31 Members of Congress

Thirty-one courageous members of Congress, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), are challenging the president’s unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. These representatives deserve our appreciation for taking action to prevent Mr. Bush from trampling on the Constitution in his continuing effort to undermine international law and expand US military domination.

This is a critical challenge to the abuse of presidential authority. A lot is riding on it. If the president can unilaterally voids our laws, which ones will be the next to go? Perhaps the first and fourth amendments? If your congressional representative is not one of the 31 parties to this lawsuit, he or she should be asked why not and urged to join the lawsuit and support it in the Congress.

Not a single US Senator has had the courage to join this lawsuit. Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) initially indicated his intention to join the lawsuit, but then backed off when his request to receive pro bono legal services was not approved by the Senate Ethics Committee. All US Senators should also be urged to join in this challenge.

The ABM Treaty required a two-thirds vote of the Senate in 1972 for ratification to enter into force and to become US law. Now the 100 members of the Senate appear content to sit on the sidelines as the president unilaterally nullifies the law they made.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), a plaintiff in the lawsuit, recently wrote: “The ABM Treaty is the cornerstone of international arms control. Now that more countries have nuclear weapons, international treaties are even more important. International cooperation is the way to peace and international security; not increased military build-up. Over the past 30 years, the ABM Treaty has been a vital link to working with the international community and it is more important than ever that we not turn our back on it.”

Meanwhile, at Fort Greely, Alaska, the Bush administration has broken ground on six underground missile interceptor silos, is spending more than $7 billion on missile defense this year, and continues to move ahead with its plans to weaponize outer space in order to protect US interests and investments throughout the world.

Meanwhile, the Russians have withdrawn their ratification of the START II Treaty in response to the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. This opens the door for the Russians to use multiple independently targeted warheads (MIRVs) on their missiles.

Meanwhile, the leaders of India and Pakistan, following the example of US leaders, act as though nuclear deterrence will prevent a nuclear war between them as they confront each other over Kashmir.

Thank you, Representatives Kucinich and Woolsey and your colleagues in this lawsuit for demonstrating unusual courage at a difficult time.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 02-1137(JDB)

Representative DENNIS KUCINICH
1730 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3510

Representative JAMES OBERSTAR
2365 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-2308

Representative PATSY MINK
2210 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-1102

Representative TAMMY BALDWIN
1022 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4902

Representative PETER DEFAZIO
2134 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3704

Representative JOHN OLVER
1027 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-2101

Representative SAM FARR
1211 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0517

Representative BARBARA LEE
426 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 25015-0509

Representative MAURICE HINCHEY
2431 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3226

Representative JOHN CONYERS
2426 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-2214

Representative HILDA SOLIS
1641 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0531

Representative JANICE SCHAKOWSKY
515 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-1309

Representative ALCEE HASTINGS
2235 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0923

Representative FORTNEY STARK
239 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0513

Representative BERNARD SANDERS
2135 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4501

Representative EARL HILLIARD
1314 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0107

Representative CAROLYN KILPATRICK
1610 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-2215

Representative LANE EVANS
2211 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-1317

Representative JIM MCDERMOTT
1035 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4707

Representative BOB FILNER
2463 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0550

Representative CYNTHIA MCKINNEY
124 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-1004

Representative GEORGE MILLER
2205 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0507

Representative LYNN WOOLSEY
2263 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0506

Representative WILLIAM LACY CLAY
415 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-2501

Representative EDOLPHUS TOWNS
2232 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3210

Representative MAXINE WATERS
2344 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0535

Representative JESSE JACKSON, JR.
313 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-1302

Representative GREGORY MEEKS
1710 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3206

Representative MARCY KAPTUR
2366 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3509

Representative JERROLD NADLER
2334 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3208

Representative STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES
1516 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3511

Plaintiffs,
v.

GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

COLIN POWELL, Secretary of State
Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520

DONALD H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301

Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. In this action 31 Members of Congress seek a declaratory judgment that the President’s proposed termination of the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (“the ABM Treaty”) is unconstitutional and of no effect because of the President’s failure to seek and obtain the assent of Congress.

2. On May 26, 1972, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics signed the ABM Treaty. On August 3, 1972, the United States Senate approved the treaty. The treaty entered into force on October 3, 1972.

3. The issue of the President’s authority to terminate treaties without the assent of a majority of both Houses of Congress or two thirds of the Senate has never been decided by the courts. It is one of supreme importance to the constitutional framework of this nation as well as the treaty-based system of international law.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. Jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1651, 2201-2202 in that Plaintiffs’ claims arise under the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, Article II, Section 3 and Article VI, Clause 2.

5. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 139(e) because the Defendants are officers of the United States sued in their official capacities with offices in Washington, District of Columbia.

PARTIES

6. Plaintiffs are the 31 Members of the United States House of Representatives whose names appear in the caption of this Complaint. Plaintiffs file this suit in their official capacities as members of the United States Congress.

7. George W. Bush is President of the United States. He is sued in his official capacity as President.

8. Colin Powell is Secretary of State of the United States. He is sued in his official capacity as Secretary of State.

9. Donald H. Rumsfeld is Secretary of Defense of the United States. He is sued in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense.

CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

10. Under Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution, treaties have the status of “supreme law of the land,” equally with federal laws. Article II, Section 3 requires the President to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

11. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution requires the concurrence of “two thirds of the Senators present” for the making of a treaty by the President, evidencing the Framers’ intent that the making, modifying and terminating of treaties be the joint prerogative of the executive and legislative branches.

12. The Constitution is silent on the role of Congress in treaty termination. However, under long-standing and well established practice since the founding of the Republic, and arising from the fundamental separation of powers and system of checks and balances imbued in the Constitution from its very origin, the President has a duty to seek and obtain the concurrence of two thirds of the Senate or a majority of both Houses for the termination of a treaty. It is particularly incumbent upon the President to discharge this duty with respect to treaties of great importance, such as the ABM Treaty. The President has not done so in this case.

STANDING

13. Plaintiffs have sustained a grievous institutional injury by being deprived of their constitutional right and duty to participate in treaty termination.

14. Given the President’s mistaken view of his authority to engage in treaty termination on his own, Plaintiffs are completely without any legislative remedy to rectify the President’s proposed unlawful termination of the ABM Treaty. There is no legislative action Congress could take that would compel the President to submit the matter of treaty termination to Congress for its consideration, or to nullify the notice of withdrawal the President has given.

15. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs are confident that the President, when faced with a judicial declaration of the unconstitutionality of his act, will move swiftly to seek the Congressional approval required.

ABM TREATY BACKGROUND

16. The ABM Treaty prohibits, with certain minor exceptions, the deployment of missile defenses to protect each party’s national territory, as well as the development, testing, or deployment of sea-, air-, space-, or mobile land-based anti-ballistic missile systems or components.

17. The treaty’s purpose is to prevent a nuclear arms race which would vastly increase the likelihood of intentional or accidental nuclear war, with such war’s catastrophic consequences, and to create more favorable conditions for limiting and reducing strategic nuclear arms.

18. By prohibiting space-based systems or components, the ABM Treaty also acts as a barrier to development and deployment of space-based weapons usable against satellites and air or ground targets, as well as missiles.

19. The ABM Treaty is part of an interlocking framework of arms control agreements. It was linked at its inception with the first Strategic Arms Limitation Agreement (SALT), and served as a foundation for SALT II, which was largely observed but never entered into force, as well as the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty removing US and Soviet missiles from Europe, and the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).

20. The Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference for the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, adopted without objection by all participating states, including the United States, calls for “preserving and strengthening the ABM Treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis of further reductions of strategic offensive weapons.”

21. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, as successor states to the Soviet Union, became parties to the ABM Treaty and have been so recognized by the United States.

22. President Bush, in the context of a new foreign policy designed to release the United States from treaty obligations restricting its freedom of action, decided to terminate the ABM Treaty. On December 13, 2001, he sent identical diplomatic notes to Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, giving notice of the intended withdrawal of the United States from the treaty pursuant to its Article XV, paragraph 2.

23. The ABM Treaty is “of unlimited duration,” but Article XV, paragraph 2 gives each party the right to withdraw from the treaty on six months notice “if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests.”

24. Several Members of Congress have strongly criticized the wisdom of terminating the ABM Treaty. Some have questioned whether the criterion for withdrawal contained in Article XV, paragraph 2, has been met. However, neither a majority of both Houses of Congress nor two thirds of the Senate have assented to the termination of the ABM Treaty, nor have they been requested to do so by the President.

25. On June 6, 2002, lead Plaintiff, Representative Dennis Kucinich, offered a resolution “concerning the Privileges of the House,” which stated, inter alia, “Whereas, the President does not have the authority to repeal laws,” and concluded, “Therefore, be it resolved, That the President should respect the Constitutional role of Congress and seek the approval of Congress for the withdrawal of the United States of America from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.” After debate, the Chair sustained a point of order that the resolution does not constitute a point of privilege. Representative Kucinich appealed the ruling, and a motion to table the appeal was agreed to by a recorded vote of 254 yeas and 169 nays. The resolution therefore was not considered on the merits contrary to the wishes of 169 Members of the House.

26. On June 10, 2002, on the floor of the Senate, Senator Russell Feingold sought unanimous consent to offer a resolution regarding the termination of the ABM Treaty. The resolution stated, inter alia, that “it is the sense of the Senate that approval of the United States Senate is required to terminate any treaty between the United States and another nation” and that “the Senate does not approve the withdrawal of the United States from the 1972 Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems.” An objection was made, and the resolution was not considered by the Senate.

TREATY TERMINATION BACKGROUND

27. The first instance of treaty termination by the United States was the Act of July 7, 1798, signed by President John Adams, by which Congress declared “the treaties heretofore concluded with France no longer obligatory on the United States.” Since then, the vast majority of treaties, and virtually all those of serious enduring significance, have been terminated by some form of mutual cooperation between the President and Congress.

28. The one salient exception was the termination of the Taiwan Mutual Defense Treaty by President Carter acting alone in 1978. In that instance, a sharply divided Supreme Court, lacking a clear majority position, let stand the President’s termination on a variety of non-substantive grounds without reaching the fundamental issue of the President’s authority to terminate treaties without the assent of one or both Houses of Congress. The President’s position on the merits was that the termination was a consequence of his decision to transfer recognition from Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China pursuant to the well established and exclusive Presidential power of recognition under the Constitution. That position was accepted by the only Supreme Court Justice to reach the merits. No such power of the President is involved in the termination of the ABM Treaty.

29. There is ample evidence that the Framers intended Congress to have a role in the termination as well as the making of treaties.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

30. The President’s proposed termination of the ABM Treaty without the assent of Congress violates Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution and is inconsistent with two centuries of practice and with the overall design of separation of powers and checks and balances of the Constitution.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

31. Since treaties have the status of laws, the President’s proposed termination of the ABM Treaty without the assent of Congress violates Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, which obliges the President to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court enter an Order as follows:

(a) Declaring that the President’s withdrawal from the ABM Treaty is without force and effect until such time as the President has requested and received the assent of a majority of both Houses of Congress or two thirds of the Senate;

(b) Ordering that the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and their subordinate officers are enjoined from taking any action in violation of the ABM Treaty until its termination has received the assent of a majority of both Houses of Congress or two thirds of the Senate;

(c) Awarding Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a) and (d); and

(d) Granting such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

KLIMASKI & GRILL, P.C.
1400 K Street NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 296-5600

By___________________________

James R. Klimaski
DC Bar No. 243543

PETER WEISS
JOHN BURROUGHS
Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy
211 East 43d Street, Suite 1204
New York, NY 10017
(212) 818-1861

BRUCE ACKERMAN
Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science
Yale Law School
127 Wall Street
New Haven CT 06520
(203) 432-0065

JEREMY MANNING
1 Broadway
New York, NY 10004-1050
(212) 908-6222

JULES LOBEL
MICHAEL RATNER
Center for Constitutional Rights
666 Broadway
New York, NY 10012
(212) 614-6430

EDWARD A. AGUILAR
Philadelphia Lawyers Alliance for World Security
1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Suite 11520
Philadelphia, PA 19103-1815
(215) 988-9808

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO ARE PLAINTIFFS IN THE SUIT FILED BY REP. DENNIS KUCINICH ET AL. v. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
RE: ABROGATION OF THE ABM TREATY
(with their local District office phone numbers)

Representative DENNIS KUCINICH 216-228-8850
1730 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3510

Representative JAMES OBERSTAR 218-727-7474 (D-8-MN)
2365 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-2308

Representative PATSY MINK 808-541-1986
2210 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-1102

Representative TAMMY BALDWIN 608-258-9800
1022 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4902

Representative PETER DEFAZIO 541-465-6732
2134 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3704

Representative JOHN OLVER 413-532-7010
1027 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-2101

Representative SAM FARR 831-429-1976
1211 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0517

Representative BARBARA LEE 510-763-0370
426 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 25015-0509

Representative MAURICE HINCHEY 607-273-1388
2431 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3226

Representative JOHN CONYERS 313-961-5670 (D-14-MI)
2426 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-2214

Representative HILDA SOLIS 626-448-1271 (D-31-CA)
1641 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0531

Representative JANICE SCHAKOWSKY 773-508-7100
515 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-1309

Representative ALCEE HASTINGS 561-684-0565
2235 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0923

Representative FORTNEY STARK 510-494-1388
239 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0513

Representative BERNARD SANDERS 802-862-0697
2135 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4501

Representative EARL HILLIARD 206-328-2841 (D-7-AL)
1314 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0107

Representative CAROLYN KILPATRICK 313-965-9004 (D-15-MI)
1610 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-2215

Representative LANE EVANS 309-793-5766
2211 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-1317

Representative JIM MCDERMOTT 206-553-7170
1035 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4707

Representative BOB FILNER 619-422-5963
2463 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0550

Representative CYNTHIA MCKINNEY 404-377-6900
124 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-1004

Representative GEORGE MILLER 510-262-6500 (D-7-CA)
2205 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0507

Representative LYNN WOOLSEY 707-542-7182 (D-6-CA)
2263 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0506

Representative WILLIAM LACY CLAY 314-367-1970 (D-1-MO)
415 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-2501

Representative EDOLPHUS TOWNS 718-855-8018
2232 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3210

Representative MAXINE WATERS 323-757-8900 (D-35-CA)
2344 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0535

Representative JESSE JACKSON, JR. 773-238-2100
313 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-1302

Representative GREGORY MEEKS 718-738-4200 (D-6-NY)
1710 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3206

Representative MARCY KAPTUR 419-259-7500 (D-9-OH)
2366 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3509

Representative JERROLD NADLER 212-334-3207
2334 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3208

Representative STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES 216-522-4900 (D-11-OH)
1516 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3511

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

Tony Robinson October 4, 2026 Violence is easy to recognise when someone is being beaten, shot or killed. It becomes more difficult when nobody is holding a weapon. Poverty, discrimination, exploitation and repression can restrict a human life just as effectively, although they do so in very different ways and with very different consequences. Simply adding more categories to an ever-growing list of forms of violence does not really solve the problem. The more interesting question is what all these different situations have in common and why it makes sense to describe them using the same word. Human beings do not simply react to what happens around them. They remember the past, imagine things that do not yet exist, make plans and undertake projects. Workers organise because they imagine different working conditions; people migrate because they imagine another life somewhere else; social movements emerge because people refuse to accept the...
It’s a matter of principles, courage, vision and pulling together – while the militarist world is falling apart… Peter Langille October 3, 2026 “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”The Bertrand Russell—Albert Einstein Manifesto, July 9, 1955 ⁕ The forecast for what’s ahead is worrisome. The sharp rise in armed conflicts over the past three years is adding to what was already the highest level in over seventy years. Genocides, which should be prevented are supported. A shared climate emergency that jeopardises survival is ignored. Diverse polls now suggest that people are war-weary, worried and interested in a more effective United Nations. And, there are viable policy options for a more secure world! Yet governments are doubling-down, betting on more war and investing heavily. If current trends persist,...
Johan Galtung 1930-2024October 2015 Published here on October 3, 2026 Let us focus on Civilization for conflict analysis and remedies. Major forms of disorder use violence; war is state organized violence. The most belligerent states are the United States of America and Israel, both with civilization roots. National Evangelism, the US Protestant Christian civilization– more national than evangelical–justifies US warfare as exceptionalism of a people chosen by God, with a manifest destiny to run the world. Orthodox Judaism justifies Israeli warfare to conquer and expand from Nile to Euphrates as a religious right and duty to the Eternal One. The third most belligerent country, the UK, no longer believes it is God-chosen but chosen by the USA; not quite the same but something. But the root cause of global disorder lies in the Occident–with Islam–seeing itself as the single, universal civilization valid for all at all times, all others being...

TFF on Substack

Discover and subscribe to more peace materials on TFF Substack

Most Popular

Tony Robinson October 4, 2026 Violence is easy to recognise when someone is being beaten, shot or killed. It becomes more difficult when nobody is holding a weapon. Poverty, discrimination, exploitation and repression can restrict a human life just as effectively, although they do so in very different ways and with very different consequences. Simply adding more categories to an ever-growing list of forms of violence does not really solve the problem. The more interesting question is what all these different situations have in common and why it makes sense to describe them using the same word. Human beings do not simply react to what happens around them. They remember the past, imagine things that do not yet exist, make plans and undertake projects. Workers organise because they imagine different working conditions; people migrate because they imagine another life somewhere else; social movements emerge because people refuse to accept the...
It’s a matter of principles, courage, vision and pulling together – while the militarist world is falling apart… Peter Langille October 3, 2026 “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”The Bertrand Russell—Albert Einstein Manifesto, July 9, 1955 ⁕ The forecast for what’s ahead is worrisome. The sharp rise in armed conflicts over the past three years is adding to what was already the highest level in over seventy years. Genocides, which should be prevented are supported. A shared climate emergency that jeopardises survival is ignored. Diverse polls now suggest that people are war-weary, worried and interested in a more effective United Nations. And, there are viable policy options for a more secure world! Yet governments are doubling-down, betting on more war and investing heavily. If current trends persist,...
Johan Galtung 1930-2024October 2015 Published here on October 3, 2026 Let us focus on Civilization for conflict analysis and remedies. Major forms of disorder use violence; war is state organized violence. The most belligerent states are the United States of America and Israel, both with civilization roots. National Evangelism, the US Protestant Christian civilization– more national than evangelical–justifies US warfare as exceptionalism of a people chosen by God, with a manifest destiny to run the world. Orthodox Judaism justifies Israeli warfare to conquer and expand from Nile to Euphrates as a religious right and duty to the Eternal One. The third most belligerent country, the UK, no longer believes it is God-chosen but chosen by the USA; not quite the same but something. But the root cause of global disorder lies in the Occident–with Islam–seeing itself as the single, universal civilization valid for all at all times, all others being...
Read More
Living-Peace-Sign-Budapest-copy
Tony Robinson October 4, 2026 Violence is easy to recognise when someone is being beaten, shot or killed. It becomes more difficult when nobody is holding a weapon. Poverty, discrimination, exploitation and repression can restrict a human life just as effectively, although they do so in very different ways and with very different consequences. Simply adding more categories to an ever-growing list of forms of violence does not really solve the problem. The more interesting question is what all these different situations have in common and why it makes sense to describe them using the same word. Human beings do not simply react to what happens around them. They remember the past, imagine things that do not yet exist, make plans and undertake projects. Workers organise because they imagine different working conditions; people migrate because they imagine another life somewhere else; social movements emerge because people refuse to accept the...
b54a1f10-8c65-4f0b-9dd5-4abc0a7d04cc_2659x2659
It’s a matter of principles, courage, vision and pulling together – while the militarist world is falling apart… Peter Langille October 3, 2026 “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”The Bertrand Russell—Albert Einstein Manifesto, July 9, 1955 ⁕ The forecast for what’s ahead is worrisome. The sharp rise in armed conflicts over the past three years is adding to what was already the highest level in over seventy years. Genocides, which should be prevented are supported. A shared climate emergency that jeopardises survival is ignored. Diverse polls now suggest that people are war-weary, worried and interested in a more effective United Nations. And, there are viable policy options for a more secure world! Yet governments are doubling-down, betting on more war and investing heavily. If current trends persist,...
010
Johan Galtung 1930-2024October 2015 Published here on October 3, 2026 Let us focus on Civilization for conflict analysis and remedies. Major forms of disorder use violence; war is state organized violence. The most belligerent states are the United States of America and Israel, both with civilization roots. National Evangelism, the US Protestant Christian civilization– more national than evangelical–justifies US warfare as exceptionalism of a people chosen by God, with a manifest destiny to run the world. Orthodox Judaism justifies Israeli warfare to conquer and expand from Nile to Euphrates as a religious right and duty to the Eternal One. The third most belligerent country, the UK, no longer believes it is God-chosen but chosen by the USA; not quite the same but something. But the root cause of global disorder lies in the Occident–with Islam–seeing itself as the single, universal civilization valid for all at all times, all others being...
Screenshot 2026-10-02 011738
Jan ObergPhD, director, The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, TFFLund, Sweden October 2, 2026 This is my full original manuscript. The Chinese Academy of Social Science, CASS, makes two publications out if it. 1. China’s Five-year plan emphasized the capabilities of basic research and original innovation. It is regarded as the goal of the future social development, which, as required, should be significantly enhanced. Can you comment on the importance of original innovation in research and academic study? I believe it is easier to define “original innovation” in the natural sciences than in social sciences. The breaking points of what constitutes something new, or innovative, are not quite as sharp in the latter. But in both fields it is about opening up something that was closed, unseen, unexplored before – making manifest what was earlier latent. Innovations come in many forms and shapes – naming something that was not...
arctic-circle-map
The agreement is catastrophic both because of what it says and what it doesn’t mention. It reduces further the major asset of security policies: Freedom of action. Jan Oberg TFF director September 25, 2026 A couple of hours before the agreement was signed on September 22, 2026, I published the following 13 hypotheses about what it would most likely contain on TFF Substack (in English). I was wrong on only the first point. Contrary to what Trump had written on his Truth Social platform, it does not appear to come into force immediately. In fact, it turned out to be worse than even I had anticipated. After these hypotheses now come a number of reflections in light of what the agreement actually contains, and does not contain, as well as the way in which it has generally been presented by major media outlets and by the public-service broadcaster DR. My...
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...