The Official Blog of the

Archive for the ‘Democracy’ Category

The day that Ukraine ended the Cold War

In Current Events, Democracy, Europe, The former Soviet Union on December 14, 2013 at 10:38 AM

THE DAY THAT UKRAINE ENDED THE COLD WAR

By Bernard Henry

Along with Thailand, Ukraine has gotten the attention of the world’s media due to the nonviolent demonstrations for democracy in its capital lately. The Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, once Ukraine’s Prime Minister under authoritarian leader Leonid Kuchma, has come under fire for turning his back on the European Union and favoring instead closer ties with Moscow.

In 2004 Yanukovych had been opposed in the presidential ballot by Viktor Yushchenko, who had previously been Prime Minister too as the leader of an opposition alliance. With his face ravaged by an attempt at dioxin poisoning by agents of the Kuchma regime, Yushchenko was defeated at the polls but persistent allegations of fraud in favor of the Yanukovych camp prompted the Ukrainian people to take to the streets in what became known as the Orange Revolution. After an unprecedented three rounds of vote, Yushchenko finally won the presidency by a slight margin. Sworn in as President in January 2005, Yushchenko gradually turned his presidency into a mere sequence of revenge against both his opponents and his Orange Revolution allies, such as his iconic one-time Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Eventually, it was Yanukovych who got his revenge when in 2010 Yushchenko was shut out in the first round of the presidential election and Yanukovych won.

Seeing the country caught in such a vicious circle of political authoritarianism and uprising would almost make the world forget that, twenty-two years ago, it was the President of Ukraine who put the last nail in the coffin of the Soviet Union, thus ending the Cold War for good.

After the Orange Revolution took to power the opponent Viktor Yushchenko, who had barely escaped with his life after a dioxin poisoning attempt, Ukraine had a chance to make history once again. Unfortunately, the one-time dissident turned authoritarian and rendered his own victory without purpose, so much so that he too was evicted from power by his own people.

After the Orange Revolution took to power the opponent Viktor Yushchenko, who had barely escaped with his life after a dioxin poisoning attempt, Ukraine had a chance to make history once more.
Unfortunately, the one-time dissident turned authoritarian and rendered his own victory without purpose, so much so that his own people eventually had to evict him from power too.

In December 1991 Ukraine was a republic within the Union of Soviet of Socialist Republics, therefore not a sovereign state – although, oddly enough, Ukraine and Bielorussia, known today as Belarus, did have a seat at the United Nations alongside the Soviet seat. After the coup in August that year in which Communist hardliners almost removed reformist President Mikhail Gorbachev from power, the Union as its people had known it thus far found itself considerably weakened in many aspects.

Soon after the failed coup, the very communist system started to crumble. Article 6 of the Soviet Constitution, which made the Communist Party the central element of the state, was abolished. Gorbachev himself resigned from the Party, thus becoming the first-ever non-communist leader of a Soviet Union which was now down from fifteen to twelve republics. And that was only a beginning.

Gorbachev, who in December 1990 had violently repressed the declarations of independence of the three Baltic republics – Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, granted immediate independence to the three states which had been invaded by the Soviet Union during World War II. As for similar claims coming from others, though, Gorbachev stated clearly that those would never be granted.

On the contrary, Gorbachev was adamant that his very own plans for the country should be implemented come what may. Yet apart from the Muslim republics of the south, such as Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, no one in the Union was supporting Gorbachev any longer. Russia’s President, Boris Yeltsin, who had risen to glory by leading the resistance against the August coup, was emerging of a natural leader of the breakaway movement.

Gorbachev had been campaigning for a “Treaty of the Union” which was to completely redesign the Soviet Union, very much in line with the perestroika (inner transformation) which he had advocated since his accession to power in 1985 after the death of Konstantin Chernyenko. With the treaty in force, the twelve republics were to become all but independent, the USSR becoming more like a confederation with little central powers left. No wonder the old guard didn’t like it. But now that his enemies were no longer a threat Gorbachev was determined to push for a wide adoption of the Treaty.

To achieve this goal, Gorbachev knew that without Russia on his side now, he desperately needed the support of the Soviet Union’s second leading republic – Ukraine, where a presidential election was planned for December 5. In the once single-party state that the Soviet Union had been, several candidates were now allowed to run for president in each of the republics. The Ukrainian election would see several rival factions compete for the presidency, among which the communist hardliners, Gorbachev’s own camp, and the chairman of Ukraine’s Supreme Soviet, Leonid Kravchuk. After the August coup Kravchuk, aged 57, had resigned from the Communist Party and declared Ukraine independent from the Soviet Union. Along with Yeltsin and Bielorussia’s President, Stanislaw Chukchievich, Kravchuk was ready to declare the death of the Soviet Union. Yet Gorbachev still hoped that Kravchuk would, if elected, sign the Treaty of the Union and have Ukraine rejoin a widely-reformed Soviet Union.

On December 5, 1991 Kravchuk won the election and immediately dozed Gorbachev’s hopes by stating that he would not sign the Treaty of the Union and Ukraine was now a sovereign state for good. Three days later Yeltsin, Chukchievich, and Kravchuk signed the Belavezha Accords, declaring the Soviet Union dissolved and replacing it with a Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

With a Union now comprised only by the southern Muslim republics, although the leaders of many of them had actually supported the failed coup against him, Gorbachev was forced to admit that the country he hoped to reform had now just died. On December 21 the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was banned and on December 25 Gorbachev resigned from the Soviet presidency, adding in a live television address that the Soviet Union had “ceased to exist as a subject of international law”. The Minsk-based CIS took over and Russia was recognized abroad as the legitimate successor to the Soviet Union.

On December 8, 1991 Presidents Chukchievich of Bielorussia, Yeltsin of Russia, and Kravchuk of Ukraine (not pictured) signed the Belavezha Accords which effectively put an end to the existence of the Soviet Union and replaced it with the Commonwealth of Independent States. If it hadn't been for Ukraine and President Kravchuk, none of this would have been possible.

On December 8, 1991 Presidents Chukchievich of Bielorussia, Yeltsin of Russia, and Kravchuk of Ukraine (not pictured) signed the Belavezha Accords which effectively put an end to the existence of the Soviet Union and replaced it with the Commonwealth of Independent States, thus formally ending the Cold War.
If it hadn’t been for Ukraine and President Kravchuk none of this would have been possible.

Had Ukraine decided instead to support Gorbachev and sign the Treaty of the Union, history could have taken quite a different turn. Several leaders of the southern Muslim republics, such as Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov, had supported the August 1991 coup against Gorbachev. Had he been forced to do with a downgraded union with several regional leaders openly seeking a return to the Stalin-era ways, Gorbachev likely would not have stood a second coup or a rally of hardliner leaders against him, leaving a weakened newly-independent Russia and its allies in Bielorussia and the Baltic republics hardly armed enough to face a nine-member Union poised to restore the old order by any means necessary.

As Ukraine grapples once again with democracy and rights issues today, its leaders on both sides certainly ought to take pride if only in this one thing – it is their country that saved the world from a possible Third World War, nuclear or not, by making it possible for Russia and its supporters to put an end to a Soviet Union which had failed to meet the challenges of history.

Bernard Henry is External Relations Officer of the Representative Office to the United Nations in Geneva of the Association of World Citizens.

The UN and the Disappearing State of the Central African Republic

In Africa, Anticolonialism, Conflict Resolution, Current Events, Democracy, Human Rights, International Justice, The Search for Peace, United Nations, War Crimes, World Law on November 22, 2013 at 10:36 AM

THE UN AND THE DISAPPEARING STATE OF THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

By René Wadlow

In a November 19, 2013 statement to the United Nations (UN) Security Council, the Secretary General, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, warned that communal violence in the Central African Republic (CAR) was spiraling out of control and backed the possibility of an armed UN peacekeeping force to complement the civilian UN staff, the Integrated Peacebuilding Office in the Central African Republic (BINUCA).

The UN faces a double task in the CAR. There is the immediate problem of violence among tribal-based militias in the absence of a national army or central government security forces. The militias basically pit the north of the country against the south. In addition, there are other militias from the Democratic Republic of the Congo which use the CAR as a “safe haven” and live off the land by looting villages. There are also segments of the Lord’s Resistance Army, largely from the Acholi tribes of northern Uganda who also use the CAR as a safe area looting as they move about.

In the absence of a standing UN peacekeeping force, UN peacekeepers would have to be redeployed from the eastern areas of the Democratic Republic of Congo, an area also torn apart by fighting among different militias and an incompetent Congolese national army. Although the UN forces have been in the Congo for a number of years, it is only in the last couple of months that they have had a mandate to be active in a military way and have started to make an impact on the security situation. By deploying UN troops away from the Congo, there is a danger that the security progress made will fade away.

The longer range task of the UN, the peacebuilding effort, is to create a national administration which provides services beyond the capital city, Bangui. This is the aim of the BINUCA, but its work is largely impossible in the light of the ongoing violence. The challenge is “State-building” which was not done during the colonial period by France.

The area covered by the current State had no pre-colonial common history, but was incorporated into French Equatorial Africa when it could have been as easily part of the Belgium Congo or added to Uganda as part of British East Africa.

Oubangui-Chari as it was then known was the poor cousin of French Equatorial Africa (AEF) whose administrative center was Brazzaville, Congo, with Gabon as the natural resource base. The Cameroon, although legally a League of Nations Mandate, was basically part of AEF. Oubangui-Chari was used as an “exile post” for African civil servants considered “trouble makers”. French colonial administrators also considered Oubangui-Chari as a posting in exile, a place to get away from as soon as possible. Schools were few, and secondary school students were sent away to Brazzaville.

There was only one political figure of standing who emerged from Oubangui-Chari, Barthelemy Boganda (1910-1959). He was the first Roman Catholic priest ordained in 1938. After the Second World War, he was elected to serve in the French Parliament as a member of the Catholic-influenced MRP Party, although he was stripped of his priesthood for going into politics and also for marrying his legislative assistant.

Boganda advocated keeping the AEF together as a federation of independent States knowing that Oubangui-Chari was the poorest of the AEF States and most in need of help from its neighbours. Unfortunately, he was killed in a plane crash on the eve of independence, and with him disappeared all enlightened leadership.

However, his stature in the political life of Oubangui-Chari was such that political power passed on to two cousins, David Dacko, first President of the independent Central African Republic and then Jean-Bedel Bokassa in 1965 who changed the name of the country to Central African Empire and ruled (or misruled) as Bokassa 1er. His dreams of being a new Napoleon was ended in 1979 by a French military intervention after Bokassa had too visibly killed young school children who were protesting.

Jean-Bedel Bokassa aka Bokassa the First, the man who would be emperor – even if it meant reigning over scorched earth.

Jean-Bedel Bokassa aka Bokassa the First, the man who would be emperor – even if it meant reigning over scorched earth.

Since Bokassa, all pretext of a unified administration has disappeared. General Kolingba, Ange-Felix Patassé, followed by Francois Bozizé were considered “Head of State”, but the State had no visible administration. Bozizé was overthrown in March 2013 by Michel Djotodia and his Seleka (alliance in the Sango language) militia. The Alliance has now been dissolved by Djotodia but replaced by nothing. A fact-finding mission sent by the UN Human Rights Council concluded that “both the forces of the former government of President Bozizé and the non-State armed group Seleka committed serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law during the conflict”.

Creating order from disorder is a difficult task, especially as the pre-colonial tribal structures no longer function. There were very few inter-tribal mechanisms to settle disputes in any case. The State-building process merits close attention. Somalia remains a good example of the difficulties. The UN faces real challenges in the Central African Republic and requires help from national governments and NGOs.

Politically, Africa has always been a continent of many dramas. Hopefully, if the international community finally decides to take quick, decisive action at last, the Central African Republic will not be just another name on the list.

Politically, Africa has always been a continent of many dramas. Hopefully, if the international community finally decides to take quick, decisive action, the Central African Republic will not be just another name on the list.

René Wadlow is the President and Chief Representative to the United Nations Office at Geneva of the Association of World Citizens.


World Citizens Call for the Unconditional Respect of the Right to Life, Liberty and Security of Person in Egypt

In Conflict Resolution, Current Events, Democracy, Human Rights, Middle East & North Africa, United Nations, World Law on August 16, 2013 at 1:58 PM

-- AWC-UN Geneva Logo --

WORLD CITIZENS CALL FOR THE UNCONDITIONAL RESPECT OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON IN EGYPT

Paris & Geneva, August 16, 2013

 

The Association of World Citizens (AWC) is gravely concerned at the serious human rights violations which have been committed in recent weeks by both the security and armed forces and the Muslim Brotherhood movement in Egypt.

Thus, the AWC welcomes the August 15 Appeal of the United Nations Security Council urging both the Egyptian Government and the Muslim Brotherhood to exercise “maximum restraint” with a view to ending the violence which has spread across the country.  The military-police-security forces confronted the predictable resistance of pro-Morsi forces with a brutal show of force designed to instill fear and submission but gave rise instead to a collective display of resolve-until-death and a readiness for martyrdom.

However, the AWC stresses that more than “maximum restraint” is needed. The majority of Egyptians desire a more representative government based on respect for human rights which will provide the basis for a much-needed economic recovery.

The AWC underlines the need for strong civil society institutions and Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs). Both domestic and international NGOs working for freedom of expression, religious freedom and women’s rights have been under unwarranted pressure.

The AWC has protested the recurrent violent attacks carried out by Muslim Brotherhood supporters against the Coptic Christians of Egypt, a community that has been for two and a half years the target of outrageous sectarian violence, including the August 14-15 burning of some 14 Coptic churches in reprisal attacks to the police violence against pro-Morsi sit-in protesters.

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly provides that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person ». This right belongs to everyone, not just to people who think as we do. Democracy and the rule of law should never be a one-way flow.

The AWC therefore calls on the Egyptian Government, including the police and armed forces, to ensure at all times full respect for human rights in the maintenance of public order, and on the Muslim Brotherhood party to refrain from any actions that are not strictly related to the right to peaceful demonstration, and unequivocally condemn any such actions committed by its members.

The AWC further urges that immediate, special protection be given to the Coptic Christian community and any other national, religious or other minorities that may find themselves in harm’s way due to the current unrest in Egypt.

Finally, the AWC is concerned with the consequences of the proclamation of the one-month State of Emergency across the country.  Past States-of-Emergency periods have always opened the door to human rights abuses and to military authoritarianism. Therefore, the AWC calls for a speedy return to civilian rule, new democratic elections, and a new constitution which places human rights as a core value.


Orages d’été sur le printemps arabe

In Current Events, Democracy, Human Rights, Middle East & North Africa on August 14, 2013 at 11:28 PM

ORAGES D’ETE SUR LE PRINTEMPS ARABE

Par Bernard Henry

La lutte pour la liberté n’est pas une suite logique. Elle ne l’a jamais été.

Au début de l’année 2011, le monde entier a été pris de cours par le « printemps arabe », quand les révoltes populaires ont chassé les dictateurs en place de longue date en Tunisie puis en Egypte, celle de Libye ayant en revanche été déviée de sa trajectoire et celle de Syrie s’étant perdue depuis dans les méandres de l’islamisme.

Puis ce fut, quelques mois plus tard, l’ « automne islamiste », avec la victoire de l’Islam politique lors des scrutins démocratiques tunisien et égyptien. Lentement mais sûrement, les anciens persécutés ont pris à leur tour le chemin de l’autoritarisme en y injectant leur idéologie réactionnaire.

Deux ans plus tard, le mois d’août apporte ses « orages d’été » aux révolutions arabes, lorsqu’une violence largement absente des soulèvements populaires du départ s’invite à l’ultime stade de l’exaspération pour venir réclamer son tribut.

L’Egypte, premier pays du printemps arabe à avoir destitué son gouvernement islamiste post-révolutionnaire, entre aujourd’hui dans un état d’urgence né d’affrontements entre forces armées et Frères musulmans, non sans que les partisans du Président déchu Mohamed Morsi se soient livrés entre temps à des actes de barbarie contre les Coptes du pays.

En Tunisie, une population poussée à bout par un pouvoir provisoire entièrement rendu à la volonté d’Ennahda, le parti islamiste qui dirige le gouvernement, et dont les assassinats successifs des dirigeants politiques d’opposition Chokri Belaïd et Mohamed Brahmi ont eu raison de ce qu’il pouvait encore lui rester de patience, paie le prix fort pour son choix de la protestation non-violente, sous les coups des milices islamistes tolérées voire encouragées par les pouvoirs publics.

En Tunisie comme en Egypte, le peuple n'avait qu'un seul mot à dire à ses dictateurs respectifs : "Dégage". Aujourd'hui, tant les islamistes vainqueurs des élections libres ont trahi les espoirs des révolutions dans les deux pays, c'est à eux que ce court et simple slogan révolutionnaire est désormais destiné.

En Tunisie comme en Egypte, le peuple n’avait qu’un seul mot à dire à ses dictateurs respectifs : “Dégage”. Aujourd’hui, tant les islamistes vainqueurs des élections libres ont trahi les espoirs des révolutions dans les deux pays, c’est à eux que ce court et simple slogan révolutionnaire est désormais destiné.

L’iconographie de la lutte victorieuse d’un peuple armé de sa seule détermination pour faire chuter la dictature, contre toute attente et contre les certitudes de politologues vouant le monde arabe à la tyrannie ou à l’islamisme, a vécu. Mais le mythe de l’ « islamo-démocratie », vantée par Moncef Marzouki lors d’une visite à l’Assemblée nationale française et symbolisée aux yeux de certains par l’AKP au pouvoir en Turquie, a vécu lui aussi.

Les partis islamistes ne doivent jamais oublier que, même pris pour cibles sous les régimes Ben Ali et Moubarak, ils ne sont en rien, comme ils le prétendent, les auteurs des révolutions arabes. Ils n’ont fait que récolter a posteriori les fruits des luttes menées par d’autres. Quant aux gouvernants, aujourd’hui égyptiens et peut-être demain tunisiens, issus du rejet de l’islamisme, leur volonté de condamner les atteintes aux Droits de l’Homme même commises à l’encontre de leurs adversaires islamistes montrera (ou non) leur aptitude à se réclamer de cet Etat de droit qu’ils invoquaient hier contre l’islamisme au pouvoir.

Une pétition nationale avait recueilli plus de 22 millions de signatures d’Égyptiens pour le départ du Président élu islamiste Mohamed Morsi, d'où le refus du terme "coup d'Etat" par les militants démocrates égyptiens. Mais aujourd'hui, les forces armées du pays qui avaient dans un premier temps soutenu le mouvement semblent voir les choses tout autrement ...

Une pétition nationale avait recueilli plus de 22 millions de signatures d’Égyptiens pour le départ du Président élu islamiste Mohamed Morsi, d’où le refus du terme “coup d’Etat” par les démocrates égyptiens. Mais aujourd’hui, hélas, les forces armées du pays qui avaient dans un premier temps soutenu le mouvement semblent voir les choses tout autrement …

Etre élu ne donne pas tous les droits et renverser une dictature n’autorise pas à en créer une autre. Quand les uns et les autres accepteront chacun de ces deux principes, et seulement à ce moment-là, cesseront les « orages d’été » du printemps arabe.

Bernard Henry est Officier des Relations Extérieures du Bureau de Représentation auprès de l’Office des Nations Unies à Genève de l’Association of World Citizens.


The Violation of the Human Rights of Persons Considered as “Non-Citizens”

In Current Events, Democracy, Europe, Human Rights, World Law on August 8, 2013 at 11:39 AM

THE VIOLATION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF PERSONS CONSIDERED AS “NON-CITIZENS”

By René Wadlow

The Association of World Citizens (AWC) is particularly concerned with the violation by some States of the human rights of ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities by depriving them of citizenship and considering them as “non-citizens”.  This measure deprives such persons of the ability to use avenues of redress open to citizens such as voting, holding public office and often public employment.  Other avenues may also be closed off and forms of discrimination and marginalization can take place.

The AWC has raised with government officials and other non-governmental organizations the issue of non-citizenship of many Kurds in Syria.  Recently some 250,000 Kurds have been granted Syrian citizenship, largely as a measure to gain support by the government in the civil war there.  However, the status and degree of autonomy of the Kurdish population remains an issue in the war.

The AWC has also raised the issue of the non-citizenship status of the Rohingya, a Muslim minority, largely of Bengali origin, in Myanmar (Burma). There has been violence against the Rohingya causing many to flee to Bangladesh and elsewhere.  The violence against the Rohingya is an obstacle on the path to greater democracy and the rule of law within Myanmar.

The flag of the Kurdish people, whose rights are largely unrecognized in all four countries of the Middle East where native Kurds can be found, alongside that of the Syrian opposition movement during a March 2013 demonstration in Paris, France.

The flag of the Kurdish people, whose rights are largely ignored in all four countries of the Middle East where native Kurds can be found, alongside that of the Syrian opposition movement during a March 2013 demonstration in Paris, France.

The AWC now wishes to highlight the non-citizen status of persons usually referred to as “Russians” within Latvia. This issue has been addressed previously by European institutions such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe.

However, the AWC believes that the human rights and rule-of-law principles are of a universal character and so deserve a response from world citizens including those outside Europe.  A petition has been created by the Non-Citizen Association of Latvia.  Signing the petition can be a measure of support, and the AWC will study other avenues of action, especially through the United Nations.

During the period when Latvia was incorporated into the USSR, a large number of ethnic Russians as well as Belarusians, Ukrainians, Roma and others migrated to work and live in the Baltic States, including Latvia.

With the Latvia Declaration of independence in May 1990, the Latvian Parliament passed a resolution “On the Renewal of the Rights of Citizens of the Republic of Latvia and Fundamental Principles of Naturalization” which in practice divided the residents of Latvia into two major categories: Latvian citizens, approximately two thirds and Latvian non-citizens, approximately one third.

While a certain amount of resentment against non-Latvians in 1990 could be expected, the resentment has, over 20 years later, hardened into structural discrimination.

The "Non-Citizen Passport" the Republic of Latvia issues to those Latvians whose citizenship rights it arbitrarily refuses to recognize.

The “Non-Citizen Passport” issued by the Republic of Latvia to those Latvians whose citizenship rights it keeps arbitrarily refusing to recognize.

Therefore, Citizens of the World structured in the AWC call upon the Parliament of Latvia to reform its citizenship laws to allow presently “stateless citizens” to participate fully in civic and social society. The petition open for signatures is found on www.noncitizens.eu. I am among the early signers.

René Wadlow is President and Chief Representative to the United Nations Office at Geneva of the Association of World Citizens.


A World Citizen Passport and Snowden’s Catch 22

In Being a World Citizen, Current Events, Democracy, Human Rights, World Law on July 16, 2013 at 6:58 PM

A WORLD CITIZEN PASSPORT AND SNOWDEN’S CATCH 22

By René Wadlow

The fate of Edward J. Snowden still held, as of this writing, in the transit area of Moscow’s airport has nearly overshadowed the debate on the methods and extent of the National Security Agency’s surveillance and collection of information which Snowden made public. Each day brings more information about the degree of cooperation among the Silicon Valley firms and United States (U. S.) intelligence services and between the U. S. intelligence services and those of other countries such as Germany and England.

Living in the transit area at the airport for several weeks and potentially longer was not Snowden’s plan when he left Hong Kong. As I had been blocked in the same transit area for three days in 1977 under the mistaken impression that I would be given a Soviet visa at the airport, unless things have improved greatly since the end of the USSR, it is not the sort of place where one wants to stay for a long time: a third class motel with an armed guard at each floor.

He thought that he could travel to Moscow and then Havana and on to Ecuador, Nicaragua or Venezuela. However, before Snowden could make a Havana connection, the U. S. Government revoked his passport, and Ecuador withdrew the safe-conduct pass he had used to leave Hong Kong saying it had been issued by a consular official in contravention of Ecuadorean law. Without a travel document or a Russian visa, Snowden has no way to travel outside the transit area even to the Embassies of Ecuador or Nicaragua or Venezuela which are considered by diplomatic convention as being the territory of that particular state.

Edward Snowden, a man whom his country is trying to punish only for telling the truth. © The Guardian/Reuters

Edward Snowden, a man whom his country is trying to punish only for telling the truth. © The Guardian/Reuters

The degree of U. S. pressure was evident when France, Italy, Portugal and Spain refused to allow Bolivian President Evo Morales’ official jet to overfly their territory on its way from Moscow to La Paz after a rumour, no doubt planted by U. S. agents, that Snowden might be aboard. Morales’ plane ultimately landed in Vienna, Austria for 13 hours until Spanish officials were satisfied that Snowden was not aboard. Why it took 13 hours to check all the hiding places on a small jet has not been explained, but the move no doubt discourages any commercial lines no matter what over-flight agreements they have.

Snowden’s presence in the Moscow airport transit area has attracted too much attention for the Russian police to look the other way while Snowden was taken to a Latin American embassy. It is not clear that anyone wants to repeat the experience of Ecuador which has allowed WikiLeaks’ Julien Assange to live in its London Embassy for over a year.

To break out of Snowden’s “Catch 22” situation of no passport-to travel-no travel- no asylum – a world citizen passport has been issued to Snowden by Garry Davis — “World Citizen N° 1” — as he was called in January 1949 when the Registry of World Citizens was created. One of the ironies of the world citizen movement is that it has always used the symbols of a nation-state — a flag, an identity card, a passport — to symbolize a loyalty to the welfare of the Planet. The philosophy behind the identity cards and passports is that of world law — that is, international law as applied to the individual. “All human beings are entitled to the enjoyment of political, civil, economic, and social rights as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various treaties and covenants adopted in furtherance of that declaration.”

In practice, some people have crossed frontiers with world citizen passports and world citizen identity cards and often had the passport stamped with an official stamp. It is not sure that the frontier officials knew what they were stamping or were very aware of cosmopolitan ideals. It is likely that most officials don’t want long lines of people waiting at frontier posts or filling transit areas at airports. Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration sets out the right to leave and return to one’s country, though it does not speak of the right to travel to other countries.

The World Service Authority (WSA), based in Washington, is the organization that issues World Citizen Passports to applicants. Unlike the name may suggest, the WSA is NOT affiliated with the Association of World Citizens.

The World Service Authority (WSA), based in Washington, is the organization that issues World Citizen Passports to applicants. Unlike the name may suggest, the WSA is NOT affiliated with the Association of World Citizens.

It may be that Vladimir Putin would be happy to have the whole Snowden story go away. While I have never thought of Mr. Putin as a “world citizen” type, let us hope that he allows the airport officials to stamp the world citizen passport as a recognition of the growing cosmopolitan spirit.

The world passport and the pulling by Ecuador of its safe-conduct pass brings to mind an event I knew but had not thought about until a recent New York Times article highlighted the efforts of Aristides de Sousa Mendes who was consul of Portugal in Bordeaux when Germany invaded France in 1940. France already had a good number of refugees from Germany, Central Europe, Republican Spain as well as French, particularly Jews who feared what Nazi policy in France might bring. De Sousa Mendes and his staff working day and night issued 30,000 visas so people could go to Portugal and then beyond.

It took a couple of months before the Fascist government in Lisbon realized what was going on, recalled de Sousa Mendes, fired him and informed the Spanish government of Franco not to recognize the visas issued in France. De Sousa Mendes died in poverty, but his travel documents had saved many lives.

One cannot help but be reminded of the fate met by the character played by Tom Hanks in The Terminal, Steven Spielberg’s 2004 movie. A citizen of the fictional country of Krakozhia, Viktor Navorski finds himself trapped at a terminal in New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport after a civil war breaks out in his home country.

One cannot help but be reminded of the fate met by the character played by Tom Hanks in The Terminal, Steven Spielberg’s 2004 movie. A citizen of the fictional country of Krakozhia, Viktor Navorski finds himself trapped at a terminal in New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport after a civil war breaks out in his home country.

The world citizen passport is not a governmental document the way de Sousa Mendes’ were, but world citizen passports and identity cards are a symbol of a “higher law” than that of States. Let us hope that some Russian officials are in tune with the higher law.

René Wadlow is President and Chief Representative to the United Nations Office at Geneva of the Association of World Citizens.

Les Citoyens du Monde en appellent au Gouvernement de la Turquie pour le respect du droit des citoyens à manifester pacifiquement

In Conflict Resolution, Current Events, Democracy, Human Rights, Middle East & North Africa on June 4, 2013 at 11:12 PM

awc-un-geneva-logo

LES CITOYENS DU MONDE EN APPELLENT

AU GOUVERNEMENT DE LA TURQUIE

POUR LE RESPECT DU DROIT DES CITOYENS

A MANIFESTER PACIFIQUEMENT

Paris & Genève, le 4 juin 2013

L’Association of World Citizens (AWC) est gravement préoccupée par les très sérieuses atteintes aux Droits de l’Homme commises ces derniers jours par les forces de sécurité contre les manifestants pacifiques rassemblés au Parc de Taksim Gezi à Istanbul (Turquie), dans un mouvement de protestation dont l’impact s’est entre temps étendu à d’autres parties du pays.

L’AWC est dévouée aux valeurs de respect, de reconnaissance et d’inclusion de toutes les composantes de la société. C’est pourquoi l’AWC appelle le Gouvernement de la Turquie à se montrer attentif aux inquiétudes de celles et ceux qui s’expriment aujourd’hui ainsi qu’à rechercher des solutions permettant d’ouvrir des négociations de bonne foi.

Le droit international des Droits de l’Homme interdit formellement l’utilisation du gaz lacrymogène contre des protestataires pacifiques ainsi que dans des espaces clos où il peut s’avérer extrêmement dangereux, de même que l’usage excessif de la force contre des manifestations non-violentes, l’un et l’autre ayant pourtant été présents dans l’intégralité de la réaction de la police turque aux dernières protestations en date.

Même si le maintien de l’ordre public est une fonction naturelle de tout gouvernement dans une société démocratique, toute décision de disperser un rassemblement doit être prise seulement en ultime recours et toujours en conformité avec les principes de nécessité et de proportionnalité.

Le Code de Conduite des Nations Unies pour les Responsables de l’Application des Lois adopté par l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU en sa Résolution 34/169 du 17 décembre 1979 stipule clairement que « Les responsables de l’application des lois peuvent recourir à la force seulement lorsque cela est strictement nécessaire et dans la mesure exigée par l’accomplissement de leurs fonctions ».

L’AWC appelle donc le Premier Ministre Reçep Tayyip Erdogan à ordonner promptement une enquête indépendante et impartiale sur tout signalement d’utilisation excessive et non nécessaire de la force, à s’assurer que tout responsable de l’application des lois reconnu responsable d’usage arbitraire ou abusif de la force soit promptement traduit en justice et, bien sûr, à garantir pleinement les légitimes droits à la réunion pacifique et à la liberté d’expression pour tous les citoyens de la Turquie.

World Citizens Call on the Government of Turkey to Respect the Right of Citizens to Peaceful Demonstration

In Conflict Resolution, Current Events, Democracy, Human Rights, Middle East & North Africa on June 4, 2013 at 3:36 PM

awc-un-geneva-logo

WORLD CITIZENS CALL

ON THE GOVERNMENT OF TURKEY

TO RESPECT THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS

TO PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATION

Paris & Geneva, June 4, 2013

The Association of World Citizens (AWC) is gravely concerned at the serious human rights violations which have been committed in recent days by the security forces against peaceful demonstrators gathered at Taksim Gezi Park in Istanbul, Turkey, in a movement of protest which has had impact on other parts of the country.

The AWC is devoted to the values of respect, recognition and inclusion of all segments of societies. Thus, the AWC calls upon the Government of Turkey to be attentive to the concerns of those now expressing themselves and to find ways of starting good faith negotiations.

International human rights law strictly prohibits the use of tear gas against peaceful protestors and in confined spaces where it may constitute a serious danger, as well as excessive force against nonviolent demonstrations, as has been seen in both cases throughout the Turkish police’s response to the latest protests.

Even though maintaining public order is a natural function of government in a democratic society, any decision to disperse an assembly should be taken only as a last resort and in line with the principles of necessity and proportionality.

The United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials adopted by the UN General Assembly in its Resolution 34/169 of December 17, 1979 clearly provides that “Law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty.”

The AWC thus calls upon Prime Minister Reçep Tayyip Erdogan to order a prompt, independent and impartial investigation into all reports of excessive and unnecessary use of force, ensure that any law enforcement officials responsible for arbitrary or abusive use of force are promptly prosecuted and, of course, fully guarantee the legitimate rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression of all citizens of Turkey.

N’abandonnez pas la lutte pour les Droits de l’Homme !

In Being a World Citizen, Current Events, Democracy, Human Rights, International Justice, The Search for Peace, United Nations, World Law on May 3, 2013 at 11:06 PM

N’ABANDONNEZ PAS LA LUTTE POUR LES DROITS DE L’HOMME !

Par Bernard Henry

 

(D’après « Don’t Give Up the Fight for Human Rights! », du même auteur :

https://awcungeneva.com/2013/05/03/dont-give-up-fight-human-rights/)

 

Le début du mois de mai est un bon moment pour fêter les Droits de l’Homme. En dehors du 1er mai, Fête internationale du Travail, il y a aussi le 3 mai, Journée internationale de la Liberté de la Presse, instaurée par l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU en 1993 et célébrée chaque année sous l’égide de l’institution spécialisée de l’ONU en charge de la communication, l’UNESCO[1].

Alors faisons la fête. Mais le restant de l’année, les Droits de l’Homme ne nous donnent guère d’occasions de le faire. Depuis l’année 2000, en dépit même de développements historiques à l’ONU et dans d’autres organisations intergouvernementales, ainsi que dans un certain nombre d’Etats-nations pris isolément, les Droits de l’Homme au niveau international, indiscutablement le plus noble héritage politique du vingtième siècle, semblent avoir largement perdu leur place prioritaire dans la vie politique mondiale.

Rien d’étonnant. Après l’élection présidentielle de 2000 aux Etats-Unis et le coup ainsi porté au modèle occidental de démocratie protégeant les libertés, les attaques terroristes contre le World Trade Center et le Pentagone l’année suivante ont entièrement tourné l’attention du monde vers une menace terroriste capable de frapper quiconque, où que ce soit, à tout instant, semant la peur et entraînant un appel aux armes. Il s’en est suivi une « guerre contre le terrorisme » menée par les Etats-Unis, dont l’horreur est symbolisée par la zone de non-droit sous direction gouvernementale de Guantanamo Bay et les « restitutions secrètes » de personnes soupçonnées d’actes de terrorisme et convoyées par avion de pays en pays. Dans les premières années, brandir les Droits de l’Homme en protestation, c’était être vu tout simplement comme un partisan d’Al Qaïda.

Après les attaques terroristes du 11 septembre 2001 à New York et Washington, de nombreux Américains se sont dits prêts à accepter des restrictions des libertés civiles pour combattre le terrorisme. C’est ce qui a permis à l’Administration Bush de réagir à la menace terroriste par de nombreuses et graves atteintes aux Droits de l’Homme, plus particulièrement à l’établissement pénitentiaire américain de Guantanamo Bay à Cuba.

Après les attaques terroristes du 11 septembre 2001 à New York et Washington, de nombreux Américains se sont dits prêts à accepter des restrictions des libertés civiles pour combattre le terrorisme. C’est ce qui a permis à l’Administration Bush de réagir à la menace terroriste par de nombreuses et graves atteintes aux Droits de l’Homme, plus particulièrement à l’établissement pénitentiaire américain de Guantanamo Bay à Cuba. (C) Reuters

Puis ce furent les émeutes de la faim de 2008 – les premiers symptômes de la crise du système mondial de finance et d’économie de marché qui se poursuit aujourd’hui. Après que la spéculation financière sur les denrées alimentaires de base a produit des effets dévastateurs dans la plupart des pays en développement, la crise des subprimes aux Etats-Unis a mis à genoux même le pays le plus fortuné au monde, conduisant une corporation de premier plan comme Lehman Brothers à la faillite pure et simple et mettant au jour le système de fraude à long terme du courtier-vedette Bernard Madoff. Autant dire que des droits fondamentaux comme l’alimentation ou le logement, on pouvait les oublier. Dans de nombreux pays, riches comme pauvres, le sentiment général était que la mondialisation économique était coupable et que les frontières nationales étaient désormais les (seuls) remparts des peuples contre la violation de leurs droits économiques et sociaux, comme ce fut le cas au Venezuela de Hugo Chavez. Le populisme est également monté en Occident, restreignant les limites du questionnement politique au fait de savoir à quel point exactement les immigrés faisaient du tort à l’emploi et au pouvoir d’achat. Considérés à présent comme élitistes en Occident et comme « occidentaux » dans le reste du monde, les Droits de l’Homme furent forcés de plier sous le poids de l’écroulement de l’économie.

Le résultat en fut que, lorsque la première décennie du siècle nouveau toucha à sa fin, les Droits de l’Homme tels qu’ils avaient été codifiés à Paris et New York à l’issue de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale apparaissaient comme morts et enterrés. Dans son édition du 18 février 2010, Newsweek alla jusqu’à proclamer la « Mort des Droits de l’Homme »[2], expliquant en détail comment les Etats occidentaux en étaient venus à ne plus prêter aucune attention aux bilans désastreux en matière de Droits de l’Homme de leurs partenaires économiques, politiques et militaires en Asie, en Afrique et au Moyen-Orient. Alors que la crise économique s’éternise et que l’islamisme armé essaime aujourd’hui jusque dans une Afrique subsaharienne relativement épargnée, l’homme de la rue désabusé et des grands de ce monde qui le sont tout autant ont appris à s’en remettre au jeu cynique de la géopolitique et à ne plus guère aimer les Droits de l’Homme que comme une philosophie bienveillante qui serait politiquement irréalisable.

Serait-ce vrai ? Mais pourquoi alors quiconque, où que ce soit, devrait-il continuer à se battre pour les Droits de l’Homme ?

Le 11 décembre 2008, le courtier-vedette Bernard Madoff fut arrêté aux Etats-Unis pour avoir commis une présumée fraude d’un montant de 50 milliards de dollars. ( C ) The Telegraph – Derek Blair

Le 11 décembre 2008, le courtier-vedette Bernard Madoff fut arrêté aux Etats-Unis pour avoir commis une présumée fraude d’un montant de 50 milliards de dollars. ( C ) The Telegraph – Derek Blair

Pas si vite. Dire que les décennies actuelle et précédente n’ont rien apporté de bon aux Droits de l’Homme, en ce qu’elles auraient été au mieux infructueuses et au pire dangereuses, serait des plus naïfs – ou des plus malhonnêtes.

Tout d’abord, même si elle a fait aux Droits de l’Homme un mal indiscutable, la crise économique n’offre pas matière à s’inquiéter, du moins en ce qui concerne les pays occidentaux. Comme l’ont expliqué les politologues américains Christian Welzel et Ronald Inglehart dans leur livre de 2005 Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy (Modernisation, changement culturel et démocratie)[3], cité par Larry Diamond, professeur à l’Université de Stanford, dans The Spirit of Democracy (L’esprit de la démocratie)[4], les difficultés économiques rendent la population plus encline à affirmer des valeurs de survie, à savoir des valeurs conservatrices, sectaires et casanières, plutôt que des valeurs d’expression de soi qui permettent la liberté, l’autonomie et la tolérance.

Nous ne traversons donc pas un moment de rejet des Droits de l’Homme en eux-mêmes, mais en fait un moment d’angoisse et de doute alimentés par l’incertitude quant au présent et à l’avenir de l’emploi, de la sécurité sociale et de la fiscalité. Les politiques d’austérité, toutefois, jouent bel et bien un rôle en faisant naître chez les citoyens un sentiment que l’on en fait plus pour sauver leurs banques que pour venir en aide à leurs comptes bancaires en souffrance.

Alors que le mécontentement social monte dans les pays en faillite ou risquant de l’être, de plus en plus d’électeurs frustrés en arrivent à traduire leur adhésion aux valeurs de survie en votant pour la première fois de leur vie pour l’extrême droite, laquelle va du Front National qui, en France, s’escrime à se donner bon genre, au parti ouvertement néo-nazi Aube Dorée en Grèce. L’attitude parfois ambiguë des partis au pouvoir envers les migrants, particulièrement envers les Roms, vient fournir un encouragement malvenu à l’intolérance en faisant penser aux citoyens que leur haine de tout ce qui vient d’ailleurs est justifiée.

En Grèce, Nikólaos Michaloliákos dirige le parti Aube Dorée, dont l’emblème rappelle le svastika des Nazis et dont la rhétorique violente et haineuse fait resurgir des souvenirs des heures les plus noires de l’histoire européenne moderne.

Ensuite, bien que les années 2000 aient été en effet largement perturbées tout à la fois par le terrorisme et par la réaction agressive de l’Amérique à celui-ci, elles furent indéniablement des années de progrès authentiques et importants pour les Droits de l’Homme dans le monde, dans la parfaite continuité de l’année 1998 qui avait vu l’adoption tout à la fois du Statut de Rome créant la Cour pénale internationale (CPI) et, le 9 décembre, de la Déclaration sur les Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme, « née » Résolution 53/144 de l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU.

La CPI, justement, a vu le jour en 2002, le seuil de la ratification du Statut de Rome par soixante Etats ayant été atteint cette année-là.

Quatre ans plus tard, c’est encore un autre organe de l’ONU qui était créé, cette fois à partir d’un qui existait déjà – le Conseil des Droits de l’Homme, conçu pour remplacer la Commission des Droits de l’Homme qui se trouvait depuis déjà longtemps sous le feu des critiques en raison de ses mécanismes archaïques et inefficaces de surveillance et de sanctions, ainsi que pour avoir permis à des régimes autoritaires et répressifs de prendre part à ses activités.

En septembre 2007, l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU a adopté la Déclaration sur les Droits des Peuples indigènes, premier instrument international de Droits de l’Homme de tous les temps à définir de manière universelle les droits spécifiques des populations indigènes dans chaque pays, qu’ils soient civils, politiques, économiques, sociaux ou culturels. Sans surprise, quatre gouvernements connus pour être encore aux prises avec des revendications autochtones chez eux ont voté contre – les Etats-Unis, le Canada, la Nouvelle-Zélande et l’Australie.

L’année suivante vit l’entrée en vigueur de la Convention sur les Droits des Personnes handicapées, enfin rédigée en 2006 après des années d’opposition farouche de la part de l’Administration Bush qui soutenait que les Etats-Unis et tous les autres pays du monde devraient avoir des lois nationales propres quant aux droits des handicapés plutôt qu’un traité mondial. En fait, la réticence américaine s’avéra être la meilleure justification possible pour la création d’un traité de l’ONU sur les droits liés au handicap, en ce qu’elle rappelait à une communauté internationale oublieuse que le handicap était, depuis les années 1970, une question pleine et entière de Droits de l’Homme au sein de l’Organisation mondiale[5]. Même si les Etats-Unis ont fini par rejoindre la Convention en qualité de signataires, l’Administration Obama ne l’a toujours pas ratifiée.

Avec la création de la Convention vint celle d’une agence de l’ONU chargée d’encourager et de surveiller le respect par les Etats membres des dispositions de celle-ci, UN Enable. Une autre nouvelle agence de l’ONU de premier plan créée pendant les années 2000 fut ONU Femmes, officiellement dénommée l’Entité des Nations Unies pour l’Egalité de Genre et l’Autonomisation des Femmes. Sa Directrice exécutive fondatrice fut l’emblématique ancienne Présidente socialiste du Chili Michelle Bachelet.

Un monde qui serait devenu totalement obsédé par l’idée d’arrêter le terrorisme n’aurait jamais pu aller si loin pour faire progresser les Droits de l’Homme et les enraciner sans conteste, au bout du compte, dans le vingt-et-unième siècle.

Le siège de la Cour pénale internationale à La Haye (Pays-Bas).

Le siège de la Cour pénale internationale à La Haye (Pays-Bas).

CQFD. Les Droits de l’Homme ont beau être moins populaires de nos jours, l’on en a pourtant toujours autant besoin qu’avant, besoin mais aussi envie, même si l’on sera moins prompt que dans le passé à l’avouer.

Le problème est que la « guerre contre le terrorisme » et les valeurs de survie inspirées par la crise qui se sont répandues à travers le monde depuis le début du siècle font qu’il est beaucoup plus difficile pour les Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme, qu’ils soient isolés ou membres d’organisations non-gouvernementales (ONG), d’exercer leurs fonctions et activités habituelles sans craindre d’être réprimés ou à tout le moins intimidés. Certains gouvernements ont même commencé à les fustiger comme « ennemis de l’Etat », ainsi de la Russie qui impose aujourd’hui un label « agent de l’étranger » aux ONG recevant un soutien financier depuis l’extérieur du pays.

Le 15 mars, en réaction à de tels développements catastrophiques, quinze ans après que l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU a adopté la Déclaration sur les Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme, le Conseil des Droits de l’Homme a adopté une résolution au titre éloquent – « Protéger les Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme ».

Dans son Préambule, la résolution, proposée à l’origine par la Norvège, rappelle que « toutes les dispositions de la [déclaration de 1998] restent fondées et applicables », rappelant aussi les résolutions précédentes du Conseil et de l’Assemblée générale ainsi que le Programme d’Action de la Conférence de Vienne de 1993 sur les Droits de l’Homme, qui fut le premier événement international d’envergure consacré aux Droits de l’Homme après la fin de la guerre froide. La résolution réaffirme que « les États sont tenus de protéger tous les droits de l’homme et libertés fondamentales de tous », reconnaît que « les défenseurs des droits de l’homme apportent une contribution importante, aux niveaux local, national, régional et international, à la promotion et à la protection des droits de l’homme », et souligne en conséquence que « le respect et le soutien manifestés pour les activités des défenseurs des droits de l’homme, y compris les femmes qui défendent ces droits, sont déterminants pour la jouissance globale des droits de l’homme ».

La résolution appelle tous les Etats membres de l’ONU à éviter ou cesser de recourir au droit interne et aux dispositions administratives, en ce comprises « les lois et autres mesures relatives à la sécurité nationale et à la lutte antiterroriste, telles que les lois régissant les organisations de la société civile », pour entraver le travail des Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme, a fortiori pour les stigmatiser ainsi que leur dévouement sans relâche. Elle met également l’accent sur le rôle important que jouent « les nouvelles formes de communication, y compris la diffusion d’informations en ligne et hors ligne, peuvent constituer pour les défenseurs des droits de l’homme », car elles sont des « outils importants leur permettant de promouvoir et favoriser la protection des droits de l’homme ».

Le Conseil des Droits de l’Homme en session au Palais des Nations à Genève (Suisse).

Le Conseil des Droits de l’Homme en session au Palais des Nations à Genève (Suisse).

Prenant la mesure de la « discrimination et la violence systémiques et structurelles subies par les femmes qui défendent les droits de l’homme », la résolution « engage les États à prendre en compte les considérations liées au genre » dans leurs entreprises de sécurisation et de garantie de la liberté d’action des Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme au sein de leurs frontières.

Dans l’une des déclarations les plus fortes de toute la résolution, le Conseil, s’appuyant directement sur des instruments de Droits de l’Homme de l’ONU aussi primordiaux que la Déclaration universelle des Droits de l’Homme, le Pacte international relatif aux Droits civils et politiques et le Pacte international relatif aux Droits économiques, sociaux et culturels, appelle tous les pays à « instaurer un climat sûr et porteur qui permette aux défenseurs des droits de l’homme d’agir sans entrave et en toute sécurité, dans l’ensemble du pays et dans tous les secteurs de la société, et notamment à apporter leur appui aux défenseurs des droits de l’homme au niveau local ».

Adoptée avec le soutien de nombreux Etats non-membres du Conseil, tels que la France, le Costa Rica, le Portugal, la Suède et l’Uruguay, mais aussi, de manière plus surprenante lorsqu’il s’agit de Droits de l’Homme, de la Côte d’Ivoire, de la Géorgie et de la Turquie, la résolution survient tel un vibrant rappel à l’ordre, réaffirmant la pertinence et l’importance du travail des Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme dans le monde d’aujourd’hui et confirmant que celui-ci n’est ni un luxe suranné, ni une croisade d’arrière-garde coupée de la réalité, mais une nécessité claire et immédiate.

Dans l’un de ses plus grands succès, parfois utilisé comme un « hymne de la maison » par Amnesty International, Bob Marley chantait :

 “Get up, stand up,

Stand up for your right,

Get up, stand up,

Don’t give up the fight”,

« Allez, debout,

Luttez pour vos droits,

Allez, debout,

N’abandonnez pas. »

Marley a disparu depuis trente-deux ans, mais ses mots n’ont jamais cessé de résonner comme un appel au courage et à l’action pour les Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme en tous lieux.

Plus que jamais, nous, Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme, devons faire briller la flamme, cette même flamme qui symbolise les Droits de l’Homme au sein de l’ONU, et poursuivre notre combat, sans nous laisser dissuader, sans nous laisser décourager, sans nous laisser impressionner. A présent, la dernière ligne de défense de l’humanité contre la peur et le désespoir, c’est nous.

A l’ONU, les Droits de l’Homme sont représentés par un flambeau, le flambeau pour une vie de plein épanouissement. Le flambeau représente également ceux qui le portent à travers le monde – les Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme.


A l’ONU, les Droits de l’Homme sont représentés par un flambeau, le flambeau pour une vie de plein épanouissement. Le flambeau représente également ceux qui le portent à travers le monde – les Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme.

Bernard Henry est l’Officier des Relations Extérieures du Bureau de Représentation auprès de l’Office des Nations Unies à Genève de l’Association of World Citizens.

 

 

Don’t Give Up the Fight for Human Rights!

In Being a World Citizen, Current Events, Democracy, Human Rights, International Justice, The Search for Peace, United Nations, Women's Rights, World Law on May 3, 2013 at 1:34 PM

DON’T GIVE UP THE FIGHT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS!

By Bernard Henry

Early May is a good time to celebrate human rights. Besides May 1, International Labor Day, there is also May 3, World Press Freedom Day, first established by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 1993 and celebrated yearly under the auspices of the UN’s specialized institution in charge of communication, UNESCO[1].

So let’s celebrate. But during the rest of the year, human rights actually give cause to little celebration. Since the year 2000, in spite of milestone developments at the UN and other intergovernmental organizations as well as in a number of individual nation-states, international human rights, arguably the noblest part of the political inheritance of the twentieth century, seem to have lost much of their prominence in global political life.

No wonder. After the 2000 presidential election in the United States dealt a severe blow to the until then sacrosanct, universally-revered Western pattern of liberal democracy, the terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon of the following year definitely shifted the world’s attention to the reality of a terrorist threat that could strike anyone, anywhere, anytime, creating calamity and leading to a call to arms. A “war on terror” led by the United States ensued, infamously symbolized by the government-operated lawless zone of Guantanamo Bay and the “secret renditions” of terror suspects by plane from one country to another. In the early years, holding out human rights in protest was viewed as merely being an Al Qaeda supporter.

After the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington, many Americans said they were willing to accept restrictions on civil liberties to fight terrorism. This allowed the Bush Administration to respond to the terrorist threat with numerous, serious human rights abuses, most notably at the U. S. detention facility of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

After the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington, many Americans said they were willing to accept restrictions on civil liberties to fight terrorism. This allowed the Bush Administration to respond to the terrorist threat with numerous, serious human rights abuses, most notably at the U. S. detention facility of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (C) Reuters

Then came the hunger riots of 2008—the first symptoms of the crisis of the global trade and free-market system we are still in today. After financial speculation on basic food items had devastating effects in most developing countries, the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States brought even the world’s wealthiest country to its knees, leading a major corporation like Lehman Brothers to plain, simple bankruptcy and exposing the long-running fraud schemes of star trader Bernard Madoff. So much for basic rights such as food and housing. In many countries rich and poor, it was felt that economic globalization was at fault and national borders were now the (only) safeguards of peoples against abuse of their economic and social rights, as was seen in Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. Populism also rose in the West, limiting the scope of political questioning to how much damage immigrants were causing to employment and purchasing power. Now perceived as elitist in the West and “Western” in the rest of the world, human rights were forced to yield under the weight of economic collapse.

As a result, by the end of the first decade of the new century, human rights as codified in Paris and New York in the wake of World War II appeared to be dead in space. In its edition of February 18, 2010, Newsweek went so far as to declare the “Death of Human Rights”[2], detailing how Western states were now disregarding the poor human rights records of their economic, political and military partners in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. As the economic crisis lingers on and armed Islamism now spawns also in the relatively spared Sub-Saharan Africa, jaded everyday citizens and world leaders have learned to leave it to a cynical game of geopolitics and like human rights as little more than a benevolent philosophy which would be politically unrealizable.

Could this be true? If so, why should anyone, anywhere in the world, continue to fight for human rights?

On December 11, 2008, star trader Bernard Madoff was arrested for an alleged $50 billion fraud. (C) The Telegraph - Derek Blair

On December 11, 2008, star trader Bernard Madoff was arrested in the United States for an alleged $50 billion fraud.
(C) The Telegraph – Derek Blair

Not so fast. Dismissing the previous and current decades as having been at best fruitless, at worst damaging in terms of human rights development would be quite foolish—or quite dishonest.

First, harmful as it may have been to human rights, the economic crisis is nothing to worry about, at least as far as Western countries are concerned. As the American political scientists Christian Welzel and Ronald Inglehart explained in their 2005 book Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy[3], quoted by Stanford professor Larry Diamond in The Spirit of Democracy[4], economic hardship makes it more natural for people to affirm survival values, i. e. conservative, sectarian, inward-looking  values, rather than self-expression values allowing for freedom, autonomy and tolerance.

This is thus hardly a time of rejection of human rights per se, actually a time of anguish and doubt fueled by uncertainty about the present and future of employment, health care and taxation. Austerity policies, however, do play a role in alienating constituents who feel more is being done to save their banks than to support their ailing bank accounts.

As social discontent grows in those bankrupt or economically-fledgling countries, an increasing number of disgruntled voters come to translate their adhesion to survival values into a first-time vote for the extreme right, ranging from the would-be nice-looking National Front in France to Greece’s openly neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party. The sometimes ambiguous attitude of ruling parties toward migrants, especially the Roma, in some European countries further provides an unwelcome encouragement of intolerance, making people feel justified in their hatred of outsiders.

In Greece, Nikólaos Michaloliákos leads the Golden Dawn party, whose emblem resembles the Nazi swastika and whose violent, hateful rhetoric brings back memories of the darkest hours of modern European history.

In Greece, Nikólaos Michaloliákos leads the Golden Dawn party, whose emblem resembles the Nazi swastika and whose violent, hateful rhetoric brings back memories of the darkest hours of modern European history.

Second, although the 2000s were largely marred by both terrorism and America’s pushy response to it, these were years of genuine, significant progress for human rights in the world, very much in continuity with the year 1998 which saw the adoption of both the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and, on December 9, the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders née Resolution 53/144 of the UN General Assembly.

Precisely, the ICC came to existence in 2002 after the threshold of ratification of the Rome Statute by 60 UN Member States was reached that year.

Four years later, another new UN body was created out of an existing one—the Human Rights Council, designed to replace the Human Rights Commission which had been for some time under heavy fire for its outdated, unassertive monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms and for allowing authoritarian, repressive regimes to participate in its activities.

In September 2007 the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the first ever international human rights instrument to universally define the specific rights of indigenous groups in every country, whether civil, political, economic, social or cultural. Unsurprisingly, four governments notoriously still scrambling with indigenous rights claims at home voted against—the USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

The following year saw the entry into force of the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, finally drafted in 2006 after years of fierce opposition from the Bush Administration which claimed the USA and all other countries should have national laws of their own about disability rights instead of a world treaty. Actually, the American reluctance turned out to be the best possible justification for the creation of a UN treaty on disability rights, as it reminded an oblivious international community that since the 1970s, disability has been a full-fledged human rights issue within the World organization[5]. Although the USA eventually joined the Convention as a signatory, the Obama Administration still hasn’t ratified it.

Along with the creation of the Convention came that of a UN agency tasked to encourage and monitor compliance by Member States with its provisions, UN Enable. Another paramount new UN agency created in the 2000s was UN Women, officially named the UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. Its founding Executive Director was the emblematic former Socialist Chilean President Michelle Bachelet.

A world gone completely obsessed with stopping terrorism could never have gone that far in making human rights progress and definitely take root after all in the twenty-first century.

The headquarters of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.

The headquarters of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.

Q.E.D.  Human rights may be less popular nowadays but they are still just as needed as ever, needed and wanted too, although the latter will not be said publicly as easily as before.

The problem is that the “war on terror” and crisis-inspired survival values that have spread throughout the world since the beginning of the century have made it a lot more difficult for Human Rights Defenders, whether on their own or as members of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), to carry out their usual work and activities without fear of repression or at the very least intimidation. Some governments have even begun to lash out at them as “enemies of the state”, such as Russia which is now imposing a “foreign agent” label on NGOs receiving financial support from outside the country.

On March 15, in response to such alarming developments, fifteen years after the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration of Human Rights Defenders, the Human Rights Council adopted a resolution whose title says it all – “Protecting Human Rights Defenders”.

In its Preamble, the resolution, originally proposed by Norway, recalls “the continued validity and application of all the provisions” of the 1998 declaration, as well as other Council and General Assembly resolutions and the Program of Action of the Vienna Conference on Human Rights of 1993 which was the first post-Cold War main event dedicated to human rights on the international stage. It reaffirms that “States are under the obligation to protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms of all persons” and acknowledges that “human rights defenders play an important role at the local, national, regional and international levels in the promotion and protection of human rights”, accordingly “[s]tressing that respect and support for the activities of human rights defenders, including women human rights defenders, is essential to the overall enjoyment of human rights.”

The resolutions calls on UN Member States to avoid or stop using domestic law and administrative provisions, including “national security and counter-terrorism legislation and other measures, such as laws regulating civil society organizations”, to hinder the work of Human Rights Defenders, let alone to stigmatize them and their tireless campaigning. It also highlights the important role played by “new forms of communication, including the dissemination of information online and offline” as “tools for human rights defenders to promote and strive for the protection of human rights”.

The Human Rights Council in session at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland.

The Human Rights Council in session at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland.

Taking stock of the “systemic and structural discrimination and violence faced by women human rights defenders”, the resolution “calls upon States to integrate a gender perspective” in their work to ensure the freedom and safety of Human Rights Defenders within their borders.

In one of the most powerful statements in the entire resolution, the Council, referring directly to such major UN human rights instruments as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, urges all countries to “create a safe and enabling environment in which human rights defenders can operate free from hindrance and insecurity, in the whole country and in all sectors of society, including by extending support to local human rights defenders”.

Adopted with the support of many non-Member States of the Council, such as France, Costa Rica, Portugal, Sweden and Uruguay but also, more surprisingly when it comes to human rights, Ivory Coast, Georgia and Turkey, the resolution came as a powerful reminder that the work of Human Rights Defenders is still relevant and important to today’s world and that it is neither an old-fashioned luxury nor a rear-guard crusade out of touch with reality but a clear and present necessity.

In one of his greatest hits, sometimes used as a “house anthem” by Amnesty International, the late Bob Marley sang,

“Get up, stand up,

Stand up for your right,

Get up, stand up,

Don’t give up the fight.”

Marley has been gone for thirty-two years but his words never ceased to resonate as a call to courage and action for Human Rights Defenders everywhere.

More than ever, we Human Rights Defenders must keep the flame alive, that very flame which symbolizes human rights at the UN, and carry on with our fight, undeterred, unabated, uncompromising. We are now humanity’s last line of defense against fear and despair.

At the United Nations, human rights are represented by a flame, the flame for a life of full self-fulfillment. The flame also symbolizes those who carry it throughout the world - Human Rights Defenders.

At the United Nations, human rights are represented by a flame, the flame for a life of full self-fulfillment. The flame also symbolizes those who carry it throughout the world – Human Rights Defenders.

Bernard Henry is the External Relations Officer of the Office to the United Nations—Geneva of the Association of World Citizens.