Every year, 6 February marks the day for a world-wide outcry to stop, once and for all, the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM). Violence against women is an all too well documented form of societal and political oppression, and the practice of FGM on young girls and women has to be one of the most horrific and oppressive forms of gender violence. We as the Task Force for Feminism, Disability and Diversity, ask world leaders and communities to show zero tolerance for FGM every day of the year.
The practice of FGM is an expression of deeply entrenched gender inequalities, borne from a lethal cocktail of cultural, religious, political and social structures upon which are built patriarchal families, communities and entire societies that rely on the “relation of gender based on inequality”. Historically, the female body has been the playground for entire societies and cultures to establish hierarchies and property on life based on sexism, misogyny and the appropriation of bodies for economic and social prerogatives. A true obeissance to a masculine mandate that through genital mutilation finds its most truculent form of establishment of power over the female body and its designation within the hierarchies of production and reproduction of systems of life: a hierarchy that can only be established and maintained through the expression of power as dominant and brutal violence.
As Rita Laura Segato states: “Masculinity rules by means of a primal and permanent pedagogy. It teaches the expropriation of value and consequent domination.”
FGM is not merely maintained by these inequalities, but gender inequalities are indeed sustained by the practice of FGM. The practice maintains power structures based on gender in a society where women and their ‘honour’ are considered as the objects and properties of men and therefore valued according to patriarchal necessities.
Nowadays, the majority of FGM is practiced in countries of Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East and Northern Africa, but it can also be found in Russia and South America and Asia. While many Europeans point the finger quickly at communities from these countries alone as those practicing it in Europe, it should not be forgotten that clitoridectomies (the partial or full removal of the clitoris) were practices in Western Europe (and the USA) as recent as the 1950s, treating perceived ailments such as hysteria, epilepsy, mental disorders or melancholia.
As Laura Hood writes that “in 1860s London, one form of FGM — clitoridectomy, the surgical removal of the clitoris — briefly became an acceptable treatment for a wide range of conditions including “hysteria” and mental illness. It could also be used as treatment for behaviour seen as unfeminine and as a threat to marriage. These included a “distaste for marital intercourse”, “a great distaste for her husband”, violent behaviour, or even just answering back.”
FGM is not exclusive to low-income countries as there are reports of medically done clitoridectomies in Russia as late as 2018.
In Egypt, “Nearly 90% of Egyptian women and girls aged between 15 and 49 have undergone FGM, according to a 2016 survey by the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the ritual is practised widely by both Muslims and Christians despite the 2008 ban”, but no one has ever been convicted under the law, which was just strengthened again (with harsher sentencing in January 2021).
Circling back to the beginning, there is a total absence of medical or clinical justifications for any form of FGM! It is time we took our bodies back from the patriarchal gaze and its oppressive and destructive demands. But here we are, asking for all of you to speak up about and against it, demand change and hold people accountable.
Social media companies are not the saviors of democracy — they may lead us to its demise
In an ironic turn of events, social media companies had to shut the account of Donald Trump — an authoritarian president whose rise to power and grotesque attacks on democracy they had themselves enabled. Indeed, despite the lauded actions of social media companies that have blocked Trump after the capital riot, social media has been one of the main motors of the damaging effects of fake news and increased division worldwide. Here is why we should refuse this fatalistic view and break the power of big tech.
In the confusion of early 2021, at a time when the world was still gripped by the worst pandemic in a century and the US Capitol was under the assault of a pro-Trump mob set on overturning the results of the election, big tech corporations made an unprecedented move. Social media companies such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter suspended the social media accounts of a sitting US president.
The existential threat that the Capital riot and its fraudulent accusations of a stolen election presented to the democratic process required exceptional measures. Trump’s authoritarian impulses should have been suppressed even long before. We do not dispute that. The question however is whether the power to decide on and execute these exceptional measures lies solely in the hands of the CEOs of several private companies.
The sovereign — to borrow the expression coined last century by political scientist Carl Schmitt — is the one who decides on the state of exception. Given that the exceptional decision to suspend Trump’s Twitter and Facebook account was not taken by the judiciary or legislative power, but by private companies, does that make them de facto sovereign entities?
Was this a display of sovereign power? If big tech wields this kind of leverage over both an outgoing and an incoming US president, one can only imagine what they are capable of doing when dealing with less powerful sovereign states around the world. Or with defenseless citizens. For one thing, the events of early 2021 have laid bare these huge power differentials.
Unraveling the unity of sovereign power achieved by modern nation states is sending us back to a modern form of technological feudalism. While all eyes are on the US elections, democracy around the world is under threat because of the exploitative, recklessly profit-driven, and non-transparent functioning of big tech companies.
Over a decade of mass social media usage, powered by algorithms that are exclusively aimed at maximising sales, even if that means manipulating our fears and reinforcing our pre-existing biases, has also incredibly polarised public debate and created fertile ground for the spread of unverified claims and ludicrous conspiracy theories.
Big tech companies have made themselves indispensable in many aspects of life. In many countries, Facebook is equivalent to the internet, as Facebook Zero allows access to Facebook without mobile charges.
It would be unimaginable to run a political campaign, let alone public office, without massive social media use. They are now making themselves equally indispensable in the control of the abuses that derive from it, wielding an unprecedented power of censorship.
There is some irony in big tech having to shut down an authoritarian president whose rise to power and attacks on democracy they had themselves enabled. Social media platforms are trying to portray themselves as the cure for the illness of modern democracy they are largely responsible for, but we should absolutely refuse a narrative that sees the quasi-sovereign power of big tech as unavoidable.
While their actions do make them de facto sovereign entities, it is not the content, but the size of the companies, that is the main problem.
In the end, we the Technological Sovereignty DSC do not believe that a legal solution (either through an intra- or supra-national approaches) is feasible, as a whole new court system would need to be established for the flood of cases, whenever a post is taken down.
A viable alternative thus has to be decentralisation of power, no monopolies or oligopolies of a few very powerful companies, so information and its flow is not controlled by the few.
Various platforms already exist, and are run and used by digital sovereignty conscious people (and not driven by shareholder profits), but the majority of people have yet to question the monopolies of big tech.
DiEM25 made Technological Sovereignty one of its pillars and you can read all about it here.
Additionally, start using alternatives to the options of big tech, some existing alternatives are:
“In February 2016, a group of activists, thinkers, and agitators gathered together in Berlin’s Volksbühne theatre and vowed to shake Europe. Nothing had been scripted — it was a simple, beautiful idea that brought together people from all corners of the continent.”
Whether you’ve just joined DiEM25 this year amidst the pandemic, or been here from the beginning, take a moment to (re)discover the history of our movement! You can now read about the DiEM25’s big accomplishments and key moments for the past 5 years, and have a look at all the grassroots stories that are a part of our community.
See you at our Anniversary Event tomorrow at 20:00 CET!
We will release a documentary on the night, telling the story of DiEM25’s party MeRA25 in Greece! Tune in here to register for the opening. The documentary will be followed by an FAQ with the production team and some of the members featured in the documentary.
We will also officially announce some of our initiatives, such as our relaunch of DiEM Voice, the arts and culture platform for the movement!
Register for our public event that will take place on 9 February starting at 20:00 CET here and watch it on Youtube.
Despite ground-breaking reforms, the EU is undermining citizens’ right to privacy by attempting to provide a “front door” to encrypted communications
Since the proposal of the GDPR, the world has seen the European Union as the privacy capital of the world, but the veneer of greatness is beginning to splinter and crack. There is now a document that outlines the Commission’s plans to systematically dismantle end-to-end encryption, in another bout by governments to subvert its people’s digital privacy.
We were distracted, so they were scheming
In July 2020, while the world was distracted by the raging pandemic, the European Commission used that moment to propose a strategy under the guise of combating the spread of child sex abuse material (CSAM). This was not an overtly public proposal by the Commission; they sought as little scrutiny as possible. As this strategy – which purportedly exists for noble reasons – will break end-to-end encryption.
Breaking end-to-end encryption is highly problematic, as it protects people’s lives: journalists, activists, and dissidents worldwide use this technology to protect themselves from authoritarian regimes that would silence them if given the opportunity. Time and time again heavy-handed governments step in and silence those who would speak or act out against them, or in some cases, simply voice an undesirable opinion. This has been true recently in Hong Kong and Turkey.
End-to-end encryption is a way for all people to engage privately in digital spaces. The public actively stands against governments and businesses putting listening devices in homes; tapping phone lines; or generally eavesdropping. Yet in digital spaces — where society now does the bulk of its communicating — the European Commission wants it all.
The proposal has offered many different “technical solutions” for stopping CSAM, and for each solution, they have provided a privacy score. However, the score is not the complete picture as the Commission does not see law enforcement or government as a threat to user privacy. The footnotes state that the privacy score measures the likelihood of others gaining access to the information, failing to recognise themselves as a threat.
As Edward Snowden brought to light in the 2013 revelations, governments and intelligence agencies have limited accountability when handling people’s data. There is no doubt that stopping the spread of CSAM is essential and a worthwhile goal. However, this approach is a rather sinister way of achieving that end. Further, it is potentially not the intended purpose of the overall proposal. The document states explicitly that “encryption is a threat” and must be “immediately addressed.” While it reports wanting to stop CSAM, the ultimate agenda appears to be: dismantle private digital communication.
Encryption is absolute
The great thing about end-to-end encryption, device encryption, file encryption and so on, is that it is absolute; either something is encrypted, or it isn’t. All of the proposed “technical solutions” involve some back-door into encrypted servers or devices. Essentially hijacking messages in transit, screening them, and allowing them on to the receiver. By attacking encryption in this way, end-to-end encryption becomes redundant, it is no longer secure, as someone or some organisation has disrupted the process.
This would be similar to sending a letter by post, and someone other than the intended receiver, reads the contents before forwarding it. That is a crime. It is an offence for postal workers, businesses, couriers, or non-intended recipients to open mail that is not addressed to them (without a warrant). Under this proposal, our digital mail (emails, messages, calls) sent via encrypted services: Proton Mail, Signal, WhatsApp etc. would be opened and read. Many would call this a back-door into encryption. However, an EU counter terrorism coordinator, when commenting on the strategy, called it what it really is: “a front door.”
As if this man-in-the-middle type interception wasn’t odious enough, the proposal offered another strategy that is far more alarming: breaking into users’ physical devices. Under the section “Device related solutions”, they proposed detection on the device. In 2018 the Saudi Prince Mohammad bin Salman used a program known as Pegasus to hack into the phone of known dissident and political refugee Omar Abdulaziz. The information obtained through this tool’s use led to MBS plotting and coordinating the political assassination of journalist and dissident Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Arabian embassy in Turkey.
Moreover, the prince was able to use the same program to hack into Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’s phone. Now, I have no love for Jeff Bezos or Amazon, but it highlights that these tools can be used to attack anyone regardless of wealth and status – indeed no one is safe. Pegasus version 2 was developed by a private cyber arms dealer in Israel named the NSO group. This program can be purchased and is sold to businesses as well as governments throughout the world. The proposed detection on the device seems remarkably similar to Pegasus style attacks. Although it is unlikely the Commission would use such a tool from the NSO group, by walking this road, it will become harder to turn back.
What about targeted surveillance?
Often when the debate around privacy and encryption protection arises, people ask: Why not allow for targeted surveillance and decryption of targeted messages? Sure, that is a brilliant solution and if law enforcement suspected somebody. obtained a warrant and followed the legal process, there would be no need to write this article. The problem with that approach is that it isn’t reflected in what happens in practise; as I said earlier something is either encrypted, or it isn’t. If a company that offers encryption is ordered by police to decrypt the messages of user X on its servers. The only way that would be possible is to create a decryption key that would decrypt all of the messages on its servers.
This is a huge problem, maybe the government/law enforcement only read user X’s messages, as allowed by a warrant, and left everyone else alone. Except now, the server is decrypted, all that would be needed would be a data breach of some kind, either through a targeted attack or coding error and the decrypted messages of all people using that service are out in the wild. This is not an unrealistic possibility, 2020 saw the largest number of records compromised since 2005 totalling 37 billion. Of course, these numbers only indicate reported breaches. No matter what language is used, or how it is jazzed up, targeted decryption, on that scale, is not feasible.
DiEM25 fights for your privacy
DiEM25 understands the realities of technology and the importance of privacy. The DiEM25 Technological Sovereignty Policy explicitly states in section 2.2.3 that “all citizens have a right to strong encryption.”
Specifically, this is to prevent governments and other third parties from eavesdropping and spying. This is clearly different from the European Commissioners stance, who see encryption as a problem. DiEM25 will protect the privacy of all citizens in the European Union. Further, by having such a cogent policy on security, data protection and privacy, the movement shows its understanding of digital technology.
Is this the Europe we want? A Europe with more private spaces or conversations? Even if you are someone who believes you have nothing to hide, or nothing to protect; privacy is universal. Privacy is a right, and privacy speaks to the health of any liberal democracy. We need it, and we must fight for it.
The European Commission plans to draw up legislation and take this matter to a vote in 2021, in the meantime, go loud. If you care about privacy; if you don’t care but know someone who does; if you know journalists, dissidents or activists: go loud. Tell your current sitting government you do not want this. Write to them, email them, call them. The urgency of this cannot be overstated! In the meantime, if you wish to increase your digital privacy (while you still can) research what services you can use to protect yourself.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect DiEM25’s official policies or positions.
Faces of DiEM is about the less well known stories of our activists
It’s about the stories of those that came across DiEM, were inspired by the movement’s message, and got engaged with the project as activists on the ground. It’s about meeting these people and how their activism has instructed their own lives.
This episode features Cassie Callan is an interior designer and singer based in France, and Ciro Faienza is an italian-american based in the US. Along with moderator Erik Edman, they spoke about how to approach political engagement through a more pragmatic point of view, rather than intellectual enclaves that have a tendency to fracture the Left.
Watch the episode!
Highlights
“That fight (…) takes you all over Europe because we are all facing exactly the same struggles and the source of those struggles — the European oligarchy, the political establishment, the way brussels is run — that’s something that connects us across the entire continent; even, one could argue, if one is a citizen of the EU or not.” — Erik Edman
“One of the things that interested me is that [DiEM25 is] a transnational movement. This to me is absolutely right for the time.” — Cassie Callan
“In the 60s, when I was extremely active (…) there was a very strange coalition suddenly forming in the 60s — we had the black panthers, we had the patriots who were white southern people, and then we had the young lords and they came together in Chicago to form a coalition of the complete unlikely on the Left to help local communities to help a local community (…) in North Chicago where Mayor Daley was trying to gentrify the area. (…) Most Americans still view the black panthers as dangerous but here’s what happened — we had a lot of press and propaganda told to us and actually what’s been revealed is that the black panthers were not trying to kill people; they did arm themselves, but they really supported communities. They were totally community based.” — Cassie Callan
“The reality is we really have to as Leftists broaden our communication with each and be much more tolerant of differences and much more involved in helping each other, in each other’s communities. (…) You can make a best friend out of an enemy if you try.” — Cassie Callan
“The European Left traditions have long intellectual histories, and in the US it’s much more common that a movement proceed even without connection to these intellectual histories. I don’t need to have read Marx or to know who Gramsci is to say ‘the rent is too high’. (…) In [Italy] there are intellectual camps that people will fall into and at some point the camps cease to function in a practical way. Whereas Americans will easily gravitate to slogans like ‘the rent is too damn high, let’s put food on the table’ these kinds of things. Bernie Sanders’ appeal I think was that his message was unflappable and hard to argue with: people are in terrible pain and we should stop it. Regardless of what is our intellectual approach to that problem. (…) I would like to see more evidence of that on the European side.” — Ciro Faienza
The Progressive International delegation arrives to support the people of Ecuador exercise their rights freely and fairly and to help preserve democracy
The delegation will support the efforts of the National Electoral Council (CNE) to deliver free and fair elections by traveling across scores of precincts on election day and monitoring the process of ballot counting in the hours after they close.
The PI has sent its delegation due to the overwhelming international concern for the integrity of Ecuador’s elections. Given the severity of the global pandemic, the extended legal challenges to potential contenders, and the prospects of election postponement, PI’s observer mission will help ensure transparency and a peaceful electoral process in the context of these extraordinary circumstances.
A delegation convened by PI observed last year’s landmark Bolivian elections, which were carried out successfully despite taking place less than a year after a coup. Despite this success, concerns remain about the transparency and fairness of election observation in the region following the severe criticism of The Organization for American States (OAS) election observer mission for its role in the 2019 Bolivian coup following the first round of presidential elections. PI’s mission inside the country will be aided by additional delegates outside the country, unable to travel due to the Covid-19 pandemic, who will analyze the data from the electoral contests to avoid the tragic errors of the OAS Bolivia in 2019.
Additionally, PI’s delegation will monitor the ability of local observers to be present at the polls, tensions between Ecuador’s two electoral authorities, the destruction of erroneously printed ballots and the transmission of precinct level results to the CNE for national tabulation. Extensive monitoring and observation at each step in this delicate process will be critical to providing confidence in the final result.
David Adler, member of the Progressive International’s Cabinet and coordinator of the Ecuador delegation, said:
“Between violent crackdowns on IMF protests in 2019 to persistent threats to cancel this week’s election, Ecuador’s democracy is on the brink. The vigilance of the world will be critical to preserve it — and help advance democracy in the region.
“The Progressive International will contribute to the transparency of the electoral process and help secure its credibility. The Progressive International — with its members and partners throughout Latin America and the world — is particularly concerned about the integrity of Ecuador’s elections, given the challenging political, legal and public health context in which they take place.
“We hope to witness the people of Ecuador exercise their rights freely and fairly – and to send a powerful signal in defence of democracy everywhere.”
“We need to understand that we can affect the things that are going on around us. And to understand that, we need to try it. We need to attempt to influence; we need to attempt to do stuff. Even if [it’s] wrong.”
— Antonis Bougias of Golden Dawn Watch
“From not doing anything, or writing comments on Facebook, to actually doing something… there’s infinite space. Once you cross [it], you’re going to feel alive. And from that point, anything is possible. ”
— Radomir Lazovic, Founder, Don’t Let Belgrade Drown
The case for individual, targeted activism
As progressives we like to push for change by building coalitions and generating consensus.
But sometimes it’s the lone activist starting small that finds the most effective path. The right person with the right idea at the right time, pushing the right weak spot, can have an impact.
Antonis Bougias and his team covered the trial of Greece’s neo-nazi party, making public vital information that the Establishment would have preferred to control. Daniel Dale documented Trump’s lies over four years, providing raw data to help hold a President to account. Chris Smalls staged a walkout to protest the lack of COVID protection at Amazon, and sparked a national movement against the company.
These people took action because they found something that made them mad, and no-one else was working on it. They started small, but kept their attention focused on a single issue and played the long game. They crossed the seemingly infinite space between problem-pointing and problem-solving.
OK, this kind of targeted, individual activism isn’t likely to bring power instantly to its knees. And there’s always the risk that it leads to nothing.
But on the other hand, even if it’s only moderately successful it can establish a platform on which to build a bigger campaign later on. It can provide you with a focal point to mobilise people around, giving you a better shot at long-term impact. And it gives you a chance to stretch your activist muscles as well as an opportunity to learn.
So how can we promote this model of grassroots activism?
An incubator for grassroots campaigns
This is the challenge that Ivana Nenadovic, Juliana Zita and I are trying to tackle with Campaign Accelerator, a new project that we’ve launched this week with the progressive movement DiEM25. Its goal is simple: to support grassroots activists to develop their own actions on issues in their communities that they feel passionate about.
The project runs in cycles. The first (pilot) cycle was last November-December, and we received 47 applications. Among the campaigns we helped was an initiative to block the construction of Yet Another Mall in Porto, and a push to stop arms companies running schools in a region in the UK. And we learned a lot.
The second Campaign Accelerator cycle has now started, and we’ve already received 51 applications. The deadline to apply is the end of Friday, February 5.
How it works
The Campaign Accelerator page has all the details, so I won’t reproduce them. But here’s the essence of this project from our side (it’s rough :).
A rough sketch of a Campaign Accelerator cycle (January 2021 edition)
Assemble a team with specific skills that are valuable for campaigns. From graphics and video to PR and legal advice.
Ask the crowd which issues in their communities bother them most. Encourage starting small, keeping it local, and choosing things they could make progress on.
Pick the three most viable applications. Assist the rest in a one-off fashion.
Work with the coordinators of the three ‘winners’ over four weeks. Support them to prepare a small campaign, and help them go live by giving them access to the resources of the team.
The coordinators run their campaigns. We take stock of how it went, and integrate what we learn into the next Campaign Accelerator cycle.
We don’t have the perfect recipe for this project, because we’ve never done anything like it before. And we’re trying to do a lot with a little. But we are starting, and will iterate as we go.
In the future we could imagine building out the team to include more skilled volunteers. Holding training workshops. Supporting campaigns for longer than four weeks. Or scaling up the project to be able to work with more than three campaigns per cycle.
But let’s keep it small for now. If you have feedback on the project or ideas to improve it in the meantime, tell us.
The accord is rightly celebrated as a “historic milestone” (UN Secretary-General António Guterres) of nuclear disarmament legislation, and a beacon of hope for anti-nuclear groups around the world. Furthermore, it constitutes an important act of solidarity and mutual collaboration among participating nations. However, it’s real world effects on the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons still remain rather dubious.
As Noam Chomsky has warned, the threat of nuclear war should be taken very seriously. Nuclear weapons remain one of the three most pressing potential causes for the extinction of humanity. Chomsky underscores that it is a “virtual miracle that we have survived, not only from numerous accidents but also from occasional very reckless acts of leaders”.
William Perry, a leading authority on nuclear security issues, has a long history inside the walls of national security departments and the corporate boardrooms affiliated with them. He came out of his retirement a couple of years ago to warn the world that:
“[t]oday, the danger of some sort of a nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War (…) and most people are blissfully unaware of [it].”
The world is facing a double threat with regard to nuclear weapons; the danger that they pose in and of themselves as well as peoples astonishing lack of attention to that danger.
From first steps at the UN to the Non-Proliferation Treaty
The first official act of corroboration on the threat of nuclear war occurred on 24 January 1946 in the United Nations General Assembly, passing its first ever resolution by 46 votes to null. It called for the “Establishment of a commission to deal with the problems raised by the discovery of atomic energy”. This initial call on the UN Security Council to work on eliminating nuclear weapons failed as more of the Permanent Members of this group acquired them over the next two decades. However, in the following years constant civil society pressure, the 1958 standoff over Berlin, the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 and further proliferation of nuclear armaments began to create an impetus for the necessity of nuclear arms control treaties.
This momentum led to agreements placing limits on the United States and the Soviet Union regarding their nuclear arsenal, delivery and defensive systems. This began with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 (ABM), which placed a cap on missile defenses on both countries, amongst other limitations.
Further negotiations in the 1980s established the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) that saw the prohibition of land based ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of 500-5000 kms — while excluding air and sea-based systems. This led to the destruction of nearly 2700 nuclear weapons. Next came the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) that saw a decrease in nuclear armaments of the Soviet Union/Russia and the United States between 1991 and 2009. While successive negotiations on START II and START III failed, the United States and the Russian Federation inked a bilateral treaty in 2010 — New START — that further reduced the deployed nuclear arsenals of each country to 1550.
In the interweaving years however, the ABM and INF treaties ceased to exist due to the withdrawal of the United States in 2002 and 2019 respectively. This means that New START is the only remaining nuclear weapon arms control agreement between Russia and the United States — with both countries accounting together for more than 90% of the global total. Recent reports from the Kremlin and the White House indicate that New START will be renewed for a further five years into 2026. Unless both parties agree on an extension, this last limitation will expire in only a few days time — on 5 February, 2021!
Multilaterally, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was expected to stem the increase of nuclear weapon states. It further placed an obligation on those that possess them to engage in nuclear disarmament under Article 6 of the NPT. The deficiency to pursue this objective by the signatories, coupled with the expansion of nuclear weapon states from five in 1968 to nine as of 2021, indicates a global failure to address this continuing existential threat to humanity. A hazard that, until the coming into force of the TPNW, had not been illegal.
The lack of such prohibition was cited by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its 1996 Advisory Opinion on the “Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons”. The Court had noted that arms control agreements — until 1996 — did not constitute “comprehensive and universal conventional prohibition on the use, or the threat of use” of nuclear weapons. TPNW — as an instrument of international law — changes the status quo. Should another case related to the legality of nuclear weapons fall before the ICJ, those arguing for its legality will find their case resting on thinner ice.
While the treaty only applies to state parties, it marks an achievement on arms control norms in international affairs: The actors involved in the process have expanded from individuals and civil society to intergovernmental organisations. Thereby — through this evolution in the norm life cycle — handing activists a further authoritative benchmark to point to in their efforts surrounding nuclear weapons.
A symbol of progress for anti-nuclear struggles and an act of South-South cooperation
Next to this, the constitution of the agreement also provides nuclear disarmament movements, as concerned people around the world in general, with a symbol of progress in the matter. Not least, because its establishment largely is a success of activist fringes involved in the issue. This reflects the positive effects that these kinds of efforts can have. It points toward actions that could and should be undertaken in the future, if this existential threat to humanity is to be overcome.
The treaty also constitutes an important act of cooperation and joint action among nations of the Global South. If one simply considers who are the signatories of the TPNW, this fact immediately becomes evident. Of all 193 UN member states “only” 84 signed the agreement — among them mostly countries from the developing world, which don’t themselves hold or produce nuclear weapons.
Crucially; all nine nuclear weapons states, as well as all NATO member states, neither signed nor even took part in the deliberations leading up to the accord — except the Netherlands, downvoting the adoption of the treaty at the July 2017 conference dedicated to the negotiation of the agreement. This division line between the signatories and non-signatories of the treaty runs (approximately) along the boundaries of Global North and South (see graphic below).
As in many other cases — whether they be economic or social or military etc. in nature — the same pattern persists. The South convenes and cooperates on an issue with work toward progressive ends in mind — most often balancing the scales of power and privilege between North and South — and the North abstains from participation and denies meaningful coverage in the outlets of its doctrinal systems; i.e. the media, academia.
The graphic shows the signers of the TPNW; divided into those who ratified the agreement (green) and those which have yet to do so (yellow). All countries coloured in grey have not signed the treaty. Source: Wikipedia
So, to take one case, which demonstrates this, which also happens to be directly linked to the issue of nuclear weapons; How many people in the West know of the hundreds (if not thousands) of civilians and veterans killed or severely injured by the effects of the US, France and Britain’s nuclear tests in Oceania? How often has one read in the Western press of the 500 time maximum of acceptable radiation that Tahiti, the most populated island in Polynesia, was exposed to during France’s nuclear tests there in the 1960-70s? How often did the words “literally been showered with plutonium for two days” as an investigator for the Polynesian government, Bruno Barillot noted, appeared in major European publications? This stands in stark contrast to the long held official position of the French government that their nuclear tests had always been clean. How many people know that out of 800 dossiers filed against the French government by victims of the test or their families, only 11 have received compensation thus far? Their voices — as the voices of the victims of the Global North in general are — largely go unheard.
Another case, which reflects the same pattern, occurred in February 1999, when two sets of significant economic talks were taking place simultaneously. One were the talks of the G-7 (seven wealthiest nations), which, as usual, received ample coverage in the western media. Another were those of the G-15 — now 18, then 17 countries from the so-called developing world, including in them economically quite substantial ones, such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, India, Indonesia and Nigeria — countries which can’t just be dismissed from the world stage. The sets of talks between these nations received remarkably less attention in the western world; in some countries, like the United States or Great Britain, close to none (some in the BBC World Services and a couple of scattered sentences here and there aside).
In them, leaders from the Global South lamented the fact that the United States and Britain were unwilling to enter into dialogue with them on a number of issues. These included possible reforms to World Trade Organization rules, which might, for a change, not only benefit Northern countries, but also those of the South beyond the level which they are usually accustomed to; that of left-overs from the rich’s table.
The North’s main exponent and its faithful “lieutenant” (as a senior Kennedy adviser once characterised the US-British relationship) however remained silent on the occasion — as on so many others. And neither this, nor the plea to consider some moderate controls on foreign, mainly Western, investment were heard by political actors in the West or echoed by their counterparts in the media.
In opposition to this kind of irreverence, DiEM25, which has consistently denounced armed conflict and called for peaceful resolution of disputes, calls for — as a first step — the removal of all nuclear weapons from the European territory. We further denounce the encroachment of the arms industry into primary and secondary education — an important aspect which is often not considered. But schools should not be part of the normalisation of the next generation to war. We also remain concerned over the allowances provided to nations for their military emissions under the Paris Agreement — noting that the US military alone emits more than 140 countries combined.
Join us in our endeavour to further the disarmament of Europe.
Image source: Map of TPNW Treaty Participants on Wikipedia
This article was authored by Tom Stopford and Amir Kiyaei who are members of the Peace and International Policy DSC.
Dear friends and comrades, dear brothers and sisters,
In times of our current planetary catastrophe, we have read your DECLARATION… FOR LIFE with great inspiration, worry and joy, determined to do whatever is needed to support this urgent call. For what is at stake is not just the life of humans, but all other species and the biosphere itself.
During the last five years, we have established DiEM25 — Democracy in Europe Movement — in all corners of Europe and beyond, counting around 130,000 members united in the fight against capitalism’s neverending Expansion, Extraction and Exploitation. More than a decade before DiEM25 was founded, many of our members were already inspired by the Zapatista Movement and your courageous fight that has already transpassed oceans and generations.
Many of us, from all walks of life, as difficult as it can be especially for those who are daily colonized by capitalist time, have been following closely the Zapatista hourglass, we have seen the time that is coming when those who have been stubbornly, against the grain, will unite. Not in order to impose or reform, but in order to construct a common future beyond capitalism that would consider both air and water, nature and love, as planetary commons.
At this crucial moment, when the ongoing pandemic and vaccine geopolitics is even further dividing societies and communities, we need to reinvent the space and time of imagination, we need to reinvent models of mutual aid and friendship based on convictions and love that would go beyond borders, that would even go beyond generations and time, as tiny sands that could become a mountain in the hourglass.
We are excited about your arrival to Europe and we want to join, contribute, support and learn.
Please let us know how we can help, we would like to mobilize our entire membership.
On behalf of DiEM25’s Coordinating Collective,
Srećko Horvat
28 January 2021
The Zapatista’s letter: A DECLARATION… FOR LIFE
TO THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD:
TO PEOPLE FIGHTING IN EUROPE:
BROTHERS, SISTERS AND COMPAÑER@S:
During these previous months, we have established contact between us by various means. We are women, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender, transvestites, transsexuals, intersex, queer and more, men, groups, collectives, associations, organizations, social movements, indigenous peoples, neighbourhood associations, communities and a long etcetera that gives us identity.
We are differentiated and separated by lands, skies, mountains, valleys, steppes, jungles, deserts, oceans, lakes, rivers, streams, lagoons, races, cultures, languages, histories, ages, geographies, sexual and non-sexual identities, roots, borders, forms of organization, social classes, purchasing power, social prestige, fame, popularity, followers, likes, coins, educational level, ways of being, tasks, virtues, defects, pros, cons, buts, howevers, rivalries, enmities, conceptions, arguments, counterarguments, debates, disputes, complaints, accusations, contempts, phobias, philias, praises, repudiations, boos, applauses, divinities, demons, dogmas, heresies, likes, dislikes, ways, and a long etcetera that makes us different and, not infrequently, opposites.
Only very few things unite us:
That we make the pains of the earth our own: violence against women; persecution and contempt of those who are different in their affective, emotional, and sexual identity; annihilation of childhood; genocide against the native peoples; racism; militarism; exploitation; dispossession; the destruction of nature.
The understanding that a system is responsible for these pains. The executioner is an exploitative, patriarchal, pyramidal, racist, thievish and criminal system: capitalism.
The knowledge that it is not possible to reform this system, to educate it, to attenuate it, to soften it, to domesticate it, to humanize it.
The commitment to fight, everywhere and at all times – each and everyone on their own terrain – against this system until we destroy it completely. The survival of humanity depends on the destruction of capitalism. We do not surrender, we do not sell out, and we do not give up.
The certainty that the fight for humanity is global. Just as the ongoing destruction does not recognize borders, nationalities, flags, languages, cultures, races; so the fight for humanity is everywhere, all the time.
The conviction that there are many worlds that live and fight within the world. And that any pretence of homogeneity and hegemony threatens the essence of the human being: freedom. The equality of humanity lies in the respect for difference. In its diversity resides its likeness.
The understanding that what allows us to move forward is not the intention to impose our gaze, our steps, companies, paths and destinations. What allows us to move forward is the listening to and the observation of the Other that, distinct and different, has the same vocation of freedom and justice.
Due to these commonalities, and without abandoning our convictions or ceasing to be who we are, we have agreed:
First.- To carry out meetings, dialogues, exchanges of ideas, experiences, analyses and evaluations among those of us who are committed, from different conceptions and from different areas, to the struggle for life. Afterwards, each one will go their own way, or not. Looking and listening to the Other may or may not help us in our steps. But knowing what is different is also part of our struggle and our endeavour, of our humanity.
Second.- That these meetings and activities take place on the five continents. That, regarding the European continent, they take place in the months of July, August, September and October of the year 2021, with the direct participation of a Mexican delegation integrated by the CNI-CIG, the Frente de Pueblos en Defensa del Agua y de la Tierra de Morelos, Puebla y Tlaxcala, and the EZLN. And, at later dates to be specified, we will support according to our possibilities the encounters to be carried out in Asia, Africa, Oceania and America.
Third.- To invite those who share the same concerns and similar struggles, all honest people and all those belows that rebel and resist in the many corners of the world, to join, contribute, support and participate in these meetings and activities; and to sign and make this statement FOR LIFE their own.
From the bridge of dignity that connects the Europe from Below and on the Left with the mountains of the Mexican Southeast.
We.
Planet Earth.
1 January 2021
You can find the signatures to this declaration here.
