Letter from United States Citizens to Friends in Europe

Champaign, IL, fboyle@law.uiuc.edu

LETTER FROM UNITED STATES CITIZENS TO FRIENDS IN EUROPE

The central fallacy of the pro-war celebrants is the equation between “American values” as understood at home and the exercise of United States economic and especially military power abroad.

Following the 11 September 2001 suicide attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, U.S. President George W. Bush has declared an open-ended “war on terrorism”. This war has no apparent limits, in place, time or the extent of destruction that may be inflicted. There is no telling which country may be suspected of hiding “terrorists” or declared to be part of an “axis of evil”. The eradication of “evil” could last much longer than the world can withstand the destructive force to be employed. The Pentagon is already launching bombs described as producing the effect of earthquakes and is officially considering the use of nuclear weapons, among other horrors in its constantly improving arsenal.

The material destruction envisaged is immeasurable. So is the human damage, not only in terms of lives, but also in terms of the moral desperation and hatred that are certain to be felt bymmillions of people who can only watch helplessly as their world is devastated by a country, the United States, which assumes that its moral authority is as absolute and unchallengeable as its military power.

We, as United States citizens, have a special responsibility to oppose this mad rush to war. You, as Europeans, also have a special responsibility. Most of your countries are military allies of the United States within NATO. The United States claims to act in self-defense, but also to defend “the interests of its allies and friends”. Your countries will inevitably be implicated in U.S. military adventures. Your future is also in jeopardy.

Many informed people both within and outside your governments are aware of the dangerous folly of the war path followed by the Bush administration. But few dare speak out honestly. They are intimidated by the various forms of retaliation that can be taken against “friends” and “allies” who fail to provide unquestioning support. They are afraid of being labeled “anti-American” — the same label absurdly applied to Americans themselves who speak out against war policies and whose protests are easily drowned out in the chorus of chauvinism dominating the U.S. media. A sane and frank European criticism of the Bush administration’s war policy can help anti-war Americans make their voices heard.

Celebrating power may be the world’s oldest profession among poets and men of letters. As supreme world power, the United States naturally attracts its celebrants who urge the nation’s political leaders to go ever farther in using their military might to impose virtue on a recalcitrant world. The theme is age-old and forever the same: the goodness of the powerful should be extended to the powerless by the use of force.

The central fallacy of the pro-war celebrants is the equation between “American values” as understood at home and the exercise of United States economic and especially military power abroad.

Self-celebration is a notorious feature of United States culture, perhaps as a useful means of assimilation in an immigrant society. Unfortunately, September 11 has driven this tendency to new extremes. Its effect is to reinforce a widespread illusion among U.S. citizens that the whole world is fixated, in admiration or in envy, on the United States as it sees itself: prosperous, democratic, generous, welcoming, open to all races and religions, the epitome of universal human values and the last best hope of mankind.

In this ideological context, the question raised after September 11, “Why do they hate us?” has only one answer: “Because we are so good!” Or, as is commonly claimed, they hate us because of “our values”.

Most U.S. citizens are unaware that the effect of U.S. power abroad has nothing to do with the “values” celebrated at home, and indeed often serves to deprive people in other countries of the opportunity to attempt to enjoy them should they care to do so.

In Latin America, Africa and Asia, U.S. power has more often than not been used to prop up the remnants of colonial regimes and unpopular dictators, to impose devastating commercial and financial conditions, to support repressive armed forces, to overthrow or cripple by sanctions relatively independent governments, and finally to send bombers and cruise missiles to rain down death and destruction.

The “Right of Self-Defense”

(1) Whose right?

Since September 11, the United States feels under attack. As a result its government claims a “right to self-defense” enabling it to wage war on its own terms, as it chooses, against any country it designates as an enemy, without proof of guilt or legal procedure.

Obviously, such a “right of self-defense” never existed for countries such as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Libya, Sudan or Yugoslavia when they were bombed by the United States. Nor will it be recognized for countries bombed by the United States in the future. This is simply the right of the strongest, the law of the jungle. Exercising such a “right”, denied all others, cannot serve “universal values” but only undermines the very concept of a world order based on universal values with legal recourse open to all on a basis of equality.

A “right” enjoyed only by one entity — the most powerful — is not a right but a privilege exercised only to the detriment of the rights of others.

(2) How is the United States to “defend” itself?

Supposedly in self-defense, the United States launched a war against Afghanistan. This was not an action specially designed to respond to the unique events of September 11. On the contrary, it was exactly what the United States was already doing, and had already planned to do, as outlined in Pentagon documents: bomb other countries, send military forces onto foreign soil and topple their governments. The United States is openly planning an all-out war — not excluding use of nuclear weapons — against Iraq, a country it has been bombing for a decade, with the proclaimed aim of replacing its government with leaders selected by Washington.

(3) Precisely what is being “defended”?

What is being defended is related to what was attacked.

Traditionally, “defense” means defense of national territory. On September 11, an attack actually took place on and against U.S. territory. This was not a conventional attack by a major power designed to seize territory. Rather, it was an anonymous strike against particular targeted institutions. In the absence of any claim of responsibility, the symbolic nature of the targets may have been assumed to be self-explanatory. TheWorld Trade Center clearly symbolized U.S. global economic power, while the Pentagon represented U.S. military power. Thus, it seems highly unlikely that the September 11 attacks were symbolically directed against “American values” as celebrated in the United States.

Rather, the true target seems to have been U.S.economic and military power as it is projected abroad. According to reports, 15 of the 19 identified hijackers were Saudi Arabians hostile to the presence of U.S. military bases on Saudi soil. September 11 suggests that the nation projecting its power abroad is vulnerable at home, but the real issue is U.S. intervention abroad. Indeed the Bush wars are designed precisely to defend and strengthen U.S. power abroad. It is U.S. global power projection that is being defended, not domestic freedoms and way of life.

In reality, foreign wars are more likely to undermine the domestic values cherished by civilians at home than to defend or spread them. But governments that wage aggressive wars always drum up domestic support by convincing ordinary people that war is necessary to defend or to spread noble ideas. The principal difference between the imperial wars of the past and the global thrust of the United States today is the far greater means of destruction available. The disproportion between the material power of destruction and the constructive power of human wisdom has never been more dangerously unbalanced. Intellectuals today have the choice of joining the chorus of those who celebrate brute force by rhetorically attaching it to “spiritual values”, or taking up the more difficult and essential task of exposing the arrogant folly of power and working with the whole of humanity to create means of reasonable dialogue, fair economic relations and equal justice.

The right to self-defense must be a collective human right. Humanity as a whole has the right to defend its own survival against the “self-defense” of an unchecked superpower. For half a century, the United States has repeatedly demonstrated its indifference to the collateral death and destruction wrought by its self-proclaimed efforts to improve the world. Only by joining in solidarity with the victims of U.S. military power can we in the rich countries defend whatever universal values we claim to cherish.

* * * * * * * *

LIST OF SIGNATURES

Daphne Abeel, Journalist, Cambridge, MA.

Julie L. Abraham, Professor of English, New York City.

Michael Albert, ZNet, Boston.

Janet Kestenberg Amighi. Anthropologist, Hahneman University, Philadelphia.

Electa Arenal, Hispanic & Luso-Brazilian Literatures, City University of New York

Anthony Arnove, Editor/Publisher, South End Press, Boston.

Stanley Aronowitz, Center for Cultural Studies, City University of New York.

Dean Baker, economist, Center for Economic and Policy Research,Washington, DC

Houston A. Baker, Jr., Duke University, Durham, NC.

David Barsamian, Director, Alternative Radio, Boulder, CO.

Rosalyn Baxandall, Chair, American Studies at SUNY-Old Westbury.

Medea Benjamin, Founding Director, Global Exchange, San Francisco.

Dick Bennett, Professor Emeritus, University of Arkansas.

Larry Bensky, KPFA/Pacifica Radio.

Joel Bleifuss, Editor, In These Times, Chicago

Chana Bloch, Professor of English, Mills College.

William Blum, author, Washington, DC.

Magda Bogin, Writer, Columbia University.

Patrick Bond, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

Gray Brechin, Department of Geography, University of California, Berkeley.

Renate Bridenthal, Professor Emerita of History, The City University of New York.

Linda Bullard, environmentalist, USA/ Europe.

Judith Butler, University of California, Berkeley.

Bob Buzzanco, Professor of History, University of Houston.

Helen Caldicott, pediatrician, author, founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

John Cammett, historian, New York.

Stephanie M.H. Camp, Assistant Professor of History, University of Washington.

Ward Churchill, Author, Boulder, CO.

John P. Clark, Professor of Philosophy, Loyola University, New Orleans.

Dan Coughlin, Radio Executive Director, Washington, DC.

Sandi Cooper, historian, New York.

Lawrence Davidson, Professor of Middle East history, West Chester University, PA

David Devine, Professor of English, Paris, France.

Douglas Dowd, economist, Bologna, San Francisco.

Madhu Dubey, Professor, English and Africana Studies, Brown University

Richard B. Du Boff, Bryn Mawr College, PA.

Peter Erlinder, Past President, National Lawyers Guild, Law Professor, St. Paul, MN.

Francis Feeley, Professor of American Studies, Université Stendhal, Grenoble.

Richard Flynn, of Literature and Philosophy, Georgia Southern University.

Michael S. Foley, Assistant Professor of History, City University of New York.

John Bellamy Foster, Eugene, OR.

H. Bruce Franklin, Professor of English and American Studies, Rutgers University

Jane Franklin, Author and historian, Montclair, NJ.

Oscar H. Gandy, Jr., Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania.

Jamshed Ghandhi, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

Larry Gross, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania.

Beau Grosscup, Professor of International Relations, CSU Chico, CA.

Zalmay Gulzad, Professor of Asian-American Studies, Loyola University, Chicago.

Thomas J. Gumbleton, Auxiliary Bishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit.

Marilyn Hacker, Professor of English, The City College of New York

Robin Hahnel, Professor of Economics, American University, Washington, DC.

Edward S. Herman, economist and media analyst, Philadelphia.

Marc W. Herold, University of New Hampshire.

John L. Hess, Journalist and correspondent, New York City.

David U. Himmelstein, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

W.G . Huff, University of Glasgow.

Adrian Prentice Hull, California State University, Monterey Bay

Marsha Hurst, Director, Health Advocacy Program, Sarah Lawrence College, NY.

David Isles, Associate Prof. of Mathematics, Tufts University, Medford, MA.

Robert Jensen, School of Journalism, University of Texas.

Diana Johnstone, journalist, Paris, France.

John Jonik, Political Cartoonist/Activist, Philadelphia.

Louis Kampf, Professor Emeritus of Literature, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Mary Kaye, Professor of Fine Arts, Art Institute of Boston, Lesley University.

Douglas Kellner, University of California, Los Angeles.

Michael King, Senior News Editor, The Austin Chronicle, TX.

Gabriel Kolko, author, Amsterdam.

Joyce Kolko, author, Amsterdam.

Claudia Koonz, history professor, Duke University, NC.

Joel Kovel, Bard College.

Marilyn Krysl, writer, University of Colorado.

Mark Lance, Philosophy, Justice and Peace, Georgetown University.

Ann J. Lane, University of Virginia.

Karen Latuchie, book editor, New Jersey.

Peggy Law. Executive Director, International Media Project, Oakland, CA.

Amy Schrager Lang, Associate Professor of American Studies, Cambridge, MA.

Helena Lewis, Historian, Harvard University Humanities Center.

Dave Lindorff, Journalist, Maple Glen, Pennsylvania.

Eric Lott, Professor of English, University of Virginia.

Angus Love, Esq., Narberth, PA.

David MacMichael, Director, Association of National Security Alumni, Washington, DC.

Harry Magdoff, co-editor, Monthly Review, New York City.

Sanjoy Mahajan, physicist, University of Cambridge, England.

Michael Marcus, Dept. of Mathematics, City College, NY.

Robert McChesney, University of Illinois.

Jo Ann McNamara, Historian Emerita, Hunter College, NY.

Arthur Mitzman, Emeritus Professor of Modern History, University of Amsterdam.

Robert Naiman, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Washington, DC.

Marilyn Nelson, Poet/Professor, University of Connecticut.

Suzanne Oboler, University of Illinois, Chicago.

Bertell Ollman, Department of Politics, New York University.

Alicia Ostriker, Professor of English, Rutgers University, NJ.

Christian Parenti, author, New College of California.

Michael Parenti, author, Berkeley, CA..

Mark Pavlick, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

Michael Perelman, Professor of Economics, Chico State University, CA.

Jeff Perlstein, Executive Director, Media Alliance, San Francisco.

David Peterson, writer and researcher, Chicago.

James Petras, State University of New York, Binghamton.

Joan Pinkham, Translator, Amherst, MA.

Lawrence Pinkham, Professor Emeritus of Journalism, University of Massachusetts.

Cathie Platt, Licensed Professional Counselor, Charlottesville, VA.

Gordon Poole, Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples, Italy.

Douglas Porpora, Professor of Sociology, Drexel University, Philadelphia.

Larry Portis, American Studies, Université Paul Valéry, Montpellier, France.

Ellen Ray, Institute for Media Analysis, New York City.

Elton Rayack, Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Rhode Island.

Lillian S. Robinson, Simone de Beauvoir Institute, Concordia University, Montreal.

Rick Rozoff, medical social worker, Chicago.

Albert Ruben, writer.

Sten Rudstrom, Theater Artist, Berlin

William H. Schaap, Institute for Media Analysis, New York City.

Ellen Schrecker, Yeshiva University, New York City.

Gretchen Seifert, artist and photographer, Chicago

Anne Shaver, Professor Emerita of English, Denison University, OH.

Gerald E. Shenk, Social & Behavioral Sciences Center, California State University, Seaside.

Mary Shepard, media critic, St Paul, Minnesota.

Francis Shor, professor, Wayne State University, MI.

Robert M. Smith, Brandywine Peace Community, Swarthmore, PA.

Alan Sokal, Professor of Physics, New York University.

Norman Solomon, author and syndicated columnist, San Francisco.

William S. Solomon, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

Sarah Standefer, nurse, Minneapolis, MN.

Abraham Sussman, Clinical Psychologist, Cambridge, MA.

Malcolm Sylvers, University of Venice, Italy.

Paul M. Sweezy, co-editor, Monthly Review, New York City.

Holly Thau, Psychotherapist, Oregon.

Reetika Vazirani, Writer, New Jersey.

Gore Vidal, writer, Los Angeles

Joe Volk, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Washington, DC.

Lynne Walker, Historian, London.

Karin Wilkins, University of Texas at Austin.

Howard Winant, Temple University, Philadelphia.

Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH, Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

George Wright, Department of Political Science, California State University, Chico.

Howard Zinn, writer, Boston, MA.

(total 137)

217-333-7954(voice)
217-244-1478(fax)

fboyle@law.uiuc.edu

Related Posts

LONDON – So far so good, at least on the wider level. While internally Iraq seems on the edge of chaos, the much heralded clash of civilizations between the Muslim and Judaeo-Christian worlds has yet to become apparent. We have anger and despair aplenty in the Arab and Muslim worlds. But very little rushing to the standard and there was no great pilgrimage of warriors to join the fight, as happened when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan twenty years ago, and then, having driven the Red Army out, were left to ferment in that mountainous redoubt. With the armaments supplied by the CIA the mujahidin were transformed into Al Qaeda that became, for a relatively brief moment as these things go, ‘the greatest threat to the homeland that America has ever known.’ Nevertheless a ‘Cold War’ between much of the Muslim world and the West is certainly in full swing. Winston...
The Challenge of Nuclear Weaponsin the Twenty-first CenturyA Path Forward The peoples and governments of the world face an urgent challenge relating to weaponry of mass destruction and particularly to nuclear weaponry.  At the crossroads of technology, terrorism, geopolitical ambition, and policies of preemption are new and potent dangers for humanity. Despite ending the nuclear standoff of the Cold War era, nuclear weaponry is again menacing the peoples of the world with catastrophic possibilities.  We recognize the need for any government to pursue its security interests in accordance with international law; and further, we recognize that distinctive threats to these interests now exist as a result of an active international terrorist network having declared war on the United States and its allies. Nonetheless, we reject the assessment of the current US administration that upgrading a reliance on nuclear weapons is in any sense justified as a response. We find it...
By Karin Wegestal MP, the Social Democratic Partyon behalf of the Swedish Committee for Solidarity with the Yugoslav People During the last decade, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has received more than 500,000 refugees from Croatia and Bosnia, and another 300,000 internally displaced persons, mainly from the province Kosovo and Metohia. For a country with about ten million inhabitants, such an influx of homeless people is obviously a very heavy burden – even under peaceful conditions. But in addition to that, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been the subject to sanctions from the western powers for close to ten years and its infrastructure was badly hurt through Nato’s intense bombardment during 78 days in 1999. The result of all this is that Yugoslavia, once the most developed industrial country in Eastern Europe, is today the poorest country in Europe. In Serbia excluding Kosovo, with about ten million inhabitants and...

Recent Articles

Below are TFF-related media mentions, comments, videos and social media posts published elsewhere but not on this homepage. We happen to catch and list only a fraction. Regarding video comments and debates, we recommend that you go to the TFF Video Channel on Substack where many of them are reproduced. Jan Oberg is a contributor to China Daily – 52 million daily clicks – and Global Times, CGTN and CCTV (the national television), China Investment, Xinhua News Agency and several others. Articles and videos on these media very often multiply into countless Chinese (and Western media) that re-post them from these main media. Thanks to The China Academy, his analyses, interviews and comments are frequently posted on YouTube channels such as Thinkers Forum and Wave Media. These videos are often re-posted on Bilibili (China’s YouTube), the China Content Center on TikTok, and on the Chinese edition of TikTok, Douyin.com. This means reaching hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide over a year. While there are too many to catch on all these...
Jan Oberg TFF director October 13, 2026 According to Alfred Nobel’s will, the Nobel Peace Prize shall be awarded: ”to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses.” Further down, he also expresses how the prize for the “champions of peace” shall be decided: “that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be selected by the Norwegian Storting. Alfred Nobel’s will is remarkably short and clear. But few seem to have read it. Nobel did not say that the committee itself should consist of members of parliament. He entrusted the Storting with appointing five persons. In principle, it could have selected diplomats, mediators, peace researchers, conflict-resolution specialists, or other individuals with recognised expertise in matters of peace from around the world. Instead, the Storting gradually...
The Quest for Humane Survival Richard Falk Professor emeritus, Princeton UniversityTFF Associate since 1986October 12, 2026 After decades of teaching and writing about international law in academic frameworks that were not institutionally situated within law school environments—at Princeton and the University of California, Santa Barbara—I found myself most receptive to the TWAIL outlook. It has been especially illuminating in clarifying the extent to which international law evolved as a dialogical critique of Europe’s efforts to legitimize its colonial undertakings. In particular, TWAIL has exposed how international law has functioned to legalize the subjugation of Third World peoples, securing conditions for exploitative investment and trade relations, the coercive enforcement of public debts, and an ideology of cultural superiority. TWAIL’s exposure of these economic legacies of colonialism has influenced my understanding of the history and development of international law, broadly conceived, as an ideological project of the Western sub-system of the world...

TFF on Substack

Discover and subscribe to more peace materials on TFF Substack

Most Popular

Below are TFF-related media mentions, comments, videos and social media posts published elsewhere but not on this homepage. We happen to catch and list only a fraction. Regarding video comments and debates, we recommend that you go to the TFF Video Channel on Substack where many of them are reproduced. Jan Oberg is a contributor to China Daily – 52 million daily clicks – and Global Times, CGTN and CCTV (the national television), China Investment, Xinhua News Agency and several others. Articles and videos on these media very often multiply into countless Chinese (and Western media) that re-post them from these main media. Thanks to The China Academy, his analyses, interviews and comments are frequently posted on YouTube channels such as Thinkers Forum and Wave Media. These videos are often re-posted on Bilibili (China’s YouTube), the China Content Center on TikTok, and on the Chinese edition of TikTok, Douyin.com. This means reaching hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide over a year. While there are too many to catch on all these...
Jan Oberg TFF director October 13, 2026 According to Alfred Nobel’s will, the Nobel Peace Prize shall be awarded: ”to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses.” Further down, he also expresses how the prize for the “champions of peace” shall be decided: “that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be selected by the Norwegian Storting. Alfred Nobel’s will is remarkably short and clear. But few seem to have read it. Nobel did not say that the committee itself should consist of members of parliament. He entrusted the Storting with appointing five persons. In principle, it could have selected diplomats, mediators, peace researchers, conflict-resolution specialists, or other individuals with recognised expertise in matters of peace from around the world. Instead, the Storting gradually...
The Quest for Humane Survival Richard Falk Professor emeritus, Princeton UniversityTFF Associate since 1986October 12, 2026 After decades of teaching and writing about international law in academic frameworks that were not institutionally situated within law school environments—at Princeton and the University of California, Santa Barbara—I found myself most receptive to the TWAIL outlook. It has been especially illuminating in clarifying the extent to which international law evolved as a dialogical critique of Europe’s efforts to legitimize its colonial undertakings. In particular, TWAIL has exposed how international law has functioned to legalize the subjugation of Third World peoples, securing conditions for exploitative investment and trade relations, the coercive enforcement of public debts, and an ideology of cultural superiority. TWAIL’s exposure of these economic legacies of colonialism has influenced my understanding of the history and development of international law, broadly conceived, as an ideological project of the Western sub-system of the world...
Read More
girl-5894831_1280
Below are TFF-related media mentions, comments, videos and social media posts published elsewhere but not on this homepage. We happen to catch and list only a fraction. Regarding video comments and debates, we recommend that you go to the TFF Video Channel on Substack where many of them are reproduced. Jan Oberg is a contributor to China Daily – 52 million daily clicks – and Global Times, CGTN and CCTV (the national television), China Investment, Xinhua News Agency and several others. Articles and videos on these media very often multiply into countless Chinese (and Western media) that re-post them from these main media. Thanks to The China Academy, his analyses, interviews and comments are frequently posted on YouTube channels such as Thinkers Forum and Wave Media. These videos are often re-posted on Bilibili (China’s YouTube), the China Content Center on TikTok, and on the Chinese edition of TikTok, Douyin.com. This means reaching hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide over a year. While there are too many to catch on all these...
Nobel-Prize-Plaque
Jan Oberg TFF director October 13, 2026 According to Alfred Nobel’s will, the Nobel Peace Prize shall be awarded: ”to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses.” Further down, he also expresses how the prize for the “champions of peace” shall be decided: “that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be selected by the Norwegian Storting. Alfred Nobel’s will is remarkably short and clear. But few seem to have read it. Nobel did not say that the committee itself should consist of members of parliament. He entrusted the Storting with appointing five persons. In principle, it could have selected diplomats, mediators, peace researchers, conflict-resolution specialists, or other individuals with recognised expertise in matters of peace from around the world. Instead, the Storting gradually...
law-419057_1280
The Quest for Humane Survival Richard Falk Professor emeritus, Princeton UniversityTFF Associate since 1986October 12, 2026 After decades of teaching and writing about international law in academic frameworks that were not institutionally situated within law school environments—at Princeton and the University of California, Santa Barbara—I found myself most receptive to the TWAIL outlook. It has been especially illuminating in clarifying the extent to which international law evolved as a dialogical critique of Europe’s efforts to legitimize its colonial undertakings. In particular, TWAIL has exposed how international law has functioned to legalize the subjugation of Third World peoples, securing conditions for exploitative investment and trade relations, the coercive enforcement of public debts, and an ideology of cultural superiority. TWAIL’s exposure of these economic legacies of colonialism has influenced my understanding of the history and development of international law, broadly conceived, as an ideological project of the Western sub-system of the world...
images-2
Advocates of nuclear disarmament are regularly dismissed by the champions of nuclear deterrence as naïve and unrealistic, utopian or even irresponsible. Yet this ‘doctrine’ of deterrence, regarded by France as the ‘cornerstone’ of its national security, is based on quasi-religious beliefs, a theory that cannot be proven, risky gambles and fragile assumptions. So much so that one might legitimately ask which side the ‘Care Bears’ are on. Marc FinaudVice-President of Initiatives for Nuclear Disarmament (IDN) October 9, 2026 This article was originally published on Pressenza When it comes to these things being treated as religious concepts, look here. Idealists and realists It was Hubert Védrine, François Mitterrand’s former Foreign Minister, who repeatedly coined the phrase: ‘Europeans are a sort of Care Bears who don’t realise they’re living in Jurassic Park’. He applies this reference to the cartoon for well-behaved children not only to what he regards as weakness or idealism...
8824b09f-33a5-43f9-9fd0-550f28cda24d_1536x1024
What the West Borrowed from Asia and What It Left Behind Jan Krikke October 8, 2026 The article was originally published here In the late 1960s, the musical Hair announced that the Age of Aquarius was dawning. Its opening anthem promised a transformation of human consciousness: an era of peace, harmony and understanding. Half a century later, a familiar echo of that promise is a meditation app offered by your employer. You can find it in the same list of benefits as the pension plan and the gym discount. How did a spiritual revolution become an employee benefit? The answer lies in the history of the movement known as New Age: where it came from, what it borrowed from Asia, and why the meaning of what it borrowed changed in the process. Two definitions will help. New Age is a loose label for a wide range of spiritual practices and...
Screenshot 2026-10-04 210142
Small and different + among the 10% most active + 9,000 texts + 150 Associates + 60 000 a day — and a stubborn belief that peace is smarter and must be secured by peaceful means. In 2026, the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research (TFF) turns 40. On Monday, October 5, 2026, a new TFF homepage will go live — a new gateway to more than 9,000 articles, analyses, research papers and other contributions produced over four decades of independent peace research. But this is not simply a new website. For four decades, TFF has worked from a simple conviction: peace is smarter than militarism and can be brought about by peaceful means. This is not merely an aspiration. It is the principle expressed in the UN Charter and the Gandhian tradition that has guided our work from the beginning. TFF is a research-based, independent and people-financed foundation....