Acknowledgements
Special thanks to the Conference Committee: Andrew Boakes, Hana Shono, Viv Williams, Ruth Taillon and Anas Adams.
Our heartfelt gratitude to those not in the Committee who contributed in the writing up of minutes: Brian Beeley, Antony Vallyon, Suheil Shahryar, Peter Webster and Barbara Rogers.
Many thanks to Bryony and her team at UNA-UK for all their support in preparing for the Conference and to the presenters of the conference for contributing and providing us all with a basis for discussions to take place.
Finally, our appreciation to the members and supporters of UNA-UK, without whom the conference would not have happened.
PLEASE NOTE: These minutes have been produced by the Organising Committee. The minutes are a record of the views/comments expressed by individuals that attended the conference and do not represent views of UNA-UK.
Russian invasion of Ukraine
Presented by: Peter Webster and Suheil Shahryar
Peter Webster from UNA Streatham and Clapham opened the presentation by stating UNA's role is to promote the work of UN in the Ukraine conflict, for example, in the grain deal, the setting up of civilian corridors, prisoner swaps, nuclear power plant safety, and using the UN as a means to resolve the conflict.
There are legal means to pursue international accountability of states and their aggression, such as refuting the Russian claims of Ukrainian genocide in Donbass at ICJ, injunctions for Russia's invasion, the shipment by Russia of Ukrainian children away from war zones at the ICC, creating a special tribunal to deal with the crimes of aggression, and to make it easier to have a people's response to acts of aggression.
Ways forward on this include a peace deal and security for all parties, reparations to help rebuild Ukraine, incl for people who suffered, to allow Russia to return to normal external relations, to avoid double standards (the perception of the West’s double standards have existed for decades on the wrong side, eg Iraq and Yemen)
For background and context, Suheil from UNA Harpenden stated that instead of taking a pro West or pro Russia stand to the Ukraine conflict, he took a pro the rest of the world stand, and since a country's mainstream media cannot generally be trusted to report fairly or widely, he relies on "triangulating" the news from China, Russia, India as well as the BBC. For an understanding of the history of the Ukraine conflict, he recommended Frontline Ukraine by Richard Sakwa and Not One Inch by Mary Sarotte.
Where are we now? A broad stalemate has now been reached, any additional arms shipment to Ukraine and/or US sanctions in Russia are unlikely to change the status quo, meanwhile the impact of the conflict is seriously and negatively affecting the rest of the world, including especially the Global South, and we should avoid a direct military engagement between the US and Russia as it could easily escalate to a nuclear conflict.
There is still time to negotiate. There should be a calling on both sides of the conflict to an immediate ceasefire so that earnest negotiations can begin. Russia to be asked to withdraw from Ukraine mainland (Crimea to be discussed separately afterwards), Ukraine to give autonomy to the Donbass, NATO to not extend to Ukraine.
Wendy believed that the Russians were very much provoked by the US-dominated NATO and that the UN should acknowledge this. She also believed that what NATO is really after are the extraordinarily mineral and energy resources that Ukraine and Russia are endowed with in comparison to the West.
Lisa Davis had concerns about the trafficking of women and girls from Ukraine. She wondered whether Russia invaded Ukraine for its mineral resources.
Graham thought that some of the comments on climate change were not relevant to the conflict.
Caroline asked why Russia has been allowed to stay in the UN Security Council in view of the invasions and the war crimes (Andrew's response: Unfortunately, Russia would veto such a move).
David Cheesman had a question for Suheil: As the stalemate is to Russia's benefit, what would be the incentive for Russia to withdraw from Ukraine?
Mimi also had a question: Does the Western media promote double standards?
Carl from North Wales said that the UN should get some teeth by asking all the other nations to urge for a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
Ali Hessami from UNA LASER said we should all go for peace, despite the biases that we all have as to who started the conflict, that the UK government's stance has been lopsided with its support for Ukraine to carry on fighting and that we hear very little of UK and Western powers proposals for peace.
Catherine Pluygers had a question for Suheil: What is the perspective of the Global South and can that help in resolving the conflict?
In response, Peter Webster stated that the global view is important, especially if the World Federation of UNA can help in bringing an end to the conflict. He recognised that NATO expansion would rightly be worrying for Russia and that it would be good if we could put back the previous Eurosian security architecture.
Suheil strongly recommended avoiding the topic of reparations, especially after Germany after WWI and avoiding playing the blame game. Rather than chucking members from the Security Council, whether it's Russia for Ukraine or the USA for Iraq or Vietnam, it would be better if members engaged each other in dialogue and discussions.
Our media, such as the BBC and the Guardian, are becoming very pro-state and not taking the government's foreign policies to task and, therefore, letting us down.
If the comments of a retired Indian ambassador, being recently interviewed, that the US is trying to replace the UN with NATO, is to be believed, then we are indeed are heading for more wars, given NATO's record in the last few decades. Indeed, NATO should have been disbanded after the Red Army disbanded in 1992.
The mainstream media in the Global South use sources that are dominated by large US and UK media sources such as Reuters. It is very difficult to find independent sources.
Plastic Pollution Treaty
Presented by: Gonzalo Alvarez
There is plastic pollution in 95% of rivers and in oceans all around the world. In the North Atlantic ocean, there is plastic pollution making up the size of France. There are 51 trillion microplastics present in the seas, which is not sustainable. There are social and economic consequences of this as the risk to people’s health and livelihoods continues to increase.
Interestingly, the UNEA plastic pollution resolution titled ‘End Plastic Pollution: Towards legally binding instrument’ noted with concern that the high and rapidly increasing levels of plastic pollution represent a serious environmental problem at a global scale, negatively impacting social and economic development. The ecological consequences to this include pollution to ecosystems, which would have a hit on food security for the world. Furthermore, the lengthy lifecycle of plastics – due to its basic molecule stemming from fossil fuels – contributes to a large portion of the global carbon budget.
The historic resolution in 2022 therefore comes at a critical point in our history as it signified the potential agreement towards steps to end plastic pollution through an internationally legally binding instrument. This crisis is not just localised geographically and must be tackled on the global scale. As individuals, we need to campaign our local MPs for a ratification process of the plastic pollution resolution.
Anita raised a question regarding microplastics as a by-product of oil production and the impact of packaging. Unfortunately, plastic production is going to increase quite exponentially on a global scale and the amount of pollution will remain stable. Crucially, that production of these materials is originating from developing countries as plastic in general is a cheap product and they are unable to rely on more expensive renewable materials. The problem will therefore continue to get worse in the future, which further highlights the importance of the plastic pollution treaty.
A few members raised the question of the importance of the treaty and raised the issue of it making an impact on countries agreeing to the resolution. It was noted that the treaty must point to the consumers and the producers in equal measure. Producers in particular need to be held accountable.
Wendy talked about certain grocery stores using cheap packaging and raised the question of alternatives to preserve food that are accessible. She stressed the need to have a plan to transition into this new system and new way of packaging if there is one.
Jane spoke about milk bottles and suggested that it be mandatory to wash and sterilise the bottle in order to reuse them and thus reduce waste.
Frederick raised the issue of the dangers of plastic pollution not just on humans but on aquatic animals and its socio-economic consequences of this on humans in turn, especially with fish being a large diet for many communities.
In closing, Gonzalo spoke of the importance of communities raising awareness of the effects of a changing climate in their local area. He re-stressed fish being the main source of protein in the world and the need to realise the impact of plastic pollution on them and therefore, on us.
Autonomous Intelligent Weapons
Presented by: Professor Ali Hessami
Ali introduced the topic of autonomous intelligent weapons and noted its importance. He outlined the components of artificial intelligence: autonomy and learning capabilities. He then moved on to discuss the spread of artificial intelligence to various facets of life.
The concept of artificial use in lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) was introduced and Ali cited potential concerns and its widespread importance to our value systems and nation-states.
He also addressed concerns over the development of entirely autonomous and artificial LAWS, labelling it as morally abhorrent as well as a violation of international treaties and rights and called for support of campaigns against the development of LAWS and development of laws regulating the area.
Gonzalo questioned whether the same dangers exist within the use of AI to tackle climate change.
Ali Husseini noted the benefit of AI for climate change, but also mentioned potential dangers.
Trisha questioned reasons given by countries in avoiding the development of a regulatory treaty on LAWS, and challenges faced by the enforcement of such a treaty.
Ali responded by explaining that the UK government claims that current human rights instruments are adequate, but paints this as a false premise.
Neville analogised the requirement for a regulatory treaty to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and cited the need to raise awareness on the need for a treaty.
Catherine noted that the situation on this issue has been developing for many years.
On behalf of UNA-UK, Bryony explained that UNA-UK is part of the campaign to stop killer robots, which involved parliamentarians, academics, technology experts, and civil society members.
Enyseh followed by reiterating the points mentioned by Bryony, and that UNA-UK works closely with a group of cross-party parliamentarians.
Ali closed by describing the issue as a global one.
Collective Punishment in the Occupied Palestine Territories
Presented by: Brian Beeley (BB), supported by Antony Vallyon (AV) and Trisha Rogers (TR), on behalf of the LASER committee.
BB said that the collective punishment of Palestinians is now an established and growing feature of the wider problem of disregard by the Israeli military in the OPT for conventional norms relating to the treatment of occupied people. Palestinians suffering such punishment – often involving house demolition – face no legal charges but typically are related to, or neighbours of, militant members of the Palestinian resistance. UK Ambassador Dame Barbara Woodward drew such punishment to the attention of the UN Security Council on 20 February, 2023. BB added that such collective punishment is one topic on which the United States would find it difficult to exercise its ‘protective’ veto in the Council, as it routinely does on matters critical of Israeli actions.
AV discussed the wider problem of criticism of Israeli actions in respect of Palestinians. Foremost here is the argument from Israel and its supporters that such criticism is, or can be, antisemitic. AV noted that HMG is promoting IHRA WDA, which can limit such criticism. He argued for the less restrictive Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism as advocated by UN Special Reporters and by 128 leading Holocaust and antisemitism scholars. These 128 scholars warned the UN that it should not adopt the IHRA definition as it would limit the UNs role.
TR stressed the need to focus on collective punishment and on the Jerusalem Declaration. She noted that the Israeli government is not representative of Jews internationally and expressed concern about moves including an HMG bill to ban support for BDS. She drew attention to notes on the LASER website relevant to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Graeme Panting referred to the implications of a single political entity in the Holy Land and called for local action within the UK in approaches to HMG on matters such as BDS – on which point TR clarified government policy. Neville Grant said that increasingly expansionist Israeli actions, breaking International Law, inevitably producing a form of apartheid, would lead to the end of democracy In Israel. AV stressed the need for Jews everywhere to be aware of what is happening in the Holy Land and he identified a book by Antony Lerman. Marissa Conway (CEO, UNA-UK) agreed that a form of apartheid now exists in Israel-Palestine and added that UNA-UK could criticise government actions and responsibility but would not, of course, support any criticism of Israel which could be construed as antisemitic. BB mentioned that, with Israel’s government hastening direct and indirect control, a kind of one state seems more likely, therefore questions about how it can be both a democratic and a Jewish state, and how Jews, Muslims and Christians can all live together in peace, remain very important.
BB concluded the discussion by reiterating that collective punishment in the OPT can be challenged without debate about the wider Israel-Palestine conflict. It cannot be justified or tolerated even by USA or UK governments and remains one of the many concerns requiring resolution within a wider search for an equitable and durable settlement in Israel-Palestine.
World Population: Increasing awareness and supporting the work of UNFPA (UN Population Fund)
Presented by: Keith Hindell and Barbara Rogers
Keith Hindell presented the case for serious concern about the growing numbers of human population, especially in poorer and most deprived parts of the world. In the last 75 years human numbers have climbed remorselessly: from 2.7 Billion in 1955 to 8 billion last year, a threefold increase. The people need food and water, education , housing, medical care and space. We can’t invent a bigger planet., and population is one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss and global warming.
UNA-UK should urge our government to press the United Nations to have a global strategy. The immediate objective should be stabilisation, but many experts think that long term we will have to slowly reduce our numbers - not by force, but by consent.
With a little imagination or ingenuity Governments could invent suitable slogans to publicise the idea. Comedians could make a joke of it all to popularise the idea. Spike Milligan said “contraception should be on every conceivable occasion”.
Barbara Rogers presented the case for better support for family planning services delivered through UN bodies, notably the UN Fund for Population (UNFPA). She began with this statement:
“I am challenging the two “to down” approaches to this: panic about increasing human population, or its opposite: panic about “too few babies”. There is a third: a dogmatic insistence that we should never discuss population numbers or how this relates to the environment. I argue that this is a critical issue which we should see as a priority, but it cannot be tackled as a numbers game. The key is providing the means for people to make their own choices about when to have a child – and when not to. Above all this is an issue for women.”
She argued that 40% of all pregnancies in the world are unplanned and tackling these would stabilise the population. Surveys worldwide showed that women want fewer children than men because they bear the health and welfare costs of pregnancy and childbirth, they do most of the childcare, and if there are more children than the family can't support then they all suffer. The way forward was universal basic health care that included family planning services, as already done by the World Bank’s Global Finance Initiative for Health.
Points were raised by participants about the link with poverty; past misuse of the topic to push “population control”, our over-consumption; and the role of children in providing support for parents in old age.
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)
No presenter
David Wardrop stepped into the breach: he pointed out that the International Standardisation Organisation (ISO) at their meeting in 1948 had never got around to discussing indigenous people, and that it was not until the early 2000’s that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People came Into being.
They produced the ‘Intangible Heritage’ paper but this has never been signed up to by the UK, USA, Canada, New Zealand or Australia.
The UK has now signed up to UNDRIP, but we have not signed up to the Intangible Heritage paper. There is now ISO 2600 regarding standardisation, which may take things forward.
There is an organisation ‘UK Global Compact’ to which UNA was a member, but membership seems to have lapsed.
Serena made the point that there are 476,000,000 indigenous people, speaking 4000 languages, and 70% of these are in Asia
Neville Grant pointed out the difficulty with land rights in India and said there was no political action to get land rights adopted.
David Wardrop reiterated that in 1948 indigenous rights were not discussed, and all countries have been running away from the problem ever since.
Prof Ali Hasammi pointed out that we should not depend on international compacts. The UN is the only organisation capable of takeing forward indigenous rights.
Peter Webster pointed out there is an office at the UN devoted to including indigenous people and with regard to COP this had become more important and is moving forward.
Anita, who was (or is) a UK representative on ISO, said there is now movement, often by generic stakeholders, but often to promote trade.
There being no other participants wishing to add to this discussion Hana Shono brought the debate to a close, thanking all those that had taken part, and handed back to the chairman, Andrew Boakes.
Developing a “New Agenda for Peace”: Nuclear Disarmament
Presented by: Antony Vallyon
Anthony opened his presentation by pointing out that the original Agenda for Peace was produced some 20 years ago. There was a need for this to be updated and this was in progress. There is a ‘Summit for the Future’ taking place in September 2024 and it was hoped that the new ‘Agenda for Peace’ would be adopted at that meeting.
He pointed out that many countries were building up their stock of weapons, and the Doomsday Clock now stands at 90 seconds to midnight, the worst it has ever been.
The 1968 Non-proliferation Treaty which has constantly been reviewed, now hopes to abolish all nuclear weapons by 2045.
The reality of the situation is that the threat is now bigger than ever and there needs to be a change of view away from nationalistic perspectives to human security.
Sylvia asked what was happening to the ‘UN treaty to disarm nuclear weapons’. Anthony replied that the Treaty for Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) was not ratified by the UK.
Danielle wondered whether new AI weapons will replace nuclear, as nuclear is very expensive. Anthony replied that yes, it was very expensive and cited Trident as an example, but pointed out that it created many jobs. AI weapons would be cheaper but are an unknown quantity.
Keith Hindle pointed out we desperately needed a more peaceful world but asked ‘how can we convince people to insist on achieving that’.
Rianna, a member of UNA UK staff interjected that UNA UK was campaigning with regard to TPNW and that there was a ‘Divestment Initiative’ where banks and other institutions were divesting their interests away from nuclear.
Comments were made that the UK should be part of TPNW and reference was made to the UNA UK Kiribati report. It was also pointed out that military emissions should be included in emission statements.
Allison Williams, who was part of the ‘Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament’ (CND) pointed out that CND was working with the development of the TPNW.
In closing Anthony pointed out that ‘verification’ was very important and the IEIA was vital.
The CBTBO which very accurately measures earthquakes and nuclear tests enabled any nuclear tests to be monitored. Anthony also pointed out that developing the SDGs will help.
There being no more comments from the floor the chairman, Andrew Boakes, brought this discussion to a conclusion.