“I am disturbed and distressed by the renewed military activity in Rafah by the Israeli Defense Forces. Make no mistake – a full-scale assault on Rafah would be a human catastrophe,”
United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told reporters on May 7, 2024. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that more than 35,000 Palestinians have been killed in the Gaza Strip, some 78,000 have suffered injuries, and nearly 2 million have been internally displaced. The number is rising as the ground invasion of Rafah begins.
(C) UN Geneva on Instagram
The UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteurs have painted a grim picture of the disproportionate level of suffering experienced by girls and especially pregnant women in Gaza. “The treatment of pregnant and lactating women continues to be appalling with the direct bombardment of hospitals and the deliberate denial of access to health care facilities by Israeli snipers, combined with the lack of beds and medical resources placing an estimated 50,000 pregnant Palestinian women and 20,000 newborn babies at unimaginable risk.”
Many of these military actions are in direct violation of International Humanitarian Law as set out in the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949 and the Protocol Additional adopted in 1977. In order to meet new situations, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) has evolved to cover not only international armed conflicts but also internal armed conflicts. IHL prohibits the indiscriminate killing of civilians, the holding of hostages, and the destruction of medical and educational infrastructure.
The Association of World Citizens stresses the importance of IHL as a vital part of world law that will replace unilateral actions by States based on narrow domestic political considerations. The standards of IHL require political will if they are to function effectively. Thus, nongovernmental action on the Gaza Strip armed conflict is urgently needed.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
Increasing numbers of people in countries around the world have been forced from their homes by armed conflicts and systematic violations of human rights. Those who cross internationally recognized borders are considered refugees and are relatively protected by the refugee conventions signed by most states. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 protocol give the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Refugees an international legal basis to ensure the protection of refugees.
However, those who are displaced within a country as is the case currently for many in the Gaza Strip and in Ukraine are not protected by the international refugee conventions. Thus, displacement within a State poses a challenge to develop international norms and ways to address the consequences of displacement and the possibility to reintegrate their homes, though in the case of Gaza many of the homes have been destroyed.
Refugees from Ukraine arrive in Poland (C) European Union
Armed conflicts within States often reflect a crisis of identity within the State. This can occur when a State becomes monopolized by a dominant group to the exclusion or marginalization of other groups. There is a need to provide protection and assistance to the uprooted. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has been able to act in some cases as has been true also for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) which is mandated to protect civilians in war zones. The obligation to assist populations in immediate danger of starvation is largely recognized, and the UN World Food Program has been able to act. In some cases, nongovernmental humanitarian agencies have been able to be active. However, each situation requires new negotiations and results differ.
Thus, what is essential is that there be predictable responses in situations of internal displacement and that attention be paid not only to material assistance but also to the human rights of those displaced. To be effective, strategies to address mass displacement need to be broad and comprehensive. There is a need for political initiatives that seek to resolve the conflicts as the consequences often involve neighboring countries. Efforts must engage local groups, national institutions, and Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) to prevent situations that lead to persons being uprooted. As the representatives of NGOs, we have an opportunity to discuss with other NGOs the most appropriate next steps for action.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
On April 7, 2024, Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda, lit the memorial flame of the monument to the victims of the 1994 genocide during which some 800,000 persons, mostly ethnic Tutsi, were killed. In 1994, Paul Kagame was the head of a Tutsi-led militia, the Rwanda Patriotic Front, which put an end to the massacres in Rwanda. Many of the Hutu-led governmental forces of 1994 fled to what is today the Democratic Republic of Congo, where there were already established Hutu communities. Ethnic-tribal frontiers do not follow the same frontiers as those created by the colonial powers.
During the colonial period and also since independence, when speaking of Rwandan politics, politics was described as a struggle between Tutsi and Hutu. However, the conflictual cleavages were more complicated. There were a good number of “mixed marriages” between Tutsi and Hutu. Nevertheless, in times of tension, political leaders played upon the Hutu-Tutsi divide.
In 1994, as soon as Kagame’s forces took control of the capital, Kigali, he declared himself president and has held power since. His emphasis has been on economic stability, the development of tourism and the creation of an effective civil service. Because of the 1994 genocide, Rwanda has received a good deal of foreign aid and support. However, some 70 percent of the population are still in the rural areas and farm small plots of land.
A symbolic tombstone in memory of the Tutsi victims of the Rwandan genocide at the Père Lachaise cemetery in Paris, France (C) Pierre-Yves Beaudouin / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 4.0
The entry of Hutu militias into the Democratic Republic of Congo when defeated in Rwanda added to an already complicated situation in the administrative provinces of North and South Kivu. In mid-1994, more than one million Rwandan Hutu refugees poured into the Kivus. Many of these Hutu were still armed; among them were the “génocidaires” who, a couple of months earlier, were killing Tutsi and moderate Hutu. The “génocidaires” continued to kill Tutsi living in the Congo, many of whom had migrated there in the eighteenth century.
The people in eastern Congo have lived together for several centuries and had developed techniques of conflict resolution especially between the two chief agricultural lifestyles – that of agriculture and that of cattle herding. The Hutu were farmers and the Tutsi cattle raisers. However, a desire of others to control the wealth of the area – rich in gold, tin, and tropical timber – overburdened the local techniques of conflict resolution and opened the door to new negative forces interested only in making money and gaining political power. The inability to deal with land tenure and land use issues, the lack of social services and socio-economic development created the conditions which led to multiple forms of violence.
Land tenure issues have always been complex. Land is often thought of as belonging to the ethnic community and is given to clans or to individuals for their use, sometimes for a given period, sometimes for several lifetimes if the land is cultivated. The rules of land tenure often differ from one ethnic group to another even a small distance apart. Traditionally clan chiefs would be called upon to settle land disputes. However, with the large displacement of people, land disputes have become more frequent, and clan chiefs have often disappeared or lost their function as judges.
Into this disorder, in 1999, the United Nations (UN) sent peacekeepers but there was no peace to keep. The UN Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO) was the largest of the UN peacekeeping forces, currently some 2,000 military, 180 police, and 400 civilian administrators.
Troops with the Ghanaian Battalion of MONUSCO marking their medal presentation day in Kinshasa on October 19, 2017 (C) MONUSCO Photos
The States which have provided the bulk of the UN forces in the Congo – India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal – have other worries and few cultural affinities. Thus, these States have made no large effort to call world attention to the eastern Congo and to the very difficult situation the soldiers face. UN troops are not trained to deal with complex cultural issues – especially land tenure and land use issues which are the chief causes of the conflicts.
Thus, there is a popular frustration at the ineffectiveness. The troops are popularly called “tourists” who only watch what is going on. Despite the UN troops, there have been large-scale occurrences of violation of human rights and humanitarian law by all the many parties in the conflict with massive displacement of population, plundering of villages, systematic rape of women, summary executions and the use of child soldiers. Thus, the newly elected President, Felix Tshisekedi, has asked the UN to remove all its troops by the end of 2024. Troops are currently being removed.
One of some 200 armed groups in eastern Congo, the M23, is said to be backed by Rwanda, although the Rwanda government denies this. Today, there is a security vacuum, and the military of the Democratic Republic of Congo will have difficulty to create stable socioeconomic structures. Thus, the 1994 genocide is a stark reminder that violence has long range consequences.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
Association of World Citizens 