Sur la chaîne Dailymotion de l’AWC :
Bernard HENRY, Officier des Relations extérieures du Bureau de Représentation auprès de l’Office des Nations Unies à Genève de l’AWC, donne la parole à Ali ETMAN, jeune militant de la révolution égyptienne en France que les autorités françaises veulent expulser parce qu’il a pris part à une protestation publique devant l’Ambassade d’Egypte en France.
Rencontre avec Ali ETMAN, jeune révolutionnaire égyptien que la France veut expulser
LES CITOYENS DU MONDE REFUSENT L’EXPULSION DE JEUNES MILITANTS ÉGYPTIENS PAR LA FRANCE
L’Association of World Citizens, Organisation Non-Gouvernementale dotée du Statut Consultatif aux Nations Unies et accréditée auprès du Conseil des Droits de l’Homme, appelle le Gouvernement de la République française à honorer la tradition historique et constitutionnelle de la France en renonçant à toute poursuite, pénale ou administrative, contre les jeunes Egyptiens qui ont été arrêtés le 25 janvier dernier après avoir protesté pacifiquement devant l’Ambassade d’Egypte à Paris.
Depuis 1948 et les débuts de notre mouvement, nous, Citoyens du Monde, avons toujours œuvré pour le respect des Droits de l’Homme pour toutes et tous, au-delà de toutes les frontières, qu’elles soient nationales, politiques, religieuses ou autres.
Avant les révolutions arabes, le mot « frontière » était un symbole des régimes en place en Tunisie, en Egypte et ailleurs. Assumant un rôle de gardes-frontières pour des pays occidentaux qui n’étaient pas pressés d’accueillir des migrants en provenance d’Afrique du Nord, les régimes répressifs obligeaient souvent celles et ceux qui n’avaient d’autre choix que de fuir la misère, ou la persécution, souvent les deux, à « brûler » les frontières, à devenir ce que la langue arabe appelle « harraga », une personne qui « brûle » la frontière de son pays, et avec, toute sa vie passée.
Aujourd’hui, la décision des autorités françaises de renvoyer en Egypte des jeunes gens qui, ici en France, ne cherchaient qu’à faire usage de la liberté d’expression que consacrent tant la Constitution française que les engagements internationaux de la France en matière de Droits de l’Homme est incompréhensible. Nous voulons que les frontières ne soient pas des murs pour les migrants, mais pour ce qui est du respect des Droits de l’Homme, nous refusons que les frontières nationales ne s’ouvrent, comme c’est apparemment le cas ici, que pour laisser entrer la répression.
En voyant nos différentes structures – associations, syndicats, partis politiques et autres, unir ainsi leurs forces aujourd’hui, nous sommes certains que le Gouvernement de la France finira par nous entendre et par se montrer digne des valeurs de respect des normes universelles de Droits de l’Homme qui sont celles de ce pays, ces normes universelles qui, avec l’adoption de la Déclaration universelle des Droits de l’Homme au Palais de Chaillot, ont pris naissance en 1948 ici même, à Paris.
Professeur René WADLOW, Président
Bernard HENRY, Officier des Relations Extérieures du Bureau de Représentation auprès de l’ONU à Genève
http://www.worldcitizensunited.org – http://www.awcungeneva.com – awcungeneva@yahoo.fr
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 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, 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
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.
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, 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
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’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.
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 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”
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 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” 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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Association of World Citizens 