Imagine a World With US-China Cooperation

 "On September 10, 2021, during an important diplomatic meeting that occurred by telephone, U.S. President Joseph Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping affirmed the necessity of a better relationship between their two nations. According to the official Chinee summary, Xi said that 'when China and the United States cooperate, the two countries and the world will benefit; when China and the United States are in confrontation, the two countries and the world will suffer.' He added: 'Getting the relationship right is... something we must do and must do well.'

At the moment, however, the governments of the two nations seem far from a cooperative relationship. Indeed, intensely suspicious of one another, the United States and China are sharpening their military spending, developing new nuclear-weapons, engaging in heated quarrels over territorial issues, and sharpening their economic competition. Disputes over the status of Taiwan and the South China Sea are particularly likely flashpoints for war.

But imagine the possibilities if the United States and China cooperate. After all, these countries possess the world's two largest military budgets and the two biggest economies, are the two leading consumers of energy and have a combined population of nearly 1.8 billion people. Working together, they could exercise enormous influence in world affairs.

Instead of preparing for a deadly military confrontation -- one that appeared perilously close in late 2020 and early 2021 -- the United States and China could turn over their conflicts to the United Nations or other neutral bodies like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations for mediation and resolution. Aside from averting a potentially devastating war, perhaps even a nuclear war, this policy would facilitate substantial cuts in military spending, with savings that could be devoted to bolstering UN operations and funding their domestic social programs.

Instead of the two countries obstructing UN action to protect international peace and security, they  could fully support it -- for example, by ratifying the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Instead of continuing as the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases, these two economic giants could work together to fight the escalating climate catastrophe by reducing their carbon footprint and championing international agreements with other nations to do the same.

Instead of blaming one another for the current pandemic, they could work cooperatively on global public health measures, including massive production and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines and research on other potentially horrendous diseases.

Instead of engaging in wasteful economic competition and trade wars, they could pool their vast economic resources and skills to provide poorer nations with economic development programs and direct economic assistance. Instead of denouncing one another for human rights violations, they could admit that they both had oppressed their racial minorities, announce plans for ending the mistreatment, and provide reparations to their victims."

(Source: Lawrence Wittner, "Imagine a World With US-China Cooperation," Common Dreams, October 11, 2021.)

Imagine...

...No 'modernization' of the Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs);

...No First Use of nuclear weapons;

...No nuclear missiles with their bombs on hair-trigger alert;

...No nuclear war 'football' travelling with the U.S. President all the time;

...The U.S. joining over 50 nations in signing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, because nukes are now illegal.

The foregoing is a summary of Peace Action of Michigan's August 6, 2021 Zoom, which included a Power Point presentation.

US Sanctions Policies Desperately Need Accountability

 "In the 20 years since 9/11 and the start of the 'Global War on Terror,' sanctions have become one of the most dominant tools in the U.S. foreign policy tool chest. Yet despite limited evidence of success and abundant evidence of serious consequences, the U.S. government does little to evaluate the impact these blunt instruments have on civilian populations or even on the U.S. foreign policy objectives. Congress has a  chance to change that.

An amendment to the FY2022 National Defense Authorization  Act detailing that role, offered by Rep. Chuy Garcia (D-Ill.), and passed by the House of Representatives in September, will likely become law if a conference committee decides to retain it in the NDAA's final version. A coalition of humanitarian, peacebuilding, human rights, and other civil society groups have been advocating for impact assessments for years and are now calling on the conference chairs to retain the provision.

The amendment would require the Government Accountability Office, in consultation with the president and other relevant agencies, to report to Congress on the humanitarian impacts of comprehensive U.S. sanctions, including the ability of civilian populations to access water, food, sanitation, and public health, and their impact on the delivery of humanitarian aid and development projects. It would also require more transparency around exemption for humanitarian aid, and other exceptions to sanctions as well as an assessment of whether sanctions are achieving stated foreign policy goals.

Until now, only independent assessments have shed light on the true impacts of U.S. sanctions. Human Rights Watch has documented how sanctions have been depriving Iranians of their right to health, deterring financial institutions from facilitating transactions in Iran necessary for importing medicine and medical equipment, and necessary for international NGOs to pay their staff and keep their operations afloat.

Korea Peace Now, a global movement of women mobilizing to end the Korean War, has documented the gendered impacts of sanctions on North Korea, showing that the economic pressure sanctions impose on society 'tends to exacerbate rates of domestic violence, sexual violence, and the trafficking and prostitution of women.'

Particularly concerning is the wide gap between the academic consensus on sanctions and the political reliance on these tools. Empirical studies have shown repeatedly that -- with few exceptions -- sanctions rarely achieve their foreign policy objectives. Sanctions against North Korea failed to prevent it from advancing its nuclear weapons program, while serving its government as a rallying cry against the United States. Sanctions against Iran have yet to compel it to return to the nuclear agreement, unsurprisingly given that the sanctions were reimposed in violation of that accord.

A recent Ipsos poll commissioned by the American Friends Service Committee found that a majority of Americans (53 percent) agreed the United States should lift sanctions if they interfere with humanitarian aid, and COVID relief efforts (compared to 26 percent who disagreed, and 21 percent who didn't know). It also found that a plurality (49 percent) agreed the United States should lift sanctions if they damage economic activity and livelihoods of ordinary citizens (28 percent disagreed and 23 percent didn't know); and 48 percent agreed the United States should lift sanctions if they violate international legal principles (30 percent disagreed, and 22 percent didn't know)."

(Source: Daniel Jasper and Gabe Murphy, "US sanctions policies desperately need accountability," RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT, October 18, 2021.)

Losing Abortion Rights in Supreme Court Case

"The 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade protected a women's right to an abortion without excessive restrictions. But the high court is now considering arguments in another case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, that gives the conservative majority their most significant chance in decades to gut the Roe precedent. In oral arguments, the six conservatives seemed open to allowing a Mississippi law that bars abortions after 15 weeks to stand, undermining the core principles of the Roe verdict.

The court is not expected to rule on the case for months; typically, justice wait to release opinions in their most explosive cases until the end of their yearly term in June.

But the scenario in which justices overturn Roe is one for which conservatives have been preparing for decades, by laying a foundation of laws that either sought to bring a challenge to the high court or snap into effect once abortion laws changed

Twelve states -- Arkansas, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Utah -- have passed laws that would bar all or nearly all abortions, written in a way that would bar all or nearly all abortions, written in a way that would allow them to take effect after the Supreme Court overturns Roe, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion rights research institution. 

'Those laws vary by state, but they all have language that describes how they would take effect,' said Elizabeth Nash, director of state issues at the Guttmacher Institute. Some require the state attorney general to certify that the Supreme Court's decision allows that state to ban abortions.

Eight states -- Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wisconsin -- still have abortion bans on their books that were passed years, and sometimes decades, before Roe was decided. Texas has a similar law that is under injunction by a federal court.

But if the precedent is struck down, those laws would be enforceable once again, and the Supreme  Court ruling would likely allow Texas's law to take effect.

'If Roe is overturned, then states with pre-Roe bans could take the steps necessary to implement them,' Nash said.

Those states, some of which have laws that both predate and post-date the Roe decision, are home to a collective 51 million women. Georgia, Ohio and South Carolina, which have each passed restrictions on abortion that were ruled unconstitutional under Roe, but could be reinstated depending on the court's ruling, are home to another 14 million women.

Collectively, the 65 million women who live in states where abortion restrictions would take effect in a post-Roe world represent almost 40 percent of the 165 million women who live in the United States."

Source: Reid Wilson, "65 M women could lose abortion rights in Supreme Court case," The Hill, 12/3/21.

Facing the Facts About Gun Violence in the U.S.

 "A day after another tragic school shooting, I just finished teaching a criminology class about gun violence and how to reduce it in the U.S. I found that my students have many misconceptions about the scope and nature of the problem. I believe they are not alone, and that these misconceptions that many others may hold work against the development of thoughtful and effective policy. Although whole volumes can and have been written about this. I share here just a few observations.

First, many have no idea of how many people are injured or killed by gun violence in the U.S. annually. According to the CDC, more than 45,000 people were killed by gun violence in the U.S. in 2020, an increase in recent decades. This is an average of more than 120 gun-related deaths per day. It includes a 30 percent increase in homicides from the previous year. Between 2015 and 2019 there were 2,606 gun deaths by law enforcement alone. These numbers should be shocking, with the gun-related homicide rates 25 times greater than other wealthy nations.

Second, most are unaware that the biggest percentage of gun-related fatalities come from suicide. Nearly two-thirds of deaths by gun are suicides, an average of approximately 64 per day. Likewise, accidental injuries and deaths are far more frequent in the U.S. than in other wealthy counties. a study by researchers from the University of  Pennsylvania and Columbia University found that between 2009 and 2017, there was an annual average of 85,700 ER visits for non-fatal injuries. ABC News developed a Gun Violence Tracker and found that for the week of November 19 to 25, 2021,there were 345 deaths and 623 injuries due to firearms in the U.S.

Third, the cost of gun violence is astronomical. The U.S, spends nearly one billion dollars annually on immediate healthcare cost alone, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office. The costs are far greater when you factor in long-term physical and mental heath care, as well as criminal justice and other  costs.

Fourth, while mass shootings typically dominate the conservation about gun control, they represent less than three percent of annual gun-related deaths. Further, the primary reason for mass shootings in the U.S. is domestic violence. Similarly, much attention has been paid to active shooter situations, with some potentially problematic policy implications, yet these represent just one percent of gun deaths.

Fifth, while many emphasize gun deaths in big cities like Chicago, approximately half of homicides by gun occur in suburban and rural areas.  In addition, gun injuries are widespread and not exclusive to big cities. While Black males are disproportionately victims of intentional shootings, White males in rural communities are over-represented in suicide by gun. 

This is not an exhaustive list of misconceptions, nor does it offer solutions. My hope in teaching and writing about this is that, if we all discuss real data, perhaps then we can identify more appropriate policies and practices, which might include gun control, educational programs, mental health assistance and more." 

Footnote:

[1] Laura Finley, Ph.D., syndicated by PeaceVoice, teaches in the Barry University Department of Sociology & Criminology. Published by OregonPeaceWorks, December 3, 2021.