|Home | Bookmark | Tell||Active petitions in over 75 countries||Follow GoPetition|
Petition Tag - disarmament
When was the idea of GACD born and why it died?
The idea of GACD was born before World War II, within the League of Nations, which devoted much time and energy for disarmament, although many governments doubted that extensive disarmament could be achieved or was even desirable in this time. The inability of the League of Nations to prevent the Second World War led to its dissolution in 1946. For some time it seemed as if GACD was buried forever.
The new international organization, the UN shifted the emphasis from GACD to peacekeeping mission in the armed conflicts by control of certain types of weapons, especially nuclear and protection of human rights, and humanitarian aid, etc. Thus, the idea of GACD, per se, was in fact forgotten. The security was set as the cornerstone, which, as shown by the post-war history, cannot be guaranteed by any amount of weapons and their proliferation. The GACD was sacrificed to security. However, we know that security in the ocean of arms is a very fragile ship with constant leaks and the threat of explosions in general.
In the 60's, the idea of GACD was revived again as phoenix from the initiatives of the USSR. In the history of the United Nations, only in 1962, the World Congress for GACD was held in Moscow. Revival of the GACD idea was fleeting (1959-1962) and soon it went into oblivion due to its uselessness for industrial civilization. It was partly because of lack of understanding of its fundamental precepts and partly because of its intangible content. The GACD had no place in the UN.
Now the GACD idea is dead firmly. The concept of "general and complete disarmament" is not exists even in the modern world encyclopedias: Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, etc. In the last five decades, the GACD has been suppressed by ever greater oppression of the arms race, the cost of which, under the pretext of security, grows each year by an incredibly huge amount. In fact, the GACD has been quietly moribund by the military industrial civilization. The GACD is being undermined because it poses an easier and viable solution to prevent conflicts at the expense of the vast military-industry complex that depends heavily upon building the weapons of war. However, there is a silver lining for the GACD. The complete nuclear disarmament launched the United States and Russia in 2009 is a good sign for the revival of GACD, but still only an elusive dream. The proposed petition can turn it into reality.
The profound cause of helplessness and death of the GACD idea is military industry understanding of peace without recognizing the merits of GACD and completely excluding the idea of world peace. Their objectives are temporary peace supported by the threat of military force. Therefore, any talk about GACD is not needed. Military-industrial civilization lives on the old and false militarist slogan “If you want peace - prepare for war.” This slogan transforms peace into a time of temporary period of rest between the wars and in preparation for the new wars. It profits only the military-industrial complex eliminating the prospect of global peace and GACD. This principle subordinates peace to war, turning peace into a slave of war. So have been the periods of peace to this day. Since the military-industry civilization has no other perspective for peace to view from, the prospect of GACD died in it.
The universal peace depends upon GACD, whereas the universality and freedom of war eliminates the need and possibility of GACD.
India’s communists have always opposed India’s strategic embrace of the U.S.
It believes that the U.S. is a hegemonic, deeply destabilizing power and India cannot become a close ally of Washington without sacrificing or compromising its policy independence and narrowing its room for manoeuvre in world affairs.
Second, the left argues that the text of the "123 agreement" differs significantly from the statements that Singh made in Parliament, promising that it would address all of India's concerns about full civilian nuclear cooperation with the U.S. and autonomy for the Indian nuclear programme.
The left says there are specific differences between the agreement and a law passed last December in the U.S. Congress as a prelude to "123", called the Henry J Hyde Act. The act mandates annual certification by the U.S. President that India is behaving in conformity with American foreign policy objectives, and also imposes a few other conditions that India said were not acceptable to it.
According to the left, the Hyde Act will prevail over the "123" agreement and can be used arbitrarily to terminate nuclear cooperation with India.
The act, it says, falls short of guaranteeing full-scale nuclear commerce with India, which was promised when Singh and President George W Bush inked the deal in July 2005. For instance, the U.S. will not export uranium enrichment or fuel reprocessing technologies to India.
The act, argue the communists, will erode India's sovereign decision-making in respect of its nuclear programme. Since the "123 agreement" essentially derives from the Act, it must be opposed.
In addition, the left is concerned at the likely impact of "123" on India’s traditional advocacy of universal nuclear disarmament. It says that by getting "accommodated in a U.S.-led unequal nuclear order", India’s leading role in championing nuclear disarmament "as a major country of the non-aligned community" will be given "the go-by".
The left also says that it is "debatable" whether nuclear power, which would be promoted under the U.S.-India deal, is a sustainable solution to India's energy problem.
"The bulk of the left’s current opposition to the agreement derives from procedural arguments (about Singh’s assurances to Parliament), and from differences between its text and what was promised in July 2005, and again in March and August last year," says M.V. Ramana, a physicist and energy expert attached to the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development, Bangalore told IPS.
The present position of the left parties significantly differs from its original stand on the U.S.-India nuclear deal two years ago, which emphasised its negative consequences for India's advocacy of global nuclear disarmament.
For decades, said the left parties in July 2005, India "was …committed to nuclear disarmament… The BJP-led government had begun the journey of accepting a junior partnership of the U.S. in return for a de facto recognition as a nuclear weapon-state… The current agreement marks an end to India’s nuclear disarmament policy".
Nevertheless, the communists have decided not to press for a vote on the "123 agreement" under Parliament's rules of procedure, unlike most of the non-UPA parties. A negative vote could lead to the fall of the Manmohan Singh government.
"The left is loath to topple the UPA government because it fears that that will pave the way for a return of the BJP," says Achin Vanaik, a professor of international relations and global politics at Delhi university.
This is a petition to urge the Honorable Barbara Boxer to run for the office of President of the United States of America in the 2008 U.S. presidential election.
Barbara Boxer is one of the greatest American politicians today. She has steadfastly stood up for the core progressive values of liberty, equality, justice, compassion and truth, even when she has had to stand alone and face overwhelming odds.
When numerous reports of voting irregularities and fraud in the 2004 U.S. presidential election in the pivotal State of Ohio started to emerge on weblogs and 'dissident' websites, when the mainstream media utterly failed to report, let alone investigate those stories, and the State and Federal Governments tried as hard as they could to cover up the truth of what had happened, it was Barbara Boxer who became the sole member of the U.S. Senate to demand accountability from the Republican establishment by signing a Congressional objection to the certification of Ohio's Electoral College votes on January 6, 2005 and articulating those concerns before a national audience.
When Condoleezza Rice was expecting a smooth and triumphant passage through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's confirmation hearings on her nomination to become U.S. Secretary of State, it was Barbara Boxer who challenged her outright to admit to misleading the nation, while taking part in the political campaign to sell the Bush Administration's criminal intent to invade Iraq, and advocating the use of torture against detainees.
When George W. Bush asked the U.S. Congress to authorize his long premeditated invasion and occupation of Iraq, Barbara Boxer was one of the few proud members of the Senate to perceive his true agenda, and oppose granting him such authority. She has consistently spoken out against the war, while at the same time working to ensure that the sacrifice of our brave men and women in uniform is being duly honored and rewarded.
Barbara Boxer has been a champion of women's rights, environmental protection, job creation, fiscal responsibility, medical research, educational opportunities for all, and has unfailingly stood up for the poor and the vulnerable.
Barbara Boxer has made mistakes, no doubt, but she has been willing to recognize and acknowledge her mistakes, and to do what she can to correct them. That is the mark of a true progressive.
It is therefore a privilege for us to ask the Honorable Barbara Boxer to run for the office of President of the United States of America in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, and to make the following pledge: