into the U.S. Senate.) Moreover, it has been estimated that overall annual U.S. military spending is actually about $1 trillion, when funding is counted not only for the Pentagon but for Homeland Security and other related government departments and agencies. In addition, the U.S. has spent approximately $2 trillion in direct costs for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That figure is itself raised to an estimated $6 trillion when indirect expenditures are added–such as future care of veterans and lost domestic investment opportunities.

If those dollars were made available instead for investments to meet the direct needs of people, a substantial portion could be used in our own country to help adequately fund two important projects: the long-neglected rebuilding of our crumbling physical infrastructure, and systematic progress toward a more cost-effective and environmentally-healthy green economy. Besides making life better for everyone, both investments would generate millions of new, good-paying jobs. Other diverted defense dollars could be used to fund projects abroad that help meet the basic needs of underdeveloped countries–such as food, clean water, medicine, agriculture, sustainable energy, and education. Those initiatives could greatly enhance the American image with the people of those countries, and, by providing young males a basis of hope for the future, reduce the allure of political extremism and help ease the threats to our own country posed by international terrorism.

The diversion of defense funds to meet human needs would also eliminate two deleterious characteristics of the war industry:

— It is economically unfair. It shuttles public funds into increasingly privatized industries, which are subject to little public accounting and tend to place huge profits in the hands of corporate owners and directors.

— It endangers both the environment and human survival. The U.S., with only 5% of the world’s population, consumes a quarter to a third of the world’s oil and other natural resources–much of it needed for war-making. This rate of consumption will ruin the earth’s climate and ecosystems long before its supply of fossil fuels and other natural resources are exhausted. Moreover, we can’t in any case continue to make use of the weapons produced by the war industry to further our exploitation of the natural resources of foreign lands. If we accept the scientific consensus that global warming is real and produced by human activity, our survival depends on a shift to renewable energy, or on the use of less energy. And that depends in turn on investing public funds now wasted on the preparation for war in efforts to find clean-energy solutions.

A Decline in War Spending Is Also a First Step Toward Peace and the End of War

Another potential benefit of U.S. demilitarization is suggested by the results of a global survey conducted by WIN/Gallup International and released in 2014. In a poll of residents in 68 countries, 24 percent of the countries ranked the U.S. as the greatest threat to world peace. The U.S. ranking was followed by Pakistan at 8 percent, China at 6 percent, and four countries (Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, and North Korea) tied at 5 percent. (See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/greatest-threat-world-peace-country_n_4531824.html.)

Given this highly disproportionate fear of U.S. aggression, a demonstrated U.S. commitment to demilitarization might well trigger a reverse arms race by nations throughout the world. This is the more likely, because no other countries (and that includes Russia!) are aggressively seeking to maintain a global empire, and therefore probably maintain a military establishment only for reasons of defense and/or national pride. In the absence of an American threat, such nations might be only too happy to divert funds now spent on defense to investments that develop their own economic strength and meet other needs of their population. To make that possible, they could then seek to negotiate legally-binding bilateral or multilateral agreements for gradual disarmament.

If such a course were pursued, it is highly probable that, among nuclear states, including the U.S., nuclear weapons–the most dangerous, costly, and least likely to be used of all weapons–would be the first to go. That result would not only finally put an end to a now seven-decades-old nuclear nightmare, but encourage consideration of further benefits that can be obtained by the elimination of all weapons of war.

From the standpoint of physical security, the most important benefit of disarmament would be a massive reduction in the use of climate-damaging fossil fuels. To recap three points made earlier: 1) The development, testing, and use of military weapons consume vast amounts of fossil fuels. 2) Gaining or maintaining access to oil resources from which the fossil fuels derive can be a significant factor in instigating war. And 3) The U.S. Department of Defense is the biggest single consumer of fossil fuels in the world. In light of these realities, Americans need to ask themselves two questions: Why should we continue an institution of mass killing in order to maintain access to natural resources that will ruin the earth if war doesn’t destroy it first? And, if we are going to adequately counter climate change and environmental collapse, aren’t we going to need the nearly $2 trillion a year the world now spends on preparing for war?

A shift in public spending from war to peace could also promote unprecedented international cooperation in helping to meet the real needs of people around the world. Here are some ideas I’ve picked up in my research:

  • By diverting $500 billion of the roughly $1 trillion we now spend annually on war to meet the real needs of Americans, we could end college debt, provide housing for everyone, rebuild our physical infrastructure, and fund sustainable green energy and agricultural practices.
  • With the other $500 billion, we could provide the world with food and water, green energy, infrastructure, topsoil preservation, environmental protection, schools, medicine, cultural exchange programs, and the study of peace and non-violent conflict resolution.
Even much smaller investments to help poor or underdeveloped countries around the world could pay huge dividends:

— Today, the U.S. spends just $23 billion a year on non-war-related foreign aid. It would cost just $7 billion more–about $30 billion a year–to end starvation and hunger around the world, and $11 billion a year to provide clean water to all populations in the world that don’t now have it.

— By raising this spending to $100 billion, we could save many lives, greatly reduce suffering, and make ourselves the most beloved nation on earth–perhaps even removing ourselves thereby as a target of terrorist attacks. For fairness, however, even such a modest investment aimed at global rescue and well-being should also include the struggling millions in our own country.

As suggested by the global poll that picked the U.S. as by far the greatest danger to world peace, it seems evident that at least much of the world wants nothing to do with America’s current role as the world’s policeman. What it does undoubtedly want is what most Americans want for themselves: to live in peace, to enjoy a decent standard of living, and to have opportunities to develop and apply their own creative talents. It is perhaps an interesting irony that by diverting our defense dollars from policing the world to helping our fellow humans live a better life, we can best ensure our own security.

A Choice We Have To Make

War seems to me an obvious product of the nation we live in. America consists fundamentally of interlinked centers of economic, social, cultural, media, military, and political power that operate within an overarching national system dedicated to controlling the world in its own interest. Each of these centers is characterized by a prevailing group-think that is reinforced by competitive careerism. You have to go along not only to get along–but to get ahead. This mindset ensures that each center of power toes the system line, leaving its functionaries little capacity to empathize with those outside the power system or to walk a mile in their moccasins. As expressed in international relations, that same mindset leads all of the power centers–including the mass media, who should be America’s conscience!–to demonize adversaries, stand averse to conciliation with them, and to consider war a natural option for advancing the nation’s interests.

I had an experience the other day, however, that renewed my hope that things can change. I watched a short video that offered a glimpse into an elementary-school classroom in Russia. The focus of that glimpse was a young chap who asked an American visitor in halting, but understandable, English how American kids at age ten celebrate Halloween. He wanted to know especially about the trick-or-treat aspect, revealing that, when he had made that a part of his own Halloween practice in Russia, people didn’t open their door.

In watching the video, I was struck by how completely the innocence, friendliness, and eagerness to please of the Russian school children resembled that of the children in American elementary-school classrooms I have visited as a father and grandfather. That perception of the common humanity of our species behind its cultural differences reminded me again of why war, or even the threat of war, is an abomination. I find it difficult to accept that the friendly outreach of the little boy in the Russian classroom, and by children throughout the world, should ever give way to an acceptance of war as a natural part of human outlook and behavior. As those of us who hate war pursue the challenging, though we believe not unattainable, goal of its worldwide abolition, we too, like the civil rights marchers of the 1960s, have to keep our eyes on the prize. It can be found every day in the eyes of all the cute children of the world who reach out to it with curiosity and expectation.

Must Read 1
View Ratings | Rate It

In retirement, Bob Anschuetz has applied his long career experience as an industrial writer and copy editor to helping authors meet publishing standards for both online articles and full-length books. In work as a volunteer editor for OpEdNews, (more…)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

/*


1928年戦争を不法とすることが如何に世界を変えたか by limitlesslife
September 13, 2017, 6:24 am
Filed under: 戦争(責任、賠償、禁止)

How Outlawing War Changed the World in 1928

David Swanson via WarIsACrime.org david@davidswanson.org via sg.actionnetwork.org 

11:13 PM (17 hours ago)

How Outlawing War Changed the World in 1928

By David Swanson
http://davidswanson.org/how-outlawing-war-changed-the-world-in-1928/

When I wrote a book about the Kellogg-Briand Pact my goals were to draw lessons from the movement that created it, and to call attention to its existence as a still-current law being routinely violated — in hopes of encouraging compliance. After all, it is a law that bans nations from engaging in war — the primary thing my nation’s government does, with a half-dozen U.S. wars going at any time now.

Now Oona Hathaway and Scott J. Shapiro have published The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World. Their goals seems to be to show us how different and worse the world was in certain ways before the Pact, and to claim for the pact enormous success and general compliance.

I have learned a great deal from this phenomenal book, easily the best book I’ve read in years. I could write an essay about each of its over 400 pages. While I agree with a great deal of it and strongly disagree with certain parts, the two are easily separable. The brilliant sections are no less valuable because of those sections that fall short.

This book constitutes the ultimate refutation of the childishly simplistic notion that because World War II followed the outlawing of war in 1928 that outlawing was a failure — a standard that as far as I know has never been applied to any other law. (Has no one driven drunk since the banning of drunk driving?) In fact, the very first prosecutions for violation of the law, at Nuremberg and Tokyo, have been followed by a reduction in wars that has most notably included the absence of any further wars waged directly between wealthy well-armed nations — at least so far.

As Hathaway and Shapiro show, the Peace Pact of Paris has so transformed the world that it is hard to recall what preceded it. War was legal in 1927. Both sides of a war were legal. Atrocities committed during wars were almost always legal. The conquest of territory was legal. Burning and looting and pillaging were legal.

War was, in fact, not just legal; it was itself understood to be law enforcement. War could be used to attempt to right any perceived injustice. The seizing of other nations as colonies was legal. The motivation for colonies to try to free themselves was weak because they were likely to be seized by some other nation if they broke free from their current oppressor.

Economic sanctions by neutral nations were not legal, though joining in a war could be. And making trade agreements under the threat of war was perfectly legal and acceptable, as was starting another war if such a coerced agreement was violated. Raping a woman in war could be illegal, but killing her could be in perfect compliance with the law. Killing was, in fact, legal whenever deemed part of a war, and illegal otherwise.

Some of this may sound familiar. You may have heard Rosa Brooks tell Congress that drone murders are acceptable if part of a war and crimes otherwise, whereas torture is a crime either way. But the extent to which the label of “war” is understood to permit killing today is limited greatly in theory and significantly even in reality. And today war is understood to license mass murder alone, whereas it used to give free rein for participants to murder, trespass, break and enter, steal, assault, maim, kidnap, extort, destroy property, or commit arson. Today a soldier can return from a mass killing spree and be prosecuted for cheating on his taxes. He or she has been given a license to kill and only to kill, nothing more.

Demanding today that the U.S. Congress repeal the Authorization for the Use of Military Force of 2001 and revert to its old practice of declaring wars, rather than simply funding (and whining about) any wars a president wages, may or may not be an effective means of curtailing warmaking, but it does amount to demanding a return to a barbaric antiquity, a practice that when it was used constituted an announcement that all would henceforth be permitted as long as it victimized whichever people war was being declared against.

To the very limited extent that the pre-1928 world had laws against wars, they were only laws against particular atrocities. In other words, the world in which Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch try to live today, in which war is perfectly acceptable, but each inevitable atrocious component of the wars is a crime: that was the best the West had to offer from ancient times through 1928.

The world after 1928 was different. The outlawing of war reduced the need for large nations, and smaller nations began to form by the dozens, exercising their right to self-determination. Colonies, likewise, sought their freedom. Conquests of territory after 1928 were undone. The year 1928 became the dividing line for determining which conquests were legal and which not. And the Pact of course was central to the prosecution of (the losers) of World War II for the crime of war. International trade has flourished in the absence of legal conquest. While it is not even true, much less a statement of causation, that nations with McDonalds do not attack each other, it may be true that a world with a reduced risk of attack, for better or worse, generates more McDonalds.

All of these positive changes have indeed come about as a result of a treaty generally mocked when not ignored. But they don’t add up to the positive view of the world pushed by people like Steven Pinker as well as Hathaway and Shapiro. That positive view of a world ridding itself of war comes about through selective statistics, also known as lies, damn lies, and U.S. exceptionalism. In Pinker, deaths are radically undercounted, then compared to the entire population of the world rather than the relevant nation, or erased by re-categorizing them as “civil war” and therefore not war deaths at all.

Hathaway and Shapiro recognize one U.S. coup (Iran) and war (Iraq) as if none of the others have happened or are happening. The Nakba seems not to exist. That is, the crime and the suffering it entailed do not get mentioned, though the “Arab-Israeli conflict” does.

The authors refer to Iraq 2003-present as a war that in 2015 had “greater than ten thousand” people killed in “battle-related” killing. (I’m unclear which killings are excluded by “battle-related.”) Never do they mention that “greater than one million” have been killed in that war.

Since World War II, during what the authors call a “period of unprecedented peace,” the United States military has killed some 20 million people, overthrown at least 36 governments, interfered in at least 82 foreign elections, attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders, and dropped bombs on people in over 30 countries. This extravaganza of criminal killing is documented here.

The United States killed some 5 million people in Southeast Asia in a war that Hathaway and Shapiro mention only as an act of conquest by the North of the South when the invaders finally fled. I arrive at that number using the Harvard study from 2008 on Vietnam (3.8 million) plus Nick Turse’s case in Kill Anything That Moves that this is a significant under-counting. Using 4 million for Vietnam, I add 1 million for the combined hundreds of thousands killed by the U.S. bombing campaigns in each of the two countries of Laos and Cambodia (both rough estimates). I do not add in the 1 to 2 million killed by the Khmer Rouge, though blame can be given to the United States (without taking it away from anyone else) for that horror. While the United States military did not kill all of the 4 million killed in Vietnam, there would not have been a war, or certainly not a war resembling what the Vietnamese call the American War without the United States.

For the past almost 16 years, the United States has been systematically destroying a region of the globe, bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria, not to mention the Philippines. The United States has “special forces” operating in two-thirds of the world’s countries and non-special forces stationed in three-quarters of them. This is the “period of unprecedented peace” that Hathaway and Shapiro describe as threatened by Russia, China, and ISIS. (“Even as [the Pact’s] bright promises have been fulfilled, other darker threats have rushed into the void.” Guess who those are!)

Quite obviously one cannot fit everything tangentially related to the topic of a book into a book. But to write about the problem of war without mentioning the U.S. dominance of the field is a bias. There is a reason that most countries polled in December 2013 by Gallup called the United States the greatest threat to peace in the world. But it is a reason that eludes that strain of U.S. academia that first defines war as something that nations and groups other than the United States do, and then concludes that war has nearly vanished from the earth, or is on its way out, and that the greatest threats of war come from China, Russia, and ISIS.

Ironically, a brilliant analysis giving the Kellogg-Briand Pact its due could probably only have been written by Americans — the rest of the world viewing U.S. actions on war and peace with too much cynicism and resentment. But anything written by Americans comes with American baggage.

The Lusitania was attacked by Germany without warning, we’re told, despite Germany literally having published warnings in New York newspapers and newspapers around the United States. These warnings were printed right next to ads for sailing on the Lusitania and were signed by the German embassy. Newspapers wrote articles about the warnings. The Cunard company was asked about the warnings. The former captain of the Lusitania had already quit — reportedly due to the stress of sailing through what Germany had publicly declared a war zone. Meanwhile Winston Churchill is quoted as having said “It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany.” It was under his command that the usual British military protection was not provided to the Lusitania, despite Cunard having stated that it was counting on that protection. Much of Hathaway and Shapiro’s book is devoted to the pre-1928 responsibilities of neutral nations to remain neutral. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan resigned over the U.S. failure to remain neutral. That the Lusitaniawas carrying weapons and troops to aid the British in the war against Germany was asserted by Germany and by other observers, and was true. Of course sinking the Lusitania was a horrible act of mass-murder, as was loading it up with weapons and troops to ship to a war. Behavior on all sides was reprehensible. But the authors only provide one side, only slightly mitigated by a footnote.

Occupations are meant to be temporary we’re told, despite the unlikelihood that the authors would dare make such an assertion in Kabul. The U.S. military now has approximately 8,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, plus 6,000 other NATO troops, 1,000 mercenaries, and another 26,000 contractors (of whom about 8,000 are from the United States). That’s 41,000 people engaged in a foreign occupation of a country over 15 years after the accomplishment of their stated mission to overthrow the Taliban government. The Department of so-called Defense has informed the U.S. Congress that it will soon produce yet another new plan for “winning” in Afghanistan. No plans for ending the occupation have been forthcoming or even requested. When the U.S. occupation of Iraq “ended,” troops and mercenaries remained. That they were invited back by the Iraqi government hardly excuses their actions, including the destruction of Mosul this past summer.

The single biggest threat to the peace on earth that was established in 1928 turns out to have been, according to Hathaway and Shapiro, the 2014 vote by the people of Crimea to re-join Russia — an action that of course involved zero casualties and has never been repeated because poll after poll shows the people happy with their vote. The authors produce no written or oral statement from Russia threatening war or violence. If the threat was implicit, there remains the problem of being unable to find Crimeans who say they felt threatened. (Although I have seen reports of discrimination against Tartars during the past 3 years.) If the vote was influenced by the implicit threat, there remains the problem that polls consistently get the same result. Of course one of the many U.S.-backed coups unnoticed by this book had just occurred in Kiev, meaning that Crimea was voting to secede from a coup government. The United States had supported the secession of Kosovo from Serbia in the 1990s despite Serbian opposition. When Slovakia seceded from Czechoslovakia, the U.S. did not urge any opposition. The U.S. (and Hathaway and Shapiro) support the right of South Sudan to have seceded from Sudan, although violence and chaos reigned. U.S. politicians like Joe Biden and Jane Harman even proposed breaking Iraq up into pieces, as others have proposed for Syria. But let’s grant for the sake of argument that the Crimean vote was problematic, even horrendous, even criminal. Its depiction in this book as the single biggest threat to peace on earth would still be ludicrous. Compare it to a trillion dollars a year in U.S. military spending, new missiles in Romania and Poland, massive bombing of Iraq and Syria, the destruction of Iraq and Libya, the endless war on Afghanistan and Pakistan, the U.S.-Saudi devastation of Yemen and the creation of famine and disease epidemics, or the explicit threats to attack Iran. I’m sure your average American would rather visit “liberated Mosul” than “annexed Crimea,” but should we deal with facts or slogans?

Hathaway and Shapiro give S. O. Levinson and the outlawrists of the 1920s their due for what they accomplished, but the authors view the world as 2017 CNN consumers. They favor “defensive” wars. They fault Trump for suggesting that NATO be scrapped. They maintain silence on NATO’s aggressive expansion, as well as on U.S. military bases ringing the globe. In fact they make this blatantly false statement: “The United States, United Kingdom, and France . . . took no new territory after the war.”

During World War II the U.S. Navy seized the small Hawaiian island of Koho’alawe for a weapons testing range and ordered its inhabitants to leave. The island has been devastated. In 1942, the U.S. Navy displaced Aleutian Islanders. Those practices did not end in 1928 or in 1945. President Harry Truman made up his mind that the 170 native inhabitants of Bikini Atoll had no right to their island in 1946. He had them evicted in February and March of 1946, and dumped as refugees on other islands without means of support or a social structure in place. In the coming years, the United States would remove 147 people from Enewetak Atoll and all the people on Lib Island. U.S. atomic and hydrogen bomb testing rendered various depopulated and still-populated islands uninhabitable, leading to further displacements. Up through the 1960s, the U.S. military displaced hundreds of people from Kwajalein Atoll. A super-densely populated ghetto was created on Ebeye.

On Vieques, off Puerto Rico, the U.S. Navy displaced thousands of inhabitants between 1941 and 1947, announced plans to evict the remaining 8,000 in 1961, but was forced to back off and — in 2003 — to stop bombing the island. On nearby Culebra, the Navy displaced thousands between 1948 and 1950 and attempted to remove those remaining up through the 1970s. The Navy is right now looking at the island of Pagan as a possible replacement for Vieques, the population already having been removed by a volcanic eruption. Of course, any possibility of return would be greatly diminished.

Beginning during World War II but continuing right through the 1950s, the U.S. military displaced a quarter million Okinawans, or half the population, from their land, forcing people into refugee camps and shipping thousands of them off to Bolivia — where land and money were promised but not delivered.

In 1953, the United States made a deal with Denmark to remove 150 Inughuit people from Thule, Greenland, giving them four days to get out or face bulldozers. They are being denied the right to return.

Between 1968 and 1973, the United States and Great Britain exiled all 1,500 to 2,000 inhabitants of Diego Garcia, rounding people up and forcing them onto boats while killing their dogs in a gas chamber and seizing possession of their entire homeland for the use of the U.S. military.

The South Korean government, which evicted people for U.S. base expansion on the mainland in 2006, has, at the behest of the U.S. Navy, in recent years been devastating a village, its coast, and 130 acres of farmland on Jeju Island in order to provide the United States with another massive military base.

None of this is mentioned in Hathaway and Shapiro’s book, or of course in the database called Correlates of War that they drew data from. The U.S. role as dominant military force on earth is simply missing. The arms trade in which the U.S. leads the way and a half dozen nations dominate the arming of the globe makes no appearance. But China’s efforts to claim islands in the South China Sea are as threatening to the authors as to Hillary Clinton at a Goldman Sachs event, if not more so.

Shapiro and Hathaway might argue that “forced expulsions” are a product of hard borders, which are a product of outlawing war. Tony Judt wrote: “At the conclusion of the first world war it was borders that were invented and adjusted, while people were on the whole left in place. After 1945 what happened was rather the opposite: with one major exception, boundaries stay broadly intact and people were moved instead.” But niether this nor anything else I’ve seen constitutes a serious claim or evidence that forced expulsions were fewer or nonexistent prior to 1928. What of the forced expulsion of so many Native Americans? But, increased or decreased or continuing at a steady pace, these crimes, these acts of war, these conquerings of territory, do not make it into the book. Instead we’re falsely told that the United States takes no new territory. Tell that to the residents of Vicenza, Italy, or any of dozens of towns around the world where U.S. military bases are forcibly expanded against the will of the people living there.

As a result of the authors’ exceptionalist view of the world, and perhaps a focus on written law, Hathaway and Shapiro find shortcomings in the Kellogg-Briand Pact by looking at its words rather than looking at our failure to comply with them. They believe the Pact leaves open (does not provide permission but simply fails to address) the option to wage war over territorial disputes, as well as the option for non-state actors to wage war. The former depends on the idea that the Pact only banned aggressive war, rather than all war — decidedly not what the Outlawrists intended. They — the originators of outlawry — intended to ban war entirely, with no exception for the common excuse of territorial disputes. The latter, the ability of non-state actors to wage war, depends on irrational fear mongering around enemies, such as ISIS, generated by the counterproductive, blowback-producing, routine violation of the Pact by S.O. Levinson’s own nation, the greatest purveyor of violence on earth.

In Hathaway and Shapiro’s view, I am simply wrong about what the Outlawrists meant, and defensive wars were not being renounced. But my point is not to comment on how some senators interpreted what they were ratifying, but rather to recall the better-developed thinking of the originators of and promoters of the idea of outlawing war. I quoted Levinson in When the World Outlawed War:

“Suppose this same distinction had been urged when the institution of duelling [sic] was outlawed. . . . Suppose it had then been urged that only ‘aggressive duelling’ should be outlawed and that ‘defensive duelling’ be left intact. . . . Such a suggestion relative to duelling would have been silly, but the analogy is perfectly sound. What we did was to outlaw the institution of duelling, a method theretofore recognized by law for the settlement of disputes of so-called honor.”

By failing to focus on what the Outlawrists wanted, rather than on what governments made of their creation, the authors conclude that in 1928 nobody had really considered what to replace war with, how to resolve disputes without wars. They also conclude that the U.N. Charter made the Pact a “reality,” rather than weakening it. But many knew full well the need for new types of nonviolent sanction, for global courts, for moral and economic tools, for disarmament, and for cultural changes still eluding us. Levinson drafted implementing legislation to make advocacy for war a felony. The U.N. Charter’s loopholes for “defensive” and “authorized” wars have made the U.N. — which has the second-largest imperial army now deployed on earth — a tool of warmaking, rather than peacemaking.

The authors fault the Pact for protecting weak states from invasion, allowing them to become failed states, creating warfare. But it takes more than protection from attack to damage a country. It often requires weapons dealing, the propping up of dictators, and the foreign exploitation of people and resources. Surely eliminating these further evils would be preferable to reinstating the evil of conquest.

Where Hathaway and Shapiro’s book shines, despite all the red, white, and bluism, is in its analysis of the replacement of war with alternative systems of security, something I’ve also looked into. They propose, in particular, recognition of and expansion of what they call outcasting. The name is derived from the ancient practice on Iceland of punishing a law violator by making them an outcast from society. “The law was effective,” Hathaway and Shapiro write, “even though there were no public institutions of law enforcement, because outlawry turned allIcelanders into law enforcers.” Based on this model, the authors describe the manner in which institutions like those handling international mail or trade create compliance with standards through the threat of banishment.

Of course extending the powers of corporate trade organizations to allow their lawyers to rewrite nations’ domestic laws is not desirable or necessary. And outcasting is only one tool in the tool chest of a non-war system. But what if the United Nations were replaced with or evolved into a democratized nonviolent club of peacemakers, using unarmed peaceworkers, and maintaining the threat of banishment from its ranks? What if the world had an independent court in place of the ICC, which the authors say can prosecute “aggression,” but which in reality cannot do so without the approval of the U.N. Security Council?

More importantly, what if we had a global culture that allowed us to confront the evil of war without nationalized biases? What if we took the accomplishments of the Kellogg-Briand Pact as motivation to see the vision of its creators through to the end: the abolition of all wars and militaries?

Book video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlSy1CuwP3k

Radio: https://soundcloud.com/davidcnswanson/talk-nation-radio-scott-shapiro-and-oona-hathaway-on-how-outlawing-war-changed-the-world

Video of event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6X2N0aaK3s&t=10s

Help support DavidSwanson.org, WarIsACrime.org, and TalkNationRadio.org by clicking here: http://davidswanson.org/donate.

If you were forwarded this email please sign up at https://actionnetwork.org/forms/activism-alerts-from-david-swanson.

Sent via ActionNetwork.org. To update your email address or to stop receiving emails from David Swanson, please click here.

Attachments area