Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Renounce War Now.

by Jerry Alatalo

2015

(Thank you to PressTV News Videos at YouTube)

****

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are  cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labor, the genius of its scientists, the houses of its children. This is not a way of life… Under the cloud of war, it is humanity hanging itself on a cross of iron.” April 16, 1953

– DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (1890-1969) General, 34th President of the United States

“You can certainly destroy enough of humanity so that only the greatest act of faith can persuade you that what’s left will be human.” To Ed Murrow, CBS, January 4, 1955

– J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER (1904-1967) American scientist

****

The Russell-Einstein Manifesto

Issued in London, July 9, 1955

In the tragic situation which confronts humanity, we feel that scientists should assemble in conference to appraise the perils that have arisen as a result of the development of weapons of mass destruction, and to discuss a resolution in the spirit of the appended draft.

We are speaking on this occasion, not as members of this or that nation, continent, or creed, but as human beings, members of the species Man, whose continued existence is in doubt. The world is full of conflicts; and, overshadowing all minor conflicts, the titanic struggle between Communism and anti- Communism.

Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of these issues; but we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.

We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it.

We have to learn to think in a new way. We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps; the question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties?

The general public, and even many men in positions of authority, have not realized what would be involved in a war with nuclear bombs. The general public still thinks in terms of the obliteration of cities. It is understood that the new bombs are more powerful than the old, and that, while one A-bomb could obliterate Hiroshima, one H-bomb could obliterate the largest cities, such as London, New York, and Moscow.

No doubt in an H-bomb war great cities would be obliterated. But this is one of the minor disasters that would have to be faced. If everybody in London, New York, and Moscow were exterminated, the world might, in the course of a few centuries, recover from the blow. But we now know, especially since the Bikini test, that nuclear bombs can gradually spread destruction over a very much wider area than had been supposed.

It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured which will be 2,500 times as powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima. Such a bomb, if exploded near the ground or under water, sends radio-active particles into the upper air. They sink gradually and reach the surface of the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain. It was this dust which infected the Japanese fishermen and their catch of fish.

No one knows how widely such lethal radioactive particles might be diffused, but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with H-bombs might possibly put an end to the human race. It is feared that if many H-bombs are used there will be universal death, sudden only for a minority, but for the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration.

Many warnings have been uttered by eminent men of science and by authorities in military strategy. None of them will say that the worst results are certain. What they do say is that these results are possible, and no one can be sure that they will not be realized. We have not yet found that the views of experts on this question depend in any degree upon their politics or prejudices. They depend only, so far as our researches have revealed, upon the extent of the particular expert’s knowledge. We have found that the men who know most are the most gloomy.

Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.

The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty. But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term “mankind” feels vague and abstract. People scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to a dimly apprehended humanity. They can scarcely bring themselves to grasp that they, individually, and those whom they love are in imminent danger of perishing agonizingly. And so they hope that perhaps war may be allowed to continue provided modern weapons are prohibited.

This hope is illusory. Whatever agreements not to use H-bombs had been reached in time of peace, they would no longer be considered binding in time of war, and both sides would set to work to manufacture H-bombs as soon as war broke out, for, if one side manufactured the bombs and the other did not, the side that manufactured them would inevitably be victorious.

Although an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons as part of a general reduction of armaments would not afford an ultimate solution, it would serve certain important purposes. First: any agreement between East and West is to the good in so far as it tends to diminish tension. Second: the abolition of thermonuclear weapons, if each side believed that the other had carried it out sincerely, would lessen the fear of a sudden attack in the style of Pearl Harbour, which at present keeps both sides in a state of nervous apprehension. We should, therefore, welcome such an agreement though only as a first step.

Most of us are not neutral in feeling, but, as human beings, we have to remember that, if the issues between East and West are to be decided in any manner that can give any possible satisfaction to anybody, whether Communist or anti-Communist, whether Asian or European or American, whether White or Black, then these issues must not be decided by war. We should wish this to be understood, both in the East and in the West. There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal, as human beings, to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.

Resolution 

We invite this Congress, and through it the scientists of the world and the general public, to subscribe to the following resolution: “In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the Governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.”

Max Born,   Perry W. Bridgman,   Albert Einstein,   Leopold Infeld,   Frederic Joliot-Curie,   Herman J. Muller,   Linus Pauling,   Cecil F. Powell,   Joseph Rotblat,   Bertrand Russell,   Hideki Yukawa

****

“The power to destroy the world by the use of nuclear weapons is a power that cannot be used – we cannot accept the idea of such monstrous immorality… The time has now come for the nations of the world to submit to the just requisition of their conduct by international law.” No More War! (1958)

– LINUS PAULING (1901-1994) American scientist, Nobel Prize for Chemistry 1954, Nobel Peace Prize 1962

“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience… In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” Farewell address, January 17, 1961

– DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER

“Global war has become a Frankenstein’s monster, threatening to destroy both sides… It contains now only the germs of a double suicide.” Address, July 5, 1961

– DOUGLAS MacARTHUR (1880-1964) American general

“If we are not able to prevent a third world war, we shall go down in history – if history should survive – as the guilty generation, the generation which did nothing to prevent the annihilation of mankind itself.” Quoted in N.Y. Times, November 12, 1963

– U THANT (1909-1974) Burmese Secretary General, United Nations

“The choice today is not between violence and non-violence. It is either non-violence or non-existence.” Nobel Prize acceptance speech, December 11, 1964

– MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. (1929-assassinated 1968) American human rights leader, Nobel Prize 1964

****

2015

(Thank you to GlobalResearch TV at YouTube)

Advertisements

BRICS: Global Change, Peril And Promise.

by Jerry Alatalo

“But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs.”

– 1 Timothy 5:9-10

World Map1Alphabet Some have attributed today’s wars and violence around the Earth in large part to the rise of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) international financial institutions. Listening to Brazil-born Paulo Nogueira Batista – an Executive Director for eight years at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – provides affirmation the analysis is most likely correct. The question which arises is can humanity prevent the outbreak of a possible major war over this historic change.

Mr. Batista’s last day of employment at the IMF is June 30, after which he will take the position of Vice President of BRICS new, ready-to-open development bank, marking the first time the IMF, World Bank and other major US/western dominated international financial institutions will have “competition”. The development of BRICS will result in a reduction in the role of the dollar as the world’s major currency. Analysts have concluded that the reason the US, Britain and other western nations invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein in 2003 was Hussein’s decision to sell oil for euros, instead of the dollar. Analysts believe Muammar Gaddafi and Libya became destroyed by NATO air-bombardment in 2011 because of Gaddafi’s plan for major monetary reform – creation of gold Dinars as the new currency for the continent of Africa.

In both cases, Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011, false reasons – lies – were put forth to mould public perceptions in favor of military action to remove those nations’ leaders. The nations of Iraq and Libya, the men, women and children living in those countries, have suffered tremendously ever since those military attacks, and today both nations are in extremely difficult situations struggling to recover some semblance of peace, security and economic normalcy. Depending on the extent to which assertions that monetary choices in Iraq and Libya were the major factor leading to military action to protect the dollar are reflective of truth, one could come to view BRICS’ entry into international finance competition, potentially resulting in the US dollar’s decreased use in global transactions, as reason for concern over escalation of war and violence.

Any study of unsanitized, accurate records of history – such as “People’s History of the United States” by the late Howard Zinn, “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins, “The Untold History of the United States” by filmmaker Oliver Stone, “The Secret of Oz” documentary by Bill Still, and many others – provides clear evidence that wars become fought for economic, financial, power/control reasons, and not for noble ideals of “democracy and freedom”. Years-long legal engineering of the secretive and massive trade agreements TPP, TTIP and TiSa could accurately be perceived as economic warfare in response to BRICS nations’ early beginnings, meetings and conferences, and continuing development.

The world is changing at a rapid pace, moving from unipolar to multipolar, and the most important consideration for men and women around the Earth is preventing those strongly opposed to this change from reacting through military force.

It is with the intention of providing greater understanding of the BRICS phenomenon and building awareness of both potential positive and negative consequences that Paulo Nogueira Batista’s (PNB) interview has been shared in this post. As the interview begins, host Oksana Boyko notes that Mr. Batista has been “very critical of some of the fund’s methods”.

PNB: “Sometimes the fund has success stories, sometimes the fund has failures… Often the fund makes mistakes or is misguided in its interventions.”

“There are good reasons and bad reasons for delay in going to the fund. Countries are very reluctant to give up part of their sovereignty, part of their autonomy, in terms of policy-making, and are reluctant to fall into the hands of international bureaucrats. Why? Because, among other reasons, these international bureaucrats, comfortably installed in Washington, visiting countries regularly or on a quarterly basis, are out-of-touch very often with political, social, and even economic realities in the countries that rely on the fund”.

“The international institutions, the IMF and the World Bank, their governance is very skewed – very unequal. So, the North Atlantic countries are in control. And often these countries have a short-sighted view of how these institutions should act, in my opinion. So, you find that powerful countries, powerful stakeholders of the IMF or World Bank, subordinating the institutions to their short-term or medium-term political agendas”.

“The way to hell is paved with good intentions. It’s more than intentions, it’s a political issue. Countries often, not only the North Atlantic powers, but all countries in general, are prone to abuse power. So, you may find institutions that are supposed to be multilateral, or global, obey not the theory or even the rules that they work under but their interests – it’s not malevolence, I wouldn’t say malevolence… If you look at it from a historical perspective, Europeans and Americans have been used to rule the world, and they are adapting with difficulty to the fact that the world is changing very quickly”.

“I think Greece is one of the least successful episodes in IMF history. And there’s no end in sight to the economic crisis of the country. For a number of reasons, but if you look at the unemployment activity, fiscal policy, structural reforms, the political impasse that arose after Syriza’s victory – impasse between Greece and its creditors, the so-called Troika – has led to a deterioration in the situation, and things are coming to a head right now. As we speak, the situation is coming to a, one more cliffhanger, and its not clear at all whether this time you will be able to pull, not only Greece but Greece’s creditors, up from the cliffhanger”.

Host Oksana Boyko asked about the different IMF treatment of Ukraine and Greece.

PNB: “Ukraine can be seen as a second Greece. …Ukraine, the fund is trying to, let’s say learn, from the failure in Greece. Greece was too little, too late in terms of restructuring; that put an extra burden on the problem and the country itself. In the case of Ukraine, not as early as I would have liked. … 2015 – better late than never – and the program calls for restructuring, ironically, June 30. June 30 has become a fateful day both for Greece and Ukraine, as you know Greece has a major payment that’s been bundled for June 30. By the way, for me June 30 is another significant date because that’s my last day at the fund”.

“It’s very important to compare Greece with Ukraine. Are we facing double standards here? Is Ukraine getting better treatment than Greece because the fund has since learned, or is it because Ukraine, for political reasons, has a special treatment that is not granted to Greece? Then you have the political factors. What is the political nature of the government in Kyiv? What is the political nature of the government in Athens? All those questions are not explicitly there always, but they are of course in the background”.

The discussion turns to IMF reform…

PNB: “There’s a change in plateau in terms of cooperation of the BRICS since 2012. So I think that’s one factor. About the fund, I think there’s a sense of disappointment no doubt. For me, for example, I’ve been working so hard on IMF reform in the last eight years… We achieved some things, but much less than I would have expected, say, back in 2010. So I think the west has to decide, does it want to run the institutions that it controls into the ground by making them uncapable of adapting to a changing world in a quick manner, or do they want to realize that, no, the world is changing fast, we need to open space… One Chinese delegate once said, quite rightly, ‘You have a large, very large, and oversized share of a bad cake. Do you want to reduce your share, and have a smaller share of a better cake?’ And that’s the question they haven’t answered”.

“I think the United States did more than vote for reform in 2010. It actually played a very important role in putting forth reform. If you would have asked me five years ago ‘would it be possible for the United States to become the major blocking factor in the implementation of IMF reform?’ I would have answered quite confidently ‘No’. And I would have been wrong, because the US has since become the major blocking factor. Whether it’s a tactical consideration, to put the blame on Congress – ‘I want to do it, but Congress doesn’t allow me’ – I really wouldn’t know”.

Ms. Boyko points out that the US, without reform, has the “best of both worlds”, so why would they want to change?

PNB: “You touch on a very important point. It was a political agreement at the highest level in 2010, that the countries including the BRICS would provide borrowed resources to the fund as a bridge to the implementation of reforms. We did our part, we provided the resources that we pledged, but the reform did not come. So, it’s a matter of whether you want to have a… Does the United States, do the Europeans want to have a big influence on the multilateral world or are they content to just frustrate everyone? That’s the question they need to ask themselves. They have an incentive. The incentive is to keep the value for the international community – let’s put it this way – of institutions that they created, and where they have a controlling interest. If they don’t want to recognize this… Of course, there are internal divisions…”

IMF reform was/is apparently possible without the approval of the US Congress, but because such reforms would have lowered US voting power below the threshold where the US could assert veto power, it became opposed by the US.

Ms. Boyko talked about “western countries more assertive recently than developing countries”….

PNB: “The west is declining in relative terms but it still rules, and the rest of the world is increasing its weight, but it’s perhaps still not used to having a global view of matters. I think the BRICS are a partial exception to that, let me tell you. If I were to select from the non-west part of the planet – a part of the planet that introduces alternative ideas, that has a global view, I would say it’s the BRICS. It’s the BRICS. I think that one advantage that the BRICS have is that we have experienced what it is to be a developing country, relatively poor, debtor to the IMF… As you mentioned at the beginning of our conversation, not so long ago Brazil was under an IMF program. Russia was under IMF program not so long ago, I think in the 90’s. India in the early 90’s.”

“When someone comes to the board, Greece or Ukraine or whatever, we look at the issue and we have the memory. As a young official in the Brazilian government, I was involved in negotiations with the IMF in the 1980’s during the debt crisis. We have the experience so I think we need to use that experience to have an empathetic approach to the problems of other countries”.

Host Oksana Boyko: “…10 years ago 90% of world currency in the form of US dollar, now it’s 60%. If that trend intensifies, it will have significant social, economic, political consequences on the United States. The United States may become subjected to a new kind of experience. Doesn’t that guarantee that Washington will fight tooth-and-nail to prevent the BRICS plans from being realized? … because it threatens its own well-being?”

PNB: “The United States can do a lot, but it can’t do everything. There are certain trends that the United States cannot deal with, although it might wish to. The United States has resisted any reduction of the role of the dollar, so this is a long-standing issue. It will continue well past my departure from this planet. I don’t think we will solve it, but I do think you’re right that we have signs already – especially with China’s rapid rise – that other currencies will become, including emerging market countries, increasingly important in the world”.

Ms. Boyko: “Do you think your expertise will be helpful in undermining the western dominance of the global financial institutions?”

PNB: “I don’t think that’s the way we see it. The way that the BRICS countries see those institutions – the bank in Shanghai and the monetary fund – is not ‘against’ anyone. They’re pro-BRICS and pro-developing countries, so we take a soft approach”.

****

(Thank you to WorldsApart RT at YouTube)

New McCarthy Hearings To Weed Out Neocons?

by Jerry Alatalo

aaa-40Alphabet Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen thinks the U.S. Congress should hold Joseph McCarthy-style hearings to find all neoconservatives in government positions, then remove them all along with banning of holding any position of responsibility – ever again. Mr. Madsen, could you just say what’s on your mind!? But, when one gives his original idea some consideration, looking at neocon-initiated wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and “their phony war on terror” he might just be on to something. Clearly Wayne Madsen was being ironic and his other suggestion of attaching electronic ankle bracelets on neoconservatives to trip alarms each time they attempt entering a government building was surely meant as sarcasm.

One could forgive him for becoming sarcastic after decades of investigating and researching world events. Wayne Madsen probably shares with Americans a growing sense of frustration related to neoconservative politicians and appointees’ actions through the years – costing the nation dearly in many ways – so they can understand that humor sometimes comes in handy for blowing off steam.  In response to the host of “Top 5” on Press TV’s question on American/western pettiness in not attending Victory Day celebrations in Moscow recently, Mr. Madsen pointed out that the Obama administration is packed with neoconservatives carried over from the George W. Bush years.

He named Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Victoria Nuland as one of the former Bush officials remaining in the Obama administration, and another State Department appointee Amos Hochstein. Mr. Hochstein is State Department Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs, and according to Wayne Madsen recently traveled to Athens, Greece to warn the new Syriza government of Alexis Tsipras against  signing a deal with Russia’s Gazprom for a pipeline transporting energy to the European market. It’s interesting to note that while the interview talks about “petty” actions of western leaders not attending Victory Day events in Moscow, Greece’s Alexis Tsipras was there, and now apparently Greece has received an invitation to join the new BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) development bank – the first global investment institution to compete against the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Related to the 2016 race for president in America, Wayne Madsen shared his view that presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton “is surrounded by neocons”, but the short segment didn’t allow any discussion on her competitor for the nomination Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The world’s people might want to keep in mind that presidential elections (such as the one in Greece a few months ago), actions of large segments of societies, and relations between countries move and develop in sometimes surprising, unexpected ways.

Some analysts speculate a “Grexit” or Greece leaving the European Union, the euro, and returning to their sovereign currency the drachma would rock the international financial world. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met recently with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Sochi, Russia for multi-hour talks. It is uncertain whether new, “clean-house-of-neocons”, McCarthy-like hearings in the United States was one of the topics discussed.

****

(Thank you to PressTV News Videos at YouTube)

—-

For those interested in an hour-long interview by Sean Stone of Wayne Madsen:

https://onenessofhumanity.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/wayne-madsen-interview-challenges-corporate-media-narratives/ 

****

Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Sign Of Major Global Change.

by Jerry Alatalo

cropped-suits-333.jpgAlphabet Like a small city which has had only one bank for decades then a new banking competitor comes to town and sets up operations, the global mega-banking institutions World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and others now have the newly created BRICS Development Bank and Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to compete against.

According to John Perkins, author of the best-selling book “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”, this is a good thing for humanity.

Despite critical opposition by the United States, 27 countries have officially signed on to AIIB, including the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy and others, while Australia and South Korea are seen by analysts as close to joining. Most observers believe the U.S. is not likely to sign on.

Mr. Perkins, who worked as an economist arranging billion dollar World Bank, IMF, and similar large international institutions’ loans to developing nations in his self-described role as a “hit man”, feels that these institutions “blew it” after the fall of the former Soviet Union by taking advantage of their monopolistic, “take it or leave it”, and sometimes deadly business tactics (assassination) when dealing with elected leaders of nations.

The U.S. Congress has avoided approving a package of reforms to the IMF agreed upon in 2010 which would have given China and other emerging economies a greater say in decision-making. AIIB, along with Latin America focused BRICS Development Bank, allow the world’s elected leaders another option when financial resources are necessary for improving their economies.

In other words, because the World Bank, IMF and similar giant international financial institutions ignored the business world’s main maxim “the customer is always right”, top bank management opened the path for AIIB and BRICS to form and compete in the now-transformed market of multi-billion dollar development financing.

Just as the formerly competition-free small city bank’s managers now have to actually earn their potential customers’ business, trust and confidence after the competition set up operations, so, too, will the top management at World Bank, IMF, etc. Given the extreme “service” the world’s leaders and their citizens have endured for decades; that much harm has come to those nations’ populations when leaders signed the debt-crippling, austerity-generating loan contracts arranged by John Perkins and fellow economic hit men, people can find some reason for optimism with these new, world-consequence events.

And God knows the world’s people, after reading or watching their daily disheartening news reports, really wanted to hear some good, optimistic news for a change.

****

(Thank you to CCTV America at YouTube)