By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Oct 7 2024 – Countries around the world are experiencing low birth rates. In 2022, more than one hundred countries, representing two-thirds of world’s population, experienced fertility rates below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman.

Fertility rates below the replacement level were relatively uncommon in the distant past. But today, many of the countries with sustained rates of fertility below the replacement level are facing demographic decline accompanied by population aging.

Many countries are attempting to reverse their low fertility levels. Their pro-natalist policies include paid parental leave, flexible work schedules, affordable childcare, cash incentives, support to families, subsidized assisted reproductive treatments and encouraging gender equality in housework and caregiving.

In 2023, the fertility rate of the United States fell to a record low of 1.6 births per woman. That level is two births per woman below the 1960 rate and a half child below the replacement level (Figure 1).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Some, especially wealthy men in the private sector and U.S. Republican officials, have been ringing alarm bells for years about America’s population heading towards extinction and have urged women to give birth to more children.

Population collapse due to low birth rates, some of them have warned, is a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming.

In contrast to the pronatalist measures adopted by many other countries, women choosing to have few or no children in the United States, according to many Republicans, is the reason for the country’s low birth rate.

Why are Republicans blaming America’s women for the country’s low birth rate, which they claim has created a civilization crisis with catastrophic consequences?

The answer, according to many in America’s Republican party, is because across the country women in their prime childbearing ages are increasingly rejecting the sanctity of marriage, the foundational role of families and motherhood, and avoiding the blessings and emotional satisfaction of giving birth and raising several children at home.

Despite their emphasis on the rewards of staying home and raising children, Republicans continue to delegate more of the responsibility of child-rearing to their wives than Democratic fathers.

It’s also important to recognize the indisputable fact, which some in the Democratic party are reported to frequently ignore or choose to minimize, that men cannot get pregnant and deliver babies. Only women have the capacity to become pregnant, give birth to babies and breastfeed them.

Republicans have stressed that increasing numbers of young women across the country are simply choosing not to have several children.

Many women are avoiding getting pregnant, giving birth and staying at home to raise children to adulthood. For example, among U.S. adults under age 50 years without kids in 2023, the proportion saying they are unlikely to have children was 47 percent, up 10 percentage points from 2018 (Figure 2).

Source: Pew Research Center.

Instead of having children, Republicans claim that growing numbers of young women in America are choosing to remain single and are becoming childless cat ladies or dog ladies, which are a threat to American democracy.

Reportedly, among the notable benefits of having a cat or a dog rather than a husband are cats and dogs are nonjudgmental, relatively easy to train and they don’t come with in-laws.

In the U.S., women are less likely than men to want kids. As a result of women’s decisions about childbearing, America’s fertility rate fell below the replacement level in the early 1970s and the rate has been headed largely downward ever since.

Having children, many women maintain, provides them neither economic compensation nor retirement savings for their time and labor. In contrast to fatherhood, women pay a motherhood penalty for having children and raising them. Working mothers encounter disadvantages in pay and benefits relative to childless working women.

Also importantly, women like men in America want to be compensated financially for their work. They do not want to be simply patted on the back for giving birth to several children and raising them until they are able to have children of their own.

Rather than having children early in life, women are increasingly choosing to become educated, join the labor force, seek rewarding careers, earn their own income and consequently postpone childbearing.

Many women in America say that they want to be able to make their own personal decisions regarding having children. And they definitely don’t want to be told by Republicans to give birth to several children for the well-being of the nation.

The emergence of the women’s liberation movement in the 1960s coupled with the introduction of modern birth control methods, especially the oral contraceptive pill, contributed considerably to the decline of America’s birth rate to far below the replacement level.

In addition, women in the U.S. have been increasingly demanding equal rights and opportunities, especially in education, employment and political participation, as well as control over their bodies and reproduction.

Republicans in the United States Senate, however, continue to block passage of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). And Republicans were instrumental in overturning women’s right to abortion as well as supporting extreme abortion bans, including those that criminalize the procedure for rape victims and pregnant children.

Women want to enjoy their personal freedoms and make their own decisions regarding childbearing rather than having others, in particular men, tell them what to do and when to do it.

Moreover, growing numbers of women in America are choosing later marriage or avoiding that traditional institution altogether. Some women are also postponing childbearing to later ages, deciding to have few or no children and rejecting the patriarchal family household structure.

Due to America’s low birth rate, the resulting level of natural increase (births minus deaths) has been declining for decades. The current level of natural increase for the U.S. population is approximately one-quarter of the level experienced at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Moreover, immigration is expected to drive America’s population growth for the remainder of the 21st century.

According to many U.S business leaders and Republican party officials, the sustained low birth rate and the decline in the rate of natural increase are adversely impacting the country’s continued prosperity. Low rates of fertility and population decline are considered catastrophic, seriously threatening America’s economic growth and national strength.

A low birth rate absent high levels of immigration typically leads to depopulation, which many Republicans consider to be a demographic disaster.

Despite their anti-immigration rhetoric, efforts to build a wall along the country’s southern border and explicit calls for a mass deportation of all illegal aliens, Republicans are aware that America’s population and its labor force are projected to decline without immigration. Without international migration, America’s current population of 337 millions is projected to decline to 299 million by 2060 (Figure 3).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Instead of relying on international migration for the country’s population growth, the Republican party and those on the far right are urging women across America to fulfill their traditional obligations to their homeland, namely, by giving birth to no less than several children and raising them at home.

By doing so, they expect America’s fertility rate to return to the replacement level or perhaps even go higher, thereby ensuring sustained economic growth for the country and reducing the need for immigrants.

To encourage childbearing, some Republican officials have offered a number of suggestions. Those suggestions include giving parents the ability to cast votes on behalf of their children, looking to grandparents, aunts and uncles for those who have them and having a higher tax rate on childless Americans.

However, such suggestions and blaming women for America’s low birth rate are unlikely to raise the country’s fertility rate back to the replacement level.

In sum, according to many Republicans, America’s low birth rate and the resulting civilization crisis with its disastrous consequences for the country can squarely be blamed on America’s women in the child-bearing ages.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Population Levels, Trends, and Differentials”.

By CIVICUS
Oct 7 2024 –  
CIVICUS discusses the recent Twitter/X ban in Brazil with Iná Jost, lawyer and head of research at InternetLab, an independent Brazilian think tank focused on human rights and digital technologies.

Brazil’s Supreme Court recently upheld a ban on Elon Musk’s social media platform X, formerly Twitter, after it repeatedly refused to comply with orders to moderate content. The court ordered tech companies to remove X from app stores and imposed fines for continued access via VPNs in Brazil. This appeared to cause users to switch to alternatives such as Bluesky and Threads. Musk condemned the ban as an attack on free speech, but has since backed down and complied with the court’s orders. Debate continues over the controversy’s implications for democracy and accountability.

Iná Jost

Why did the Brazilian Supreme Court ban X?

The case began on 7 August when a Supreme Court justice, investigating ‘digital malicious activities’, ordered the blocking of seven X profiles for intimidating law enforcement officers and directly threatening the integrity of the court and democracy in Brazil.

X refused to comply with the order, claiming it violated freedom of expression. The judge then imposed a daily fine for non-compliance, which was subsequently raised and ended up amounting to over US$3 million as Musk continued to refuse to comply. At one point, the justice ordered the freezing of X’s financial assets in Brazil, but they weren’t enough to cover the fines.

After more back and forth, tensions escalated when the judge also froze the bank accounts of satellite internet company Starlink, arguing that both companies were part of the same economic group. This caused some controversy, as Starlink operates in a different sphere and its operations aren’t entirely linked to X.

The turning point came when X closed its headquarters in Brazil. Without a legal representative in the country, the court found it difficult to enforce its orders or impose additional penalties. It then gave X 24 hours to appoint a new representative, which it failed to do. As a result, on 30 August, the court ordered the closure of X.

It is important to mention that the court is not super transparent and the whole procedure was carried out under seal. We are unable to grasp the full picture because the process is closed and not all decisions are made public.

What was the legal basis for the decision to close X?

The Court based its decision on Brazil’s 2014 Civil Framework for the Internet. Under this law, platforms can be blocked for failing to comply with Brazilian laws or court orders. Some confusion arose over the notion that the ban was due to X’s lack of a legal representative in Brazil; however, the shutdown resulted from the company’s repeated refusal to comply with court orders.

Civil society raised concerns about some aspects of the decision. Initially, the order included blocking VPN services to prevent access to X, but this part was later reversed due to cybersecurity risks. Blocking VPNs that serve legitimate purposes would have been disproportionate. The order also proposed a US$9,000 fine for users trying to circumvent the ban, which many felt was excessive. We believe the focus should be on holding the company accountable, not punishing individual users.

Is it possible to strike a balance between regulating online platforms and protecting freedoms?

It is. Regulating platforms isn’t necessarily about censorship. In this case, it’s about ensuring a powerful company operates transparently and protects users. Platforms acting solely in their commercial interests can harm the public interest. Regulation can force them to provide clear terms and conditions and fair content moderation policies and respect due process for content removal.

The belief that any form of regulation threatens freedom of expression is misguided. Thoughtful regulation that allows users to express themselves while protecting them from harm such as hate speech or misinformation can balance the scales.

Musk’s stance in this case is deeply problematic. His selective compliance with court orders undermines the rule of law. While platforms like X are crucial to public communication, that doesn’t give them the right to defy the legal system they operate in. Freedom of expression does not absolve platforms of their legal responsibilities, particularly when those laws protect the integrity of democracy.

Musk’s claim that X represents absolute freedom of expression fails to consider the risks of a platform without proper rules. Without moderation, platforms can become havens for extremist groups, hate speech and disinformation. They should be regulated to ensure they remain a space for lawful discourse.

Do you think this case will set a precedent?

I don’t think so. Some people are worried other platforms could be blocked as well, but I don’t think that will happen. This is a unique scenario, and Brazil is a strong democracy. This wasn’t an act of censorship by the judiciary but a necessary measure given the platform owner’s refusal to comply with court orders.

States should develop regulatory mechanisms that allow them to hold platforms accountable and ensure compliance with national laws. This would avoid the need for outright blocking, which ultimately harms the users the most. While the company might incur some financial losses, journalists and citizens are losing access to a vital information and communication tool.

I hope states that are serious about regulating platforms will see this as an example of what shouldn’t happen. We shouldn’t allow things to escalate to this point. And we certainly shouldn’t use this as a leading case for blocking platforms.

Get in touch with InternetLab through its website or its Instagram and Facebook pages, and follow @internetlabbr on Twitte.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 7 2024 – The warnings from the United Nations and from anti-nuclear activists are increasingly ominous: the world is closer to a nuclear war—by design or by accident—more than ever before.

The current conflicts—and the intense war of words—between nuclear and non-nuclear states—Russia vs. Ukraine, Israel vs. Palestine and North Korea vs. South Korea—are adding fuel to a slow-burning fire.

And according to a September 27 report in the New York Times, Russian President Vladimir Putin is quoted as saying he plans to lower the threshold for his country’s use of nuclear weapons—and is prepared to use his weapons in response to any attack carried out by Ukraine with conventional weapons that creates “a critical threat to our sovereignty”.

The new threat follows a request by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for long-range missiles, additional fighter planes and drones from the US during his visit to Washington, DC, last month.

According to the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, the US has provided more than USD 61.3 billion in military assistance “since Russia launched its premeditated, unprovoked, and brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine” on February 24, 2022, and approximately USD 64.1 billion in military assistance since Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014.

The US has also used the emergency Presidential Drawdown Authority on 53 occasions since August 2021 to provide Ukraine military assistance totaling approximately USD 31.2 billion from Department of Defense (DoD) stockpiles—all of which have triggered a nuclear threat from Putin.

Asked whether the nuclear threats looming over ongoing conflicts are for real or pure rhetoric, Melissa Parke, Executive Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), winner of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize, told IPS: “We currently face the highest risk there could be a nuclear war since the Cold War. There are two major conflicts involving nuclear-armed states in Ukraine and the Middle East where Russian and Israeli politicians have made overt threats to use nuclear weapons.”

She said there are growing geopolitical tensions between nuclear-armed states, not just between Russia and the US over Western military support for Ukraine, but also between the US and China over American efforts to build a network of alliances around China, as well as US support for Taiwan—although thankfully we have heard no overt nuclear threats from either Washington or Beijing.

“But there is a dangerous trend in Western countries, among both commentators and politicians, to argue Russia is bluffing because it hasn’t yet used nuclear weapons. The terrifying reality is that we cannot know for certain if President Putin—or any leader of a nuclear-armed state—will use nuclear weapons at any time.”

The doctrine of deterrence that all nuclear powers follow requires creating such a sense of uncertainty, which is one of the reasons it is such a dangerous theory. “We do not know what could lead a situation to escalate out of control.”

“What we do know is what could happen if it does: nuclear weapons pose unacceptable humanitarian consequences, and in the event of nuclear weapons being used, no state has the capacity to help survivors in the aftermath,” said Parke, who formerly worked for the United Nations in Gaza, Kosovo, New York and Lebanon and served as Australia’s Minister for International Development.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, speaking at the high-level meeting commemorating and promoting the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, described nuclear weapons as “double madness.”

The first madness is the existence of weapons that can wipe out entire populations, communities and cities in a single attack. “We know that any use of a nuclear weapon would unleash a humanitarian catastrophe—a nightmare spilling over borders, affecting us all. These weapons deliver no real security or stability—only looming danger and constant threats to our very existence.”

The second madness, he pointed out, is that, despite the enormous and existential risks these weapons pose to humanity, “we are no closer to eliminating them than we were 10 years ago.”

“In fact, we are heading in the wrong direction entirely. Not since the worst days of the Cold War has the specter of nuclear weapons cast such a dark shadow.”

“Nuclear saber-rattling has reached a fever pitch. We have even heard threats to use a nuclear weapon. There are fears of a new arms race,” Guterres warned.

Meanwhile, Russia is responding to the change in US nuclear posture as well as to the billions of dollars the collective West is pumping into the Ukrainian war effort by redrawing its own nuclear “redlines,” according to wire service reports.

Last week, at a meeting of Russia’s Security Council, President Putin announced that “Aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear state… supported by a nuclear power should be treated as their joint attack.”

Tariq Rauf, former Head of Verification and Security Policy, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told IPS that Russia, in effect, is restating the conditions it has traditionally laid down in its negative security assurances to States parties to the NPT and to nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZ).

This, he pointed out, is essentially similar to that of the US, to the effect that: Russia will not attack or threaten to attack a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the NPT or NWFZ treaty with nuclear weapons, unless that non-nuclear-weapon State attacks Russia in collaboration with another nuclear-weapon State.

“Now, since we’re in a proxy war involving France, UK and the US (all three nuclear weapons states) materially assisting Ukraine in attacking sites inside the internationally recognized territorial borders of Russia, it is not surprising that Russia has warned Ukraine and its NATO backers that long-range fires against Russia targeting its strategic military bases could trigger a nuclear response by Russia.”

Responding to further questions, Parke of ICAN told IPS all nine nuclear armed states (US, UK, France, China, Russia, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) are modernizing and, in some cases, expanding their arsenals. Last year, ICAN research shows they spent $91.4 billion, with the United States spending more than all the others put together.

All these countries follow deterrence doctrine, which is a threat to the entire world given it is based on the readiness and willingness to use nuclear weapons.

This means all of the nuclear-armed states are tacitly threatening the rest of us, given research shows even a regional nuclear war in South Asia would lead to global famine killing 2.5 billion people.

The good news is the majority of countries reject nuclear weapons and support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The TPNW is the only bright spot in a world overshadowed by conflict. It came into force in 2021, which means it is now international law. Nearly half of all countries have either signed, ratified or acceded to the treaty, and more countries will ratify it.

“We are confident more than half of all countries will have either signed or ratified it in the near future. Pressure and encouragement from civil society and campaigners around the world have been key to bringing the TPNW into being and ensuring more and more countries join it.”

Asked about the role played by the United Nations on nuclear disarmament—and whether there is anything more the UN can do—she said: the United Nations has always played a key role in nuclear disarmament.

The very first meeting of the General Assembly called for the elimination of nuclear weapons. Since then, it has been the forum in which countries have negotiated the key multilateral treaties on nuclear weapons, not just the ban treaty, the TPNW, but also the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

The Secretary General continues to provide strong moral and political leadership, using his voice to make clear the unacceptable nature of these weapons and the urgent need to eliminate them.

The UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) plays an essential role too, supporting and facilitating UN member states to join the TPNW. This week at the General Assembly high level meeting, we will see another ceremony where more countries will officially ratify the TPNW.

“It is essential the UN continues to be a strong voice for the elimination of nuclear weapons, supporting more countries that back the treaty to join it and also reminding the nuclear-armed states and their allies that support the use of nuclear weapons of the need to live up to their obligations and get rid of their nuclear weapons and the infrastructure that supports them,” Parke declared.

Note: This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with UN ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

IPS UN Bureau, IPS UN Bureau Report, Soka Gakkai International, Nuclear Abolition 2024

By Norman Solomon
SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Oct 7 2024 – Everything is at stake. Everything is at stake with nuclear weapons. While working as a nuclear war planner for the Kennedy administration, Daniel Ellsberg was shown a document calculating that a U.S. nuclear attack on communist countries would result in 600 million dead. As he put it later: “A hundred Holocausts.”

That was in 1961.

Today, with nuclear arsenals vastly larger and more powerful, scientists know that a nuclear exchange would cause “nuclear winter.” And the nearly complete end of agriculture on the planet. Some estimates put the survival rate of humans on Earth at 1 or 2 percent.

No longer 100 Holocausts.

More than 1,000 Holocausts.

If such a nuclear war happens, of course we won’t be around for any retrospective analysis. Or regrets. So, candid introspection is in a category of now or never.

What if we did have the opportunity for hindsight? What if we could somehow hover over this planet? And see what had become a global crematorium and an unspeakable ordeal of human agony? Where, in words attributed to both Nikita Khruschev and Winston Churchill, “the living would envy the dead.”

What might we Americans say about the actions and inaction of our leaders?

In 2023: The nine nuclear-armed countries spent $91 billion on their nuclear weapons. Most of that amount, $51 billion, was the U.S. share. And our country accounted for 80 percent of the increase in nuclear weapons spending.

The United States is leading the way in the nuclear arms race. And we’re encouraged to see that as a good thing. “Escalation dominance.”

But escalation doesn’t remain unipolar. As time goes on, “Do as we say, not as we do” isn’t convincing to other nations.

China is now expanding its nuclear arsenal. That escalation does not exist in a vacuum. Official Washington pretends that Chinese policies are shifting without regard to the U.S. pursuit of “escalation dominance.” But that’s a disingenuous pretense. What the great critic of Vietnam War escalation during the 1960s, Senator William Fulbright, called “the arrogance of power.”

Of course, there’s plenty to deplore about Russia’s approach to nuclear weapons. Irresponsible threats about using “tactical” ones in Ukraine have come from Moscow. There’s now public discussion – by Russian military and political elites – of putting nuclear weapons in space.

We should face the realities of the U.S. government’s role in fueling such ominous trends, in part by dismantling key arms-control agreements. Among crucial steps, it’s long past time to restore three treaties that the United States abrogated – ABM, Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, and Open Skies.

On the non-proliferation front, opportunities are being spurned by Washington. For instance, as former CIA analyst Melvin Goodman wrote in September: “Iran’s Ayatollah has indicated a readiness to open discussions with the United States on nuclear matters, but the Biden administration has turned a deaf ear to such a possibility.”

That deaf ear greatly pleases Israel, the only nuclear-weapons state in the Middle East. On September 22, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said unequivocally that Israel’s pager attack in Lebanon was “a form of terrorism.” The United States keeps arming Israel, but won’t negotiate with Iran.

The U.S. government has a responsibility to follow up on every lead, and respond to every overture. Without communication, we vastly increase the risk of devastation.

We can too easily forget what’s truly at stake.

Despite diametrical differences in ideologies, in values, in ideals and systems – programs for extermination are in place at a magnitude dwarfing what occurred during the first half of the 1940s.

Today, Congress and the White House are in the grip of what Martin Luther King Jr. called “the madness of militarism.” In a toxic mix with the arrogance of power. Propelling a new and more dangerous Cold War.

And so, at the State Department, the leadership talks about a “rules-based order,” which all too often actually means: “We make the rules, we break the rules.”

Meanwhile, the Doomsday Clock set by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is now just 90 seconds away from apocalyptic midnight.

Six decades ago, the Doomsday Clock was a full 12 minutes away. And President Lyndon Johnson was willing to approach Moscow with the kind of wisdom that is now absent at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Here’s what Johnson said at the end of his extensive summit meeting with Soviet Premier Alexi Kosygin in June 1967 in Glassboro, New Jersey: “We have made further progress in an effort to improve our understanding of each other’s thinking on a number of questions.”

Two decades later, President Ronald Reagan – formerly a supreme cold warrior — stood next to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and said: “We decided to talk to each other instead of about each other.”

But such attitudes would be heresy today.

As each day brings escalation toward a global nuclear inferno, standard-issue legislators on both sides of the aisle keep boosting the Pentagon budget. Huge new appropriations for nuclear weapons are voted under the euphemism of “modernization.”

And here’s a sad irony: The few members of Congress willing to urgently warn about the danger of nuclear war often stoke that danger with calls for “victory” in the Ukraine war. Instead, what’s urgently needed is a sober push for actual diplomacy to end it.

The United States should not use the Ukraine war as a rationale for pursuing a mutually destructive set of policies toward Russia. It’s an approach that maintains and worsens the daily reality on the knife-edge of nuclear war.

We don’t know how far negotiations with Russia could get on an array of pivotal issues. But refusing to negotiate is a catastrophic path.

Continuation of the war in Ukraine markedly increases the likelihood of spinning out from a regional to a Europe-wide to a nuclear war. Yet, calls for vigorously pursuing diplomacy to end the Ukraine war are dismissed out of hand as serving Vladimir Putin’s interests.

A zero-sum view of the world.

A one-way ticket to omnicide.

The world has gotten even closer to the precipice of a military clash between the nuclear superpowers, with a push to greenlight NATO-backed Ukrainian attacks heading deeper into Russia.

Consider what President Kennedy had to say, eight months after the Cuban Missile Crisis, in his historic speech at American University: “Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy, or of a collective death wish for the world.”

That crucial insight from Kennedy is currently in the dumpsters at the White House and on Capitol Hill.

And where is this all headed?

Daniel Ellsberg tried to alert members of Congress. Five years ago, in a letter that was hand-delivered to every office of senators and House members, he wrote: “I am concerned that the public, most members of Congress, and possibly even high members of the Executive branch have remained in the dark, or in a state of denial, about the implications of rigorous studies by environmental scientists over the last dozen years.”

Those studies “confirm that using even a large fraction of the existing U.S. or Russian nuclear weapons that are on high alert would bring about nuclear winter, leading to global famine and near extinction of humanity.”

In the quest for sanity and survival, isn’t it time for reconstruction of the nuclear arms-control infrastructure? Yes, the Russian war against Ukraine violates international law and “norms,” as did U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But real diplomacy with Russia is in the interests of global security.

And some great options don’t depend on what happens at the negotiation table.

Many experts say that the most important initial step our country could take to reduce the chances of nuclear war would be a shutdown of all ICBMs.

The word “deterrence” is often heard. But the land-based part of the triad is actually the opposite of deterrence – it’s an invitation to be attacked. That’s the reality of the 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles that are on hair-trigger alert in five western states

Uniquely, ICBMs invite a counterforce attack. And they allow a president just minutes to determine whether what’s incoming is actually a set of missiles – or, as in the past, a flock of geese or a drill message that’s mistaken for the real thing.

The former Secretary of Defense William Perry wrote that ICBMs are “some of the most dangerous weapons in the world” and “they could even trigger an accidental nuclear war.”

And yet, so far, we can’t get anywhere with Congress in order to shut down ICBMs. “Oh no,” we’re told, “that would be unilateral disarmament.”

Imagine that you’re standing in a pool of gasoline, with your adversary. You’re lighting matches, and your adversary is lighting matches. If you stop lighting matches, that could be condemned as “unilateral disarmament.” It would also be a sane step to reduce the danger — whether or not the other side follows suit.

The ongoing refusal to shut down the ICBMs is akin to insisting that our side must keep lighting matches while standing in gasoline.

The chances of ICBMs starting a nuclear conflagration have increased with sky-high tensions between the world’s two nuclear superpowers. Mistaking a false alarm for a nuclear-missile attack becomes more likely amid the stresses, fatigue and paranoia that come with the protracted war in Ukraine and extending war into Russia.

Their unique vulnerability as land-based strategic weapons puts ICBMs in the unique category of “use them or lose them.” So, as Secretary Perry explained, “If our sensors indicate that enemy missiles are en route to the United States, the president would have to consider launching ICBMs before the enemy missiles could destroy them. Once they are launched, they cannot be recalled. The president would have less than 30 minutes to make that terrible decision.”

The United States should dismantle its entire ICBM force. Former ICBM launch officer Bruce Blair and General James Cartwright, former vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote: “By scrapping the vulnerable land-based missile force, any need for launching on warning disappears.”

In July, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a letter signed by more than 700 scientists. They not only called for cancelation of the Sentinel program for a new version of ICBMs – they also called for getting rid of the entire land-based leg of the triad.

Meanwhile, the current dispute in Congress about ICBMs has focused on whether it would be cheaper to build the cost-overrunning Sentinel system or upgrade the existing Minuteman III missiles. But either way, the matches keep being lit for a global holocaust.

During his Nobel Peace Prize speech, Martin Luther King declared: “I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction.”

I want to close with some words from Daniel Ellsberg’s book The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, summing up the preparations for nuclear war. He wrote:

“No policies in human history have more deserved to be recognized as immoral, or insane. The story of how this calamitous predicament came about, and how and why it has persisted for over half a century is a chronicle of human madness. Whether Americans, Russians and other humans can rise to the challenge of reversing these policies and eliminating the danger of near-term extinction caused by their own inventions and proclivities remains to be seen. I choose to join with others in acting as if that is still possible.”

This article is adapted from the keynote speech that Norman Solomon gave at the annual conference of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington, DC on Sept. 24, 2024.

Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, was published in paperback this fall with a new afterword about the Gaza war.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana
BANGKOK, Thailand, Oct 7 2024 – Social protection systems are essential to achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

However, social protection is insufficient across Asia and the Pacific, and the region is at risk from megatrends: climate change, demographic shifts and digitalization. Tens of millions of people have been pushed into extreme poverty since COVID-19, reversing past gains, and many millions more live precariously just above the poverty line.

Protecting our future today: Social Protection in Asia and the Pacific, a report by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, outlines challenges in the region and offers an approach to solving them through foresight and urgent action.

Climate change is being felt across our region, causing loss of life and livelihoods. While the exposure and vulnerability vary between and within countries and groups, women-headed rural households in some countries, for example, suffer much higher exposure to cyclones and storms.

Social protection is a powerful policy tool offering support for health, income and food security and help to those displaced. It can also buffer the impacts of climate policies, to help ensure a just transition.

Another megatrend is ageing. Asia and the Pacific is the fastest ageing region in the world. By 2050, a quarter of the population will be over 60 years of age, and there could be about one dependent person per worker. Pension schemes and health and long-term care will need to be strengthened without overburdening public budgets. The goal is a smooth transition to an aged society.

Social protection is going digital, making schemes more accessible and efficient. However, just 61.2 per cent of people in Asia and the Pacific use the Internet and digital literacy rates can be as low as 4 per cent. New types of work, such as Internet platform-based work, lack legal clarity to ensure workers’ access to social protection.

These gaps must be addressed to ensure that the benefits of digitalized services reach everyone, leaving no one behind. Moreover, with just 0.2 per cent of GDP invested in active labour market policies annually in the region, much of the workforce lacks the vocational training and support to transition or enter into new jobs, including digital ones.

Overall, Asia and the Pacific is making slow but steady progress implementing social protection systems for all by 2030 (SDG target 1.3). Available country data indicate that between 2016 and 2022, coverage increased (excluding health) across the life cycle, for children, persons with disabilities, people of working age and those in old age, in line with the concept of a social protection “floor”.

Too many remain unprotected – 45 per cent of people in Asia and the Pacific have no coverage at all. Systems are often fragmented and under-resourced. Poverty-targeted programmes miss people and contributary schemes remain thin. Universal, life cycle and multi-pillared systems are needed to ensure minimum income security for all people and to build people’s resilience.

Countries in our region on average spend only 8.2 per cent of GDP on social protection, compared to the global average of 12.9 per cent. One third of countries spend less than 2 per cent. This low level of spending will not protect people from poverty and inequality given the megatrends. As many as 266 million more people could fall into poverty by 2040.

Estimates from the ESCAP Social Protection Online Tool (SPOT) Simulator show that universal, non-contributory benefits for key life-cycle contingencies — childhood, disability, maternity and old age — could be raised in line with the global average for the equivalent of 3.3 per cent of GDP in 2030.

The cost of ensuring all children under age 18, persons with disabilities, mothers of newborns and persons over age 65 have minimum income security is within reach.

Future proofing starts with establishment of a universal social protection floor anchored in legislative and policy frameworks. It should progress as a multi-pillared system to provide full coverage and adequate benefit levels.

Countries should link social protection with care and support services, education, health, nutrition, employment and climate policies. They also need to build capacity to identify, forecast and address climate risks to address new vulnerabilities, including through a better understanding of inequality.

Additional actions could include extending non-contributory and contributory pensions to meet the demographic transitions underway, and using new technologies to enhance systems, always respecting the data rights and privacy of beneficiaries.

In October 2024, the eighth session of the ESCAP Committee on Social Development in Bangkok, will seek policy approaches to counter the megatrends. Done right, social protection can build people’s resilience, facilitate adaptation and mitigate negative impacts of change.

Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana is Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Secretary of ESCAP.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);