The Official Blog of the

Archive for the ‘The former Soviet Union’ Category

BOOK REVIEW: Anatoly I. Ionesov & Vladimir I. Ionesov, “The Culture of Peace and the Future of Humankind”

In Being a World Citizen, Book Review, Conflict Resolution, Cultural Bridges, Peacebuilding, Solidarity, The former Soviet Union, The Search for Peace on January 19, 2026 at 12:30 PM

By Vladimir Ionesov

Anatoly I. Ionesov & Vladimir I. Ionesov,
The Culture of Peace and the Future of Humankind:
Conversations with Outstanding Contemporary Intellectuals
on How to Understand Culture, and What the World Should Be Like in the 21st Century

Vol. I-IV. [Volume I. Nobel Laureates]

Samara-Samarkand: Samara Scientific Center, 2025. 500 p.

The real essence of life is not in what it has,

But in what one believes there should be.

Iosif A. Brodsky (1940-1996)

This new book by Anatoly and Vladimir Ionesov contains and presents in four volumes the authors’ extensive materials on the culture of peace and citizen diplomacy, formed on the basis of direct conversation, correspondence, meetings and idea exchanges with outstanding intellectuals of our time. For 40 years, the authors have developed and maintained a dialogue with recognized global leaders in science, education, art, business, politics and sports. This has resulted in a diverse collection of unique written messages and tangible artifacts that have been designed as an International Archives of the Culture of Peace.

The Samarkand International Friendship Club “Esperanto” (Uzbekistan) and the Samara Society for Cultural Studies “Artefact – Cultural Diversity” (Russia), both led by the authors of this publication, created this archive through the organizations’ long-term activities. On the Samarkand site, the International Museum of Peace and Solidarity (1986) was established, and the Peace Autograph Project was initiated; while on the second – Samara city site, the project “Culture of Peace Personalities: People Who Changed the World” (1994) was conceived, launched and implemented. The latter was in direct dialogue on pressing issues of the philosophy of peacemaking and the viability of modern civilization with recognized experts in the field.

Thanks to these joint projects and other types of partnership activities, it was possible to include the two sister cities – Samarkand, the ancient pearl of the East, and Samara, the ‘Space Capital’ of Russia, in the dialogue with the wider world. Through correspondence, interviews, meetings, conversations, creative projects, scientific connections, educational exchange, and other cultural practices of citizen diplomacy, communication was established with contemporaries who, through their ideas, visions, achievements, and professional experience, showed how life can be changed for the better. The authors, using the example of these personalities, their spoken or written word, proposed thoughts, insightful intuition and skillfully embodied deeds, sought to testify to unique examples of personal selfless devotion in culture. And, thereby, convey their main message: any individual may cope with the challenges of the changing world if he or she relies on knowledge, creativity, morality, humanism and free thinking.

At different stages of the project, participants in dialogue with the authors included thousands of individuals. Their visions for solving the most pressing challenges help to better understand how to build and promote a culture of peace, a philosophy of nonviolence and tolerance in the multicultural diversity of humankind. This way we discussed multiple problems the world is facing today with the people who have probably managed to implement those principles into life most fully.

The participants in the direct conversation were a variety of personalities from a Nobel Prize laureate to a simple teacher of a provincial school, from an outstanding politician to an ordinary citizen, from a famous preacher to an inconspicuous volunteer, from a professional traveler and explorer to an ordinary wanderer and creator. Each of them has their own view of the world, their own visions, interests, values, preferences. Their answers to questions, remarks and comments are unequal, as are their biographies and professional activities. In short, they are as varied as life itself.

The materials included in each volume of this publication are divided into two main sections 1. Answers to Questions, Letters and Reflections and 2. Remarks, Comments, Greetings, and two Appendices. The personal messages are placed in alphabetical order without chronological sequence. Each separate block consists of three parts: information about the person, a photo with an autograph or gift inscription, and the text of the reply. All correspondence is represented by original texts – personal messages addressed to the authors in Samarkand or Samara. The Appendix provides a consolidated list of Nobel Prize laureates who have sent their feedback (messages, etc.) to the authors and a small photo chronicle.

The first volume consists of replies, letters, remarks and comments of 72 Nobel Prize laureates representing 20 countries of the world (Argentina, Belgium, Great Britain, East Timor (Timor Leste), China (territory of Tibet), Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Netherlands, Russia, former USSR, South Africa, Switzerland, USA). All the authors of the messages placed in the book are arranged in alphabetical order.

Our interlocutors are distinguished intellectuals in the field of scientific research whose works have changed the world for the better through revolutionary inventions and major contributions to the culture and development of society. Among the intellectual leaders of our time included in this volume who have shared with the authors their visions on how to understand culture and what the world should be like in the twenty-first century are Nobel Prize laureates in Chemistry (19), Physics (15), Physiology or Medicine (11), Economics (7), Literature (4), and for promoting world Peace (16).

The authors of the book are grateful to their distinguished interlocutors, who, in addition to answering questions, have also kindly provided the texts of their articles and other materials as expanded commentary on a given topic for translation and inclusion in this edition. 

The book concludes with a list of all Nobel laureates who responded to the dialogue with the authors, including the names of those whose comments and greetings, although not included in this edition, have become an important and inspiring part of the project.  

In total, responses were received from 253 Nobelists in six fields (including three scientists who were awarded this prize twice): 49 laureates in chemistry, 68 – in physics, 63 – in physiology or medicine, 30 – in economics, 13 – in literature and 30 participants of the project were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

It should be noted that the “Culture of Peace Personalities” project, launched and implemented by the authors, inspired the creation and suggested the name of the newly established “Personality. Culture. Peace” Scientific and Enlightening Center at Samarkand International University of Technology (SIUT). It is gratifying that it was the Center that became the main venue for the completion of such a significant book project.

The authors consider this publication as another step in strengthening partnership and twinning between Samarkand and Samara. They hope that their work will contribute to the development of not only the two sister cities, but also of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). In this regard, it is noteworthy that by the decision of the CIS Council of Heads of State, Samarkand has acquired another landmark status for itself – becoming the cultural capital of the Commonwealth in 2024.

When the first volume was ready to go to press, the authors of the book received a message from a Canadian scientist, Nobel Laureate in Physics (2015) Arthur B. McDonald (b. 1943). It contained remarkable words that insightfully reflect the main idea behind this publication: “The openness and international cooperation between basic scientists seeking and understanding of the world we live in can be a model for everyone and a direction for world peace”. – Arthur B. McDonald, March 23, 2023, Canada.

It remains to be hoped that an interested reader, within the dialogue space with the authors and participants of this edition, will find useful answers to pressing questions and gain clarity on complex issues in the current agenda of our turbulent times.

Anatoly Ionesov, founder, Samarkand International Friendship Club “Esperanto” (1977); International Museum of Peace and Solidarity (1986). Author of “The Peace Autograph” and “Samarkandiana” projects. Director, “Personality. Culture. Peace” Scientific and Enlightening Center of Samarkand International University of Technology (SIUT).

Vladimir Ionesov, Doctor of Cultural Studies, Candidate of Historical Sciences; Professor, Department of Cultural Studies, Museology and Art History, Samara State Institute of Culture. Developer of the concept of cultural transformation and models of civilization viability in transition. Full member of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts. Deputy Chairperson, Research Advisory Council, “Personality. Culture. Peace” Scientific and Enlightening Center of Samarkand International University of Technology (SIUT).

BOOK REVIEW: Metta Spencer, “The Russian Quest for Peace and Democracy”

In Being a World Citizen, Book Review, Conflict Resolution, Current Events, Democracy, Human Rights, NGOs, Nonviolence, Peacebuilding, Solidarity, The former Soviet Union, The Search for Peace, Track II, United Nations, United States on January 7, 2026 at 8:00 AM

By René Wadlow

Metta Spencer, The Russian Quest for Peace and Democracy.

New York: Lexington Books, 2010, 348pp.

With the violence and tensions in Ukraine and the reactions of the USA, Russia, and NATO, some writers have spoken of a “New Cold War”. Thus, it is useful to look at how civil society representatives helped to keep lines of communication open during the first Cold War (1945-1990), in particular how Gorbachev’s advancement of democracy and peaceful foreign relations was fostered by private conversations with members of international civil society and NGOs.

There is in the Agni Yoga teachings of Helena Roerich, to which Raisa Gorbachev was particularly devoted, a line which says, “Not the new is proclaimed but what is needed for the hour.” This idea became a guideline for Mikhail Gorbachev whose new thinking was not really new. Many of us had been saying the same thing for years before, but none of us was head of state.

Gorbachev’s September 1987 address to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly was a clear call for the rule of law both domestically and internationally. He recommended greater use of the International Court of Justice and that all states accept its compulsory jurisdiction. He called upon the permanent members of the Security Council to join in formulating guidelines to help lead the way. This was a renunciation of a sixty-year resistance to the World Court that the then Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov − though an internationalist − had initiated in 1922 claiming that there could be no impartial arbitrator between the Soviet and the non-Soviet world saying, “Only an angel could be impartial in judging Russian affairs.”

Unfortunately, the United States (U.S.) State Department took the speech as a propaganda ploy to further embarrass the U.S. over the World Court’s Nicaragua litigation. Therefore, the U.S. delegation to the UN did everything it could to hinder discussion of giving the World Court a larger role and was successful in stopping any effort to expand compulsory jurisdiction.

Gorbachev did all he could to strengthen the peace-making role of the UN, leading to the successful completion of what had been seemingly endless negotiations at the Palais des Nations in Geneva concerning the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, and the very difficult negotiations, also in Geneva, between Iraq and Iran to end their war.

Progress was also made on the Vietnamese occupation of Kampuchea (Cambodia) which led to the 1992 Paris Accord. This combination of deescalation in tensions and violence in the international area and significant steps in arms control was largely due to the leadership of Gorbachev. His seven years in power (1985-1991) left the world a safer place and Russia a more openly pluralistic society. However, the common ground on which he tried to stand was constantly eroded by forces he could not control, leaving him at the end with no place to stand.

Metta Spencer, Editor of Peace Magazine and professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Toronto tells some of this story, especially through interviews with persons in Gorbachev’s inner circle as well as other participants in the fast-changing scene. She has continued her interviewing so that persons also reflect on events and trends in post-Gorbachev Russia − the Yeltsin and early Putin years.

What is most helpful to those of us interested in citizen diplomacy and who were involved in talks with Soviets on arms control is her account on how discussions with members of the Soviet Academy of Sciences’ institutes, especially the USA/Canada Institute of Georgi Arbatov and the Institute for World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) had an impact on Soviet decision-making. As Spencer notes, Gorbachev’s advancement of democracy and peaceful foreign relations was fostered by private conversations with members of international civil society. Among the Soviets who participated, some became Gorbachev’s chief advisors.

The ground for these discussions had started relatively early at the time of Nikita Khrushchev. The Pugwash meetings started in 1957, and the Dartmouth conferences led by Norman Cousins and Georgi Arbatov began in 1960.

Metta Spencer sets out clearly the core of her book. Democracy, human rights, and nonviolence are rarely reinvented independently by local citizens. Usually, they are imported from abroad and spread by personal contacts in international civil society, not by diplomats or rulers. That was the way it happened in the Soviet Union. This book describes how certain back-channel relationships with foreign peace researchers and activists influenced the Soviet Union’s brief democratization, its foreign policy and its military doctrine. She adds that transnational civil society or organizations are most helpful for they create heterogeneous relationships − those that tend to bridge society’s disparate elements. Such relationships inform and strengthen individuals who, in an authoritarian setting, face heavy pressures to conform.

Metta Spencer’s interviews with people well after the events, give a sense of necessary distance, of the strengths and weaknesses of movements and individuals.

Note

1) For a good overview of citizen diplomacy efforts with the Soviet Union, see the following listed by date of publication:

Gale Warner and Michael Shuman, Citizen Diplomats: Pathfinders in Soviet-American Relations − And How You Can Join Them (New York: Continuum, 1987)

David D. Newsom (Ed.), Private Diplomacy with the Soviet Union (Lanham, MD.: University Press of America, 1987)

Gale Warner, Invisible Threads: Independent Soviets Working for Global Awareness and Social Transformation (Washington, DC: Seven Locks Press, 1991)

Matthew Evangelista, Unarmed Forces: The Transnational Movement to End the Cold War (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999)

Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.

BOOK REVIEW: Giles Milton, “The Stalin Affair: The Impossible Alliance That Won the War”

In Being a World Citizen, Book Review, Democracy, Europe, Fighting Racism, The former Soviet Union on January 5, 2026 at 8:00 AM

By Raphael Cohen-Almagor

Giles Milton, The Stalin Affair: The Impossible Alliance That Won the War.
New York: Henry Holt and Co., 2024, 336pp.

This is a gripping narrative of the uneasy partnership between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin during World War II. Drawing on unpublished diaries, letters, and secret reports, Milton reveals how a diverse cast of diplomats and political figures—including U.S. billionaire envoy W. Averell Harriman, his charming daughter Kathy and Archibald “Archie” Clark Kerr, the British ambassador to the Soviet Union—worked to manage Stalin’s volatile temperament and secure Soviet cooperation against Hitler.

The book explores how Churchill, despite his deep mistrust of Stalin, recognized the strategic necessity of alliance after Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union. It also details the internal resistance in both Britain and the U.S., where many preferred isolationism or hoped the two dictators would destroy each other. The turning point came with Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s declaration of war on the United States, forcing a reluctant unity.

The book is filled with many small stories, impressions, romantic affairs and anecdotes that shed light on historic events and on the personalities of the three leaders who came together to fight Nazism – Churchill out of conviction, Stalin as a result of Hitler’s betrayal, and Roosevelt due to the Japanese surprise attack on the American navy in Hawaii. The colourful descriptions are captivating. Of particular interest is the story of Churchill’s “naughty document”. Officially known as the Percentages Agreement, this informal pact was struck between Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin during the Fourth Moscow Conference in October 1944. On a simple scrap of paper, Churchill proposed dividing postwar influence in Eastern Europe by percentages—essentially carving up the region into spheres of control. The document suggested to divide post-war countries between the Soviet Union and Britain, behind Roosevelt’s back. The countries and percentages were: Romania: 90% Soviet, 10% others; Greece: 90% British (in accord with the U.S.), 10% Soviet; Yugoslavia: 50/50; Hungary: 50/50, and Bulgaria: 75% Soviet, 25% others. Churchill famously referred to it as his “naughty document” because he knew how blunt and imperialistic it appeared. He even remarked that the Americans would be “shocked” by its crudeness. Stalin reportedly ticked the paper in approval, and the agreement was honoured in some cases—most notably in Greece, where Britain retained dominant influence even during civil unrest. The document was later published in Churchill’s memoirs and has since become a symbol of the realpolitik that shaped the postwar order.

Milton paints vivid scenes of nervous negotiations, clashing personalities, festive dinners and the fragile diplomacy that held the alliance together long enough to defeat Nazi Germany—though it ultimately could not survive the postwar tense reality. The book offers both sweeping historical insight and intimate character studies, making it a compelling read for anyone interested in the political complexities behind wartime strategy.

Prof. Raphael Cohen-Almagor is an Israeli-British academic.

Helsinki Process: Need for Renewal

In Being a World Citizen, Conflict Resolution, Current Events, Europe, Human Rights, NGOs, OSCE, Peacebuilding, Solidarity, The former Soviet Union, The Search for Peace, Track II, UKRAINE, World Law on August 28, 2025 at 6:00 PM

By René Wadlow

The difficulties to begin negotiations on an end to the Russia-Ukraine armed conflict has highlighted the need for a renewal of the Helsinki process of Pan-European dialogue and action. The Helsinki process which began in 1973 led over time to the creation of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

Government leaders met in Helsinki in July 1973, sensing a need for some form of permanent discussion on European security issues beyond the ad hoc meetings among some states, which was then the current pattern. From September 1973 to July 1975, the discussion on structures and efforts to be undertaken moved to Geneva and was carried out by diplomats stationed there. Although the representatives of Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) were not asked to participate, many of us who were NGO representatives to the United Nations in Geneva knew the European diplomats involved and were able to make suggestions as to the priorities – human rights and arms control.

The foreign ministers taking part in the CSCE conference in Helsinki in 1973 (C) Pentti Koskinen

In August 1975, the Geneva discussions terminated, the government leaders met again in Helsinki and signed the Helsinki Agreement. Relatively quickly, a series of meetings on crucial topics was organized, often in Geneva. NGO representatives were invited to participate and played an important role in developing confidence-building measures.

Although there were tensions among OSCE states in the past such as the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979 and the martial law crackdown in Poland, the divisions were never as strong as they are today, linked to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The OSCE has been weakened, and some see a death sentence in a near future. Thus, there is a need for a renewal of the OSCE and a revival of the Helsinki spirit. Non-governmental organizations may have to take a lead, given the current governmental divisions.

Members of the OSCE’s Special Monitoring Mission deployed in eastern Ukraine (C) OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine

In the 1980s, NGOs had played an important role in “détente from below” in creating opportunities for discussions among activists from Eastern and Western Europe. Today we must find avenues of action to meet the current complex and dangerous situation. Representatives of the Association of World Citizens have participated in meetings of the OSCE and will be active in this renewal process.

Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.

Russia-Ukraine Armed Conflict: Start of the Last Lap?

In Being a World Citizen, Conflict Resolution, Current Events, Europe, Human Rights, Humanitarian Law, NGOs, Peacebuilding, Refugees, Solidarity, The former Soviet Union, The Search for Peace, Track II, UKRAINE, United States, War Crimes, World Law on February 22, 2025 at 9:45 AM

By René Wadlow

February 24 marks the anniversary of the start of the Russian “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine in 2022 which very quickly became a war with the large loss of life both military and civil, with the displacement of population, and a crackdown on opposition to the war. For three years, the war has continued, lap after lap. Although there were fears that the war might spread to neighboring countries, the fighting has been focused on Ukraine, and more recently on a small part of Russian territory attacked by Ukrainian forces. Can there be a realistic end to the armed conflict in sight?

On February 18, 2025, the United States (U.S.) Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, met and discussed in part ending the armed conflict in Ukraine. They discussed a possible Putin-Trump summit that could be held in Saudi Arabia. Earlier, U.S. Army General Mark Milley had said, “There has to be a mutual recognition that military victory is probably, in the true sense of the word, not achievable through military means, and therefore, when there is an opportunity to negotiate, when peace can be achieved, seize it.”

However, the conflict is not one only between the USA and the Russian Federation; it also involves directly Ukraine. The Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has stressed strongly that the Ukraine government leadership wants to play a key role in any negotiations. Certain European countries such as France, Germany, Poland and Turkey have been involved in different ways in the conflict as well as in proposing possible avenues of negotiation to bring the conflict to an end. The bargaining process could be lengthy, but also it could be short as there is “handwriting on the wall.”

One key aspect concerns the fate of four Ukrainian areas “annexed” by Russia, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia largely controlled by Russian troops. President Putin has said, “These regions had been incorporated by the will of the people into the Russian Federation. This matter is closed forever and is no longer a matter of discussion.” However, the status of Crimea and the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics is at the core of what President Zelenskyy wants discussed.

(C) Homoatrox

“Made in War” is the mark of origin stamped upon nearly all States. Their size, their shape, their ethnic makeup is the result of wars. There are virtually no frontiers today that are not the results of wars: world wars, colonial struggles, annexations by victors, wars against indigenous populations. States were not created by reasonable negotiations based on ethnic or geographic characteristics. If frontiers can be modified only by the victors in wars, then there must be new imaginative transnational forms of cooperation. What is needed are not new frontiers but new states of mind.

From April 5 to 7, 2023, the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, was in China and urged that China could play a key role in bringing peace to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. President Xi Jinping had made a very general 12-point peace plan to resolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict – an indication that China is willing to play a peace-making role. China is probably the only country with the ability to influence Russian policymakers in a peaceful direction.

However, there are long historic and strategic aspects to the current armed conflict. Security crises are deeply influenced both by a sense of history and current perceptions. Thus, the Association of World Citizens (AWC) encourages the development of a renewed security architecture as was envisaged by the Helsinki Final Act and the creation of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). There will be much to do to re-create an environment of trust and confidence that has been weakened by this conflict. Nongovernmental Organizations should play an active and positive role.

(C) Bernard J. Henry/AWC

Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.

Strengthening Respect for International Humanitarian Law

In Africa, Being a World Citizen, Current Events, Human Rights, Humanitarian Law, International Justice, Middle East & North Africa, NGOs, Solidarity, The former Soviet Union, The Search for Peace, Track II, UKRAINE, War Crimes, World Law on February 10, 2025 at 8:00 AM

By René Wadlow

Mirjana Spoljaric, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), warned on February 6, 2025 that there is a serious erosion of respect for international humanitarian law. The ICRC is, through agreements signed with most governments, the chief agency for the respect of the Geneva Conventions, the heart of international humanitarian law.

The armed conflict in Ukraine now spreading to a part of Russia and the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, especially in the Gaza Strip, have led to the destruction of medical and educational facilities. Civilians have been directly targeted, prisoners of war abused, and hostages taken – all violations of international humanitarian law.

To this sad record of recent abuses must now be added the situation in Goma and the eastern area of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Humanitarian law should be respected by nongovernmental militias such as the M23 in Goma, but they have never signed an agreement to respect the Geneva Conventions. There have been discussions within the ICRC and other humanitarian aid agencies as to the role of nongovernmental militias with respect to international humanitarian law. These are vital discussions as the role of nongovernmental militias has become more frequent in armed conflicts.

(C) Léman Bleu

The Association of World Citizens (AWC) played a key role in having a coalition of armed groups fighting in Burma to sign the Geneva Conventions. The signature was deposited with the Swiss Government which is the depository power for the Conventions. The signature was considered as only “symbolic” as not involving a government. However, the signature by the militias led to an exchange of prisoners showing that it was taken seriously by the Burmese government.

The AWC has strongly supported the strengthening of international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law is a central core of the broader body of world law. The strengthening of respect for humanitarian law develops a base for the application of international law and such institutions as the World Court.

As Mirjana Spoljaric, a Swiss diplomat before she became President of the ICRC, has stressed, the world society is at a crucial moment. There is a need to reaffirm respect for humanitarian law. Unfortunately, such reaffirmation is not a high priority for most Ministries of Foreign Affairs. Thus, as the AWC has urged, most recently through its appeals of March 2022, October 2023 and October 2024, there is a real possibility for NGOs to take the lead.

Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.

Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons: Need for New Common Security Approaches

In Being a World Citizen, Current Events, Latin America, Middle East & North Africa, NGOs, Nuclear weapons, Spirituality, The former Soviet Union, The Search for Peace, Track II, United Nations, World Law on July 23, 2024 at 6:00 AM

By René Wadlow

Hiroshima, Japan, August 6, 1945.

Government representatives and some Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) are participating from July 22 to August 2, 2024 in Geneva, Switzerland in the Preparatory Session for the Review Conference on the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. As the political and strategic situation in the world can evolve over time, the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) had as one of its provisions (Article VIII) that a review conference be held every five years to judge the situation and to see if new elements should be added. At the end of each Review a “Chairman’s Statement” must be agreed upon by all the States present.

The NPT, which had taken 10 years to negotiate, was proclaimed in 1970, and the first Review Conference was held in Geneva in 1975. As the Review Conference was a meeting of the States Party to the Treaty and not a regular United Nations (UN) disarmament negotiation, NGO representatives had more opportunity for interaction with governments. NGO texts were considered as “official documents” and were printed and distributed by the conference secretariat. I was asked to chair the group of NGO participants, which I did both in 1975 and 1980. As a result of my chairing the NGOs at the 1975 Review, I was invited to Moscow to discuss with Soviet military and arms control specialists. I have remained concerned with the issues ever since.

Each Review Conference has been concerned with the three fundamental aspects of the Treaty: non-proliferation, promotion of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and the disarmament initiatives of the five nuclear-weapon States when the Treaty was signed: the USA, USSR, the United Kingdom, France, and China as set out in Article VI.

To make matters more complicated but politically realistic, the policies of nuclear-weapon States which have not signed the NPT – India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea – color the discussions of each Review. Iran is a State Party to the NPT, but questions have been raised about the effectiveness of the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities and if nuclear material is being enriched to weapon-production levels.

The nuclear weapons of Israel and their meaning for Middle East policies have long been “an elephant in the room” – too large not to notice but too dangerous to deal with if anything else in the Review process is to be done. In 1995, there was an annex to the final Chairman’s Statement of the Review proposing that a conference on a potential nuclear-weapon-free Middle East should be called. In practice, “the time was never ripe”, but the concept is still there.

The concept of nuclear-weapon-free zones has been an important concept in disarmament and regional conflict-reduction efforts. A nuclear-weapon-free zone was first suggested by the Polish Foreign Minister, Adam Rapacki, at the UN General Assembly in October 1957 – just a year after the crushing of the uprising in Hungary. The crushing of the Hungarian revolt by Soviet troops and the unrest among Polish workers at the same time showed that the East-West equilibrium in Central Europe was unstable with both the Soviet Union and the USA in possession of nuclear weapons, and perhaps a willingness to use them if the political situation became radically unstable. The Rapacki Plan, as it became known, called for the denuclearization of East and West Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland.

The Plan went through several variants which included its extension to cover reduction of armed forces and armaments, and as a preliminary step, a freeze on nuclear weapons in the area. The Rapacki Plan was opposed by the NATO powers, in part because it recognized the legitimacy of the East German State. It was not until 1970 and the start of what became the 1975 Helsinki Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) that serious negotiations on troop levels and weapons in Europe began. While the Rapacki Plan never led to negotiations on nuclear-weapon policies in Europe, it had the merit of restarting East-West discussions which were then at a dead point after the Hungarian uprising.

Adam Rapacki

The first nuclear-weapon-free zone to be negotiated – the Treaty of Tlatelolco – was a direct aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. It is hard to know how close to a nuclear exchange between the USA and the USSR the Cuban missile crisis was. It was close enough so that Latin American leaders were moved to action. While Latin America was not an area in which military confrontation was as stark as in Europe, the Cuban missile crisis was a warning that you did not need to have standing armies facing each other for there to be danger.

Mexico, under the leadership of Ambassador Alfonso Garcia-Robles at the UN, began immediately to call for a denuclearization of Latin America. There were a series of conferences, and in February 1067 the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America was signed at Tlatelolco, Mexico. For a major arms control treaty, the Tlatelolco was negotiated in a short time, due partly to the fear inspired by the Cuban missile crisis but especially to the energy and persistence of Garcia-Robles and the expert advice of William Epstein, the UN’s Director of Disarmament Affairs. The Treaty established a permanent and effective system of control which contains a number of novel and pioneering elements as well as a body to supervise the Treaty.

Alfonso Garcia Robles (C) Marcel Antonisse

On September 8, 2006, the five States of Central Asia – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan – signed a treaty establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone. The treaty aims at reducing the risk of nuclear proliferation and nuclear-armed terrorism. The treaty bans the production, acquisition, deployment of nuclear weapons and their components as well as nuclear explosives. Importantly, the treaty bans the transportation of nuclear weapons as both Russia and the USA have established military airbases in Central Asia where nuclear weapons could have been placed in times of crisis in Asia.

Superman is not coming to rid the world of nuclear weapons. World Citizens need to take the problem to UN delegates by themselves. Or own Quest for Peace deserves a happy ending too.

It is an unfortunate aspect of world politics that constructive, institution-building action is usually undertaken only because of a crisis. Perhaps the growing pressures in the Middle East could lead to concerted leadership for a Middle East nuclear-weapon-free zone. The IAEA has the technical knowledge for putting such a zone in place. Now there needs to be leadership from within the Middle East as well as from the broader international community. There are urgent needs for new common security approaches.

Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.

Reestablishing a Europe-wide Security Zone

In Conflict Resolution, Current Events, Europe, NGOs, Solidarity, The former Soviet Union, The Search for Peace, Track II, UKRAINE, United Nations on June 23, 2024 at 7:00 AM

By René Wadlow

On June 15, 2024, Russian Federation Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that “Russia will not view Western European countries as possible partners for at least one generation. The acute phase of the military-political confrontation with the West continues and is in full swing.” He was echoed in an interview by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov who said that NATO is “a group in which we feel not an ounce of trust, which triggers political and even emotional rejection in Moscow.”

It is likely that the two Sergeys express a view held by many governmental decision-makers in Moscow. Where they are wrong is that the world cannot wait for one generation to reestablish a Europe-wide security zone but most start now. Given current governmental preoccupations, it is likely that nongovernmental organizations must take the lead.

In the 1960s, the idea of a European security conference was launched by the USSR followed in 1966 by a proposal of the Warsaw Pact Organization. After a good deal of discussion and some modifications of policies, especially the West German Ostpolitik, it was decided to convene a Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. At the invitation of the Finnish government, multilateral preparatory talks began near Helsinki in November 1972. There were numerous preparatory aspects, especially the subjects of such a conference.

The admission card to the Conference for Security and Cooperation Meeting in Helsinki for Erich Honecker, the hardline Communist ruler of East Germany from 1971 to 1989
(C) Wikimedia Commons-HajjiBaba

Thus, the main issues of the conference were transferred for negotiation to Geneva, Switzerland to be undertaken by experts. During this period of negotiations in Geneva, nongovernmental organization (NGO) representatives in Geneva who were known for their activities at the United Nations (UN) were able to present proposals for possible consideration. The Association of World Citizens (AWC) was particularly active in presenting ideas on the resolution of conflicts and the possible use of arbitration as an appropriate means of dispute settlement. The Helsinki process later created an arbitration body in Geneva, but it is little used. The Association was also active with other NGOs in what was called the “human dimension” of the Helsinki agreement. The conference had deliberately not used a human rights vocabulary. The extensive participation of nongovernmental representatives is recognized in the text of the Final Act and encouraged to continue. The results of the Geneva negotiations led to the signature of the Final Act in Helsinki on August 1, 1975.

Today, it is likely that the Russia-Ukraine conflict starting with the 2014 annexation of Crimea has ended the effectiveness of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Thus, in many ways, we are “back to square one” in the organization of a Europe-wide security zone with many more States to be involved due to the breakup of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. There is also the issue of what has been called “The Phantom Republics”: Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, Transnistria in Moldova, Kosovo, formerly part of Serbia, and the disputed Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics in Ukraine. These are “ministates” economically fragile, potentially manipulated by more powerful States but which will not be reintegrated into their former State even if granted significant autonomy.

There is a rich heritage of efforts made within the OSCE. However, the OSCE has also very real limitations. It has a tight budget and a lack of specialized personnel. Much of the staff are diplomats seconded from national governments. This results in a high turnover of staff and a lack of primary loyalty to the organization. Nevertheless, the OSCE has been able to respond to situations which were not foreseen at its creation. Much of the future depends on the attitude of the Russian Federation which at present seems negative. New avenues are likely to be needed, and NGOs may again be able to play positive roles.

Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.

Start to Dangerous Regression of Liberty in Georgia: A Situation to Watch Closely

In Being a World Citizen, Conflict Resolution, Current Events, Democracy, Europe, Human Rights, NGOs, Solidarity, The former Soviet Union, Track II, World Law on May 16, 2024 at 7:00 PM

By René Wadlow

Despite strong protests from Georgian Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) and street protests for three weeks in the capital Tbilisi, the Georgian Parliament adopted on May 14, 2024 the controversial law on “foreign influence”. The vote was 84 in favor and 30 opposed. The law is likely to be vetoed by the Georgian President, Salomé Zourabichvili, a former French diplomat, but there are probably enough favorable votes in the Parliament to override the veto.

The law is very close to a similar law of 2012 in the Russian Federation used to hinder NGOs often considered to be “enemy agents” voicing opposition to the government. The law obliges NGOs and media to publish all financing from foreign governments, foundations, and individuals if it amounts to 20 or more percent of the funds of the organization. The law has been strongly opposed by officials of the European Union and the United States. Georgia has a candidate status for joining the European Union.

(C) Euronews

The former Prime Minister and leader of the Georgian Dream Party in power for the last 12 years, Bidzina Ivanichvili, has attacked those opposed to the law as “people without a country” – a term used in the Soviet Union in the 1930s. He has been playing with a fear among some in power in Georgia that NGOs with foreign funding could create a “color revolution” to overthrow the government as was done elsewhere.

In the days prior to the vote, there was strong government pressure against journalists and NGO representatives, some being beaten and many threatened by telephone calls. As Citizens of the World concerned with the role of NGOs and freedom of the press, we need to watch developments in Georgia closely.

Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.

The Uprooted

In Being a World Citizen, Current Events, Europe, Human Rights, Humanitarian Law, Middle East & North Africa, Migration, NGOs, Refugees, Solidarity, The former Soviet Union, The Search for Peace, UKRAINE, United Nations, World Law on April 30, 2024 at 6:00 AM

By René Wadlow

Increasing numbers of people in countries around the world have been forced from their homes by armed conflicts and systematic violations of human rights. Those who cross internationally recognized borders are considered refugees and are relatively protected by the refugee conventions signed by most states. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 protocol give the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Refugees an international legal basis to ensure the protection of refugees.

However, those who are displaced within a country as is the case currently for many in the Gaza Strip and in Ukraine are not protected by the international refugee conventions. Thus, displacement within a State poses a challenge to develop international norms and ways to address the consequences of displacement and the possibility to reintegrate their homes, though in the case of Gaza many of the homes have been destroyed.

Refugees from Ukraine arrive in Poland (C) European Union

Armed conflicts within States often reflect a crisis of identity within the State. This can occur when a State becomes monopolized by a dominant group to the exclusion or marginalization of other groups. There is a need to provide protection and assistance to the uprooted. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has been able to act in some cases as has been true also for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) which is mandated to protect civilians in war zones. The obligation to assist populations in immediate danger of starvation is largely recognized, and the UN World Food Program has been able to act. In some cases, nongovernmental humanitarian agencies have been able to be active. However, each situation requires new negotiations and results differ.

Thus, what is essential is that there be predictable responses in situations of internal displacement and that attention be paid not only to material assistance but also to the human rights of those displaced. To be effective, strategies to address mass displacement need to be broad and comprehensive. There is a need for political initiatives that seek to resolve the conflicts as the consequences often involve neighboring countries. Efforts must engage local groups, national institutions, and Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) to prevent situations that lead to persons being uprooted. As the representatives of NGOs, we have an opportunity to discuss with other NGOs the most appropriate next steps for action.

Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.