Credit: Below the Sky/shutterstock.com

“You shall love truth and peace.” Zechariah 8:19

By Kevin P. Clements
TOKYO, Japan, Oct 25 2023 (IPS)

The world and the Middle East do not need another violent conflict. This is a region that has experienced far too much violence over the years. Hamas’ desperate attacks on innocent civilians was intended to provoke an Israeli overreaction that would, among other things, jeopardise Israeli diplomatic negotiations with the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia and create generalised anxiety within Israel. It was also aimed at demonstrating Hamas’ military capacity and vengeance for years of a humiliating blockade of Gaza. Kidnapping Israeli civilians was callous and brutal but part of a plan to use hostages as bargaining chips around the release of Palestinian prisoners in Israel.

The ferocity of the Hamas violence against innocent Israelis was appalling and many war crimes were committed in the first 24 hours of the invasion. After the initial shock, Israeli military vengeance has been swift in coming.

Since the events of the weekend, a gigantic humanitarian catastrophe and many other war crimes are unfolding in Gaza itself. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised “Vengeance”. He stated that there would be no “restraint on the military” and that the newly formed coalition government would crush Hamas, whose fighters he called “wild animals” and “barbarians.”

Kevin P. Clements

There are two wars currently in play. The first has to do with the battle on the ground. Initially Hamas’s unrestrained militia had the upper hand but now the formidable Israeli military machine is moving into action with terrifying consequences for the 2.3 million inhabitants of Gaza, not all of whom are Hamas supporters. One million are under the age of 19. The Israeli air force has been dropping hundreds of bombs on Gaza including strikes throughout the day and night. Over 263,000 people have been forced to flee their homes in the Gaza Strip, as heavy bombardments from the air, land and sea continue to hit the Palestinian enclave. There is nowhere for these displaced persons to go. Over 2,000 Palestinians have been killed since the blockade and bombing of Gaza began.

There are no exits to Egypt and certainly none to Israel. The presence of thousands of Israeli self-defence forces in tanks and on foot all around Gaza suggest that an invasion of the strip is highly likely with 2.3 million Palestinians unable to escape Israeli “vengeance” .

The second battle is for control of the narrative. Israel immediately moved into a victim narrative, comparing the Hamas assault to 9/11, Pearl Harbour and the Holocaust. President Biden called the Hamas attacks “pure evil”. All of these comparisons are intended to evoke memories of swift and “legitimate” military action and “vengeance”. Hamas, on the other hand claims that its actions are justified by years of blockade, oppression and humiliation. Gaza, for example, is often referred to as the largest open-air prison in the world. The world’s media (led by the United States) promotes the first narrative while pro-Palestinian states and free Arab media the second. Neither narrative, however, can be used to demonise, and justify unrestrained bloodshed against, the other.

Despite years of occupation and humiliation by Israel, Hamas gains nothing by killing and kidnapping Israeli civilians and randomly terrorizing the Israeli population.

On the other side, nothing is gained by Israel declaring “vengeance” against Hamas, bombing civilians and now blockading Gaza.

All victims will and must be grieved and mourned by friends and families. There are no winners in this war. It’s a disaster for everyone.

As the SG of the United Nations put it. This most recent violence “does not come in a vacuum” but “grows out of a long-standing conflict, with a 56-year long occupation and no political end in sight.”

Antonio Gutteres appealed for an end to “the vicious cycle of bloodshed, hatred and polarization”:

Israel must see its legitimate needs for security materialized – and Palestinians must see a clear perspective for the establishment of their own state realized. Only a negotiated peace that fulfils the legitimate national aspirations of Palestinians and Israelis, together with their security alike – the long-held vision of a two-State solution, in line with United Nations resolutions, international law and previous agreements – can bring long-term stability to the people of this land and the wider Middle East region.

In the meantime, we are witnessing a humanitarian catastrophe unfold before our eyes. We cannot remain mute in the face of violence on both sides. There can be no military solution to the Palestinian conflict. It’s critical that there be swift negotiations to generate some humanitarian corridors to let those that wish to leave Gaza do so and to enable the UN and other humanitarian organisations bring in water, power, food and medical supplies to serve the needs of a besieged population. It’s also important (even as the Israeli army prepares for an invasion) that both sides are reminded of and are willing to fight according to long established rules of war. Proposing that Israel will fight “without restraint” is a recipe for multiple human rights violations in response to those already perpetrated by Hamas.

Let’s hope and work for a return of hostages, and reinforce all Turkish and UN moves for a ceasefire and negotiations to end the war. Without imagination and courage there will be no end to Palestinian hopelessness, humiliation, death and destruction. Without imagination and creativity on the Israeli side there will be no real security, and cycles of vengeance and violence will be deepened and normalised. The challenge is to draw on all the rich Jewish traditions of forgiveness and reconciliation to ensure that the responses to Hamas’s appalling slaughter are proportionate and restrained. There is no room for Gaza to become another Warsaw Ghetto with Israel responsible for vengeful death and destruction.

Kevin P. Clements is the Director of the Toda Peace Institute.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Sound has been travelling faster than light in China, Japan and Taiwan lately, as political, religious, and economic leaders use a lingering conflict for their own domestic political interests.

The presenting problem is a longstanding territorial dispute over who has sovereignty over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. The Chinese believe the islands were unlawfully seized by Japan as “war booty” in 1895. Japan argues that possession is nine-tenths of the law and that there can be no dispute since they have occupied the Senkakus for the past 117 years. For the past 40 years Japan has managed to avoid overt conflict over the islands by not raising questions of sovereignty and not engaging in any economic development. For their part, China and Taiwan fully expected that the islands would be returned to them in 1972 when the United States gave up its occupation of the Okinawan chain.

The Japanese illusion that “no territorial dispute exists” was undermined in mid-September when Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda pre-empted Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara’s desire to purchase the islands by buying them for Japan.

This offended China and immediately sparked violent protests. More than 60,000 Chinese citizens staged anti-Japan rallies in at least 24 cities to protest the purchase of the islands. The Noda decision and the Chinese response mean that Japan can no longer adhere to the view that the islands are not in dispute.

The challenge facing both countries is what to do about this. In the early stages, moderate Japanese public opinion did not raise its voice for fear of giving support to violent Chinese protests. As the conflict escalated, the Japan Business Federation, or Keidanren, and more moderate opinions urged a de-escalation of the rhetoric and maritime confrontation. They have requested negotiated solutions to the dispute. The questions now are whether or not both countries are hostage to extreme nationalist agendas and what conditions will be conducive to successful bilateral negotiations.

What needs to happen for both countries to de-escalate and resolve the dispute?

In the first place there has to be an acknowledgement of a divisive territorial dispute. By buying the islands the Japanese government opened Pandora’s box and acknowledged that the islands were contested. Both countries now need to decide between a negotiated or confrontational solution.

Secondly, because Japan triggered the dispute it should think of some suitable conciliatory gestures that might create ripe conditions for both countries to come to the negotiating table.

Thirdly, political leaders on both sides should start costing the negative economic, social and political impacts of continuing this conflict. Both countries have 340 billion dollars of annual bilateral trade and China accounts for 21 percent of Japanese exports and 20 percent of its imports. The conflict is already resulting in declining tourism and trade between both countries; it makes no economic or political sense to allow the dispute to continue.

Fourth, if there is no inclination or mood to have bilateral talks, both China and Japan should initiate talks about whether it would be better to have mediated or arbitrated negotiations. These could be under the auspices of the United Nations secretary general or his special representative; or, more formally, the case could be taken to the International Court of Justice for arbitration.

This case also highlights the need for some permanent North-east Asian regional security mechanism capable of managing disputes between the countries of North-east Asia.

Fifth, for the conflict to be adequately resolved in the long term, both China and Japan, but particularly Japan, need to devise processes for coming to terms with their common history and memories of war.

The Chinese believe that Japan has not yet admitted its responsibility for the Second World War. The current generation of Japanese decision makers feel diminished responsibility for events such as the Nanking Massacre, sanitised Japanese history textbooks and legal responsibility for the comfort women.

These traumatic memories are reactivated every time a Japanese head of state visits the controversial Yasukuni Shrine where class-A war criminals are enshrined as “war heroes” or when disputes like the Senkaku/Diaoyu occur. Without paying attention to traumatic history and the humiliating consequences of military defeat, territorial issues such as this will continue to undermine a positive and peaceful relationship between Japan and China in North-east Asia. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

* Kevin Clements is professor and director of the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (NCPACS) at the University of Otago and Ria Shibata is research assistant at NCPACS.

President Barack Obama indicated in Prague in 2009 that he was interested in achieving a “world without nuclear weapons.” Since that bold statement (which was one of the reasons for his Nobel peace prize) he has been persuaded by his foreign policy advisors and pressured by the Nuclear Weapons Laboratories to put nuclear abolition on hold and to focus instead on issues such as nuclear safety and nuclear security.

The first nuclear summit in Washington in 2010 therefore focused its attention on nuclear security and the prevention of nuclear terrorism. These objectives, while important, do not really address the safety of ‘peaceful’ nuclear reactors or the reduction or abolition of nuclear weapons.

On the contrary, nuclear security, as defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), refers to “the prevention and detection of, and response to, theft, sabotage, unauthorised access, illegal transfer or other malicious acts involving nuclear material, other radioactive substances or their associated facilities.” In other words the focus is on making sure that nuclear material does not get into the ‘wrong hands’. This in turn gets redefined in terms of where states line up in the ‘war on terror’. What is surprising about this focus is that there is little solid evidence that terrorist groups are seeking highly enriched uranium either to make dirty bombs or to fuel the nuclear ambitions of states wishing to acquire more sophisticated nuclear weapons.

The first as well as the second summit (Seoul, March 26-27, 2012) focused on nuclear terrorism and better management of nuclear and fissile materials: how to prevent, detect and respond to the “illicit” (however this is defined) seizure of any kind of nuclear material, whether raw ore, yellow cake, hexafluoride, metal oxide, ceramic pellets or fuel rod assemblies.

The first summit aimed to turn nuclear security issues into an important prerequisite for advancing nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy, thereby helping to realise “a world without nuclear weapons.” Sceptics argue this diverted attention from the business of deeper cuts in arsenals, dealing more creatively with threshold and virtual nuclear states and establishing clear guidelines/roadmaps for nuclear abolition.

The first summit did, however, generate a work plan to minimise and reduce the amount of highly enriched uranium (HEU); ratify international agreements such as the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (ICSANT) and amend the Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM). Some gains were made there and the Seoul Summit was intended to review progress on these measures and (in the wake of the Fukushima meltdown) to focus attention on the dangers of nuclear accidents.

What is somewhat problematic is the link between theft of nuclear materials and terrorist activities. The fact that Osama bin Laden described acquiring nuclear weapons as a “religious duty,” and that the 9/11 Commission Report concluded that Al-Qaeda has tried to acquire or make nuclear weapons does not mean that Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group is capable now or still interested in achieving this objective. It is certainly a big leap to go from there to suggesting that such weapons in the hands of terrorists will be used to generate massive loss of life or can confer any obvious political benefits. To focus so much attention on this low probability behaviour is a distraction from moving toward a nuclear-free world –with reduced reliance on both nuclear energy and nuclear weaponry.

The South Korean government hoped that the Seoul Summit would be a “stepping-stone to breakthroughs in broader areas of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament”. While it did discuss the interface between nuclear security and safety, the summit communiqué did not really establish this stepping-stone nor did it place any real restraints on the continued expansion of nuclear power or energy in Northeast Asia and in the rest of the world.

In fact most commentators felt the communiqué was bland and rather non-committal. Signatories were “encouraged” 28 times but never “required” to undertake anything. The final communiqué had at its core an agreement among participating countries to continue decreasing their holdings of nuclear materials. Even this agreement, however, was high on generalities and low on specific targets for eliminating or reducing such materials. It encouraged each state to voluntarily set and announce targets for minimising possession of HEU by the end of 2013. The United States and Russia have been converting HEU into low enriched uranium (LEU) but there has been little progress made on the reduction or eradication of the 500 tons of plutonium, which are enough to generate 126,000 nuclear weapons.

The communiqué was notable for its omissions rather than inclusions. For example, Japan highlighted the dangers from nuclear terrorism without referring to its rapid expansion of nuclear technology exports to countries such as Vietnam and Jordan, which arguably might not have the regulatory frameworks for protecting and safeguarding nuclear materials.

Iran, North Korea and Uzbekistan all have significant stockpiles of weapons grade material as well but they were excluded from the conversations and no reference was made on how to deal with their nuclear materials.

Surprisingly, for a conference that took place on the Korean peninsula, there was no mention of ways in which North Korea could be restrained from advancing its nuclear programme; nor any real discussion on how Pakistan’s nuclear materials could be better secured.

Most importantly, however, there was no real willingness to establish clear links between peaceful and non-peaceful uses of nuclear energy or between nuclear safety and nuclear disarmament. From a peace movement perspective, the summit failed to fuel momentum towards Obama’s aspiration for a nuclear weapon-free world.

At the tird summit scheduled for 2014 in the Netherlands it is important that these links be established and the abolitionist objective be at the heart of all the conversations. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

*Kevin P. Clements is a professor at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago, New Zealand