You are currently browsing the monthly archive for July 2019.

Reading for July 25 from Praying for Justice. “I put on righteousness, and it clothed me; my justice was like a robe and a turban.” Job 29: 14

26.07.2019 – UK – George Monbiot

From Trump to Johnson, nationalists are on the rise – backed by billionaire oligarchs
A group of people in evil clown costumes at a PDC 2008 party at Universal Studios (Image by D.Begley • CC BY 2.0)

The ultra-rich are benefitting from disaster capitalism as institutions, rules and democratic oversight implode.

By George Monbiot for The Guardian

Seven years ago the impressionist Rory Bremner complained that politicians had become so boring that few of them were worth mimicking: “They’re quite homogenous and dull these days … It’s as if character is seen as a liability.” Today his profession has the opposite problem: however extreme satire becomes, it struggles to keep pace with reality. The political sphere, so dull and grey a few years ago, is now populated by preposterous exhibitionists.

This trend is not confined to the UK – everywhere the killer clowns are taking over. Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Donald Trump, Narendra Modi, Jair Bolsonaro, Scott Morrison, Rodrigo Duterte, Matteo Salvini, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Viktor Orbán and a host of other ludicrous strongmen – or weakmen, as they so often turn out to be – dominate nations that would once have laughed them off stage. The question is why? Why are the technocrats who held sway almost everywhere a few years ago giving way to extravagant buffoons?

Social media, an incubator of absurdity, is certainly part of the story. But while there has been plenty of good work investigating the means, there has been surprisingly little thinking about the ends. Why are the ultra-rich, who until recently used their money and newspapers to promote charisma-free politicians, now funding this circus? Why would capital wish to be represented by middle managers one moment and jesters the next?

The policies that were supposed to promote enterprise – slashing taxes for the rich, ripping down public protections, destroying trade unions – instead stimulated a powerful spiral of patrimonial wealth accumulation. The largest fortunes are now made not through entrepreneurial brilliance but through inheritance, monopoly and rent-seeking: securing exclusive control of crucial assets such as land and buildings privatised utilities and intellectual property, and assembling service monopolies such as trading hubs, software and social media platforms, then charging user fees far higher than the costs of production and delivery. In Russia, people who enrich themselves this way are called oligarchs. But this is a global phenomenon. Today corporate power is overlain by – and mutating into – oligarchic power.

What the oligarchs want is not the same as what the old corporations wanted. In the words of their favoured theorist, Steve Bannon, they seek the “deconstruction of the administrative state”. Chaos is the profit multiplier for the disaster capitalism on which the new billionaires thrive. Every rupture is used to seize more of the assets on which our lives depend. The chaos of an undeliverable Brexit, the repeated meltdowns and shutdowns of government under Trump: these are the kind of deconstructions Bannon foresaw. As institutions, rules and democratic oversight implode, the oligarchs extend their wealth and power at our expense.

The killer clowns offer the oligarchs something else too: distraction and deflection. While the kleptocrats fleece us, we are urged to look elsewhere. We are mesmerised by buffoons who encourage us to channel the anger that should be reserved for billionaires towards immigrants, women, Jews, Muslims, people of colour and other imaginary enemies and customary scapegoats. Just as it was in the 1930s, the new demagoguery is a con, a revolt against the impacts of capital, financed by capitalists.

The oligarch’s interests always lie offshore: in tax havens and secrecy regimes. Paradoxically, these interests are best promoted by nationalists and nativists. The politicians who most loudly proclaim their patriotism and defence of sovereignty are always the first to sell their nations down the river. It is no coincidence that most of the newspapers promoting the nativist agenda, whipping up hatred against immigrants and thundering about sovereignty, are owned by billionaire tax exiles, living offshore.

As economic life has been offshored, so has political life. The political rules that are supposed to prevent foreign money from funding domestic politics have collapsed. The main beneficiaries are the self-proclaimed defenders of sovereignty who rise to power with the help of social media ads bought by persons unknown, and thinktanks and lobbyists that refuse to reveal their funders. A recent essay by the academics Reijer Hendrikse and Rodrigo Fernandez argues that offshore finance involves “the rampant unbundling and commercialisation of state sovereignty” and the shifting of power into a secretive, extraterritorial legal space, beyond the control of any state. In this offshore world, they contend, “financialised and hypermobile global capital effectively is the state”.

Today’s billionaires are the real citizens of nowhere. They fantasise, like the plutocrats in Ayn Rand’s terrible novel Atlas Shrugged, about further escape. Look at the “seasteading” venture funded by PayPal’s founder, Peter Thiel, that sought to build artificial islands in the middle of the ocean, whose citizens could enact a libertarian fantasy of escape from the state, its laws, regulations and taxes, and from organised labour. Scarcely a month goes by without a billionaire raising the prospect of leaving the Earth altogether, and colonising space pods or other planets.

Those whose identity is offshore seek only to travel farther offshore. To them, the nation state is both facilitator and encumbrance, source of wealth and imposer of tax, pool of cheap labour and seething mass of ungrateful plebs, from whom they must flee, leaving the wretched earthlings to their well-deserved fate.

Defending ourselves from oligarchy means taxing it to oblivion. It’s easy to get hooked up on discussions about what tax level maximises the generation of revenue. There are endless arguments about the Laffer curve, which purports to show where this level lies. But these discussions overlook something crucial: raising revenue is only one of the purposes of tax. Another is breaking the spiral of patrimonial wealth accumulation.

Breaking this spiral is a democratic necessity: otherwise the oligarchs, as we have seen, come to dominate national and international life. The spiral does not stop by itself: only government action can do it. This is one of the reasons why, during the 1940s, the top rate of income tax in the US rose to 94%, and in the UK to 98%. A fair society requires periodic corrections on this scale. But these days the steepest taxes would be better aimed at accumulated unearned wealth.

Of course, the offshore world the billionaires have created makes such bold policies extremely difficult: this, after all, is one of its purposes. But at least we know what the aim should be, and can begin to see the scale of the challenge. To fight something, first we need to understand it.

 George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist

Republished with kind permission from the author

26.07.2019 – Pressenza New York

America and Pakistan in Search of Peace and Conflict Resolution
US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan discussed regional security issues and economic support during their meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC (Image by Pakistani PM office handout via Anadolu Agency)

By Mahboob A. Khawaja, PhD.

Reflections on Today’s World of Politics

President Trump and young looking Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan met this week at the White House. Trump is master to transform rhetoric into reality as he did to North Korean leader. Both were trying to overcome the historic indifference and prejudice to bridge the ever widening gaps between the reality and perceptions of relationship. If nation’s relationships are based on the simplicity of truth, wisdom, national interest and integrity, one could foresee political compromises as a virtue to foster friendship. Trump’s body language signaled some positive overtures as America looks for foes and friends to end its occupation of Afghanistan. Pakistan is central to this strategy to facilitate a peaceful and face-saving outcome for America militarism in Afghanistan. Truth is unchanging as it was in 2001 that George W. Bush – an emotionally disturbed and intellectually imbalanced president embarked on military intervention to invade Afghanistan to strengthen his standing before the American masses after the 9/11 events. Truth is the same today as it was almost two decade earlier that America and its NATO allies displaced and killed millions for no other reason except a preposterous and distorted version of warmongering against the poor and helpless people of Afghanistan who had nothing to do with the 9/11 tragedies. When false assumptions go unchallenged, it breeds more reactionary forces to entrench in violence and destruction.

Bertrand Russell and Alfred Einstein Manifest (1955) called “a war with H bomb might possibly put an end to the human race.” In 2017, America tested the Mother of Bombs in Afghanistan as if it was an American state. This is how America and NATO destroyed the ancient and peaceful culture of Afghanistan. All wars are dreadful and end up in calamities with ripple effects for centuries to come. It is an evidence of tragic human abnormality that American, Afghan and Pakistani could not unfold humanitarian approaches to resolve the enlarged conflict in Afghanistan. Now, Trump and Imran Khan have come to understand its reality and wisdom of reciprocal forbearance that could usher a just a viable settlement in Afghanistan. But no one should underestimate the prevalent optimistic skepticism linking Pakistan and Afghanistan to a new American policy and practice for change in southwest Asia.

If America has the political, moral and intellectual capacity to honor its commitments, it could resolve the Afghan problems via a peaceful agreement with the people of Afghan and ensuring a legitimate elected system of governance for Afghanistan. It is not the question whether Talaban or President Ashraf Ghani’s party should govern Afghanistan, but the people of Afghanistan must have a participatory and final say in making the peace deal. Rights of the people and political fairness must be the guiding principles to conclude a peace pact between the US, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Military interventions never deliver peace and social harmony but destroy all substance that should support the societal progress and future-making.

Imran Khan should be careful to assess Pakistan’s own weaknesses and strength and learn from the past as to what mistakes were made in military collaboration with the US scheme of things in the region. The USAID gimmick or the loans from the IMF are not the viable strategies for national progress and development. Pakistan must strengthen its domestic socio-economic and political productivity, advancements and integration. Its progress is a key to international cohesion and services to the neglected masses. Khan does not appear to have expertise in political change, economic productivity and nation-building. Political corruption is a cancer in the society. He should encourage and engage new generation of educated and intelligent and honest people to participate for building new public institutions, new systems of participatory governance and political accountability in all domains of affairs. Imran Khan will be wise to enlarge his circle of governance by enlisting educated and proactive visionary men of ideas and strategic experts to deliver services to the people and ensure a progressive Pakistan.

Trump to Mediate Kashmir between India and Pakistan – Will He?

As a friendly overture to softening relationship with Pakistan, Trump offered to mediate the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. Immediately, Indian PM’ spokesperson denied Trump’s assertion of PM Modi ever asking him to discuss Kashmir with Pakistan. In politics, argument and rebuttals could be pondered with varied logical scales. There is a contrast between what India claims to be and what Pakistan stands for and what the people of Kashmir valley aspire for. If we imply canons of rationality, it could clarify the core of fault lines between tense relationships of India and Pakistan. If India and Pakistan are sincere to find a cure to the overwhelming cruelty, military tyranny and violations of the basic rights of the people of Kashmir, the global community will view them as leaders of peaceful future-making.

For a change, Trump has sensed the rationality of restoring normal ties between the two nuclear rivals. It could help him to gain some numbers in political popularity as he did on North Korea – an unthinkable probability making it thinkable reality for normalization of mutual relationship. Both India and Pakistan and given their competing claims cannot deny the fact that Kashmir is the focal issue to a normal future for the masses in both countries. War is madness if there are people of reason to think about the societal future and wellbeing of the people. Kashmir was never part of India even under the British Raj. In 1947 and 1949 at the UN Security Council Resolutions, the people of Kashmir were promised a referendum (plebiscite) to decide about their future whether to join India or Pakistan. It is not the domestic territory of India or Pakistan to undo the truth about Kashmir. There is no sense to shed human blood on a precarious experiment whether India administers Kashmir or Pakistanis do. The conflict must be resolved by addressing the humanitarian problems and sufferings of the people of Kashmir. If Trump along with Russia and China could persuade both India and Pakistan to resolve the problem, it could open-up new threshold of peace and harmony in Southwest Asia.

America Needs a Safe Exist from Afghanistan

In a changing world of global thinking and friendly relationships with others, American foreign policy experts should think critically how best they could communicate to a friend in Southwest Asia and enlist urgently needed moral and practical support to pave the ways for a peaceful settlement of the Afghanistan crisis. America is a military power but its legend of invincibility has been torn apart by small groups of fighters in Afghanistan. Much of this land of ancient tribal herdsmen is in ruins, its economy, political and civic infrastructures and productivity devastated by the insanity of war and civilian lives float between obsessed insecurity, daily bombings and extended graveyards. America cannot undo the history of its own ruthless engagement and strategic failure. This consequence is of its own failed strategy or no strategy at all, and not of the role of Pakistan or others. If American rational impulses are intact, its policy should focus on a multilateral approach including Pakistan, Iran, India, China and Russia to pool intellectual resources and work out negotiated settlements in Afghanistan and Kashmir. America needs to be rational and see the mirror of its prolonged involvement in a war that has consumed more than 4,000 lives of US soldiers and almost 15,000 wounded veterans. This is no excuse to reinforce aggression against the people of Afghanistan. America needs a safe exit from the prolonged self-engineered crisis.

Russia, China, India and Pakistan Could Help America to Negotiate Peace in Asia

While individualism is a political trait, authoritarian absolutism is a political sickness and contrary to the principles of liberty and justice. America enjoins a moral and intellectual history of the making of the nation. “These are the times that try men’s soul”, wrote Thomas Paine in the Common Sense (1776), the political vision and reference for the independence of America from Britain as a nation. If global common sense is the hub of rational thoughts, America under Trump has open lines of communication with President Putin and Chinese President Xi Ping. It is rational to assume that Pakistan under PM Imran Khan could facilitate an international gathering inviting Russia, China, India and America to open a dialogue for political change and conflict resolution. This will be a magnanimous forbearance and proactive vision to dispel the notion of war and intransigence and to reshape a turbulent past, be it in Afghanistan or Kashmir and strengthen a legitimate purpose of peace, friendship and sustainable relationships without tyranny of wars and violations of human rights and dignity. Ferocity of wars and violations of human rights cannot be the intelligent hallmarks of a progressive society striving to harmonize the humanity and make sustainable peace as a reality for the future generations.


Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja specializes in global security, peace and conflict resolution and international affairs with keen interests in Islamic-Western comparative cultures and civilizations, and author of several publications including the latest: Global Peace, Security and Conflict Resolution: Approaches to Understand the Current Issues and Future-Making. Lambert Academic Publishing, Germany, October 2017.

Reading for July 24 from Praying for Justice. “Is this not the fast which I choose, to loosen the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free and break every yoke?” Isaiah 58: 6

For a jof of Maurizio

DEPEND
God
And a true friend
On both
We can depend
David Herr

Reading for July 23 from Praying for Justice. “Now, behold, the cry of the sons of Israel has come to Me; furthermore, I have seen the oppression with which the Egyptians are oppressing them.” Exodus 3: 9

25.07.2019 – Geneva, Switzerland – Tony Robinson

Interview with Kathleen Lawand, International Committee of the Red Cross
Kathleen Lawand, Head of Arms Unit, International Committee of the Red Cross, interviewed for The Beginning of the End of Nuclear Weapons, on the 12th of December 2018 in Geneva Switzerland (Image by Álvaro Orús)

On June 6th, we at Pressenza premiered our latest documentary film, “The Beginning of the End of Nuclear Weapons”.  For this film, we interviewed 14 people, experts in their fields, who were able to provide insight into the history of the subject, the process which led to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and current efforts to stigmatise them and turn the ban into elimination.  As part of our commitment to make this information available to the whole world, we are publishing the full versions of those interviews, together with their transcripts, in the hope that this information will be useful for future documentary film makers, activists and historians who would like to hear the powerful testimonies recorded in our interviews.

This interview is with Kathleen Lawand, Head of Arms Unit at the International Committee of the Red Cross, at the ICRC offices in Geneva, Switzerland on the 12th of December, 2018.

Questions: Tony Robinson, Cameraman: Álvaro Orús.

Transcript

What is known about the emergency response given in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

What we know is that, in the immediate aftermath of the bomb in Hiroshima, and we know this from having been present ourselves in the weeks that followed the explosion in Hiroshima; out of 300 doctors present in Hiroshima, 270 had died; out of 1,700 nurses, 1,600 had been killed; and out of some 140 pharmacists, 120 had been killed.

So you can imagine the situation when the ICRC, our doctors and delegates, happened upon the scene in Hiroshima.  There were no medical personnel or infrastructure, or virtually none left, to take care of the tens of thousands of people who were dying and injured and in desperate need of help.

Miraculously, the Japanese Red Cross Hospital stood standing in the debris, and it had been built in stone, so it somehow withstood the blast, although its windows were all blown out, and crucially it’s critical medical equipment, laboratory equipment had been destroyed or damaged beyond use, but despite this, thousands of survivors huddled in the hospital and most of them died.

Out of 1,000 survivors that were there, 600 died in the days that followed the blast, because they just could not get the medical attention that was required.

The evidence presented in Oslo.

In Oslo, we presented evidence about our inability to respond as a humanitarian organization, our inability of the ICRC, but then the inability of our movement, of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, to provide an adequate humanitarian response in case of use of nuclear weapons, and this was done very scientifically, on the basis of a major study that we published in 2009, so almost 10 years ago, in which we assessed our own capabilities and those of other international agencies to provide humanitarian assistance in case of use of nuclear weapons.

And what we found is that there is no adequate capacity existing at national level and none whatsoever in terms of international coordination, at international level to respond to a nuclear blast, and this is a grave concern indeed.

So the only adequate response is to eliminate nuclear weapons, to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons.  This is the ultimate way to prevent the humanitarian catastrophe that would ensue from the use of nuclear weapons, and to which we and other agencies would just simply not be able to respond to.  By the way, I should add that the findings of our study were corroborated in a similar study carried out a few years later by the United Nations agencies.

What was the role of the ICRC in changing the discourse to humanitarian consequences?

Well the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in May 2010, indeed made a historic finding.

All of the state’s party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty agreed by consensus that any use of nuclear weapons would have catastrophic humanitarian consequences, and nuclear weapons must be considered through the lens of International Humanitarian Law.

Now we know from the decision, the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in 1996, that any use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to International Humanitarian Law, also known as the Law of Armed Conflict or the Laws of War, and this has been a conclusion of the ICRC and the global Red Cross and Red Crescent movement for many years now.

For us, it’s difficult to envisage any use of nuclear weapons that would be compatible with International Humanitarian Law.  This was one of the starting points for a historic statement by the president of the ICRC in April of 2010, so this is one month before the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference, in which he called on States to begin negotiations for a legally-binding, international agreement to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons; not just on the basis of the fact that any use would be generally incompatible with humanitarian law, but also crucially just on the basis of the evidence of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences and the inability of any humanitarian-assistance organization to be able to respond to such catastrophe, to be able to meet a magnitude of the humanitarian needs that would be generated by the use of nuclear weapons.

Bear in mind as well, and this is in subsequent studies since 1945.  Environmental modelling has shown that even a limited nuclear exchange, this is using maybe just 100 average-sized nuclear weapons limited to a certain region in the world, so not necessarily a global exchange, if this nuclear exchange took place, in particular, in populated areas, the environmental consequences would be such that it would lead to a cooling of global temperatures due to the massive amounts of materials, including radioactive particles, shot up into the atmosphere from these blasts.

And it would most probably lead to food-shortages and probable famine by of over 1 billion people. And this is just a fraction of the nuclear weapons in nuclear arsenals today!  So once again the evidence has been mounting over the last years, a lot of this evidence was indeed presented at the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons intergovernmental conferences that took place starting in Oslo, but then later in Nayarit, Mexico and in Vienna Austria in 2013 and 2014, and now we today have a massive body of evidence that a nuclear war would simply, not only not be winnable, it would likely destroy life on earth as we know it today.

What is the ICRC doing to help entry into force?

The ICRC and National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, as part of our global, humanitarian movement, we have welcomed the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and we have committed ourselves, as a global movement, to promoting its entry into force and encouraging as many states as possible to join the treaty.

We believe now this treaty can really make a difference in terms of establishing a norm at global level, very clearly and comprehensively prohibiting nuclear weapons and reinforcing the stigma against the use of nuclear weapons.

So the treaty sends a clear signal to the world that any use of nuclear weapons, possession, development, etc., is completely unacceptable, and this madness has to stop.

We need to take decisive and concrete steps to end the era of nuclear weapons, and the Nuclear Ban Treaty is a good step in the right direction.  It is a concrete step in that direction.

We believe it is a treaty that complements the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  The NPT commits States, in article VI, to nuclear disarmament, to effective measures towards nuclear disarmament.  Unfortunately there’s been very little by way of concrete steps under article VI, but we believe today there is that step through the Nuclear Ban Treaty.

We also believe that by reinforcing the stigma on nuclear weapons, through the Nuclear Ban Treaty, this actually reinforces the NPT’s non-proliferation objectives.  It creates an even greater disincentive for states to want to develop nuclear weapons and seek out nuclear weapons.

How can ordinary people get involved to help the signing and ratifying of the TPNW?

Well, it’s incredibly important that people who want to do something and get involved, it’s incredibly important through their own communities and any organizations or communities of interests that they work in, be it with youth organizations, the scientific community, teachers associations, many people are also involved in public life at the local level, or at the national level for that matter in their countries, to raise the issue; this grave concern about the continued existence of nuclear weapons, critically about the rising risks of use of nuclear weapons.

We know that with increasing international tensions over recent years, with increasing rhetoric of certain world leaders who are actually, either overtly, or in a subtle but quite clear way, threatening the use of nuclear weapons.  To say that this is completely unacceptable and demand of governments that they take concrete steps and measures to reduce nuclear risks, reduce tensions, and concrete steps towards nuclear disarmament.

This is of interest to all communities.  This is not an issue that belongs only to politicians or experts. Everyone is concerned about nuclear weapons, because nuclear weapons threaten the future of everyone.  They threaten our children, our grandchildren, future generations, entire life on the planet.  So everyone is concerned, and everyone has the legitimacy and a voice to bring to debates about nuclear weapons.

What is your motivation?

Well, I think today I draw my motivation just by looking back at what we’ve accomplished over the last eight years.  If you look at the last eight to ten years, if you would have asked anyone if we’re going to ban nuclear weapons through a new treaty, people didn’t take us seriously, people said, “Oh, this is utopic.  It’s unrealistic.  It’s not going to happen.”

Well it did happen.  It happened because we all pulled together, we work together.  Everyone with their own expertise and added value, and so on.  And certainly the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement brought its own contribution to this effort to ban nuclear weapons through bringing its first-hand testimony of what we saw in Hiroshima; the ICRC working side-by-side with the Japanese Red Cross back in 1945 to do the best we could, against all odds, to bring relief to the dying and wounded in the tens of thousands.

We could hardly have an impact there, and so based on our first-hand experience we were able to bring this testimony and succeed through this testimony and bringing about a change in mindsets of governments, of a critical mass of governments, to turn things around and to cease to look at nuclear weapons in narrow, military and security terms but to broaden the perspective, and indeed focus the perspective on what these weapons actually do.  What is the evidence of what they do to human health, to people, to societies and their long-term impacts on the environment and on future generations, and indeed the threat that they pose to future generations and to humanity as a whole?

So it was bringing this first hand testimony and also of the long-term impacts of nuclear weapons; the fact that the Japanese Red Cross is today continuing to treat survivors of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In fact, in the five years that followed the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the number of fatalities, so the original number of fatalities in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of 1945, was 140,000 in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki.

Those figures increased between two and three fold in the next five years due to radiation sickness from radiation exposure.  So people continued to die massively in the following five years.  The medical system was incapable of responding to this, did not have the capacity to respond, and then later on when the medical system got up and working again in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, through reconstructed hospitals, Japanese Red Cross hospitals continued to treat thousands of survivors from the very high incidences of cancers, leukaemia and other diseases that followed.

So for the decades on, now over seventy three years after the atomic bombings, and the remaining survivors, the Hibakusha continued to suffer from these cancers and illnesses and be treated by Japanese Red Cross hospitals.

I’m feeling very optimistic when I see what we were able to achieve against all odds eight years ago, when we embarked on this eight years ago, calling for a new treaty to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons, and this groundswell that was created, the work of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement with the ICRC, and then of course of civil society, under the umbrella of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and a range of states, and in building support among the critical mass of states to negotiate the treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons.

So this gives me a lot of optimism that we can do a lot more.  It’s going to take a lot of hard work and dedication, but we are committed to doing it, to seeing the Ban Treaty entered into force, and seeing a majority of states join.

And in the meantime, creating the necessary pressures on nuclear weapon-States, and their allies, to take urgent action, to at the very least, urgently right now, reduce nuclear risks, take the needed steps to reduce the risk of use of nuclear weapons, to prevent their use and then ultimately fulfilling their promises of nuclear disarmament by taking the concrete action needed.

BE KIND
Let us search
And try to find
A moment
To be kind
David Herr

Reading for July 22 from Praying for Justice. “ Turn, I pray, let no wrong be done. Turn now, my vindication is at stake.” Job 6: 29

Blog Stats

  • 14,170 hits

Support 2007, 2008 and 2009

More Light Presbyterians

Visite recenti

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

We must act and dare the appropiateness and not whatever comes to our mind not floating in the likelihood but grasp the reality as brave as we can be freedom lies in action not in the absence of mind obedience knows the essence of good and satisfies it, freedom dares to act and returns God the ultimate judgment of what is right and what is wrong, Obedience performs blindly but Freedom is wide awake Freedom wants to know why, Obedience has its hands tied, Freedom is inventive obedient man respects God’s commands and by virtu of his Freedom, he creats new commands. Both Obedience and Freedom come true in responsability (Dietrich Bonhoeffer)

Blog Stats

  • 14,170 hits
Follow Ecumenics without churchs on WordPress.com