Thanks!
I support this draft.
Regards
Prof. Pravat Kumar Dhal
On 7/10/17, Surendra Pathak <pathak06@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ok. Agree.You can unsubscribe from gha-peace here: //www.freelists.org/list/gha-peace
On Jul 10, 2017 12:46 PM, "Ramesh Kumar" <ngocosro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks all
I also agree with you and fully support the statement.
Please add my name to the list of the supporters.
With best regards
*RAMESH KUMAR *
Ex Defence Scientist
Executive Director (CEO) and Vice-President
Global Harmony Association (GHA)
Trustee GHA Trust India- Global harmony Network Centre
Life Member International Naturopathy Organization (INO )
Acharya Yog Niketan Faridabad and Gurgaon
Global Harmony Network Centre
Founder, NGO: Consortium of Social Reforms Organisation
CEO Lambdagroup (www.lambdagroup.co.in),
Mob 9971001318; Email: ngocosro@xxxxxxxxx;
Webpage: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=658
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Subhash Chandra <schandra101@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
*Dear Diane Perlman and*
*Dear GHA Friends,*
*Greetings from India *
* Global Peace Agenda G20 - Re: Draft Statement on Nuke Ban Treaty*
*Yes! I endorse the high-quality statement on Nuke Ban Treaty *
*for creating nuclear free world. *
*Global Peace Science Agenda For the UN, UNESCO, G20 and EU *
<http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=757>
*In English: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=757
<http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=757>*
*Friendly PEACE FROM HARMONY*
*Dr. Subhash Chandra President & Chairman Board GHA*
*Global Harmony Association (GHA) India*
*GHA Ambassador of Peace and Disarmament from Harmony in India,*
*http://www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=583
<http://www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=583>*
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Georgia Kelly <georgia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I also endorse the Draft Statement on Nuclear Ban Treaty.
Georgia Kelly, Director
Praxis Peace Institute
P.O. Box 523
Sonoma, CA 95476
georgia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 6, 2017, at 11:21 AM, Tilman Evers <tilman.evers@xxxxxx> wrote:
Dear All,
from hospital: Congratulations! I endorse the Draft Statement.
Tilman
Dr. Tilman Evers
Forum Civil Peace Service, Cologne
priv.: Schwengebergstr. 3
D-34132 Kassel
Am 05.07.2017 um 19:49 schrieb Martin Arnold:
Dear Diane, Dear Antonio,
I also endorse the excellent Draft Statement on Nuke Ban Treaty.
Salaam! Shalom!
Martin Arnold
Peace Research on the power of goodness
www.martin-arnold.eu
Dr. Martin Arnold
Weichselstr. 22
D 45136 Essen
Germany
+49 (0)201 255282 <+49%20201%20255282>
www.martin-arnold.eu
www.guetekraft.net
Am 05.07.2017 um 12:08 schrieb Richard Falk:
Dear Diane & Antonion:
I gladly endorse the draft statement on Nuclear Ban Treaty. My
affiliation is best listed as 'Richard Falk, Professor of International
Law
Emeritus,
Princeton University,' or any appropriate abbreviated version.
Thanks for taking this timely initiative.
Best wishes,
Richard
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Kevin Clements <
kevin.clements@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Antonio and Diane
I am very happy to endorse this statement on the Nuclear Weapons
Ban.{lease add my name to your list of endorsees. Warmest best wishes
at
this testing time with Trump and Kim Jong Un generating daily anxiety
with
their bellicosity and unpredictability. We are living in dangerous
times.
\Warmest best
Kevin
Professor Kevin P Clements
Chair and Director,
The National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies,University of
Otago.
518 Castle Street.
P.O Box 56, Dunedin 9054
New Zealand
*Phone:* +64 3 4794546 <+64%203-479%204546>
*DDI*: +64 3 4799468 <+64%203-479%209468>
*Mobile*:+64 (0) 212471103 <+64%2021%20247%201103>
*Fax:* +643 4798084 <+64%203-479%208084>
*E Mail*: kevin.clements@xxxxxxxxxxx
*Blog*: http://kevinclementspeaceandconflict.wordpress.com/
*Web:* www.otago.ac.nz/ncpacs
*Web:* http://toda.org/index.htm*l*
*Coursework Masters in Peace and Conflict Studies*
www.otago.ac.nz/courses/qualific
<http://www.otago.ac.nz/courses/qualifications/mpcs.html>
ations/mpcs.html
<http://www.otago.ac.nz/courses/qualifications/mpcs.html>
*Newsletter* http://www.otago.ac.nz/ncpacs/otago071261.pdf
On 4/07/2017, at 8:21 PM, Antonio C. S. Rosa <antonio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Diane Perlman <dianeperlman@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 4:39 AM
Subject: Draft Statement on Nuke Ban Treaty
Dear friends members of TRANSCEND,
I cannot make an official statement from TRANSCEND because it is a
network, as Johan said. Since I did get approval from Psychologists
for
Social Responsibility PsySR, it made sense to draft a statement from
Psychologists for Social Responsibility PsySR. I can get TRANSCEND
members
to endorse as individuals and hopefully can post on TMS.
Here it is, pasted and attached. I welcome feedback if you wish and
your endorsement, name and affiliations.
This is a draft - sent to the PsySR Steering Committee for revision
and
approval. I welcome any suggestions for improvement and have to shorten
it
a bit. Let me know what you think.
Be well, Diane
[image: Text Box:]*PSYCHOLOGISTS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
STATEMENT *
*on the Nuclear Ban Treaty on the Irrationality of Nuclear Weapons*
Psychologists for Social Responsibility heartily endorses the historic
Nuclear Ban Treaty as a step towards a world free of the existential
threat
posed by nuclear weapons. While the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty has
had
partial success in halting the spread of nuclear weapons, the asymmetry
is
not sustainable. This new initiative creates a shift in collective
consciousness by increasing awareness and holding a vision upon which
to
focus our work.
As psychologists who study peace, cycles of violence, war, conflict
transformation and reconciliation, we know that attempts to merely
eliminate the weapons themselves will meet with insurmountable
challenges
because nuclear weapons are a symptom and a symbol of something deeper.
To
transcend the nuclear threat we must address a range of causes,
meanings,
relationships, interests and driving forces, many of which are hidden.
These include the motivations to possess nuclear weapons, fear and
enmity,
the illusion of security they provide, their prestige value, the
underlying
conflicts, and not least the structural economic, institutional, and
geo-strategic interests and their role in exercising power and
coercion,
which also drive conflicts and fear.
Strong cases have been made that nuclear weapons are illegal according
to international law, immoral according to religious and ethical codes,
and
cause intolerable, devastating humanitarian consequences. We add here
the
case that rationales for the possession of nuclear weapons and beliefs
in
deterrence are irrational.
Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton states that nuclear weapons are “beyond
psychology.” They alter our relationship to life and death. They
impair
"our capacity to confront the bomb” and to “imagine the real.” "The
presence of these mass-killing devices in the world creates staggering
new
problems for us and at the same time distorts our thinking and blunts
our
feeling about … “issues vital to our survival." We co-exist with the
constant threat of annihilation while at the same time believing they
somehow make us safer.
Albert Einstein said, "There’s been a quantum leap technologically in
our age, but unless there’s another quantum leap in human relations,
unless
we learn to live in a new way towards one another, there will be a
catastrophe.” Our current paradigm is not survivable. It has no
endgame or
path to resolution. Thus we need to transform our ways of thinking and
relating to survive. Here are some insights from psychology.
· *Our thinking, concepts, policies and strategies* regarding
conventional weapons cannot be applied to the nuclear realm, orders of
magnitude beyond. Ideas of victory, defeat, superiority and deterrence
do
not hold.
· *Law of Opposites and the Security Dilemma *Absorbed by our
own security needs, we may overlook the way that our actions make our
adversaries feel insecure. If we ignore the psychological meaning of
our
actions for others, we may play into their fears, fantasies, moral
outrage,
feeling of inferiority and humiliation.
· *Manipulation of fear and exaggerated threats* – Leaders on
all sides of conflicts notoriously exaggerate threats and dehumanized
enemy
images for a variety of reasons, including as a distraction from
domestic
problems, to gain support for defense spending and military action, to
get
votes, and more.
· *Reduce fear and the reasons for fear*. People are more
dangerous when afraid, as are we. When afraid, people may regress to
primitive, extremist thinking and are more likely to act impulsively.
Threats,
humiliation and backing into a corner can provoke paranoia and
dangerous
behavior. According to “Terror Management Theory” when confronted with
their own mortality people become more attached to their ingroup and
become
more hostile towards the outgroup, and support for more charismatic
leaders.
Ralph K. White said, “The Madness that is carrying the world closer
and closer to nuclear war has at its core a psychological explanation:
*Each
side, though fundamentally afraid, misperceives the nature of the
danger it
faces. Each side imagines that it faces an inherently, implacably
aggressive enemy, when it actually faces an enemy as fearful as itself
- an
enemy driven mainly by fear, to do the things that lead to war.”*
(Fearful
Warriors.) The way to be more secure is to make your enemy more
secure.
· *Know the Enemy* - In “The Fog of War” film about Viet Nam,
JFK”s Defense Secretary, Robert MacNamara said that the biggest problem
was
that we didn’t know the enemy. Psychologist Ralph K. White emphasized
realistic empathy for the enemy…. “simply understanding the thoughts
and
feelings of others .. imagining how you might feel about what you saw.”
in
Fearful Warriors.
· *Reduce Tension*. Actions that increase tensions increase the
volatility and the potential for violence. Charles Osgood’s GRIT
strategy,
Graduated Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension Reduction recommends
unilateral actions to reduce tensions, which can be reciprocated back
and
forth, ratcheting down tensions without risking vulnerability, thereby
creating an arms race in reverse.
· *Zero Sum Thinking* - “A win-or-lose orientation tends to
escalate conflicts*” *according to Mort Deutsch*. *It impairs
communication, reinforces stereotypes, heightens suspicions, increases
errors and generates a “malignant spiral of hostile interactions.”
Such
conflicts encourage misperceptions and miscalculations that yield
results
that nobody wants. Parties employ a “blaming” rather than
“problem-solving” strategy, restrict communication, harden positions,
and
eclipse constructive, mutually beneficial approaches.
· *Denial and Overconfidence* - A well-known fact, obvious form
hindsight, is that leaders, military planners and policy makers are
often
gripped by a sense of overconfidence about positive outcomes and the
ability to win along with denial of the risks and unintended
consequences.
· *Beyond Deterrence* - Deterrence is a theory. It may hold up
when accompanied by drastic tension reduction (Ralph K. White). If the
opponent is acting out of fear, if the threat is increased it can
break
down and generate dynamics described by spiral theory. Richard Ned
Lebow states that “..deterrence can provoke the very behavior it seeks
to
prevent.” Some perceive that possession of the greatest means of
destruction in the world means that you will be taken seriously. It is
a
way to deter the deterer, especially after the US invasion of Iraq.
· *Address the underlying conflict* - Articles 33-38 of the UN
Charter governing the peaceful settlement of disputes, states that the
parties “shall first seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry,
mediation,
conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional
agencies
or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.”
By limiting our actions to threats, punishments and coercion, we
discount and ignore effective nonviolent strategies of conflict
transformation, believing “the only thing they understand is force."
Even
if deterrence “worked” it is not sustainable and misses the opportunity
to
resolve underlying conflicts and to explore mutual interests, creative
solutions and improve relationships. Apparent short-term victories can
produce humiliation, defiance, instability, and increase the popularity
of
hardliners, harm moderates and motivate asymmetric responses.
Constructive
approaches produce better outcomes and “cheaper, deeper security.”™
· *Vested financial interests* – “Never dig a hole that you
can’t fill” is a psychological principle. For the entrenched military
industrial complex infrastructure of weapons contractors, let them
make
money and employ the best scientific brains on life ventures rather
than
death with conversion to helping solve global climate chaos, or
perhaps
space travel. Divestment from parties to the Ban Treaty will reduce
profitability.
· *War itself -*The UN Charter begins “WE THE PEOPLES OF THE
UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED “to save succeeding generations from the
scourge of war.” Those of us concerned who have studied the nuclear
threat
have come to the conclusion that ultimately we need to “replace war”
as
advised by conflict analyst Richard Wendell Fogg, with proven,
solution-oriented approaches to conflict using nonviolent, higher forms
of
force, with support of international institutions structured to
skillfully
address conflicts as early as possible.
*National Security has become an Oxymoron *Today we have either
Universal Security or Universal Insecurity. Actions taken in the name
of
“National Security” generate fear, hatred, envy, resentment, a desire
to
imitate and motivations for asymmetric “warfare of the weak.” New
threats
from non-state actors and cyber warfare change the game and portend
nuclear
anarchy. Attempts to prevent proliferation may provoke proliferation in
the
name of deterrence and self-defense, thereby rendering ourselves and
the
planet more vulnerable. We need a new, and *rational* policy of
*Mutually
Assured Survival*.
For information or to endorse contact Diane Perlman, PhD
Diane Perlman, PhD
Visiting Scholar, George Mason U
School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution
202 775 0777 <%28202%29%20775-0777>
dianeperlman@xxxxxxxxx
www.consciouspolitics.org
Diane Perlman, PhD
Visiting Scholar, George Mason U
School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution
202 775 0777 <%28202%29%20775-0777>
dianeperlman@xxxxxxxxx
www.consciouspolitics.org
<PSYSR Ban Treaty Statement.docx>
--
Subhash Chandra
