The Official Blog of the

Archive for the ‘International Justice’ Category


New Fires Relight in Eastern Congo

In Africa, Conflict Resolution, Current Events, Human Rights, International Justice, The Search for Peace, United Nations, World Law on August 25, 2013 at 4:25 PM

NEW FIRES RELIGHT IN EASTERN CONGO

By René Wadlow

In a message of August 24, 2013 addressed to United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the Association of World Citizens (AWC) highlighted that the Democratic Republic of Congo’s eastern capital of North Kivu Province, Goma, had been shelled for the past three days, including Saturday 24.

The shelling seems to be a continuation of the struggle for power and wealth between heavily-armed rebels, called the March 23 Movement (M23) and the Congolese central government’s army – the Democratic Republic of Congo Armed Forces (FARDC).

This struggle with ever-changing groups began in 1996, two years after the genocide in Rwanda which led to a refugee influx into eastern Congo.  From 1998 to 2003, the area was the scene of fighting between forces of at least six countries – Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania.

A fighter with the M23 Movement.

A fighter with the M23 Movement.

Since the end of the international fighting, the area has been divided into what can be called “mafia clans” running protection rackets and trying to make a profit from minerals, timber, food supplies for the UN forces and humanitarian nongovernmental organizations present. A deep and deadly struggle for influence is being played out in the shadows with an ever-changing cast of characters.

The UN has a large and expensive peacekeeping group in the area, the MONUC, but with uneven results.  UN forces are seen by the local population as favorable to the far-away incompetent central government.  The M23 is widely considered to be favored by the government of Rwanda.

UN peacekeeping troops are generally effective when there is peace to keep. However what is required today in eastern Congo is not so much more soldiers under UN command as reconciliation bridge-builders, persons who are able to restore relations among the ethnic groups of the area.  The UN, national governments, and non-governmental organizations need to develop bridge-building teams who can help to strengthen local efforts at conflict resolution and re-establishing community relations.

World Citizens were among those in the early 1950s who stressed the need to create UN peacekeeping forces with soldiers especially trained for such a task.  Today a new type of world civil servant is needed – those who in areas of tension and conflict can undertake the slow but important task of restoring confidence among peoples in conflict, establishing contacts and looking for ways to build upon common interests.

There is only so much the MONUC mission can do to keep the peace and assist the civilian population in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

There is only so much the MONUC mission can do to keep the peace and assist the civilian population in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

As the militias and “mafia clans” have proliferated, rivalries, particularly over land tenure and use have become a key source of conflict.  With the breakdown of society, there was a parallel breakdown of local, traditional conflict reduction mechanisms.  The precolonial tribal society had been too weakened during the colonial period to return to precolonial forms of governance.  Post-colonial administration had never been put into place, and so the result was a void of social rules and mechanisms for dispute settlement.

In particular, disputes over land became critical.  Land tenure issues have always been complex.  Land is often thought of as belonging to the ethnic community and is given to clans or to individuals for their use, sometimes for a given period, sometimes for several lifetimes if the land is continually cultivated.  The rules of land tenure often differ from one ethnic group to another, even a small distance apart. Traditionally, clan chiefs would be called upon to settle land disputes, often by compromises, so win-win solutions were often found. With the large displacement of people, land disputes have become frequent, and clan chiefs have often disappeared or lost their function as judges.

Many people have left villages near main roads to live in relative safety far from roads. They have had to move several times and to re-clear land for planting.  Local markets have been destroyed.  Social organizations such as churches have been disbanded, and family links, which provide the African “safety net” have been destroyed by death and displacement.  What trust existed between groups has been largely replaced by fear.  A few people are making money from the disorder by plundering natural resources, but economic injustice and deprivation remain the order of the day.

There is a short-term need to bring the current fighting to a negotiated end, but future security is closely linked to the ways in which land tenure and land use issues are settled.

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

Les Citoyens du Monde condamnent le terrorisme et l’intolérance basés sur la religion

In Cultural Bridges, Current Events, Human Rights, International Justice, World Law on May 30, 2013 at 2:26 PM

awc-un-geneva-logo

 

ATTAQUES TERRORISTES A LONDRES ET PARIS :

LES CITOYENS DU MONDE CONDAMNENT LE TERRORISME

ET L’INTOLERANCE BASES SUR LA RELIGION

L’Association of World Citizens (AWC) est totalement consternée par les récentes attaques terroristes commises contre des militaires à Londres et Paris par des jeunes gens qui étaient chrétiens au départ et se sont convertis à l’Islam.

Même si elle n’est pas une organisation religieuse, l’AWC estime que la religion est précieuse en ce qu’elle remplit, selon sa définition étymologique, un rôle important de création de liens entre les êtres humains. Invoquer la religion pour justifier des actes terroristes délibérés n’est donc jamais excusable ni a fortiori acceptable.

En conséquence, les convertis d’une religion à une autre qui s’avèrent commettre des actes terroristes au nom de leur nouvelle religion ne peuvent en aucun cas être considérés comme représentatifs de quelque foi religieuse que ce soit.

L’AWC appelle les citoyens tant du Royaume-Uni que de la France à avoir pleinement conscience de ces faits cruciaux et à ne pas céder, en conséquence, à quelque parallèle hâtif et infondé que ce soit entre de tels individus et l’entière population musulmane de l’un ou l’autre des deux pays concernés.

World Citizens Condemn Terrorism and Intolerance Based on Religion

In Cultural Bridges, Current Events, Human Rights, International Justice, World Law on May 30, 2013 at 12:56 PM
awc-un-geneva-logo
TERROR ATTACKS IN LONDON AND PARIS:
WORLD CITIZENS CONDEMN TERRORISM AND INTOLERANCE
BASED ON RELIGION
The Association of World Citizens (AWC) is completely dismayed at the recent terror attacks against soldiers committed in London and Paris by young people who are Christians by birth and converts to Islam.
Although not a religious organization, the AWC values religion as, in its etymological definition, a valuable instrument of bonding between human beings. Citing religion for deliberate terrorist acts is thus never excusable, let alone acceptable.
Consequently, people who convert from their original religion to another and wind up committing terrorist acts on behalf of their chosen religion shall never be deemed representative of any religious faith whatsoever.
The AWC calls on all citizens of Britain and France to be fully aware of these crucial facts and thus refrain from any hasty, unfounded parallel between such people and the Muslim community in either country as a whole.
— 30 —

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.

June 8: The Law of the Seize

In Environmental protection, International Justice, United Nations, World Law on June 8, 2012 at 9:44 PM

JUNE 8: THE LAW OF THE SEIZE

By René Wadlow

 

June 8 of each year has been proclaimed by the UN General Assembly as the Day of the Law of the Sea. However, as my friend John Logue who had participated with me as non-governmental organization representative in the long negotiations — one year in New York, the next in Geneva — said “It should be called the Law of the Seize.”

What had started out in November 1967 with a General Assembly presentation by Ambassador Arivid Pardo of Malta as a call to establish a new political and legal regime for the ocean space ended in August 1980 with a draft convention, a mixed bag of successes and disappointments but which has now been ratified by 162 States.

For world citizens, the quality of the Law of the Sea Convention was of special significance. The greater part of the oceans has been considered res communis, a global common beyond national ownership.  Furthermore, the physical nature of the oceans suggests world rather than national solutions to the increasing need for management of marine resources and the marine environment.

World Citizen Thor Heyerdahl was one of those who called attention to the dangers of ocean pollution coming to Geneva to speak for world citizens during the Law of the Sea negotiations.  The oceans and the seas remind us that the planet and not the State should be our focus.  A holistic view of life arises from our interdependence as a species and our dependence on the life system of nature.  World citizens have stressed that a balanced, sustainable eco-system will only emerge if our political, economic and ethical policies coincide in building a more stable, a more peaceful, in short, a more human planet.

Thus, if there is to be a qualitative jump in the awareness of the earth as our common home, the rules for the management of the oceans was a real possibility. However, the UN Law of the Sea Conference was first and foremost a political conference with over 160 States participating.  From the outset of the Conference, it was agreed that the Convention had to be drafted by consensus in order to create a political and legal system for the oceans accepted to all — to manage what Arivid Pardo had called “the common heritage of mankind.”

During the negotiations, there were groupings that cut across the Cold War divisions of the times, especially within a group called “the landlocked and geographically disadvantaged countries.” There were also informal groups of persons who acted in a private capacity, a mixture of NGO representatives, legal scholars, and diplomats who prepared suggestions on many of the issues of the Conference such as the economic zones, the continental shelf, scientific research, marine pollution and dispute settlement.  These propositions were taken seriously by the government negotiators, in part because few diplomats had the technical knowledge needed for making decisions on technical subjects as well as the creation of a new international organization, the Seabed Authority.

However, in practice, government negotiators are more used to working for the “national interest” and in defending the idea of “territory” both on land and on the sea.  Boundary-making is a primordial activity.  Various theories have been advanced to explain why, many of them derived from our animal ancestors. However ocean boundary problems are more difficult than building a wall on land. Thus as Douglas Johnston and Mark Valencia write “The forces of nationalism were too strong to be swayed by Pardo’s appeals to international cooperation and technocratic rationality.  Instead the coastal states, developed and developing alike, saw in the newly available ocean areas an unexpected windfall, offering the prospect of a previously unimagined extension of their natural resource base. The economic goal of national autonomy had prevailed over the interest in global cooperation, setting in motion the processes of establishing vast national enclosures of offshore areas, especially those enclosures consonant with the new exclusive economic zone (EEZ) regime.  International cooperation had yielded to national autonomy.” (1)

“Ye free man, thou shall always cherish the sea!”
– Charles Baudelaire, French poet (1821-1867)

Conflicts over national sea boundaries are particularly strong in the Pacific Ocean among China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Taiwan and Cambodia with India and Indonesia watching closely.  The disputed arise largely because of the claims of territorial waters around small islands claimed as national territory. Most of these islands are not inhabited, but are claimed as the starting point of “territorial waters”.

Originally, the disputes concerned exclusive fishing rights within national territorial zones.  Now the issues have become stronger as it is believed that there are oil and natural gas reserves in these areas.

As Krista Wiegand writes concerning China’s dispute with Japan but which is also largely true of China’s policy with the other Asian countries “China’s current strategy to negotiate with Japan over joint development of natural gas and oil resources outside the disputed zone seems to be the most rational strategy it can take in the disputes.  Rather than dropping its territorial claim, China continues to maintain its claim for sovereignty, while at the same time benefiting from joint development of natural gas resources.  By maintaining the territorial claim, China also sustains its ability to confront Japan through diplomatic and militarized conflict when other disputed issues arise.” (2)

Territorial sea disputes can be heated up or cooled off at will or when other political issues require attention.  We are currently in a “heating up” stage. Thus for 8 June in honour of the Law of the Sea we can consider how best to resolve territorial disputes by having a wider view of the common heritage of mankind.

Notes

1)         Douglas M. Johnston and Mark J. Valencia, Pacific Ocean Boundary Problems (Dordrecht: Martinus Njihoff Publishers, 1991, 214pp.)

2)      Krista E. Wiegand, Enduring Territorial Disputes (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2011, 340pp.).

 

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

Ratko Mladić: Arrest and Coming Trial – A Step Forward for World Law

In Current Events, Human Rights, International Justice, The Balkan Wars, The Search for Peace, United Nations on May 27, 2011 at 7:23 PM

RATKO MLADIĆ: ARREST AND COMING TRIAL – A STEP FORWARD FOR WORLD LAW

By René Wadlow

On May 26, 2011, President Boris Tadić of Serbia announced the arrest of General Ratko Mladić, the Yugoslav general become head of the Bosnian Serb forces of Republika Srpska. General Mladić had been charged by the War Crimes Tribunal for ex-Yugoslavia in the Hague for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and thus should be sent from Belgrade to the Hague to stand trial shortly. General Mladić is particularly charged with commending the 1992-1995 siege of Sarajevo during which much of the city was destroyed and some 10,000 persons killed, often shot by snipers. The genocide charge arises mainly from the killing in July 1995 of some 8,000 Muslim men at Srebrenica which had been declared a neutral safe haven guarded by UN troops.

Mladić had been forced from his position in Republika Srpska after the 1995 Dayton Agreement, largely facilitated by the US envoy Richard Holbrooke. Mladić moved to Serbia and lived mostly in Belgrade, having changed his name. He was arrested at the farm of a cousin some 50 miles north of Belgrade in the Vojvodina area. His arrest and trial was one of the conditions set by the European Union for advancing with negotiations on Serbia joining the EU. Negotiations are now at a serious stage, and the arrest of Mladić was necessary to open the door further. Mladić kept out of sight, but he was not hiding. He had supporters in the Serbian army, police and in certain nationalist political circles. Thus an arrest earlier would not have been worth the political outcries and tensions an arrest might have provoked. Now, when EU membership and the economic future of the country are at stake, his arrest is not a very high price to pay.

Ratko Mladić, here as the Bosnian Serb forces' top general during the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina (1922-1995).

It is not really satisfaction when one sees those who have betrayed one’s proposals are finally taken down. However, there is a sense of “closure” – a recognition that karma is finally at work. I did not know Ratko Mladić but saw him a number of times in the halls of the Palais des Nations — the European Headquarters of the United Nations (UN). I was in contact with Radovan Karadžić, the political head of the Bosnian Serbs — officially Prime Minister of Republika Srpska. I had been asked to be an advisor to Karadžić on UN procedures when negotiations began in Geneva in 1992. After discussions, I turned down the offer although it would have been a possibility to be a direct participant in the negotiations.

Whatever credibility I had in the Yugoslav conflict came from being a neutral and not linked to one side, although I was generally seen as pro-Serb. My first efforts had been to help Milan Babić, the leader of the Serb enclave in Croatia called Krajina. I had Babić address the UN Commission on Human Rights in February 1991 to warn of the consequences if Yugoslavia broke up. His presentation was filmed and widely shown on Yugoslav TV. I am still convinced that had his warning been taken seriously, things might have been different. However, the Commission on Human Rights was not really equipped to deal with “early warning”, and nothing was done until fighting broke out in June 1991.

Here with then General Ratko Mladić, former Bosnian Serb political leader Radovan Karadžić.

In June, Krajina declared its independence from Croatia, calling itself the Republic of Serbian Krajina. Babić was named Prime Minister. From August to December 1991, Serbs from Krajina killed hundreds of Croats and drove some 80,000 from their homes. Ratko Mladić was the head of the Krajina forces at the time and a close co-worker with Babić.

In 1992, Babić was eased out of power by behind-the-scenes pressures by Prime Minister of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic, who wanted someone with a less independent character, at which time Mladić left Krajina and went to Bosnia where he had been born.

In 2004 Babić was sentenced to 13 years in prison for war crimes by the Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague and shortly afterwards committed suicide.

On July 11, 1995, General Ratko Mladić and his troops stormed the Bosnian Safe Haven of Srebrenica. With the most unwelcome participation of UN peacekeepers there, they secured the place for the Bosnian Serb army and took some 7,000 unarmed Bosnian civilians to their death.

In March 1992, Bosnia-Herzegovina declared its independence from Yugoslavia, and at the same time, Republika Srpska declared itself independent under the leadership of Radovan Karadžić. Many at the time questioned the wisdom of a unilateral splitting of Bosnia, but Mladić said “The existence of the Republika Srpska may be contested internationally, but the existence of its army cannot be contested. The Republika Srpska exists because we have our territory, our nation, our government and all the attributes of a state. Whether they acknowledge it or not — that’s their problem. The army is the fact.”

A month later, in April 1992, the siege of Sarajevo began with Ratko Mladić in charge of the Serb forces. The siege was to illustrate that a multi-ethnic society could not exist, Sarajevo being the Yugoslav city with the most ethnically-mixed population.

I had been in Belgrade in 1991 at the start of the Yugoslav fighting, just at the time of the fall of Vukovar, the first major battle, to see if NGOs could play any role in conflict reduction. But once the fighting had broken out there was really nothing that NGOs could do to prevent the spread of the conflict. The International Committee of the Red Cross tried, with great difficulty, to maintain some humanitarian efforts, but NGO conflict mediation was not really possible.

In September 1992, with fighting still going on, the Geneva Peace Conference on Bosnia began at the UN headquarters under the co-leadership of Lord David Owen on behalf of the EC and Mr. Cyrus Vance, former U. S. Secretary of State for the UN. Vance later withdrew, discouraged by the lack of progress and was replaced by Thorvald Stoltenberg, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway.

Lord David Owen, Special Representative of the European Community for Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the UN Special Envoy, former U. S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance.

Late in 1992, as fighting was increasing and political proposals for the future of Bosnia were bogged down, David Arnott, an English Buddhist who had been working with me on Burma issues and I were the first to propose in the UN Commission on Human Rights and in a text sent to the members of the UN Security Council the creation of a number of security zones or “safe areas” within Bosnia-Herzegovina. I had been working closely with Tadeusz Mazowiecki, a former Prime Minister of Poland, who was the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on ex-Yugoslavia. In his November 1992 Report to the Commission, he had proposed the establishment of a security zone encompassing Sarajevo and its airport in order to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian supplies.

Building on this proposal, in an oral statement of December 1, 1992 to the “Special Session of the Commission on Human Rights devoted to Human Rights in Former Yugoslavia”, I stressed the need to create a larger number of safe havens and emphasized “that the declaration of protected Safe Haven Zones is an interim arrangement with a humanitarian purpose and in no way reduces the urgent and imperative need to find negotiated political solutions.”

Safe havens, called neutralized zones, are provided for in article 15 of the 4th Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949. On October 30, 1992, the International Committee of the Red Cross had proposed that “protected zones be set up for the civilian population at risk, away from combat areas. They would not be intended for the inhabitants of besieged towns for whose protection other solutions should be found, such as a cessation of hostilities.” This was basically a call for protected refugee camps while ours was for “protected cities” since ‘cessation of hostilities’ were not in the cards.

General Sir Michael Rose, the British senior military man who in 1994 served as Commander of the Bosnian segment of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR Bosnia). When the Bosnian Serb army attacked a UN-declared Safe Haven for the first time (that was Goražde in April 1994), General Rose and his UNPROFOR troops stood idle and let the Bosnian Serbs invade the city.

Thus our proposal was not original but rather what was needed for the hour. On April 16, 1993, the UN Security Council proclaimed Srebrenica a safety zone and on May 6 added Sarajevo, Žepa, Goražde, Bihać and Tuzla to the list. Our proposal was quoted by the then Ambassador of Afghanistan, Mr. Farhadi, during the debate on safe havens.

Thus I followed with interest how the safe havens were put into place. Srebrenica had been a middle-sized town of 6,000 prior to the fighting. It had grown to over 70,000 as families left the countryside for the relative safety of the town; infrastructure, however, could not keep up.

In July 1995, the “safe havens” of Žepa and Srebrenica were taken over by the forces led by Ratko Mladić. The UN forces led by soldiers from the Netherlands did not try to resist. A month earlier in June, UN forces had been taken hostage for two weeks but finally were released. Although NATO planes were dropping bombs on Serb positions at the time, it is not clear that any NATO forces would have come to the defense of the Dutch. The UN troops stood by as Mladić separated the women and children from the men. He had his soldiers kill some 8,000 male prisoners and had their bodies put into mass graves.

General Philippe Morillon, the French peacekeeper whose efforts to protect the UN-designated Safe Havens quickly made him a living legend in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

There had been so many violations of the laws of war and human rights in the Yugoslav conflicts, that there was not much public outcry at the time, although Tadeusz Mazowiecki resigned his UN position as Special Rapporteur writing to the UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and making his letter public that his resignation was forced by the “horrendous tragedy which has beset the population of those ‘safe havens’ guaranteed by international agreement…I believe we have a certain hypocrisy as far as Bosnia is concerned when we are claiming to defend it but in fact we are abandoning it. The same goes for hypocrisy about the protection of human rights. I hope that my decision will also be understood as a protest against this hypocrisy.”

The wheels of karma turn slowly. As there is no longer anything at stake, more people today will agree that killing people who thought that they were protected in UN-proclaimed safe havens is not a good thing. There have been no new proposals for safe havens since and thus none has been created. I still think that it was a good idea at the time. Yet I share the observation of Michèle Mercier who had been for a long time part of the International Committee of the Red Cross team in former Yugoslavia “The word most frequently heard in the ranks of humanitarian workers is frustration. Their leaders are powerless to settle by themselves the problems involved with security and they have worn themselves out negotiating and renegotiating with opposite numbers of the most unlikely kind agreements that lose all their meaning before they are reached.” (1)

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

(1)  Michèle Mercier Crimes Without Punishment: Humanitarian Action in Former Yugoslavia (London: Pluto Press, 1995, p. 165)