The post Student Turned Soldier Released from Death Row in Donetsk Thanks UFPJ Activists for Support, Speaks Out on POW Abuses, Murder appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

There’s no easy way to put this, so I’m going to be direct, while providing some personal context. My friend Bryan, a soldier in the Ukrainian army who surrendered at Mariupol, was one of three men recently sentenced to death by a Russian proxy court. Have you heard of the “two Britons and one Moroccan?”  He is the Moroccan.

It wasn’t until I saw his face in the headlines that I learned of his birth name, Brahim Saadoune, a 21-year-old who moved to Ukraine to attend the Polytechnic University in Kyiv.

I met Bryan in Kyiv on my first visit to Ukraine in September 2021. He was a kind “kid” who greeted me in perfect English but was also able to translate as he introduced me to Russian and Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians who don’t often speak much English. I didn’t know then, but he had introduced me to my current roommate; a queer-American expat who eventually became one of the many unrecognized refugees after the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

From the moment we met, it was obvious that Bryan was a smart, sweet, caring, funny and charismatic guy, who spoke many languages, had many friends and the trust of others, and a broad socio-political worldview. He opened up to me about his life, uncertainties, difficulties, and his desire to stay in Kyiv with his friends and chosen family. It was then that he mentioned the option of joining the Ukrainian military as an opportunity to solve his dilemmas.

At that moment, although there was always awareness of some fighting near Donbas, the thought of a full-scale war was not on our minds. We saw each other and continued our banter for multiple days, and when I had to abruptly leave Kyiv, I knew I would return and see him and meet our new friend group there again.

I planned to return in the new year and when I did, many familiar faces popped up in the place where we’d met. All but Bryan’s. It was then that my now “house guest” explained to me that Bryan, like many under-resourced youth in the United States and elsewhere, had signed a contract with the Ukrainian military that would allow him to remain in Ukraine legally.

Part of why I’d returned to Ukraine, with the threat of war in the air, was to determine if there was any support that UFPJ, our allies, and the global peace movement could offer to antiwar organizers on the ground. At that point, the war provocations had risen, Russian troops were surrounding the borders, and around then, President Biden began giving his briefings to the world on the intelligence which pointed to an imminent invasion. There was still some uncertainty over whether it was just posturing, and few Ukrainians wanted to discuss the topic. “We’ve been at war for years. Do you expect me to suddenly become hysterical? Of course, I am for peace, but if Russians invade, we will show them the exit,” was the general sentiment.

I began reaching out to Bryan for information and to see how he was doing. He was able to provide some perspective, as were my friends from Donetsk and Kharkiv and other parts of the country. Brain seemed to believe the Russians would have a tough time taking Kyiv if they tried. For now, he has been correct. We’d joke and share memes as he was on the front. He’d give me updates on whether there was the sound of gunshots or explosions. He never told me exactly where he was and from time to time, once the war started, we’d lose contact for weeks at a time.

Only after reports of his capture did I learn that Bryan was moved from where he was stationed, ultimately to join the Ukrainian defense of Mariupol, which had already become the well-known humanitarian crisis zone that it is today. I’ll spare you my interpretation as it’s throughout the media, but it turns out that Bryan/Brahim was one of the many Ukrainians who surrendered due to lack of food, supplies, medicine, and the inability to sustain.

The “2 Britons and 1 Moroccan” are being used by the Russians to make an example of what they will do to any fighters of foreign origin. Even though all three were members of the Ukrainian military, defending against the Russian offensive, the Russian proxy “Supreme Court” ‘and their illegitimate trial suggested that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to these prisoners of war. Each was handed the death sentence, with only 30 days to appeal. Today, UK officials have made statements and are taking action in support of their citizens, in an attempt to spare them this fate. For Brahim, the Moroccan government has said nothing. Still, somehow, Brahim has made an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

His native Morocco has played a neutral position with regards to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. They were not present for the UN vote condemning it.

This week I met twice with part of the Moroccan delegation at the UN. At first, the representative was not aware of my friend Brahim Saadoune’s and instead told me of the flights they supported to help evacuate Moroccan students following the invasion. I shared his story and was promised a response. On the second day I was told that the Ambassador was aware of Brahim’s story and that there would be no official statements or actions taken.

So far, any significant organizing for Brahim’s release has been done by his many friends from Kyiv, with support of the burgeoning, strong, and resistant Kyiv club scene. His story has been told by those who know him best, to counter any spins by pro-Russian propagandists. In one of the photos of him being taken from the court following the death sentence, he gave a giant sarcastic smirk to the cameras. Many of us believe that was him telling us that even this unbelievable experience hasn’t broken his spirit, hope, or humor.

I want to be able to tell you a specific action you can take to support him, but for now, we’re still trying to define where the pressure needs to be applied. The most important thing we can do right now, is share his story and speak his name, in halls of power, in meetings of friends and family and we must keep him in focus. Through the hashtag #savebrahim, we have stayed, connected, shared information, and even pressured Zelensky’s Chief of Staff to take notice and release a video on Instagram devoting their administration to Brahim’s cause.

I encourage you to search for #savebrahim and to share his story with this hashtag. Please use your channels and your networks to make his story known. If we do not force a change in the sentence, it could mean death by firing squad for him in a matter of a couple weeks.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to tell you about my friend, Brahim “Bryan” Saadoune. I’m looking forward to spending time with him again.

The post #SaveBrahim, My Friend, Surrendered Ukrainian Soldier (21) Sentenced to Death appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

The historic anti-nuclear sailboat Golden Rule is being prepared for an epic voyage throughout the Midwestern, Southern and Eastern U.S.  In September the 34-foot wooden ketch will be transported by truck-and-trailer from San Francisco Bay to Minneapolis, from where she shall sail down the Mississippi, along the Gulf Coast, around Florida and up the intercoastal waterway to the northeast, and back to the Midwest.  It will take the Golden Rule one-and-a-half years to make this circuit, famously known in the sailing community as the “Great Loop.”

“We will have events in 28 big cities and 68 smaller towns along the way,” said Golden Rule Project Manager Helen Jaccard.  Lots of people are volunteering, as organizers and crew.  People are excited to host the Golden Rule peace boat and to spread her message of nuclear disarmament, peace and sustainability.”

The Golden Rule is spreading the word about the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and building support for local initiatives to press the US government to join the growing number of countries who have signed and ratified the Treaty.

The terrible war in Ukraine has been a shocking setback for peace-loving people.  But it is also bringing into focus the very real possibility of nuclear war. “Now is the right time – a very urgent moment, in fact – to re-double our outreach and all our efforts for nuclear disarmament,” said Helen Jaccard.

The Golden Rule and its intrepid captains and volunteer crews radiate the moral and physical courage of its original 4-man crew, who in 1958 attempted to sail into the U.S. nuclear test zone in the Marshall Islands.  The boat was re-discovered in Humboldt Bay in 2010, and restored by Veterans For Peace and friends, a process that took five years and thousands of volunteer hours of loving labor.  She “splashed down” in June 2015 and has been sailing for peace and disarmament ever since, including up and down the west coast and nearly two years in Hawai’i.

The Golden Rule recently returned to San Francisco Bay, after visiting San Diego, where Veterans For Peace organized many events, and Ensenada, where she went sailing with members of VFP’s Deported Veterans chapter.

“There is lots of excitement about the next phase of the storied history of the Golden Rule,” said Helen Jaccard, who manages and crews the wooden sailboat. “This is a positive-energy communal effort – just what we need at this time.”  View the sailing schedule of the Golden Rule’s epic voyage around the Great Loop, or volunteer as an organizer or crew.

The post Golden Rule Peace Boat to Voyage around “Great Loop” as Ukraine War Raises Concern about Nuclear War appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

UFPJ encourages groups around the country to organize public participatory readings of the speech this April 4 as part of the Poor People’s Campaign Mobilization for the June 18 Mass Poor People’s & Low-Wage Workers’ Assembly and Moral March on Washington.

We have prepared a toolkit which provides everything you need to organize your own reading – in English or in Spanish. You can organize a reading in person or online.

Please let us know if you’re planning a reading!

When Dr. King gave this speech, the United States was embroiled in the Vietnam War. The country was in turmoil as peace activists resisted the draft, and anti-war and civil rights protesters took to the streets. King’s speech laid bare the relationship between U.S. wars abroad and the racism and poverty being challenged by the civil rights movement at home. And it was controversial in some parts of the civil rights movement.

In this powerful speech Dr, King provides both a diagnosis and a cure that remains fully relevant today. “I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values…. we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”

Listen to an audio recording of Dr. King delivering “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence” on April 4, 1967.

The Poor People’s Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival has picked up Dr. King’s unfinished work weaving the interlocking injustices of systemic racism, systemic poverty, environmental devastation, militarism and the war economy and a distorted moral narrative of Christian nationalism, into one “moral fusion” campaign.

Read the powerful Statement on Russia’s attack on Ukraine from the co-chairs of the Poor People’s Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival, Bishop William J. Barber II and Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis on Feb. 25, 2022 – Poor People’s Campaign (poorpeoplescampaign.org)

Heads up, member groups! UFPJ is inviting our member groups to participate in a virtual reading of “Beyond Vietnam” on April 3 and will be launching a Poor People’s Campaign working group. You’ll be hearing more from us soon.

The post This April 4: Organize a Public Reading of Dr. King’s “Beyond Vietnam: Speech in Your Community appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

John Burroughs, Senior Analyst, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy; Board of Directors, Western States Legal Foundation

With the UN Security Council paralyzed by a Russian veto, in two resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly a large majority of UN member states have strongly condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The International Court of Justice, the UN judicial branch, has also weighed in, ordering the cessation of Russian military operations in Ukraine in a case brought by Ukraine under the Genocide Convention.

Security Council

On February 25, the day after the invasion began, the Security Council voted on a draft resolution condemning the “aggression against Ukraine in violation of Article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter” and deciding that Russia shall immediately withdraw its forces from Ukraine. The resolution was not adopted due to a veto by Russia, one of the five permanent members of the Council. Eleven states voted yes (Albania, Brazil, Britain, France, Gabon, Ghana, Ireland, Kenya, Mexico, Norway, United States), and three abstained (China, India, United Arab Emirates).

General Assembly

In view of the paralysis of the Security Council due to the veto afforded Russia, the General Assembly then held an emergency special session on the crisis under a “Uniting for Peace” procedure dating back to the 1950s. On March 1, the Assembly adopted a resolution by a vote of 141 to 5 with 31 abstentions. It deplores the Russian aggression in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, calls for immediate Russian withdrawal from Ukraine, and calls for all parties to strictly observe international humanitarian law (IHL) regulating the conduct of warfare. The five negative votes came from Russia, Eritrea, North Korea, Belarus, and Syria. Abstainers included China, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and a number of countries from Africa, including South Africa.

On March 24, the UN General Assembly adopted a second resolution on Ukraine by a similar vote of 140 to 5 with 38 abstentions. It reiterates the first resolution’s condemnation of Russian aggression; calls for compliance with IHL; and calls for humanitarian assistance, including to refugees. (Download a pdf of the resolution here.) South Africa offered a competing resolution which did not condemn Russian aggression. The General Assembly decided not to take a vote on the South Africa resolution, as explained in this UN news story.

International Court of Justice

On March 16, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a preliminary order (full text; summary)  in a case brought by Ukraine claiming that Russia is abusing its rights under the Genocide Convention by waging a war of aggression to prevent an alleged but non-existent genocide. Both Russia and Ukraine are parties to the Genocide Convention, which provides for the Court’s jurisdiction over disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention. Russia did not participate in the hearing on the matter, but did submit, outside of regular procedure, written arguments which the Court took into account. By a vote of 13 to 2, the Court ordered that Russia immediately suspend its military operations in Ukraine. The two negative votes were cast by judges from China and Russia. Decisions of the Court can be enforced by the Security Council, but such action in this case would be prevented by a Russian veto.

Some Observations

Obviously, Russia has not responded to the General Assembly resolutions and ICJ decision by immediately withdrawing its forces from Ukraine. How much the resolutions and decision are nonetheless influencing Russian actions is hard to assess but they may be having more of an effect than is apparent on the surface. Possible restraining effects on China’s actions are important as well.

The role of the Russian veto in paralyzing the Security Council has once again demonstrated what Ireland called the anachronistic nature of the veto and will no doubt stimulate renewed efforts to limit or abolish it or to reform the Council and the UN system more broadly. These are not easy tasks; among other things, the veto and the identification of permanent members of the Council are written into the UN Charter.

As to the General Assembly, while its resolutions were adopted by large majorities, the number of abstentions indicate that for some African and Asian countries there is a reluctance to take a side in a dispute involving major powers, Russia, the United States, and, to a lesser extent, China, which has somewhat reluctantly backed Russia. This could be due to a justified perception of inconsistency in when the United States and its allies are devoted to upholding the UN Charter (for example, the US and UK were not so devoted when they invaded Iraq); actual or potential political or economic ties to Russia or China; or other reasons (for example, some African countries might have followed South Africa’s lead).

Under the Uniting for Peace procedure, the General Assembly could have gone further than it did in the two resolutions, for example by recommending that states join in imposing sanctions on Russia or in providing military assistance to Ukraine. However, there is nothing barring states from taking those steps anyway, and having such recommendations could have jeopardized the wide support for the resolutions or even their adoption.

The post Ukraine: Developments at the United Nations appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

The post Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: An Illegal War of Aggression appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

The post New Ukraine Crisis resource page: commentary, responses, and background appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

It is time for the people of the world to cry Enough! No more war threats, no more War! The peace movement must be a global people’s movement, aligned with the policies of no government.

The governments of the United States and its allies bear responsibility for refusing to include the post-Soviet Russian government in security arrangements that would allow it to feel secure within its borders. After the Cold War, Russia’s government sought a European security order in which it could be a full participant. Russia also relied on assurances from the United States government and its allies that NATO would not be expanded to the East.

Instead, the government of the U.S. and its NATO allies pursued a far more confrontational course, expanding NATO to include former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact countries, and leaving open the possibility of membership for Georgia and Ukraine, moves which would extend the alliance right up to Russia’s borders. It was against this background that the 2014 overthrow of Ukraine’s government occurred, leaving Russia with a government backed by Western powers on its doorstep. Followed swiftly by Russia’s occupation of Crimea and the revolt of two regions in Ukraine’s East, the crisis devolved into a complex proxy war in the breakaway regions, with forces supported by Russia facing a Ukraine military receiving varying degrees of support from the government of the United States and its NATO allies.

The people of Ukraine have borne the brunt of all this. In eight years of fighting, 14,000 Ukrainian soldiers and noncombatants have been killed, and over 1.5 million displaced.  Russia also likely has suffered combat casualties in Ukraine, although the numbers are unknown. The society and infrastructure of Ukraine’s East have been badly damaged by eight years of fighting.

And now the people of Ukraine find themselves at the center of a renewed and broader crisis, one that could draw the militaries of the United States, its NATO allies and Russia into direct conflict. The Russian government has deployed a significant part of its land forces towards Ukraine’s borders.  At the same time it is making demands for a sweeping renegotiation of Europe’s security arrangements, including a significant rollback of NATO. The United States and NATO have for the most part rejected those demands, offering instead negotiations on a narrower range of arms control and confidence-building measures, and refusing to place any limits on further NATO expansion.

The United States government and some of its NATO partners are increasing weapons shipments to Ukraine. The U.S. also is placing military forces on alert for rapid deployment to Europe. Russia, the United States, and NATO all are conducting significant naval exercises in the waters in and around Europe. It must be emphasized that Russia and the United States together hold over 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons, and a wider war in Europe could involve four out of the original five nuclear-armed states.

All of the governments make much of their “sovereign” rights to deploy their militaries however they wish within their borders or in international waters, and to make alliances and send weapons and military forces to any allied country that will accept them. That does not mean that every alliance is wise, or that a government can deploy its forces at will in ways that an adversary is likely to understand as a threat. The United Nations Charter, a treaty to which all the antagonists here are a party, prohibits member states from “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state….” (Article 2, sec.4) It also requires members to “settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice, are not endangered.” (Article 2, Sec. 3). Further introduction of more weapons and forces, overt or covert, into or around Ukraine and its disputed regions by any party only increases the likelihood of a war that careens out of control.

All military forces of all nations must stand down, and their governments must stop insisting that this crisis is necessary. It is up to the peoples of each of the antagonists to demand this of their governments.

Here in the United States, what we must demand of our government, in the hope that the people of all countries involved on all sides of this deepening crisis will make similar demands on theirs:

Immediately:

–We call on the government of the United States to be willing to negotiate with any and all states without conditions. Its “security” policies have played a significant role in bringing Europe, and the world, to the brink of disaster.

–The people of the Ukraine are on the front lines of the ongoing war and most at risk should it intensify. We call on the government of the United States to use all diplomatic means to encourage an immediate cease fire, a pullback of military forces from the conflict zones, and negotiations aimed at giving Ukraine’s people a real voice in their future, free of coercion from armed formations of all kinds, whether state militaries or regional militias. The United States should also provide humanitarian assistance to be directed to ordinary people in all of Ukraine’s regions, sustaining social benefits and public services and aiding in reconstruction of housing and public infrastructure damaged by war.

–We call for an immediate cessation of shipments of weapons or other military aid to Ukraine, and of the introduction of additional U.S. military forces and equipment of any nature into Europe.

–We call for an immediate, and world-wide, moratorium on U.S. military exercises outside the borders of the United States, and especially of provocative exercises, tests, and deployment of nuclear-capable forces.

–We call for a halt to the rush to additional sanctions against Russia, its government, or its economy. Ill-considered sanctions are more likely to impair than enhance good faith negotiations.

–We call for a moratorium on expansion of NATO.

And then we call for:

— Reversal of NATO decisions to expand rapid reaction forces and supporting infrastructure in Eastern Europe.

–Termination of U.S. programs to deploy U.S. ballistic missile defenses in Europe.

–Removal of U.S. nuclear weapons from Europe.

–More than three quarters of a century after the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and more than half a century after the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom committed in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to negotiate in good faith for an end of the nuclear arms race and the elimination of nuclear arsenals, immediate commencement of negotiations encompassing all nuclear-armed states for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

–Commencement of broader negotiations towards peaceful, inclusive security arrangements for Europe in which the NATO military alliance, its roots deep in the Cold War, will no longer be seen as needed by any of Europe’s people, allowing all U.S. forces in Europe, after more than three quarters of a century, to finally come home.

The most powerful countries have been in a permanent state of mobilization for war for over 80 years. We have lived under the threat of nuclear war for three quarters of a century. It is time to bring all the troops home, to bring us all home from the war.

The United for Peace and Justice Coordinating Committee

The post Time to start stopping the wars: No war in Ukraine, then no war anywhere. appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.