On the Bürgenstock “Peace” Conference
Photo by Jonathan Meyer
The Geneva International Peace Research Institute (GIPRI, in consultative status with UN) believes that peace in Ukraine is possible and urgent not only for Ukraine and Russia, but more widely for the survival of mankind. The danger of a nuclear confrontation between NATO and Russia is real and growing by the day.
Peace in Ukraine can only be achieved with good faith, if all parties accept their responsibility for errors and miscalculations, and if the root causes of the conflict are identified and debated rationally in an atmosphere of international solidarity. GIPRI is convinced that mutually acceptable solutions can be crafted so as to enable a modus vivendi between Ukraine and Russia, and establish a viable security architecture under the United Nations Charter.
The Bürgenstock “Peace” Conference did not advance the cause of peace in Ukraine or world peace in general. On the contrary, it painfully manifested the division of the world and the inability of NATO and EU countries to put forward practical proposals that would end the escalation spiral, lead to a ceasefire and ban the acute danger of a nuclear conflagration.
The Conference offered a platform for Ukraine and NATO states to repeat their narratives, which have been rejected by most in the Global South. It is significant that less than half of the States of the world attended, and only 77 signed the final declaration. The failure to invite Russia condemned the Conference to failure. The absence of major powers like China, which had formulated a very useful 12-point plan, weakened it fatally.
Among the participants who did not sign the final declaration were Brazil, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Mexico, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres did not participate in the Conference, not even by video message, but USG for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, Rosemary DiCarlo, attended as an observer. This indicates what little importance the UN accords to the Bürgenstock event.
Among the causes of the conflict, as explained by Professors John Mearsheimer (Chicago), Richard Falk (Princeton), Stephen Kinzer (Boston) and Jeffrey Sachs (Columbia) are the expansion of NATO in a manner that Russia perceives as an existential threat, and a grave breach of promises given by George H.W. Bush and James Baker to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. A more immediate cause was the coup d’état of 22 February 2014, supported by the US and European States, that overthrew the democratically elected president of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych and installed a government in Kiev that was militantly hostile to Russia. The failure of Ukraine to implement in good faith the Minsk agreements, the continuous shelling by Ukraine of the Russian civilian population of Lugansk and Donets 2014-22 (as documented by OSCE) – surely a case for invoking the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine — and the intransigent refusal of Joe Biden and Jens Stoltenberg to even discuss the two treaties proposed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in December 2021 all contributed to Vladimir Putin’s fateful decision to invade.
GIPRI condemns the Russian invasion as a breach of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, but notes that this fundamental prohibition of the use of force without UN approval was flouted by the United Sates on countless occasions since 1945, through its illegal military interventions in Latin American countries, in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, etc. In other words, there were “precedents of permissibility.” The lesson is clear: If the US can commit aggression with impunity, other States can follow the US example.
Article 2(3) of the United Nations Charter obliges all States to settle differences by peaceful means, and imposes an obligation to negotiate, even after hostilities have broken out. Prolonging a war through constant escalation is contrary to the letter and spirit of the UN Charter and constitutes both a crime against peace and a crime against humanity.
It bears repeating that Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits not only the use of force, but also the threat of the use of force. The Bürgenstock Conference should have considered the reality that Russia perceives NATO expansion as a threat to the Russian people. Studies by Western thinktanks are explicit on the menace. Ukrainian neutrality and an end of provocations and unilateral coercive measures would have secured peace.
GIPRI considers that after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, there was no justification for NATO’s continued existence. NATO should have been dismantled, so as to move toward a peaceful world in international solidarity. For a brief period In 1989-91 the world had the hope of disarmament for development. GIPRI regrets that Bill Clinton destroyed this hope. Indeed, NATO has morphed into a world bully that tries to usurp the functions of the United Nations in matters of international peace and security. This constitutes a threat to the international order established by the UN Charter.
GIPRI regrets that the Bürgenstock final declaration does not call for a ceasefire, nor does it reflect a readiness to compromise on fundamental issues such as the self-determination of the Russian populations of Donbass and Crimea and the usefulness of conducting United Nations organized and monitored referenda. GIPRI formulated a blueprint for peace in Ukraine that was forwarded to many governments. From all evidence, it was not considered at the Conference.
It appears that the Bürgenstock conference was little more than a public relations extravaganza that offered a platform to Volodymir Zelinsky and the NATO war mongers, and only reaffirmed old clichés and ideological mantras. Had it been a peace conference, it would have discussed peace. Indeed, si vis pacem, para pacem – if you want peace, create the conditions for peace. It was not inspired by the spirit of the United Nations Charter, nor by the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the disastrous Thirty Years War (1618-48): Pax optima rerum. (peace is the highest good)
The Western powers held a conference in Switzerland in June in an attempt to gain more international support for Ukraine in its war with Russia.
The vast majority of the world population, in the Global South, rebuked this so-called “Summit on Peace in Ukraine”, to which Russia was not invited.
Only 78 countries, mostly in Europe, endorsed the meeting’s final declaration. Together, these nations represented a small minority of the global population.
At least 160 countries were invited to the conference from June 15 to 16 in Bürgenstock, Switzerland. Just around 90 ended up attending, and most sent low-level officials.
A total of 78 countries signed the “Bürgenstock Declaration”. Major nations chose not to endorse the statement, including Brazil, India, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates.
CNBC lamented that the summit “lacks clout”, and was boycotted by China, in protest of the fact that Russia was not invited.
Switzerland’s state media outlet Swissinfo conceded that the “Ukraine peace summit failed to meet ‘fairytale’ expectations”, and that the joint communiqué “was rejected by several key countries”.
One of the reasons that so many Global South nations opposed the Bürgenstock Declaration was because it blamed the war solely on Russia, not acknowledging the role of NATO expansion in fueling the conflict, and not recognizing Moscow’s legitimate security concerns.
In racist rant, Zelensky claims China and Brazil are not “civilized”
Ukraine’s NATO-backed leader Volodymyr Zelensky angrily responded to the Global South’s criticism with racist rhetoric, asserting that China and Brazil are not “civilized” like the West.
“As soon as Brazil and China join the principles that all of us here, civilized countries, have united, we will be happy to hear their opinions, sometimes even if they do not coincide with the majority of the world”, Zelensky said at the summit, according to an official Ukrainian media translation.
Zelensky’s claim that “the majority of the world” is with his government is objectively false. The vote at the conference demonstrated that only a small minority of countries support Ukraine’s NATO-backed war efforts.
China makes numerous peace proposals; West rejects them
China has made numerous peace proposals in an attempt to end the war in Ukraine.
In February 2023, Beijing introduced a 12-point peace plan to try to foster a political settlement. The US and its European allies rejected this initiative.
In May 2024, China and Brazil issued a joint proposal for negotiations, calling for an “international peace conference held at a proper time that is recognized by both Russia and Ukraine, with equal participation of all parties as well as fair discussion of all peace plans”.
While the West rebuked these offers, the Bürgenstock Declaration ironically ended up borrowing several points from China’s proposals, albeit by watering them down and removing the demands for a cessation of hostilities and peace talks.
Although Beijing boycotted the June 2024 Swiss conference in protest of Russia’s absence, it continued to promote its own peace plan.
As the Bürgenstock summit concluded, China’s deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, Geng Shuang, reiterated at the UN Security Council, “China calls on the parties to the conflict to demonstrate political will, come together, and start peace talks as soon as possible to achieve a ceasefire and halt military actions”.
Colombia’s President Petro says Ukraine summit seeks more war, not peace
Colombia’s left-wing President Gustavo Petro criticized the Swiss summit, writing on the day the event began that “it is not a free forum to discuss paths to peace between Russia and Ukraine. Its conclusions are already predetermined”.
Petro insisted that “dialogue between Russia and Ukraine is fundamental”. He also called for “the establishment of a security zone without nuclear weapons that physically separates NATO from Russia”.
The Colombian president revealed that he had been invited to the meeting, but chose not to attend, because “what we have found in the conference is basically an alignment with the side of war, and we do not agree with that; Latin America does not want more war, what it wants is the construction of peace, as soon as possible”.
— Presidencia Colombia
El Presidente @PetroGustavo ha decidido suspender su visita e invitación a la "Conferencia de Paz" en Suiza: "lo que hemos encontrado en la conferencia es básicamente un alinderamiento al lado de la guerra y nosotros no estamos de acuerdo con eso; América Latina no quiere más… pic.twitter.com/M3LFw1KLJ9
(@infopresidencia) June 15, 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment