2023 Common Security as an Alternative to Nuclear Deterrence

2 August 2023

The fact that Nuclear Deterrence is such a concern is the horrific outcomes if deterrence fails, and if there is nothing in place to step in to prevent a nuclear exchange.

The emergence of discussion on Common Security, as one such alternative, has much to seriously consider.  This may have merit if robust enough, strongly embedded in international law, ratified by nations, and with a global will to implement, ie to intervene in war and armed conflict emergencies that arise.  Perhaps the notion of one global family engenders global responses.

Common Security begins with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)    

10 December 1948 (General Assembly Resolution A/217 ).

• Article 3    Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.

This can imply that everyone has a duty to ensure “security of person” to everyone else.   Security of person needs security of the nation, and eventually by global security.  The latter being endangered by nuclear weapons and even conventional war.  The words deterrence and intervention then arise. 

Perhaps we need explore some unanswered questions concerning some discussions for a doctrine of Global Common Security.  One such question, “How can any deterrence deal with violence and killing in the moment?”  Security must mean more than just preventative, or diplomatic, or mediation measures, or conflict resolution measures, or justice systems and the courts afterwards.  Courts and justice are of no consolation to those with destroyed homes and communities, with the death of loved ones, horrific wounds, suffering and trauma.  Far too late.

Discussion often speaks more to common “conflict prevention, mediation and justice” than it does to actual physical security.  Certainly, there is much that happens after the cessation of hostilities, or can happen beforehand; but when the killing happens, the word security does not happen.   This has little value following the occurrence of a nuclear war. 

In law, we grant the right of self defence.  Nations currently engage in conventional deterrence or nuclear deterrence to protect themselves; which in turn relies on balance or superiority.  Most nations cannot afford this.  The alternative seems to be to assert, provide, and guarantee rights of security for everyone by the collective global community.  This is the vision to work towards.

So National Security must mean Global Common Security in which all nations will be required to act, without veto, and at least at the onset of hostilities against any nation; after which the courts and international justice systems can be engaged.

An analogy is a police force with constabulary duties to intervene, stop harm, apprehend, and turn over to courts.  The police have a duty to protect in the moment, with the use of force if necessary, not afterwards. 

If Common Security is to be serious, and a counterweight to nuclear security, then all elements of the conflict spectrum need attention and guarantors.  This may involve interlocking doctrines such as:

A Global security doctrine of obligation

That the global community has an obligation to:

• Be present in serious conflict.
• Adopt a posture of impartiality between parties in conflict.
• Bring values of non-violence and peace-making.
• Bring communication, diplomatic, education, and mediation skills.
• Bring justice and reconciliation measures.

A global security doctrine of conflict intervention

This is a doctrine to intervene in a complete sense, and would encompass all conflict stages.

Pre conflict.   A duty to prevent, involving diplomacy and mediation in risk situations, and wider attention to building cultures and ministries of peace.

During conflict.  An overriding global duty to intervene, in the moment, if hostilities occur, in a constabulary role, as a minimum stopping the violence and killing, using force if necessary, and protecting all parties and civilians.

• In active conflict zones this may extend to a global duty to provide for safe havens, refugee support, humanitarian aid, relentless diplomacy, mediation and protection forces.

Post conflict.  A duty for accountability, to provide for reconciliation, and justice in courts (ICC, ICJ).  This extends to:

• A duty of care for victims,
• A duty for rebuilding infrastructures, livelihood, economies, and governance. 

A Global common security doctrine of peace operations

That the global community establish in international law a strong veto-proof precursor to the laws of armed conflict. 

Preamble. Regarding the laws of armed conflict and ”just war” tradition, we believe that the ethic of care has equal weight, to the ethic of justice in conflict situations.  We believe in the responsibility to protect.  We believe in primacy of non-violence, human rights, and the care of others.

Regarding that the Laws of Armed conflict generally define the right to resort to force, and the limits to the employment of force;

• Just cause: Defense against armed attack, prevention of significant harm, and significant threats to international peace.
• Right authority:  Legitimate political authority with ability to control force and cease its use.
• Right intention:  Just cause, not intimidation, vengeance, domination, hatred, coercion.
• Proportionality of ends: Good achieved greater than harm done.  Limits force levels.
• Last resort: Other political means exhausted.
• Reasonable hope of success:
• Aim of peace, stability, security.
• Proportionality of means: Limits weapons, combatants.  Prohibits torture, unnecessary harm.
• Non-combatant immunity and protection: POWs and civilians. To be spared harm and accorded protection.

It is therefore resolved:  That the laws of peace operations be codified as a strict mandated precursor to any military intervention or the use of the laws of armed conflict.

That laws of peace operations be codified as a strict obligation for dealing with conflict in pre-conflict stages, conflict stages, and post conflict stages by the international community, states or transnational parties with circumstance that have the potential for violence. Such laws should prioritize in order:

• Stop or prevent violence or killing as a first priority.
• Care for the victims and refugees.
• Create safe spaces for peace talks or diplomacy.
• Strengthen or rebuild governance at all levels.
• Make efforts to create safe, healthy, and socially responsible communities.
• Reconstruction of economies and infrastructure.
• Enable truth, reconciliation, and justice activity.

This essentially turns just war theory upside down.

A global common security doctrine of deterrence.  

The global community must offer the role of guarantor, and that it be seen to be effective, in all conventional wars, to have any chance regarding decreasing chances of nuclear war or threats of nuclear war.

The hope would be that a robust Global Common Security would negate the need to possess nuclear weapons as deterrence; and make the TPNW and NPT something of a reality. The 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) was negotiated with the purpose of strengthening the largely unimplemented disarmament pillar of the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). 

We already have much peace prevention and operations capacity and laws in place now, and await an awareness for greater coordination, cooperation, global will and courage.   This is not perfect with many grey areas, but a start.

We can only build a better world together.  All of us together.

In peace

Paul  

Paul Maillet

Colonel retired 

Accredited Peace Professional CPSCCanada 

2023 It is past time to get serious about peace in the Ukraine

It is time to get serious about peace in the Ukraine.  Enough of this torrent of blame, anger, even hate, and accusations in all directions.  You can take sides and be a party to the conflict, or you can be a peacemaker.  There is a difference.  The peacemaker adopts an approach of being present in the conflict, being impartial and talks to all sides, brings values of non violence and compassion, and has communication skills that include non violent communication (Marshall Rosenberg).  The peace maker is not looking to crush anybody.

Civilized people talk.  One cannot “pound stakes in the ground and call it negotiation”, however just or right they think they are.

Different things happen in different phases of conflict; pre conflict, during conflict and post conflict.  This means peace building, peace making and peace keeping as appropriate.. 

Our challenge is now peacemaking and facing intractable questions.  This  is usually approached through the consideration of meta questions, that collectively build to dealing with the intractable ones.  This could mean, establishing a permanent architecture of “peace tables” or “humanitarian tables” that involve parties and provide movement “without prejudice to rights or claims” in specific areas. We have already had successful talks on grain exports.  One can envision “Tables” perhaps dealing with  pauses for such as, refugee support, medical aid,  humanitarian aid, prisoner exchanges, maybe on provision of civilian safe havens, nuclear plant protection, planting or harvesting crops, a space for relentless diplomacy, and  perhaps for temporary ceasefires getting longer and longer. They can be sponsored by any acceptable brokers to involved parties, such as the UN, China, USA, Russia, Ukraine, or willing neutral soft power countries.  We need to do, what we can do, to build peace, and not refuse to do what we can.    All this can be a precursor for more substantial talks when conditions arise, such as for permanent peace accords, cease fires, security guarantors, peacekeepers, justice, and claims.    

Crushing Russia sows the seeds for future conflict. Overwhelming EU or NATO militarization is not a condition for security for Russia.  I realize pain and suffering is beyond tragic, but peace at its very core means first stopping the violence and caring for the victims.  Not easy. But there is no war in history that has not ended in some way or other. 

War is not the answer.  If you want peace then work at it.

Good luck to us

Paul Maillet

Retired Colonel (Canadian Armed Forces)

Accredited Peace Professional (CPSC) Civilian Peace Services Canada

2023 Ukraine and Russia – Peace is inevitable

There is no war in history that has not ended in some way or other.  The question is when?  And with what outcomes or consequences? Some have lasted decades, with countless dead, suffering and trauma.   This is not victory.  At this stage in the war, barriers for peace talks are formidable.   Conditions for peace talks less likely at the moment.  But something is always possible.

Civilized people talk.  One cannot “pound stakes in the ground and call it negotiation”, however “just “ they think they are.  Second, is the importance of the language on non violent communication (NVC).  Involved parties at peace talks have to restrain themselves from the avalanche of emotion, accusations, blame and threats.  These are not helpful. 

Lastly, is the “skill in questions” construct.  Dealing with the intractable questions, is usually approached through the consideration of meta questions, that collectively build to dealing with the intractable one.  This could mean, establishing a permanent architecture of “peace tables” or “humanitarian tables” that involve parties and provide movement “without prejudice to rights or claims” in specific areas. We have already had successful talks on grain exports.  One can envision  “Tables” perhaps dealing with  pauses for such as, refugee support, medical aid,  humanitarian aid, prisoner exchanges, maybe on provision of civilian safe havens, nuclear plant protection, planting or harvesting crops, a space for relentless diplomacy, and  perhaps for temporary ceasefires getting longer and longer. They can be sponsored by any acceptable brokers to involved parties, such as the UN, China, USA, Russia, Ukraine, or willing neutral soft power countries.  We need to do, what we can do, to build peace, and not refuse.    All this can be a precursor for more substantial talks when conditions arise, such as for permanent peace accords, cease fires, security guarantors, peacekeepers, justice and claims.    

If you want a victor’s justice, and define victory as crushing Russia, there is karma attached to that.  And far too much death and generational trauma.   This is not victory.  This is not peacemaking. Peace will come but at what cost?

No matter what, in time, Russia and Ukraine will still have to live next to each other.  The question is “how then can they live well in the company of each other.” How then can they each enjoy respect, security, and prosperity.   Ultimately, it seems that Ukraine desires to survive and possibly with a secure future in the EU.  Russia needs to feel secure next to the EU, a powerful neighbor.  An overwhelming EU or massive NATO militarization is not a condition for security for Russia.

To begin, the media and politicians have to talk relentlessly about peace-making instead of  war.  Stop this parade of Generals in the media.  We need to start somewhere.

In peace

Paul

2023 The Canadian F35 decision is regrettable

As a former air force Colonel and former CF18 engineering fleet manager, I am writing to express my deep disappointment for the F35 announcement to select the F35 for the Air Force.  I do understand that the ministerial task is to bring the political and public context to military affairs; but certainly not to be subordinate to everything powerful military interests demand.

 I will state for the record that we will very very much regret the day we made this decision.  We are buying a fighter, the type of which, even the Ukraine war will rarely commit to the close battlefield due to the growing overwhelming sophistication of air defenses.  Drones and missiles are the current and future to the close ground attack mission.  This is what the F35 was designed for.  Throwing an F35 into such a dense battle space is suicide.

 What you have bought is the most expensive squadron of the USAF in history.  In can only be effective as part of a US war.   The Canadian Air Force in its air war structure could not use a fraction of the sensor fusion capabilities of the aircraft.  We cannot afford even a fraction of the surrounding space based and US battle management structure and support capacities, needed around this aircraft.  We can do sovereignty surveillance and control with a far far less expensive fighter

 And as an Engineer, I believe we are buying an aircraft with serious outstanding deficiencies and with a horrendously complex computer backbone, which may never be reconciled to anyone’s satisfaction.  We will simply get the latest Block upgrade with many ongoing upgrades to pay for.  This is a money drain that will go down in history.  It is like buying a car that is not fully designed or in which the salesman has the gall to state that we will not initially get what they bid on and we are paying for, if we ever do.

 As I said before this aircraft is designed only to kill people and destroy infrastructure.  What did we learn from our participation in Libya and Iraq?  We have killed civilians which although we claimed was unintentional, but it was 100% foreseeable. Public opinion was very clear on this.  No more.

Is 2.1 trillion dollars of military expenditure in 2022 not enough to feel secure.  Where NATO spends more than 3 times the budgets of China and Russia combined.   Is that not enough?

 What we could do for peace with 70 billion dollars?  Killing capacities are  never good for the Canadian economy.  There are no words.

 I had hoped for so much more.

 Paul

Colonel Retired

2022 Thinking through Canada’s response to the Ukraine War

Dear Minister of National Defence Anand;
As a military veteran, I read with interest your recent announcement regarding Ukraine, that Canada “ will teach a flexible curriculum focused on individual skills required for frontline combat, including weapons handling, battlefield first aid, fieldcraft, patrol tactics and the Law of Armed Conflict”, according to McLeans Magazine.

Presumably a short course, and given that they will go up against a professional and well armed army, the casualty rates will be very high, so will numbers of horrifically wounded, a high incidence of PTSD, and the inevitable high suicide rates.  Mostly you are sending these trainees to die or be traumatized.  Are you teaching trauma resiliency, how to face killing and horrific traumatic events? How to face the mental scars and suffering that will be present for the rest of their lives?  Canada does not even seriously teach this to its own soldiers.   

Are you ready to take responsibility for what you are enabling?   Karma is not so much consequences, but of the person you are becoming, and what this will do to your mental health and wellbeing.  As the saying goes “In war, here are no unwounded soldiers”.  This includes the leadership, and will forever be part of your mental health, whether you like it or not.  Ask LGen (ret) Dallaire.

Please think this through.  Ask yourself.  How will Canada’s involvement here lead to peace or non violence?  How does this respect the Prime Ministers direction that “Canada is back” to the business of “international peace and stability?”  And finally, “is there another way?”  What does the world really need from Canada in this war?

Is there a way for Canada out of this mess?  There are enough countries enabling the war with arms and training, but who is visibly enabling peace making and peace building?  Who builds safe havens?  Who leads on humanitarian aid?  Refugee support?  Relentless diplomacy for peace talks?  Who is present and impartial and talks to all parties?  Who uses non-violent communication techniques that gives peace a chance? Canada can do so much more and can really make a difference with a little bit of courage.

What defines the best of what it means to be Canadian?  Is there any other answer other than peace making?

Sincere regards;

Paul Maillet
Retired Colonel (Canadian Armed Forces)

Accredited Peace Professional (CPSC)

2022 Solving Ukraine – Solving Peace.

Dear friends in peace:

Again, in 2022, the world faces a new war. Again, the world is at another inflection point of history.  Again, we face choices of sowing seeds for more war in the future, or for making a better future for our children.

We continually face historic inflection points, but we lose more opportunities for peace, than are taken for building lasting peace.  We failed Germany after WWI and sowed the seeds for WWII.  After WWII we chose peace, and Germany and Japan became healthy democracies and world class economies.  After the Warsaw pact dissolved in 1991, we failed Russia, and embarked on NATO expansion, sowing the seeds for what followed. 

The following decades were defined by power without accountability.  This involved superpowers and others acting with impunity, conducting military operations without justifiable or problematic provocation under international law.    The US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in trillions spent, about 7000 US war dead in Iraq, 2400 war dead in Afghanistan, approximately 30,000 suicides, and countless civilian casualties, estimated around 200,000.  Libya and Syria exploded into war with more carnage.  Russia followed suit with incursions into Chechnya in 1994 and 1999, then into Georgia in 2008, and now Ukraine in 2022.  In less that a month, Russian war dead already exceeds US war dead in Afghanistan and Iraq over 20 years.    China reneged on democracy in Hong Kong.  China ‘s growing military power threatens Taiwan and the Asia Pacific. The list is endless.  The misuse of power underlines all these behaviours.  

Certainly, a nation has the right to resist invasion and violence, and the global community has a ‘responsibility to protect’ as a human obligation.  But war takes on a life of its own.  Nuclear weapons are a dark shadow over everything in the Ukraine conflict.   The military aspect of the Ukraine war will resolve itself either through exhaustion, surrender (which is unlikely), one side prevails, Russia withdraws, or a negotiated ceasefire, a peace treaty, or a grinding endless stalemate.  The outcome is uncertain.  What is not uncertain is the suffering, trauma and death, that will scar generations.

So, when the Ukraine post conflict stages arise, and it will, we begin yet again.  We will make choices that will sow seeds for future conflict or future peace.  There will be an outcry for justice.    The ethic of care for victims and reconstruction will be generational and hugely expensive.  We will rebuild Ukraine and face the question of deciding what to do about Russia and its place in the global community.  The road to reconciliation and justice will be long.  But, we will deal with this.  Hopefully, this not a wake-up call for further militarization, but a wake-up call for building credible global and national infrastructures for peace to prevent or mitigate future conflicts.  Already there is a political cry for increasing defence expenditures.

At this infection point, positive solutions always exist and are available.  It is always a question of political will and values.   In considering overarching global solutions, two alternatives stand out:

• Reorient the world view regarding international law to regarding “just peace” interventions and operations, as a strict precursor to “just war” interventions. Adopt a world view that identifies and faces conflict and peace as a collective obligation to act, and in a manner that prioritizes non-violence and human security. (See annex A)

• Reorient the world view towards building new infrastructures for peace (I4P) and cultures of peace as a priority.  The world must invest at least half as much in peace and peace education as it does in militarization.  This means strong global and national peace institutions (See annex B) and effective peace architectures.  (See Annexe C)

Whatever the choices are after this war, there is “karma” attached to them.  They will be who we are.  They will again define the future for generations to come.  Choose peace.

Paul Maillet

Accredited Peace Professional (CPSC)

pmaillet@magma.ca

FOLLOWING BELOW

Annex A.  A Resolution for ‘Just peace’ Intervention before ‘Just war’ Interventions

Annex B.  A Resolution for Establishment of Infrastructures for Peace (I4P)

Annex C.  A Resolution for Peace Architectures

Annex A. A Resolution for ‘Just peace’ Intervention before ‘Just war’ Interventions

Article 1.   Preamble

Acknowledging that war and conflict is generally governed by international law, just war theory and the laws of armed conflict.  The laws of armed conflict are a body of law that, at its core, asserts that military intervention must be an absolutely last resort.   To be truly a last resort, means that viable effective alternate responses must be improved, and be a strict precursor to military responses.  

Promoting that such responses entail such as, strong federal institutions for peace building, civilian peace services with peace professionals skilled in conflict resolution and peace operations, and acknowledging UN civilian-led multidimensional peace operations doctrine and processes.  

Promoting that it is time for obligations for domestic and international peace operations to be accepted as a precursor to military combat intervention,

Promoting that it is time for a more coherent and robust just peace tradition and theory and that is enshrined in international and domestic law.

Promoting that the ethic of care and responsibility to protect, be given equal weight, to the ethic of justice in conflict situations. 

Promoting the primacy of non-violence, human rights and the care of others in war or conflict zones.

Recognizing the laws of armed conflict and ”just war” tradition. 

Acknowledging that the Laws of Armed conflict, define the right to resort to force, and provide limits to the employment of force, and generally includes;

• Just cause: The right to defense against armed attack, the prevention of significant harm, and involving significant threats to international peace.
• Right authority:  The need for involvement of legitimate political authority with the ability to control force and cease its use.
• Right intention: This involves the rightness of just cause, prohibiting intimidation, vengeance, domination, hatred, or coercion.
• Proportionality of ends: The principle of intervention in which the good achieved is greater than harm done.  This limits force levels to the absolute minimum.
• Last resort: This requires that all other political and peaceful means be exhausted.
• That there be a reasonable hope of success:
• That the aim is peace, stability, security.
• Proportionality of means: This limits weapons, combatants.  It prohibits torture, and unnecessary harm or destruction of property.
• Non-combatant immunity and protection: This requires POWs and civilians to be spared harm and accorded protection.

Article 2.  The Resolution

It is therefore resolved  that the laws of peace operations be codified as a strict and mandated precursor to military intervention, or the use of the laws of armed conflict.

It is further resolved that laws of peace operations include provisions for dealing with war or conflict in pre-conflict stages, conflict stages, and post conflict stages by the international community, regarding states or transnational parties that have the potential for violence.

It is further resolved that the laws of peace operation give priority to following provisions, in this order of importance:

• Stop or prevent the violence or killing.
• Create safe havens, refugee support, and humanitarian aid

• Care for the victims and refugees.
• Engage diplomacy in ceasefire or peace talks.
• Strengthen or rebuild governance at all levels.
• Reconstruction of economies and infrastructure.
• Make efforts to create safe, healthy and socially responsible communities.
• Enable truth, reconciliation and justice activity.

Article 3.   Promotion and Implementation

That all governments, civil societies and communities have an essential role in promoting and implementing this resolution in their policies, infrastructures and common affairs.

That the UN be engaged and play critical role in the further development, promotion, implementation and strengthening of this resolution. 

That the UN undertake to hold a high-level forum each year to discuss progress, further development and future action.

Annex B. A Resolution for Establishment of Infrastructures for Peace (I4P)

Article 1.  Declaration for Infrastructures for Peace

Whereas the General Assembly is;

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, 

Deeply concernedby the crises that the world faces, and the interrelationship of armed conflict and violence, with health care, economic stability, and environmental crisis,

Recalling the determination of the peoples of the United Nations to save succeeding generations from the human cost and suffering of war and violence, and the determination to establish a just and lasting peace in all nation states, 

Recalling its resolutions 70/262 of 27 April 2016 on the review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture and 72/276 of 26 April 2018 on the follow-up to the report of the Secretary-General on peacebuilding and sustaining peace,

Recalling UN resolutions 217(III) on the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” of 10 December 1948, its resolution 39/11 of 12 November 1984, entitled “Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace”, its resolution 55/2 of 18 September 2000, entitled “United Nations Millennium Declaration”, which calls for the active promotion of a culture of peace, andits resolution 66/137 of 19 December 2011, entitled “United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training”,

Recalling the UN Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace, (A/RES/53/243) adopted on 13 September 1999, which serves as the universal mandate for the international community, for the promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence that benefits humanity, in particular future generations,  Aware that  cultures of peace,  consist of values, attitudes and behaviors that inspire social interaction based on the principles of freedom, justice, democracy and human rights, that reject violence, and endeavor to prevent conflicts through dialogue and negotiation, and that guarantee the exercise of rights and means to participate in the development of their society,  

Recalling UN Security Council resolution (S/RES/1325) on “Women and peace and security” on adopted 31 October 2000. which reaffirms the important role of women in the prevention and resolution of conflicts, peace negotiations, peace-building, peacekeeping, humanitarian response and in post-conflict reconstruction and stresses the importance of their equal participation and full involvement in all efforts for the maintenance and promotion of peace and security. Resolution 1325 urges all actors to increase the participation of women and incorporate gender perspectives in all United Nations peace and security efforts. 

Recognizingthat strong domestic and international institutions with strong peace architectures are necessary for preventing conflict, resolving conflict and building cultures of peace.  Aware this entails the building of capacities for  peacebuilding that includes sustainable development, the promotion of human dignity and human rights, social inclusion, democracy, good governance, gender equality, and peace education; capacities for peacemaking thatincludes diplomacy, mediation, the peaceful settlement of disputes and conflict, human security, justice and reconciliation; and capacities for peacekeeping, that includes humanitarian aid, disarmament, the rule of law, rebuilding communities and economies and rebuilding wellbeing and addressing trauma.

Recognizing that development, peace and security, and human rights are interlinked, 

Article 2   The Resolution

It is therefore resolved that all member states:  

1. undertake to establish Ministries and Departments for Peace and develop nationally-owned and inclusive frameworks and strategies for sustaining peace, peaceful conflict prevention, and peaceful conflict resolution. 

• undertake to strengthen national competencies and capacities for peace and non-violent conflict transformation, including peace education, social harmony, justice and reconciliation, addressing healing and trauma, and human rights. 

• undertake to support the advancement of a global peace architecture for a global culture of peace; and

• Decide to remain actively seized of the matter.

Article 3   Call to action.

It is recommended that all member states commit to:

Undertaking Peace Institution Building by:

1.  Consider that these Ministries or Departments and other national infrastructures for Peace be established within the executive branch of Government;
2. Establish peace and peacebuilding as a strategic national policy objective and the primary organizing principle in society; 
3. Establish an institutional platform for risk monitoring, identification and expertise with capacities for advising and supporting governments, civil society and communities in peace prevention, peacemaking and peacebuilding;
4.  Establish a national action plan for peace containing comprehensive non-violent, sustainable operational and structural measures and services, for conflict and violence prevention, resolution, social wellbeing, human rights;

• Consult with the United Nations, member societies, and civil society organizations, for advice, assistance and support for the establishment of national peace infrastructures and peace architectures, as well as peace academies, institutes and councils.  To learn from the national and local cultural, ethnic and religious contexts as essential to shaping a sustainable architecture for peace;

•  Urge the promotion of a holistic, integrated, strategic and coherent approach to peacebuilding and sustaining peace across all ministries and sectors of government;

7. Reaffirming the important role peace education that includes basic practices for everyone; the education of peace practitioners for community outreach and education; and the education of peace professionals for peace institution building and provision of peace services.

8. Develop guidelines and materials on the establishment and assessment of Ministries or Departments and infrastructures for Peace; taking advantage of, UN Secretary-General programs, resources and assistance. 

• Reaffirming the importance of roles and inclusiveness of youth and women in prevention, peacebuilding, peace making and peace keeping and noting the substantial link between their full and meaningful involvement in all related decision making and activities;

10. Reaffirm the importance of national ownership and leadership for peacebuilding, whereby the responsibility for sustaining peace is broadly shared by the Government and all other national and civil stakeholders, and underlines the importance of inclusivity regarding the needs and all segments of society;  

11. Urge the establishment of sustainable financial, technical, logistic, and political support for establishing and maintaining Ministries and Departments Peace;

12. Underline that sustaining peace requires close strategic and operational partnerships between national Governments, the United Nations, and other stakeholders, including international, regional and sub-regional organizations, international financial institutions, regional and other development banks, civil society organizations, women’s groups, youth organizations, academia, military and police, and the private sector;

13. Undertake international outreach efforts to increase global awareness of the establishment of Ministries or Departments for Peace and peace infrastructures; and for the implementation of related UN declarations, treaties and conventions relevant to strengthening national and global peacebuilding efforts and cultures of peace;  

Undertaking Preventing and Resolving conflict

14. take a proactive, strategic approach in the development of capacities, practices and policies that promote domestic and international conflict prevention, non-violent intervention, mediation and resolution of conflict;
15. reduce and prevent violence and social polarization, and build wellbeing, through education of all segments of society for effective peace practices, non-violent conflict prevention, resolution, transformation, social healing, and trauma resilience;
16. strengthen capacities for international peace operations.  Contribute to international peace and stability programs and activities.Strengthen non-military means of peacemaking, global demilitarization; and disarmament;
17. strengthen capacities for domestic peace building and conflict management.  Supportlocal communities in identifying, funding and expanding programs such as to reduce and prevent violence, racism, extremism, and gender inequality,
18. Acknowledge that resiliency, healing and reconciliation of individual, collective or intergenerational trauma is essential for addressing the causes of violent conflict, ending cycles of violence, racism, inequality and extremism;
19. Stress that a comprehensive approach to conflict resolution and transformation requires good governance, a human rights based justice system, healing and reconciliation, and provides for accountable and effective human security and safety;
20. Stress that conflict resolution and peace involving war, insurgencies or large-scale unrest involving violence, may require governance reform and measures for effective demobilization, disarmament and reintegration, poverty reduction, re-establishing rule of law, social justice, re-establishing legitimate state authority, and measures to prevent further conflict;  
21. invest and fund in civil society organizations, working to reduce and prevent violence, both nationally and internationally; including local community organizations, youth, women, academia, NGOs, media, and cultural, religious and indigenous groups;

Undertaking Building sustainable peace, security and wellbeing

22. promote and build cultures of peace in all areas of society including in the areas of youth, women, immigration, ethnic groups, and migrations, in collaboration with governments, international organizations, foundations, civil society groups, the media and the private sector; 
23. consult, advise and assist other governmental agencies, national authorities, civil and private citizens in the application of peacebuilding practices in their respective fields of responsibility;
24. promote and create safe and enabling environments for civil society, including community leaders, peacebuilders, political actors, media, and those who protect and promote human rights, to carry out their work independently and without undue interference, threats, harassment, violence or hate speech;

25. Underscore the importance of women’s safety, leadership and their full, equal and meaningful participation in society, conflict prevention, resolution and peacebuilding.  Recognize the continuing need to increase representation of women at all decision-making levels in national, regional and international institutions and mechanisms for the prevention and resolution of conflict, and the sustainment peace; 

26. Undertake to ensure the meaningful and inclusive participation of youth in contributing to peacebuilding activities, efforts and policy creation, including in partnership with the private and public sectors.  Undertake measures to enhance youth capacities, skills, and employment;

27. Reaffirm the importance of a protected, free, independent and responsible media that respects the highest standards of journalism.  Provide peace practices and ethics training for media and encourage their involvement in promoting cultures of peace and non-violence, 

28. Be fully conscious that a lasting peace depends upon respect for and observance of human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all; and on the establishment and maintenance of conditions for economic, security, social and ecological well-being.  

Article 4.   Promotion and Implementation

That all governments, civil societies and communities have an essential role in promoting and implementing this resolution in their policies, infrastructures and common affairs.

That the UN be engaged and play critical role in the further development, promotion, implementation and strengthening of this resolution. 

That the UN undertake to hold a high-level forum each year to discuss progress, further development and future action.

Annex C. A Resolution for Peace Architectures

Article 1. Preamble

Acknowledging that conflict, violence, trauma, be it at the individual, community, national or global levels, is one of the major threats to human civilization.  We submit, that globally, it is time that peace architectures, practices and peace operations be codified as mandated precursors to military intervention or the use of force. 

Recognizing the need for awareness and responses that true peace involves both negative peace (cessation of violence or conflict) and positive peace (creation of wellbeing and dignity). 

Recognizing that an effective architecture may involve national institutions staffed by peace professionals or specialists, with community outreach through trained peace practitioners. 

Recognizing that peace architectures should involve communities and schools capable of delivering basic peace practices education to everyone, beginning at primary school levels. 

Recognizing that core peace skills will benefit individuals, groups and leadership in developing both transactional and relational peace outcomes.

Recognizing that developing “Peace Within” the self is necessary before developing “Peace Between” others and groups.  

Recognizing that an effective national culture of peace begins with a ‘will to peace’ by the national government and its citizens, and a recognition that peace is the responsibility of everyone.

Article 2   The Resolution

It is therefore resolved that all member states:  

undertake to establish an effective peace architecture and a strong supporting peace infrastructure, which provides:

• The citizen for peace with education and support for living basic peace practices.
• The peace practitioner with support for community outreach and education.
• The peace professional with support for peace institution building and peace services.

Article 3.   Basic Peace Practices

Undertake actions to educate and promote basic peace life practices as the focus of the citizen for peace, and as necessary for everyone:

• Practices involving strengthening  “Peace Within – strengthening the self” such as: 

• Acquiring a solid understanding of basic peace theory;
  • Understanding roles and responsibilities for peace citizenship;
  • Undertaking to evaluate one’s life purpose and meaning in terms of intention and commitment to peace.
  • Commitment to practices that strengthen wellbeing and Inner peace. 
  • Commitment to practices that strengthen resiliency to suffering and trauma

• Practices involving strengthening “Peace Between – Engaging others”, such as:

• Commitment to practices of non-violent and peace centered communication,
  • Commitment to strong Peace Values, Rights and Duties, such as compassion, dignity and respect;
  • Understanding good Integrity based decision making practices;
  • Commitment to facing wrongdoing with non violence;
  • Understanding and practice of basic conflict resolution concepts;
  • Commitment to good Social Responsibility practices; 
  • Commitment to Nonviolent Social action or activism;
  • Understanding of peaceful practices for facing Extremism
  • Understanding of peaceful practices for facing Racism
  • Understanding of good practices for advancing Gender Equality.

Article 4. Community Level Peace Building

Undertake actions to educate and promote peace practices involving community affairs as the focus of Peace Practitioners and community leadership;

Practices involving building Community Peace Frameworks such as:

• Acquiring a solid understanding of expanded levels of Peace theory
• Understanding Roles and Responsibilities at the level of being community Peace Practitioners
• Undertaking the building of Community Centers for Peace
• Undertaking the creation Community Action Plans for Peace;
• Undertaking to Build Communities of Compassion and volunteerism.

Practices involving Community Outreach

• Providing community level peace Education, Training, Dialogue
• Providing peace skills Mentoring, Accompaniment, and Coaching services to the community;
• Undertaking activity for Building Community Connections that includes strengthening intergenerational relationships;
• Undertaking education for building Ethics Awareness in communities.
• Undertaking activity and education for building Wellbeing, Resiliency, Facing Trauma
• Providing basic conflict resolution, reconciliation, and closure education and services;
• Undertaking education and support for peaceful social action and non-violent activism; and
• Providing education and dialogue opportunities for addressing Community peace concerns.

Article 5. National Level Peace Building

Undertake actions to educate and promote basic peace practices involving national and international affairs as the focus of Peace Professionals and elected government and public service leadership;

Practices involving building peace Institutions and Infrastructures

• Acquiring a solid understanding of advanced peace theory foundation;
• Understanding Roles and Responsibilities and professional standards at the level of being Peace Professionals;

• Promoting and supporting a political and legislative peace framework;
• Supporting the creation of a National Peace Center or Peace Institutions;
• Supporting the development and implementation of a National Action Plan for Peace; and
• Supporting the establishment and operations of Community Peace Centers

Practices involving providing peace Services and Programs

• Being active in the peace education and development of peace practitioners, professionals, trainers, and citizens;
• Being active in promoting Peace Education, Training, Mentoring and Support Programs. 
• Undertaking to provide peace advisory, research, monitoring services to Government.
• Undertaking to provide National Ethics, Disclosure, and Reprisal protection Programs.
• Undertaking to provide Conflict Resolution, Reconciliation, Closure Services and Programs.
• Undertaking to provide expert advice and support for International and Domestic Peace Operations.

Article 6.  Promotion and Implementation    

That all governments, civil societies and communities have an essential role in promoting and implementing this resolution in their policies, infrastructures and common affairs.

That the UN be engaged and play critical role in the further development, promotion, implementation and strengthening of this resolution. 

That the UN undertake to hold a high-level forum each year to discuss progress, further development and future action.

fin

2022 Open Letter to Minister of Defence on F35 Selection

Dear Minister Anand;

As a former air force colonel and former CF18 fleet engineering life cycle manager, I am writing to express my deep disappointment for the recent F35 announcement to select the F35 as the next fighter for the Air Force.

Not only was this an election promise broken, but a fundamental departure from Canadian government direction for contributing to international peace and stability.  The statement by the PM that “we are back” rings very hollow today.

I am sure you understand that this aircraft has only one purpose and that is to kill people or destroy infrastructure.  It is, or will be, a nuclear weapon capable, air-to-air and air- to-ground attack aircraft optimized to war fighting.  This contributes solely to war.    It is a horrific weapon, the type of which has been used in the past decades in bombing missions in cities, and the cause of terrible suffering and civilian deaths.   Just look at the suffering and death occurring in Ukraine today from bombing. 

NATO spends more than 10 times annually in military capabilities than does Russia.  How much is enough?  What is this outcry for more defence expenditures in the face of this?  Where are our military brigades dedicated, trained and resourced to creating safe havens, humanitarian aid delivery and protection, ceasefire monitoring?   I was so hopeful for your tenure as defence minister as an independent voice and willing to stand up to the military establishment and their endless push for more money, and the lobbying of special interests.  The wish list is bottomless.  I do not see this in you today.   Just say no. Find another way. Canadian defence requirements for an aircraft capable of policing Canadian airspace and national sovereignty can be easily met by a far less expensive and less complex aircraft.

It is very clear that we cannot afford the F35.   This is the most expensive US weapons project in their military history, and will consume our defence budget in its mid life years. 

The F35 requires a very complex and unaffordable military battle management infrastructure reaching into space, to realize its capabilities, and we will be wholly dependent on US military infrastructure for this.  We will be just another squadron or two of the US Air Force and as such dependent on its foreign policy and military predispositions to conflict responses.  The life cycle costs will be astronomical, easily exceeding $40 billion; and outstanding technical deficiencies will plague the aircraft, and defence budget, for decades.

I have been involved in aircraft procurement during my career and know how selection is dependent on the statement of requirement (SOR).  The SOR, which can be skewed in any direction needs civilian oversight;  for example, the weight given to stealth, which is a very very perishable quality in todays climate of accelerating technical advancement and can give a bidding advantage to the F35.  Not to mention the competing and emerging capacities of drones.

I do not see how this aircraft can, in any way, win on cost, and certainly not on independent Canadian performance and operational needs.  The F35 has massively excessive capabilities to our needs.  It is like buying a high end Ferrari just to go for groceries.  

If we believe in contributing to international peace and stability, the money is far better spent elsewhere.  I implore you to rethink what you are doing, and please listen to a wider group of experts in the field.  There is no future in war.

Good luck Minister. This is your legacy.   Please make Canada proud of you.  Today we feel diminished.

Yours sincerely;

Paul Maillet

Colonel retired.