Peace in Europe, appeal to Chancellor Olaf Scholz. Petition

Brain drain, public consultation on 'brain drain'

April 26, 2022

Microplastics from fabrics, the role of low cost fashion

5 May 2022

Published by Dario Dongo on 4 May 2022

Tags

La medium-high pace in Europe it is indispensable immediately but politics continues to debate only on weapons and sanctions, so we adhere to the appeal made to Chancellor Olaf Scholz in the petition that follows.

The petition, launched by 28 German intellectuals, has already collected more than 200 signatures. Let's support it by adding our signature HERE, after sharing the following text. (1)

'Dear Chancellor,

we are pleased that you have so far considered the risks so carefully:

- the risk of the war spreading inside Ukraine,

- the risk that it extends to all of Europe and indeed,

the risk of a third world war.

We therefore hope that you return to your original position and do not directly or indirectly supply any other heavy weapons to Ukraine. On the contrary, we urge you to do your best to to ensure that a ceasefire can be achieved as soon as possible; a compromise that both sides can accept.

We share the verdict on Russian aggression as a violation of the basic rule of international law. We also share the belief that there is a principled political and moral duty not to withdraw from aggressive violence without reacting. But anything that can be derived from this has limitations in others precepts of political ethics.

We are convinced that two of these limits have been reached:

- first, the categorical prohibition on accepting a manifest risk that this war will degenerate into a nuclear conflict. The delivery of large quantities of heavy weapons, however, could make Germany itself a part of the war. And a Russian counterattack could then trigger the case of mutual assistance under the NATO treaty and thus the immediate danger of a world war,

- the second border line is the degree of destruction and human suffering among the population Ukrainian civilian. Even justified resistance against an attacker is at some point unbearably disproportionate to this.

We warn against a double mistake:

- first, that responsibility for the danger of escalation towards a nuclear conflict both only of the original aggressor and not also of those who, with their eyes open, provide him with a reason to act in a possibly criminal way,

- secondly, that the decision on the moral responsibility of the additional "cost" in human lives among the Ukrainian civilian population is the sole responsibility of their government. Morally binding norms are universal in nature.

The rise in arms under pressure could be the start of a global arms spiral with catastrophic consequences, not least for global health and climate change. Despite all the differences, we must fight for global peace. The common European approach to diversity is a model for this.

We are convinced, Chancellor, that the head of the government of Germany in particular can make a decisive contribution to a solution that will impose itself in the eyes of history. Not only in view of our current (economic) power, but also in view of our historical responsibility - and in the hope of a common peaceful future.
We hope and count on you!'

Dario Dongo