To: Detroit/Seattle
Workers' Voice mailing list
November 11, 2022
The last issue of the D/SWV list (http://www.communistvoice.org/DSWV-221103.html) discussed the crisis of much of the the anti-war movement largely from the point of view of the failure to back the Iranian protesters. A similar issue however comes up with respect to the Ukrainian war of resistance to the Russian invasion.
At the end of September a statement was issued by a number of professors and public figures who are worried about the threats of nuclear war made by Russia and the tensions arising over Taiwan. It mainly concentrates on the war in Ukraine, and it calls for an international settlement that would bring peace by partitioning Ukraine. By this means it hopes to accomplish a “cooperative coexistence between the United States, Russia and China”; it is not a call to fight imperialism, but to rely on the imperialist powers to be reasonable, cooperative, and enlightened, and for the people to submit to whatever the capitalist governments decide among themselves. This statement may not have much influence in itself, but it illustrates a widespread sickness in the left, so it is worth examining.
It is addressed to “intellectuals, artists, scientists, journalists, religious leaders, advocates and other engaged citizens”, who are essentially being asked not to back the Ukrainian resistance for fear of world war. The signers don’t support the right to self-determination of Ukraine or Taiwan or anywhere else; and there is no praise for the resilience of the Ukrainian people, or for any example of the people anywhere fighting tyranny. At the end, the signers appeal to “people everywhere to take the initiative personally and collectively” -- but apparently only so long as the people don’t fight back against what the big powers want, don’t organize to change their governments, and don’t fight against economic exploitation. All the people are supposed to do is to help disarm Ukraine so that the map of Europe can be redrawn, with the hope that this is the last territorial demand from Putin.
As the signers don’t support the right to self-determination of Ukraine or anywhere else, the problem for them isn’t that Ukraine was invaded, but that the Ukrainian people have risen against that invasion. If Ukraine had fallen in a few days after the invasion of Feb. 24, there would be no appeal to save humanity, just the business of drawing new maps. The existence of this statement is another sign that the continuing resistance of the Ukrainian people to the destruction of their country has created a crisis in many political circles
Let’s look at some particular points in this declaration.
* There is no mention of “the right to self-determination” of
Ukraine or Taiwan; everything is supposed to be arranged to satisfy the
biggest imperialist powers, and “ideally” (that’s the word the
resolution uses) the middle powers as well.
* It has no condemnation of the Russian imperialist invasion of Ukraine. This is why the signers include apologists for Putin. The statement regards the invasion as simply the result of “decades of gross mismanagement of global security”. Nothing whatsoever is said that could be taken as condemnation of the invasion, only that the fighting in Ukraine is a problem for the world. The mismanagement is simply that Western imperialism hasn’t acknowledged the right of Russian and Chinese imperialisms to have bigger spheres of influence than what they resulted after the collapse of the USSR.
* Buried in the document are some empty promises about “international guarantees” for Ukrainian “independence and territorial integrity”, but only after saying that issues such as Crimea and Donbas are “jurisdictional issues”. That is, they can be sliced away from Ukraine, and in the statement’s view, this would still preserve Ukrainian “territorial integrity”. Indeed, perhaps some other parts of Ukraine might be sliced away too, to gain Putin’s approval. Meanwhile the statement doesn’t explain why the past international guarantees for Ukrainian borders, guarantees signed by the Russian government as well as others, such as the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, proved no obstacle to the Russian government invading Ukraine.
* The signers would prevent Ukraine from being able to defend itself against any further Russian aggression. The statement demands “an end to the delivery of lethal military aid to Ukraine”, but not an end to the manufacture and stockpiling of lethal military equipment by Russia, which is one of the world’s main arms merchants.
* The statement is concerned with Taiwan too, but there is no appeal for China to refrain from invading Taiwan. The statement doesn’t even hint that the signers would condemn such an invasion. There is no concern for what the Taiwanese people think, just as there is no concern for what the Ukrainian people think. Instead it appeals that the world should follow a 1972 Communique between the Chinese and American governments (between Richard Nixon and Zhou Enlai), despite the imperialist nature of that communique.
* The statement endorses the sham excuses of Russian imperialism for the invasion of Ukraine, and it insists on guarantees for Ukraine’s neutrality. It doesn’t ask for Russian guarantees about its foreign policy, but only Ukrainian guarantees.
* The statement says it would “set in motion an ambitious program for nuclear disarmament,” but doesn’t even condemn the repeated threats of Russian imperialism to use nuclear weapons as part of its war on Ukraine. Does anyone really believe that slicing up Ukraine would result in world nuclear disarmament? Why hasn’t there already been nuclear disarmament — is the problem simply that Ukraine and Taiwan have been independent?
* In its extensive list of empty promises, the statement doesn’t even include amnesty for Russians and Belarusians who oppose the war. The Russian and Belarusian people don’t matter, just the ruling circles. The statement doesn’t praise the anti-war protests carried out bravely by large numbers of Russians and Belarusians, nor provide any help for those who have taken part in it. It doesn’t even make an empty promise to help them; there is no plea to “set in motion an ambitious program of amnesty”.
* On the other hand, the statement makes a lot of demands over what Ukrainian internal policy should be. These demands are presumably all to be enforced by international agreement, by which Western imperialism will join with Russian imperialism in dictating what Ukraine can do, or how long it will exist until it is gobbled up by Russia.
* The statement doesn’t demand reparations for Ukraine, possibly because its writers understood that Ukraine would eventually be annexed if the statement’s plan was adopted. It does talk about “international aid” for the “humanitarian crisis in Ukraine”, but doesn’t mention that such aid already exists to some extent and keeps being bombed by Russian artillery, drones, and airplanes.
* The statement is written with the same type of "blah, blah, blah" that Greta Thunberg condemns with regard to environmental declarations by governments and international organizations. She points to the glorious phrases of the present governments, phrases which mean nothing at all except that the governments aren’t serious about doing anything. Similarly, this appeal to humanity is full of empty (and contradictory) promises that no reasonable person could seriously imagine would ever be implemented by the big powers. Indeed it is hard to believe that the signers themselves take these promises seriously. Such promises are simply the traditional way to fool people who don't really understand what imperialism is. In this way, the idea is to unite apologists for Russian imperialism with pacifists, liberal backers of US imperialism, and well-intentioned but inexperienced people. Everyone gets to have a clause for their favorite dream in this supposed anti-war statement, anything except condemning the aggressors or accepting the right to self-determination. And the price is only the people of Ukraine and, maybe, Taiwan. What a bargain, the signers would have us believe.
* Let’s look at a particular example of such empty rhetoric. The statement promises that after the war is over and Ukraine sliced up, there will be a path towards “a series of interlinked consultations, culminating in an international conference, whose primary purpose would be to frame a new global security architecture, sustained by appropriate reforms in global governance and designed to” accomplish any goal you can imagine. Behind the big words, the only serious part is that the signers are concerned with “regional arrangements, especially in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region”—that is, redrawing the spheres of influence between the great powers. The only realistic thing about this statement is that it implicitly admits, by limiting what these international consultations are supposed to deal with, that these international conferences won’t deal with providing rights to the working people or limiting their oppression.
Thus the statement is not progressive or anti-imperialist in any sense. There is no appeal to build up the type of mass force that can shake imperialism, nor any reference to the gigantic crises that are about to fall on imperialism, from environmental devastation to the rise of the far right and neo-fascist parties. There is no mention that divisions and redivisions of Europe or Asia or the world among imperialist powers will always break down. Indeed, it pays no attention whatsoever to the miserable fate of previous plans of this type, which have repeatedly failed to bring world peace. <>
Below is the text of this statement. It appears on various websites, where it is dated anywhere from Sept. 29 to October 7, but I couldn’t find the official website for it. The list of signers is included so one can see how so many public figures which people have faith in are willing to put their name to an appeal to readjust imperialist spheres of influence as the supposed true path for world peace.
To All Who Care about Humanity’s and the Planet’s Future
Humanity has reached a tipping point. It is time for governments, international institutions and people everywhere to take stock and act with renewed urgency.
The Ukraine conflict is inflicting death, injury, displacement and destruction, exacerbating a global food crisis, driving Europe into recession, and creating shock waves across the world economy.
The Taiwan conflict is threatening to escalate into outright war that would devastate Taiwan and turn East Asia into a powder keg.
More troubling still is the toxic relationship between the United States on the one hand and China and Russia on the other. Here lies the key to both conflicts.
What we are seeing is the culmination of decades of gross mismanagement of global security. The United States has been unwilling to accept, let alone adapt to, the rise of China and the re-emergence of Russia. It remains unwilling to break with outdated notions of global dominance – a legacy of the Cold War and the triumphalism that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union.
A global power shift is taking place. The West-centric world, in which first Europe and then the United States held sway, is giving way to a multi-centric, multi-civilisational world in which other centres of power and influence are demanding to be heard.
Failure to accept this new reality spells immense danger. A new Cold War is now in full swing, which can at any moment mutate into a hot war. In the words of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, “humanity is one misunderstanding, one miscalculation away from nuclear annihilation”.
Even if nuclear apocalypse is averted, discord between nuclear armed states inhibits cooperative problem-solving, the provision of global public goods and an effective and independent UN system.
To rise to the challenge we need a coherent, sustained and multifaceted response by governments and international institutions, inspired and driven by an ever watchful and engaged civil society. Several steps suggest themselves, some immediate, others longer term.
The first steps must aim to end the conflict in Ukraine and defuse the tensions over Taiwan. More substantial efforts are needed to foster a framework of cooperative coexistence between the United States, Russia and China – an essential building block for peace across both Europe and Asia.
To this end, we believe the UN Secretary-General or a group of middle powers acting – ideally the two acting in concert – could set in train a multi-pronged initiative aimed at securing an effective and durable ceasefire in Ukraine and the relaxation of tensions over Taiwan.
In the case of Ukraine, the aim must be to secure the cessation of all combat by Russian and Ukrainian forces and separatist groups based in the Donbas region. This would be a ceasefire monitored by a United Nations team reporting regularly and directly to the UN Secretary-General.
A ceasefire, however, is unlikely to hold for long without a durable
settlement of the Ukraine-Russian conflict. This will in turn depend on
bringing to an end the cynical use of the Ukraine war by great powers
intent on pursing their geopolitical ambitions. Only then will it be
possible to achieve:
These arrangements will need to be complemented by a wider agreement involving other interested parties, with a view to securing: an adequately funded international program to address the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine; international guarantees to safeguard Ukraine’s independence, neutrality and territorial integrity; and the removal of all sanctions placed against Russia and the restoration of normal trade relations.
In the case of the Taiwan conflict, the first step must be to defuse the current level of tension. To this end, the international community should reaffirm the principles set out in the Shanghai communiqué of 1972, notably the ‘one China’ principle which now commands widespread international support. In line with this principle, the international community must use all means at its disposal to dissuade Taiwan from making any unilateral declaration of independence. The UN Secretary-General in tandem with ASEAN is well placed to spearhead such a course of action.
These relatively short-term initiatives must pave the way for a
series of interlinked consultations, culminating in an international
conference, whose primary purpose would be to frame a new global
security architecture, sustained by appropriate reforms in global
governance and designed to:
None of this will happen without a massive global awakening of human wisdom and energy. Important as governments and international institutions are, the initiative for a coherent response to the challenges we face lies largely with the people, with civil society.
Leadership of various kinds is needed. Which is why this message is also addressed to intellectuals, artists, scientists, journalists, religious leaders, advocates and other engaged citizens.
Equally, we have in mind groups working on the rights of indigenous peoples, aid and development, conflict resolution, civil liberties and human rights, violence against women, refugees and asylum seekers, climate change and other threats to our environment, public health (not least Covid), justice for the poor and marginalised, and ethnic, religious and cultural diversity. ALL are adversely affected by great power confrontation, oppressive security laws, rising military budgets and destructive military activities, not to mention the prospect of nuclear catastrophe. ALL have a crucial part to play.
Trade unions, professional networks (in education, law, medicine, nursing, media, communications), farmer organisations, religious bodies, human-centred think tanks and research centres have also much to contribute to the conversation for a habitable future.
It is time for people everywhere to take the initiative personally and collectively – to set in motion conversations, small and large, formal and informal, online and in person, using the written and spoken word, as well as the visual and performing arts. This is a moment for collective reflection on where we’re at, where we should be heading and the steps needed to get us there.
The stakes are high. We need bold thinking that connects people and issues within and between countries. We must revive and reframe the global security conversation. There is not a moment to lose.
Prepared by
Richard Falk, Emeritus Professor of International Law, Princeton University; Chair of Global Law, Queen Mary University London; Research Associate UCSB
Joseph Camilleri, Professor Emeritus, La Trobe University, Melbourne; Fellow, Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia; President, Conversation at the Crossroads
Chandra Muzaffar, Former Professor of Global Studies, Universiti
Sains Malaysia, Penang; President of the International Movement for a
Just World (JUST)
Endorsed by
Prof. Abdelllah Hammoudi, Professor of Anthropology, Emeritus; Founding Director of the Transregional Institute, Princeton University
Ajarn Sulak Sivaraksa, Co-founder and Chairperson of Advisory Committee of International Network of Engaged Buddhists Ashis Nandy, Homi Bhabha Fellow, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies
Brad Wolf Executive Director of Peace Action Network of Lancaster.
Prof. Alfred de Zayas, Professor of international law, Geneva school of diplomacy; Former UN Independent Expert on International Order (2012-18)
Dr. Arujunan Narayanan, Academic teaching International Relations, International Law and Western Philosophy - UKM, UM, HELP University, Armed Forces Defence College, Institute of Diplomacy and Foreign Relations.
Prof. Assaf Kfoury, Professor of Computer Science, Boston University
Prof. Azyumardi Azra, Rector of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University, Jakarta, Indonesia (1998-2006); Professor of History, State Islamic University, Jakarta, Indonesia (1997-on)
Celso Luiz Nunes Amorim, Former Foreign Minister; Former Defense Minister, Brazil
Prof. Chaiwat Satha-Anand, Former President of Social Science Association of Thailand; Former Vice Rector for Academic Affairs, Thammasat University; presently Expert, Toda Peace Institute, Prof. of Politcal Science, Thammasat University; Thammasat University Distinguished Scholar
Chris Hedges, American Journalist, Author and Commentator
David Swanson, Author, Executive Director of World BEYOND War
Prof. Farish A. Noor, Professor, Department of History, University Malaya
Fredrik S. Heffermehl, Lawyer and Author, Norway, Nobel Peace Prize Watch.
Prof. Ilan Pappe, Director of European Center for Palestine Studies, University of Exeter, Britain
Ivana Nikolic Hughes, President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Senior Lecturer in Chemistry, Columbia University
Prof. Jeffrey Sachs, University Professor, Columbia University
Jorge Casteneda, Former Foreign Minister of Mexico, New York University (Rt Hon.) Jeremy Corbyn, Independent MP for Islington North
John K. Stoner, 1040forpeace.org
Prof. Jomo Kwame Sundaram, Professor Emeritus, Economics, University Malaya
Prof. Junaid S. Ahmad, Director, Center for the Study of Islam and Decoloniality, Islamabad, Pakistan
Dr. Kate Hudson, General Secretary, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Kathy Kelly, Board President, World BEYOND War
Kishore Mahbubani, Founding Dean, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, NUS.
Prof. Kevin Clements, Director, The Toda Peace Institute, Tokyo Japan
Dr. Lim Teck Ghee, Policy Analyst
Prof. Mahmood Mamdani, Herbert Lehman Professor of Government, Columbia University, NYC
Mairead Maguire, Peace Laureate; Co-founder Peace People; Northern Ireland
Prof. Maivan Clech Lam, Emeritus Professor of International Law, Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.
Maung Zarni, Burmese Dissident & Co-founder of FORSEA. (Tan Sri.) Mohamed Jawhar Hassan, Adjunct Professor, Asia-Europe Institute, University of Malaya; Former Chairman and Chief Executive, Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia
Dr. Ramzy Baroud, Center for Islam and Global Affairs, Zain University, Istanbul
Prof. Shad Saleem Faruqi, Emeritus Professor at Faculty of Law, Universiti Malaya; Chair Holder, Tunku Abdul Rahman Foundation
Shahanaaz Habib, Ex journalist, The Star
Susan Wright, Ph.D., Research Scientist and Lecturer Emerita, History of Science, University of Michigan
Victoria Brittain, Journalist and Author
Yanis Varoufakis, Member of Greek Parliament and MeRA25 leader,
DiEM25 co-founder; Professor of Economics – University of Athens ;
Honorary Professor of Political Economy – University of Sydney ;
Honoris Causa Professor of Law, Economics and Finance – University of
Torino ; Distinguished Visiting Professor of Political Economy, Kings
College, University of London. <>
Back to main
page,
how to order CV,
write us!