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
WORLD CITIZENS, STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE DEATH PENALTY, QUESTION THE EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING TO DEATH 528 PEOPLE IN A SHORT MASS TRIAL
In a March 26, 2014 message to the Acting President of Egypt and to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prof. René Wadlow, President of the Association of World Citizens (AWC), stated that the mass trial of Muslim Brotherhood members accused of the murder of a police officer and terrorist acts during the August 2013 protests was an insult to the Spirit of Justice and a violation of the rule of law.
The AWC has repeatedly called upon governments to declare a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty – a penalty that extensive research has shown has little or no impact on the level of violent crime and too often opens the door to judicial errors and injustice.
The speed of the two-day trial during which defense lawyers were not able to develop their arguments is unprecedented and points to the political motivations of the current military-influenced Government.
There is a possibility to appeal the verdict, but the timing and modalities are unclear. There are some 1,200 Muslim Brotherhood supporters awaiting trial, and this trial in the Minya Criminal Count does not indicate a rule of law but rather of revenge and a desire to inspire fear of possible Government action.
The verdict now goes to Egypt’s Grand Mufti, a religious authority, for approval or rejection. It is not clear on what basis religious authorities review and make decisions on what are essentially secular trials. In practice, death sentences in Egypt are often handed down, but few have been carried out in recent years. The aims of the trials and the sentences are political: to show that death is a real possibility if one “steps out of line”.
Such a misuse of the court system undermines trust in the legal order and is in violation of the spirit and provisions of human rights law.
The AWC is devoted to the universal application of human rights law which includes fair trials and the right to adequate defense. Therefore, the AWC calls upon the Government of Egypt to revise this court case by a speedy appeal procedure and to see that the subsequent trials concerning Muslim Brotherhood members or supporters of former President Mohammed Morsi are carried out in conformity with established international norms.
LE DROIT UNIVERSEL A LA FRATERNITE
Par Bernard Henry
(D’après « The Universal Right to Brotherhood », du même auteur :
https://awcungeneva.com/2014/02/10/the-universal-right-to-brotherhood/)
En tant qu’Organisation Non-Gouvernementale (ONG) dotée du Statut Consultatif auprès de l’ONU et active au sein du Conseil des Droits de l’Homme, l’Association of World Citizens a toujours défendu les Droits de l’Homme partout dans le monde, tous les Droits de l’Homme, qu’ils soient civils, politiques, économiques, sociaux, culturels ou autres, tels que ceux plus récemment reconnus au développement et à un environnement sain.
Depuis le début de la décennie, le désir mondial de Droits de l’Homme est plus visible que jamais auparavant. Mais les nombreux auteurs de violations auxquels le peuple du monde doit faire face – les gouvernements des Etats, les corporations multinationales, les groupes politiques non-étatiques, armés ou non – balaient ouvertement les Droits de l’Homme comme étant de simples revendications politiques qui en valent d’autres, leur refusant le moindre caractère de prérogatives universelles reconnues en droit international.
Parfois même, les gouvernements répressifs et autres entités qui le sont tout autant vont jusqu’à prétendre qu’ils agissent au nom même des Droits de l’Homme, accusant en cela leurs critiques et leurs opposants d’attenter eux-mêmes aux Droits de l’Homme.
C’est comme si chacun ne revendiquait plus les Droits de l’Homme qu’à son seul profit, ignorant superbement autrui et considérant les Droits de l’Homme comme étant tout ou rien – mes droits ou les leurs, l’un ou l’autre mais pas les deux. Rien ne saurait être plus contraire à l’idée même de défense des Droits de l’Homme.
Le Préambule de la Déclaration universelle des Droits de l’Homme, depuis 1948 clé de voûte du droit international des Droits de l’Homme, affirme très clairement qu’une protection effective des Droits de l’Homme par la loi est essentielle « pour que l’homme ne soit pas contraint, en suprême recours, à la révolte contre la tyrannie et l’oppression ». Même si certains peuvent voir en les Droits de l’Homme une question trop « conflictuelle » à aborder, ignorer ou renier les Droits de l’Homme rend bel et bien impossible à toute personne, tout gouvernement, ou toute autre entité que ce soit, d’espérer en tout bon sens atteindre une quelconque paix ou un quelconque progrès dont il ou elle puisse tirer parti.
L’Article Premier de la Déclaration se fait encore plus explicite sur ce point :
« Tous les êtres humains naissent libres et égaux en dignité et en droits. Ils sont doués de raison et de conscience et doivent agir les uns envers les autres dans un esprit de fraternité. »
Fraternité – c’est bien là le mot qui compte, car c’est là tout ce que les Droits de l’Homme veulent dire.
Se soucier de son prochain, un être humain comme soi-même. Accorder de l’importance à la vie, la liberté, la sécurité d’un ou d’une autre autant qu’aux siennes propres. Vouloir faire le bien des autres plutôt que de concevoir sa propre vie comme un combat permanent et inexorable contre tous. C’est cela, vivre « dans un esprit de fraternité », et partant de là, respecter les Droits de l’Homme, à commencer par le plus essentiel d’entre eux – le droit à la fraternité.
Même s’il est devenu très à la mode de chercher des noises à autrui en invoquant les Droits de l’Homme, se conduire ainsi n’a aucun sens, dans la mesure où la défense des Droits de l’Homme doit être par essence inclusive et jamais sectaire. Lorsque l’on reconnait le droit à la fraternité en tant que droit inaliénable devant être garanti à toutes et à tous, l’on en vient tout naturellement à reconnaître tous les autres droits consacrés par la Déclaration et par bien d’autres instruments internationaux de Droits de l’Homme – civils, politiques, économiques, sociaux et culturels.
La Déclaration universelle des Droits de l’Homme en langue française, langue maternelle de son principal artisan, le Français René Cassin.
Dans la droite ligne de ce principe, la Déclaration se termine sur trois articles rappelant la primauté du droit à la fraternité sur tous les autres :
Article 28
« Toute personne a droit à ce que règne, sur le plan social et sur le plan international, un ordre tel que les droits et libertés énoncés dans la présente Déclaration puissent y trouver plein effet. »
Bien évidemment, cela veut dire que chacun a droit à la paix, et plus évident encore, il ne peut y avoir de paix sans la fraternité.
Article 29
« 1. L’individu a des devoirs envers la communauté dans laquelle seul le libre et plein développement de sa personnalité est possible.
2. Dans l’exercice de ses droits et dans la jouissance de ses libertés, chacun n’est soumis qu’aux limitations établies par la loi exclusivement en vue d’assurer la reconnaissance et le respect des droits et libertés d’autrui et afin de satisfaire aux justes exigences de la morale, de l’ordre public et du bien-être général dans une société démocratique.
3. Ces droits et libertés ne pourront, en aucun cas, s’exercer contrairement aux buts et aux principes des Nations Unies. »
Peut-on être plus clair ? L’on ne peut jouir de ses droits qu’au sein de la communauté humaine, « dans un esprit de fraternité », donc, ni en dehors de la communauté ni contre la communauté.
Article 30
« Aucune disposition de la présente Déclaration ne peut être interprétée comme impliquant pour un Etat, un groupement ou un individu un droit quelconque de se livrer à une activité ou d’accomplir un acte visant à la destruction des droits et libertés qui y sont énoncés. »
La plus forte, et la plus logique, conclusion possible à une déclaration universelle des droits – les droits ne peuvent être revendiqués, à plus forte raison utilisés, pour faire du tort à qui que ce soit, ce en aucune circonstance. En d’autres termes, si vous ne reconnaissez pas le droit à la fraternité, vous ne pouvez tout simplement pas vous prévaloir de vos droits du tout.
Jargon juridique mis à part, ce n’est là rien d’autre que ce que disait déjà Albert Schweitzer lorsqu’il a créé son concept de Respect de la Vie (Ehrfurcht vor dem Leben). Dans son livre paru en 1923, La Civilisation et l’Ethique, Schweitzer résumait ce concept ainsi : « L’éthique n’est rien d’autre que le Respect de la vie. Le Respect de la vie me fournit le principe fondamental de la morale, à savoir que le bien consiste à entretenir, assister et mettre en valeur la vie, et que détruire la vie, lui faire du tort ou y faire obstacle est mal. »
En un temps où il n’existait aucune véritable institution politique ou juridique au niveau mondial, ce qui s’en rapprochait le plus étant une Société des Nations bâtie pour l’essentiel sur des vœux pieux et dénuée de tout pouvoir de promulguer des lois, Schweitzer proclamait déjà, de la manière la plus claire qui puisse être, le droit universel à la fraternité.
En 1952, la philosophie du “Respect de la Vie” valut à Albert Schweitzer le Prix Nobel de la Paix.
Plus le « respect », selon l’idée que Schweitzer s’en faisait, du droit à la fraternité est important, plus l’oppression et l’injustice ont du mal à s’installer dans une société. Que l’on se batte contre une dictature, que l’on engage le combat contre des politiciens qui propagent le racisme, que l’on manifeste pour un salaire décent, que l’on dispense un enseignement à des enfants démunis ou que l’on fournisse à un village isolé l’accès à l’eau potable, l’on affirme une seule et même chose : nous sommes citoyens du monde entier, l’humanité est notre famille, et en tant qu’êtres humains, nous avons le droit de vivre en famille avec nos frères sur la Terre.
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 UNIVERSAL RIGHT TO BROTHERHOOD
By Bernard Henry
As a Nongovernmental Organization (NGO) in Consultative Status with the United Nations (UN) and accredited with the UN Human Rights Council, the Association of World Citizens has always stood up for human rights everywhere in the world, all human rights, whether civil, political, economic, social, cultural or others, such as the more recently recognized rights to development and to a sound environment.
Since the beginning of this decade, the global yearning for human rights has been more visible than ever before. But the many violators to whom the people of the world have had to stand up – national governments, multinational corporations, non-state political groups, whether armed or not – have been openly dismissing human rights as mere political claims pro se, denying these may ever be a universal prerogative officially recognized in international law.
Sometimes repressive governments or other entities even claim to be acting in the very name of human rights, accusing their critics and opponents of being themselves human rights offenders.
It looks like everybody is now claiming human rights for their sole benefit, totally leaving out others and viewing human rights as a zero-sum game – my rights or theirs, it can’t be both. That is completely out of line with the concept of human rights advocacy.
The Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, since 1948 the cornerstone of international human rights law, makes it clear that effective legal protection of human rights is essential “if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression”. Even though some people may think of human rights as an overly “divisive” issue to deal with, ignoring or rejecting human rights makes it impossible for any person, government, or other to sensibly hope to achieve any peace or progress for their own enjoyment.
Article 1 of the Declaration is even more explicit about it:
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
Brotherhood – that is the one word that counts, for that is just what human rights are all about.
Caring for one’s fellow human being. Valuing another person’s life, liberty, and safety like one’s own. Wishing well on others rather than thinking of one’s own life as an inescapable, permanent fight against everybody else. That is what it means to live “in a spirit of brotherhood”, and accordingly, to respect human rights, starting with the most essential of them all – the right to brotherhood.
Although it has become fashionable to antagonize others while citing human rights, a conduct like that makes no sense, as the defense of human rights shall be by essence inclusive, never sectarian. In recognizing the right to brotherhood as an inalienable right to be guaranteed for everyone, one naturally comes to recognize all other rights enshrined in the Declaration and other international human rights instruments – civil, political, economic, social and cultural.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in French, the mother tongue of its main initiator, Frenchman René Cassin.
In line with this principle, the Declaration ends with three articles that recall the primacy of the right to brotherhood over all other rights:
Article 28
“Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.”
Obviously, this means everyone has a right to peace, and more obviously still, there can be no peace without brotherhood.
Article 29
“(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
Clear as day. Rights are there to be enjoyed within the human community, “in a spirit of brotherhood”, thus neither apart from the community nor against the community.
Article 30
“Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”
The strongest, most logical possible conclusion to a universal declaration of rights – rights can never be claimed, let alone used, to do any harm to anyone under any circumstances. In other words, if you don’t recognize the right to brotherhood, you just cannot claim any rights at all.
All legalese aside, that is just what Albert Schweitzer was already saying when he developed his concept of Reverence for Life (Ehrfurcht vor dem Leben). In his 1923 book Civilization and Ethics, Schweitzer outlined the concept in these words: “Ethics is nothing other than Reverence for Life. Reverence for Life affords me my fundamental principle of morality, namely, that good consists in maintaining, assisting and enhancing life, and to destroy, to harm or to hinder life is evil.”
At a time when there was no real global political or legal institution in existence, the closest thing to it being a League of Nations largely built on wishful thinking and with no lawmaking powers, Schweitzer was already asserting, in the plainest possible manner, the universal right to brotherhood.
In 1952 Albert Schweitzer was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his philosophy of “Reverence for Life”.
The greater the “reverence”, as Schweitzer said, for the right to brotherhood, the harder it gets for oppression and injustice to settle down. Whether fighting a dictatorship, confronting racist politicians, demonstrating for decent wages, teaching poor children or providing a remote community with access to clean water, it all comes down to stating loud and clear this one universal claim: We are citizens of one world, humanity is our family, and as human beings, we all have a right to family life with our brothers on earth.
Bernard Henry is External Relations Officer of the Representative Office to the United Nations in Geneva of the Association of World Citizens.
LES CITOYENS DU MONDE APPELLENT A LA LIBÉRATION IMMÉDIATE DE MAÎTRE RAZAN ZAITOUNEH ET TROIS AUTRES DÉFENSEURS DES DROITS DE L’HOMME CAPTURÉS AVEC ELLE DANS LA SYRIE EN GUERRE
Paris & Genève, le 19 décembre 2013
L’Association of World Citizens (AWC) appelle à la libération immédiate de Madame Razan Zaïtouneh, avocate syrienne des Droits de l’Homme, et de trois autres Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme (DDH) – Monsieur Wael Hamada, Monsieur Nazem Hamadi et Madame Samira Khalil – qui ont été enlevés avec elle par des inconnus voici dix jours.
Le 9 décembre 2013, ces quatre DDH ont été capturés par des hommes masqués et armés puis conduits en un endroit inconnu, depuis les locaux du Centre pour la Documentation des Violations des Droits de l’Homme en Syrie situé à Douma.
Madame Razan Zaïtouneh défend sans relâche les droits des prisonniers politiques en Syrie. Quand la révolution, qui était au départ non-violente, a éclaté en 2011, elle a fondé les « comités locaux de coordination ». Cette même année, elle a été la lauréate du Prix Anna Politkovskaïa « RAW (Reach of Women) in WAR ».
Active également en tant que journaliste, Madame Razan Zaitouneh observe et informe sur les crimes de guerre et les atteintes aux Droits de l’Homme en Syrie. Dans le courant de cette année, le Prix « International Women of Courage » lui a été décerné pour son travail et ses efforts remarquables.
Depuis le 9 décembre, personne n’a revendiqué l’enlèvement, qui a eu lieu dans une zone où toutes les parties au conflit sont représentées et il est donc impossible de savoir avec certitude pour le compte de qui œuvraient les ravisseurs.
La seule certitude en la matière est que, qui qu’ils soient, les kidnappeurs ont commis un crime de guerre par l’enlèvement délibéré de civils dans un contexte de conflit armé, particulièrement s’agissant de DDH qui sont protégés de manière spéciale par le droit international des Droits de l’Homme.
En conséquence, l’AWC exige la libération immédiate de ces quatre DDH syriens.
CITIZENS OF THE WORLD CALL FOR THE RELEASE OF ATTORNEY RAZAN ZAITOUNEH AND OTHER HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS CAPTURED IN WAR-TORN SYRIA
Paris & Geneva, December 19, 2013
The Association of World Citizens (AWC) calls for the immediate release of Ms. Razan Zaitouneh, a Syrian human rights lawyer, and three other Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) – Mr. Wael Hamada, Mr. Nazem Hamadi, and Ms. Samira Khalil, who were kidnapped by unknown assailants ten days ago.
On December 9, 2013, the four HRDs were abducted by masked armed men and taken to unknown whereabouts from the premises of the Center for Documenting Human Rights Violations in Syria, located in Douma.
Ms. Razan Zaitouneh has tirelessly defended the rights of political prisoners in Syria. When the revolution, initially a nonviolent one, started in 2011 she founded the “local coordination committees”. That year she received the Anna Politkovskaya award “RAW (Reach All Women) in WAR”.
Also active as a journalist, Ms. Razan Zaitouneh has been monitoring and reporting war crimes and human rights violations in Syria. Earlier this year she received the International Women of Courage Award for her outstanding work and efforts.
Since December 9 no one has claimed responsibility for the abduction, which took place in a zone where all parties to the conflict are represented, making it impossible to know for sure who the kidnappers were working for.
The one thing we know for sure is that, whoever they are, the kidnappers committed a war crime by deliberately abducting civilians in a context of armed conflict, especially HRDs who are specially protected under international human rights law.
Consequently, the AWC demands the immediate release of the four Syrian HRDs.
WORLD CITIZENSHIP: FORERUNNERS OF A GREAT POLITICAL ERA
By René Wadlow
As the German sociologist Max Weber wrote just after the First World War, “We shall not succeed in banishing that which besets us — the sorrow of being born too late for a great political era — unless we understand how to become the forerunner of an even greater one”.
Our generation, which came after the events leading to the Second World War, followed by the creation of the United Nations (UN), and then by the ending of Western European colonialism in Asia and Africa, has only been able to make alive the institutions of the earlier generation, but never to the extent that the earlier generation hoped.
This is particularly true within the UN. The generation of the founders in 1945 hoped to modify in depth inter-State relations and the balance-of-power mechanisms which had led to the Second World War.
Max Weber (1964-1920) is recognized as one of the founders of sociology as we know it today.
Yet the balance-of-power was the framework for the 1945-1990 Cold War. While the balance-of-power has now been modified with the disintegration of the USSR, the balance-of-power as a method of international policy-setting has not changed. The United Nations has not been able to modify in depth the balance-of-power framework.
The crisis we face today is not about the administration of the UN but about how to deal with the emerging world society in which there is still poverty and violence with often a lack of willingness to help those in need.
Citizens of the World stress the need for certain common values among all the States and peoples of the world, such as the values set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Such values must be based on a sense of common responsibility for both present and future generations.
In December 1948 Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of U. S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was truly the driving force behind the adoption by the UN General Assembly of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Through dialogue among world citizens, the foundations for the values of the emerging world society are being set. Dialogue has to do with trust. To have true dialogue, people have to trust each other enough to reveal the deeply held beliefs that lie behind their surface opinions. Then, they can question each other’s assumptions and begin to establish a context for shared thinking and action.
The forerunners of a true world society are at work, setting the foundations of the new era. This leadership will come ever more into the public light.
Prof. René Wadlow is President and Chief Representative to the United Nations Office at Geneva of the Association of World Citizens.
NELSON MANDELA AND THE STRUGGLE FOR UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS
By René Wadlow
It is appropriate that a major part of the commemoration for Nelson Mandela should fall on December 10, the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Mandela was both a major actor in developing human rights in South Africa and a symbol of the worldwide struggle for the respect of human rights. Pressure from human rights groups worldwide played an important part in his release from prison in 1990 as well as bringing an end to the deeply entrenched system of apartheid that enforced racial segregation in every aspect of South African life.
The efforts on the part of the Afrikaner-led National Party Government to enforce apartheid and to prevent opposition had led to many violations of human rights in South Africa: limits on press and expression, on the freedom of association, and the right to fair trial. Therefore, the dismantling of the apartheid system was a necessary pre-requisite for the establishment of the rule of law and respect for human rights.
Nelson Mandela led the efforts to end apartheid, a victory without the blood bath that so many had predicted and feared. He led on the path of constructive reconciliation and an inclusive society.
There is still much to do to develop equality of opportunity in South African society. Years of discrimination, of lack of education and training, of lack of access to resources leave deep structural divides. However, much has been undertaken, and South Africa has the potential to be an economic and political leader in Africa.
Nelson Mandela is an example of courage and conviction to secure human rights, both in his own country and worldwide, an example of the long and continuing efforts needed for human freedom.
Prof. René Wadlow is President and Chief Representative to the United Nations Office at Geneva of the Association of World Citizens.
CAN PERSISTENT RACISM BE A PRELUDE TO GENOCIDE?
An Interrogation to Mark the Anniversary of the Genocide Convention
By René Wadlow
December 9 is the anniversary of the 1948 Convention on Genocide, signed at the UN General Assembly held in 1948 in Paris. The Genocide Convention was signed the day before the proclamation on December 10, 1948 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The two texts were much influenced by the Second World War. The crimes of Nazi Germany were uppermost in the minds of those who drafted the Convention in order to deal with a new aspect of international law and the laws of war.
The protection of civilians from deliberate mass murder was already in The Hague and Geneva Conventions of international humanitarian law. However, genocide is different from mass murder. Genocide is the most extreme consequences of racial discrimination and ethnic hatred. Genocide has as its aim the destruction, wholly or in part, of national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such. The term was proposed by the legal scholar Raphael Lemkin, drawing on the Greek genos (people or tribe) and the Latin cide (to kill)[i].
Mass deaths are not genocide. The largest number of deaths since the end of the Second World War was the failure of Chinese agricultural policies between 1958 and 1962 with over 20 million deaths, but the aim was not to destroy the Chinese as a people. Likewise, the destructive famine in Ukraine 1932-1933 with its seven million dead had a political motivation to reduce opposition but not to destroy the Ukrainians as a people. The United States-led war in Vietnam killed some two million Vietnamese, but the aim was not to destroy the Vietnamese as a people.
Genocide in the sense of a desire to eliminate a people has nearly always a metaphysical aspect as well as deep-seated racism. This was clear in the Nazi desire to eliminate Jews, first by forced emigration from Europe and, when emigration was not possible, by physical destruction.
With the horrendous Jewish Holocaust committed by Nazi Germany during World War II in mind, on December 9, 1948 the UN General Assembly made genocide the subject matter of the very first human rights instrument created by the World organization, one day before even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the Assembly in Paris.
We see a desire to destroy totally certain tribes in the Darfur conflict in Sudan that did not exist in the much longer and more deadly North-South Sudan Civil War (1956-1972, 1982-2005). Darfur tribes are usually defined by “blood lines” — marriage and thus procreation is limited to a certain population, either within the tribe or with certain other groups with which marriage relations have been created over a period of time. Thus children born of rape — considered ‘Janjaweed babies ‘— after the government-sponsored Janjaweed militias— are left to die or are abandoned. The raped women are often banished or ostracized. By attacking both the aged, holders of traditional knowledge, and the young of child-bearing age, the aim of the destruction of the continuity of a tribal group is clear.
We find the same pattern in some of the fighting in the eastern provinces of the Democratic Republic of Congo where not only are women raped but their sexual organs are destroyed so that they will not be able to reproduce.
Thanks to the efforts of Raphael Lemkin, the international community does have a legal instrument to deal with genocide and punish the perpetrators thereof. It is a shame, though, that in this day and age, “genocide” has still not become an anachronism in global affairs.
Article VIII of the Genocide Conventions provides that “Any Contracting Party may call upon the Competent Organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the UN as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III”. Unfortunately no State has ever done so.
Thus we need to look more closely at the ways in which deep-set racism and constant and repeated accusations against a religious, ethnic or social category can be a prelude to genocide.
Prof. René Wadlow is President and Chief Representative to the United Nations Office at Geneva of the Association of World Citizens.
[i] Raphael Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (Washington: Carnegie Endowment for World Peace, 1944)
For good overviews see:
Walliman and Dobkowski (Eds), Genocide and the Modern Age (New York: Greenwood Press, 1987)
F. Chalk, K. Jonassohn, The History and Sociology of Genocide (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990)
G.J. Andreopoulos (Ed), Genocide Conceptual and Historical Dimensions Philadelphia (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994)
Samantha Power, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide (New York: Basic Books, 2002)
John Tirman, The Death of Others (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011)
Association of World Citizens 