The ceasefire between Israeli troops and the Hezbollah militia is good news in an area deep in armed conflicts. After a year-long period of hostilities, we must strive so that the ceasefire holds, becomes permanent, and that the United Nations (UN) forces are able to carry out their mandate.
The ceasefire between Israeli forces and those of Hezbollah started at 4 AM on November 27, 2024, a conflict that has killed some 4,000 people, displaced more than one million in Lebanon and some 60,000 in Israel. As the ceasefire started, some Lebanese were already starting to return to their homes at day light although many houses in villages near the frontier have been destroyed.
The “Cessation of Hostilities” text which sets out the terms of the ceasefire calls for the ability of civilians on both sides of the Blue Line (the de facto border between Lebanon and Israel) to return safely to their lands and homes.
The ceasefire was negotiated by diplomats from the USA and France. Amos Hochstein was the lead United States (U.S.) negotiator. The U.S. and France will continue to have diplomats to follow the ceasefire process and to deal with any violations or unsolved tensions. There have already been accusations of violations of the ceasefire by both sides. The UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) – some 10,000 soldiers, will again be able to control the Blue Line frontier. There is currently discussion on adding members to the UN force.
The ceasefire was able to be developed as there was a convergence of interests among leaders in Israel, Lebanon, Hezbollah and Iran which is a strong supporter of Hezbollah. Many in Israel, including in the active military, are exhausted by the armed conflicts and must continue operations in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Lebanon faces economic and political difficulties provoking a growth of the already strong sectarian tensions. Hezbollah’s military and leadership has been seriously weakened by Israeli actions. However, the movement continues, and new leaders are coming to the fore such as Hassan Fadlallah, a Hezbollah deputy in the Lebanese Parliament. With a new Iranian President and a new U.S. administration, Iran’s leaders may want to see what policies President Trump will develop toward Iran.
Turning the 60-day ceasefire into a permanent peace accord will not be an easy task. There are territorial disputes along the Blue Line which have not been solved in the past, a consequence of the 2006 war. Today, all the parties lack peace-oriented leaders. As noted, the ceasefire is in the current interest of all the leaders, but such situations can change due to internal political factors.
Thus, there is an opportunity for Nongovernmental Organizations to continue promotion of a permanent ceasefire and to advance stability for the region. It is an opportunity for which we must organize with others.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
War and armed violence are highly destructive of the lives of persons, but also of works of art and elements of cultural heritage. Knowledge and understanding of people’s past can help current inhabitants to develop their identity and to appreciate the value of their culture and heritage. Such knowledge and understanding enriches their lives and enables them to manage contemporary problems more successfully.
Since September 23, 2024, the armed conflict between the Israeli armed forces and the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon has led to increased air attacks by Israeli forces on different parts of Lebanon, resulting in deaths and the uprooting of a large number of people. Hezbollah had begun hostilities on October 8, 2023 by shelling Israeli positions in support of Hamas.
The Association of World Citizens (AWC) had called for a reduction of Israeli-Hezbollah tensions and has since called for a ceasefire and for the return of persons displaced in the areas on both sides of the Israel-Lebanon frontier. (See our Appeal of September 2024).
This AWC Appeal concerns the protection of cultural heritage as Israeli attacks have already harmed cultural heritage sites in Baalbek and Tyr as well as other culutral sites. Lebanon has a rich past going back to Biblical and Roman times.
After the Second World War, UNESCO had developed international conventions on the protection of cultural and educational bodies in time of armed conflict. The most important of these is the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The Hague Convention has been signed by a large number of States.
The 1954 Hague Convention builds on the Roerich Peace Pact first proposed by the Russian painter and champion of Asian culture, Nicholas Roerich. The Roerich Peace Pact was signed on April 15, 1935 by 21 States in a Pan American Union ceremony at the White House in Washington, D.C.
The Banner of Peace (Pax Cultura), as defined by the Roerich Pact of 1935 (C) Kwamikagami
At the signing, Henry A. Wallace, then United States (U.S.) Secretary of Agriculture and later Vice-President, said, “At no time has such an ideal been more needed. It is high time for the idealists who make the reality of tomorrow, to rally around such a symbol of international cultural unity. It is time that we appeal to that appreciation of beauty, science, education which runs across all national boundaries to strengthen all that we hold dear in our particular governments and customs. Its acceptance signifies the approach of a time when those who truly love their own nation will appreciate in addition the unique contributions of other nations and also do reverence to that common spiritual enterprise which draws together in one fellowship all artists, scientists, educators and truly religious of whatever faith. Thus we build a world civilization which places that which is fine in humanity above that which is low, sordid and mean, that which is hateful and grabbing.”
We still have efforts to make so that what is fine in humanity is above what is hateful and grabbing. The AWC strives so that a start will begin in Lebanon and spread to the wider Middle East.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
There is increasing discussion concerning the Gaza Strip, its relation to the West Bank, and “the day after” when there is a ceasefire, people return to their home area, and reconstruction begins. The Association of World Citizens (AWC) had proposed in a written text to the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council (A/HRC/5-12/NGO /1, October 14, 2009) the creation of a Gaza Development Corporation, a strong, future-oriented positive vision influenced by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) of the “New Deal” of the USA and a Jordan Valley Authority proposed in the early 1950s.
The AWC proposal had been first submitted to the representatives of governments and the UN Secretariat for an international funding conference for the Palestinian Authority held in Paris in December 2007. At the funding conference, the World Bank representative, much in the spirit of the AWC proposal, stressed the need to integrate an economically vigorous Palestine into the wider geographic context. Such a wider economic zone would include Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. The World Bank representative highlighted that prosperity depends on liberating the economic potential of the Palestinian refugees and their descendants.
(C) Isochrone
Unfortunately, the Gaza Development Corporation was not acted upon at the Paris funding meeting, nor in its follow up phase. Creating a framework and institutions to help the people of the Gaza Strip and the wider region will not be easy. However, difficult times call for political creativity. Thus, the AWC re-proposes for consideration the creation of a Gaza Development Corporation.
The TVA was created in May 1933 to help overcome the deep economic depression in the USA. President Franklin Roosevelt, in his message to Congress, suggested that the Authority should be a “corporation clothed with the power of Government but possessed of the flexibility and initiative of a private enterprise. It should be charged with the broadest duty of planning for the proper use, conservation and development of the natural resources of the Tennessee River drainage basin and its adjoining territory for the general social and economic welfare of the Nation… This in a true sense is a return to the spirit and vision of the pioneer. If we are successful here, we can march on, step by step, in the development of other great natural territorial units.”
(1935) Midsouth Fair Exhibit (C) Tennessee Valley Authority
The central idea of the TVA was that it should do many things, all connected with each other. To do all these activities well, it had to be a public corporation, public because it served the public interest, a corporation rather than a government department, so that it could initiate the flexible, responsive management of a well-run private business. As Stringfellow Barr wrote in his book Citizens of the World (New York: Doubleday and Co, 1952, 285 pp), “The great triumph of the TVA was not the building of dams. Great dams had been built before. The greatest triumph was that it not only taught the Valley people but insisted on learning from them too. It respected persons.”
Strong socioeconomic structures are needed which can be maintained during periods of inevitable future tensions. As Jean Monnet, one of the fathers of the European Common Market has said, “Men take great decisions only when crisis stares them in the face.” Just as the first steps of the European Common Market had to overcome the deep wounds of the Second World War, so the situation in the Gaza Strip and the wider area needs to break the strong psychological barriers with cooperative economic measures from which many can benefit and negotiations in good faith”.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
The armed conflicts in the Middle East: Israel-Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen have led to increased violations of International Humanitarian Law. Medical facilities and medical personnel have been attacked; civilians have been targeted, educational facilities destroyed. Therefore, the Association of World Citizens (AWC) makes an urgent call for the respect of International Humanitarian Law. This must be a joint effort of governments and Nongovernmental Organizations.
Regular military personnel of all countries are theoretically informed of the rules of the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, and the Protocol Additional adopted in 1977.
When the 1949 Geneva Conventions were drafted and adopted, it was possible to spell out in considerable detail rules regarding prisoners of war and the protection of civilians, in particular Common Article 3 (so called because it is found in all four Conventions) provides that “each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: Persons taking no active part in the hostilities … shall in all circumstances be treated humanely without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.”
The importance of Common Article 3 should not be underestimated. It sets out in straightforward terms important protections that all parties to a conflict must respect. In order to meet the need for additional protection, international humanitarian law has evolved to cover not only international armed conflict but also internal armed conflict. Today, international human rights standards are also considered part of international humanitarian law, thus providing additional protection for vulnerable population groups such as women, children, and minorities.
As situations of internal violence and strife proliferate, abuses committed by non-State actors, such as armed militias, are increasing concerns. Fundamental standards of international humanitarian law are intended to ensure the effective protection of human beings in all situations. The standards are clear. (1)
There are two major weaknesses in the effectiveness of international humanitarian law. The first is that many people do not know that it exists and that they are bound by its norms. Thus, there is an important role for greater promotional activities, the dissemination of information through general education, specific training of the military, outreach to armed militias, and cooperation with a wide range of nongovernmental organizations.
The second weakness is that violations of international humanitarian law are rarely punished. Governments too often tolerate these violations. Few soldiers are tried, or courtmartialed, for the violations of international humanitarian law. This weakness is even more true of nongovernmental militias and armed groups.
In fact, most violations of international humanitarian law are not actions of individual soldiers or militia members carried away by a sudden rush of anger, fear, a desire of revenge or a sudden sexual urge to rape a woman. Soldiers and militia members violating the norms of international humanitarian law are acting on orders of their commanders.
Thus, the only sold response is an act of conscience to refuse an order of a military or militia higher up and refuse to torture, to bomb a medical facility, to shoot a prisoner, to harm a child, and to rape a woman. Conscience, that inner voice which discerns what is right from wrong and encourages right action is the value on which we can build the defense of international humanitarian law. The defense of conscience to refuse unjust orders is a large task but a crucial action for moving toward a law-based world society.
Notes
(1) For useful guides to international humanitarian law see:
D. Schindler and J. Toman, The Laws of Armed Conflicts (Martinus Nihjoff Publishers, 1988)
H. McCoubrey and N.D. White, International Law and Armed Conflicts (Dartmouth Publishing Co., 1992)
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
October 7-8, 2024 will mark one year of armed conflict between Israeli forces and the Hamas militia – an armed conflict which grinds on and has spread.
On October 8, 2023, in light of the October 7 Hamas attack and the start of the Israeli response in the Gaza Strip, the Association of World Citizens called for five immediate steps that it hoped would create a climate of dialogue and the start of negotiations in good faith. The proposals were posted on the World Citizens’ website, sent to the Israeli Missions to the United Nations (UN) and to groups that might have avenues of communication with Hamas.
“As Citizens of the World, we call for a ceasefire in the Israeli-Palestinian armed conflict;
For the release of all hostages held by Hamas and other Palestinian groups;
For the release of all Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, often under administrative detention without trial;
For preventing the extension of the conflict to the Lebanon frontier through negotiations with Hezbollah;
For preventing an increase in violence on the West Bank among Israeli settlers and Palestinian villages;
For the start of negotiations in good faith for a political solution that ensures freedom and the collective safety of Israelis and Palestinians.”
(C) Ted Eytan
A year later, the armed violence has increased: in Gaza with a high number of persons killed, wounded and displaced, on the West Bank, in Lebanon, has expanded to Iran and brought in elements of the conflict in Yemen.
There have been relevant resolutions of the UN General Assembly, of the International Court of Justice, and appeals for a ceasefire and negotiations from many Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs).
Due to the spiraling growth of destruction, as NGOs we must continue and increase our efforts.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
Antonio Guterres, the United Nations (UN) Secretary General, said in his opening remarks to the UN General Assembly on September 24, 2024, “Gaza is a nonstop nightmare that threatens to take the entire region with it. Look no further than Lebanon. We should all be alarmed by the escalation. Lebanon is on the brink. The people of Lebanon – the people of Israel – and the people of the world – cannot afford Lebanon to become another Gaza.”
Lebanon may have already moved over the brink. Israeli strikes on Lebanon on September 23 killed at least 356 people and injured more than 1,200 others. Hezbollah deputy chief Naim Qassem has just said, “We have entered a new phase – an open-ended battle of reckoning.” Until now, Hezbollah has designed its attacks to stay below the threshold of a full-scale conflagration, but these deadly exchanges of fire carry a high risk of miscalculation, spiraling violence upward.
A rapid escalation in recent days, starting with the attack on Hezbollah members via booby-trapped pagers and walkie-talkies followed by Israeli bombardments, has raised the specter of a new phase in the conflict with a possible ground invasion by Israeli troops as in 1982 and 2006. There are fears that Iran could be drawn into the fighting. The new Iranian President, Masoud Pezeshkian, speaking at the UN General Assembly also on September 24, demanded a global response to the Lebanon situation, “not to allow Lebanon to become another Gaza.”
In 2007, young people from Beirut posing with a Hezbollah flag on the ruins of the Khiam prison formerly run by the pro-Israeli South Lebanon Army (C) Paul Keller
Hezbollah is supported by Iran but not fully under Iranian control. Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, has in recent days made widely watched television talks attacking Israeli politics and indicating continuing Hezbollah support for the Palestinians in Gaza, saying that a ceasefire in Gaza was necessary before any negotiations with Hezbollah could take place. Since negotiations for a ceasefire in Gaza seem unlikely for the moment, Hezbollah’s current campaign is likely to continue. In addition, recent tensions in the West Bank between Israeli settlers, Israeli soldiers and Palestinians in settled villages have added more heat to the general tensions in the area.
The issue is what can be done now to prevent escalation and reduce tensions. A first step is to stress respect for international humanitarian law – often cited by the Association of World Citizens (AWC). Hospitals, medical facilities, educational institutions have been destroyed in the exchanges of fire. There is a need for resolute action on the violations of humanitarian law. Regular military personnel of all countries are theoretically informed of the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949 and the Protocol Additional adopted in 1977 in light of the experiences of the war in Vietnam. Today, international human rights standards are also considered part of international humanitarian law, thus providing additional protection for vulnerable population groups such as women, children and minorities.
A possible second phase is the “good offices” function of the UN Secretary-General. It is certain that the UN Secretariat is concerned, but their ability for action may be very limited.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres
It is not clear what governments at the UN can do. The Security Council has been blocked on many issues by the veto. The resolutions of the General Assembly are “recommendations” with little follow up in practice.
A 21-day ceasefire proposal has just been set out at the UN by France and the USA but rejected by Israel.
There may be some role for non-official mediation carried out by groups representing religious, academic, or charitable organizations. One advantage of non-official mediation is that all concerned are aware that such mediation is genuinely impartial seeking only a reduction of suffering caused by the conflicts. The disadvantage is that non-official mediators lack the resources, political, economic or military on which governmental mediators can draw.
It is certain that strong measures are needed to prevent escalation. Vision and creativity are important factors. The role of nongovernmental organizations in consultative status with the UN such as the AWC may be able to play a role in these dangerous times.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
The United Nations (UN) General Assembly has designated August 19 each year as “World Humanitarian Day” to pay tribute to aid workers in humanitarian service in difficult and often dangerous conditions. August 19 was designated in memory of the August 19, 2003 bombing of the UN office building in Baghdad, Iraq, in which Sergio Vieira de Mello, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and at the time Special Representative of the UN Secretary General, was killed along with 21 UN staff members. Over 200 UN employees were injured. The exact circumstances of the attack are not known, and why UN security around the building was not tighter is still not clear. A truck with explosives was able to drive next to the building and then blew itself up.
Sergio Vieira de Mello had spent his UN career in humanitarian efforts, often with the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees and at other times as Special Representative of the UN Secretary General. As a Nongovernmental Organization (NGO) representative to the UN in Geneva and active on human rights issues, I knew him during his short 2002-2003 tenure as High Commissioner for Human Rights. Many of us had high hopes that his dynamism, relative youth (he was 54), and wide experience in conflict resolution efforts would provide new possibilities for human rights efforts. His death along with the death of others who had been Geneva-based was a stark reminder of the risks that exist for all engaged in humanitarian and conflict resolution work.
Sergio Vieira de Mello (C) UN Photo/Patrick Bertshmann
The laws of war, now more often called humanitarian law, have two wings. One wing, dealing with the treatment of medical personnel in armed conflicts, the military wounded, prisoners of war and the protection of civilians is set out in the Geneva (Red Cross) Conventions. The second wing, often called the Hague Conventions, limits or bans outright the use of certain categories of weapons. These efforts began at the Hague in 1900 and have continued with the recent limitations on land mines, cluster weapons and certain chemical weapons. The Association of World Citizens was one of the NGOs leading the campaign against cluster weapons.
The current situation concerning refugees and internally-displaced persons can also be considered as part of humanitarian law. To prevent and alleviate suffering, to protect life and health, and to ensure respect for the human person, these are the core values of humanitarian law which we strongly reaffirm on World Humanitarian Day.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
WORLD CITIZENS CALLON THE AUTHORITIES OF IRAQ TO WITHDRAW THEIR DRAFT LAW ALLOWING THE MARRIAGE OF 9-YEAR-OLD GIRLS
The AWC is alarmed to hear that a draft law under consideration in Iraq may make it legal for a man to marry a girl as young as nine.
We hear many individuals and civil society groups in the country have rightly spoken out about the said draft law.
We firmly believe the Iraqi authorities should by no means make it the law of the land.
For seventy years, Iraqi law has considered the “full age” for marriage, in the very words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to be eighteen. That is consistent with the Convention on the Rights of Child under whose Article 1 “a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years”.
Lowering the marriageable age for girls to nine would send a disastrous signal for girls in Iraq and, in a broader manner, throughout the entire Arab and Muslim world and, ultimately, throughout the entire world, beyond the borders of states, cultures, languages, religions, ethnic groups or of any other nature. It would mean the end of the very notion of child abuse.
Since the draft law would make it possible for a man to marry a young girl but not, conversely, for a woman to marry a young boy – and, even then, it would only be equally condemnable – the draft law also sends a discriminatory message toward women, signifying that a female life is of lesser value.
The AWC condemns in the strongest terms any legislative attempt, whether in Iraq or anywhere else for this purpose, to turn a child into a person’s property, let alone their sexual object of pleasure.
We hereby call on the Iraqi Government and Parliament to immediately withdraw the draft bill and ensure that Iraqi law remains steadily consistent with UN human rights standards.
Government representatives and some Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) are participating from July 22 to August 2, 2024 in Geneva, Switzerland in the Preparatory Session for the Review Conference on the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. As the political and strategic situation in the world can evolve over time, the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) had as one of its provisions (Article VIII) that a review conference be held every five years to judge the situation and to see if new elements should be added. At the end of each Review a “Chairman’s Statement” must be agreed upon by all the States present.
The NPT, which had taken 10 years to negotiate, was proclaimed in 1970, and the first Review Conference was held in Geneva in 1975. As the Review Conference was a meeting of the States Party to the Treaty and not a regular United Nations (UN) disarmament negotiation, NGO representatives had more opportunity for interaction with governments. NGO texts were considered as “official documents” and were printed and distributed by the conference secretariat. I was asked to chair the group of NGO participants, which I did both in 1975 and 1980. As a result of my chairing the NGOs at the 1975 Review, I was invited to Moscow to discuss with Soviet military and arms control specialists. I have remained concerned with the issues ever since.
Each Review Conference has been concerned with the three fundamental aspects of the Treaty: non-proliferation, promotion of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and the disarmament initiatives of the five nuclear-weapon States when the Treaty was signed: the USA, USSR, the United Kingdom, France, and China as set out in Article VI.
To make matters more complicated but politically realistic, the policies of nuclear-weapon States which have not signed the NPT – India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea – color the discussions of each Review. Iran is a State Party to the NPT, but questions have been raised about the effectiveness of the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities and if nuclear material is being enriched to weapon-production levels.
The nuclear weapons of Israel and their meaning for Middle East policies have long been “an elephant in the room” – too large not to notice but too dangerous to deal with if anything else in the Review process is to be done. In 1995, there was an annex to the final Chairman’s Statement of the Review proposing that a conference on a potential nuclear-weapon-free Middle East should be called. In practice, “the time was never ripe”, but the concept is still there.
The concept of nuclear-weapon-free zones has been an important concept in disarmament and regional conflict-reduction efforts. A nuclear-weapon-free zone was first suggested by the Polish Foreign Minister, Adam Rapacki, at the UN General Assembly in October 1957 – just a year after the crushing of the uprising in Hungary. The crushing of the Hungarian revolt by Soviet troops and the unrest among Polish workers at the same time showed that the East-West equilibrium in Central Europe was unstable with both the Soviet Union and the USA in possession of nuclear weapons, and perhaps a willingness to use them if the political situation became radically unstable. The Rapacki Plan, as it became known, called for the denuclearization of East and West Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland.
The Plan went through several variants which included its extension to cover reduction of armed forces and armaments, and as a preliminary step, a freeze on nuclear weapons in the area. The Rapacki Plan was opposed by the NATO powers, in part because it recognized the legitimacy of the East German State. It was not until 1970 and the start of what became the 1975 Helsinki Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) that serious negotiations on troop levels and weapons in Europe began. While the Rapacki Plan never led to negotiations on nuclear-weapon policies in Europe, it had the merit of restarting East-West discussions which were then at a dead point after the Hungarian uprising.
Adam Rapacki
The first nuclear-weapon-free zone to be negotiated – the Treaty of Tlatelolco – was a direct aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. It is hard to know how close to a nuclear exchange between the USA and the USSR the Cuban missile crisis was. It was close enough so that Latin American leaders were moved to action. While Latin America was not an area in which military confrontation was as stark as in Europe, the Cuban missile crisis was a warning that you did not need to have standing armies facing each other for there to be danger.
Mexico, under the leadership of Ambassador Alfonso Garcia-Robles at the UN, began immediately to call for a denuclearization of Latin America. There were a series of conferences, and in February 1067 the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America was signed at Tlatelolco, Mexico. For a major arms control treaty, the Tlatelolco was negotiated in a short time, due partly to the fear inspired by the Cuban missile crisis but especially to the energy and persistence of Garcia-Robles and the expert advice of William Epstein, the UN’s Director of Disarmament Affairs. The Treaty established a permanent and effective system of control which contains a number of novel and pioneering elements as well as a body to supervise the Treaty.
Alfonso Garcia Robles (C) Marcel Antonisse
On September 8, 2006, the five States of Central Asia – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan – signed a treaty establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone. The treaty aims at reducing the risk of nuclear proliferation and nuclear-armed terrorism. The treaty bans the production, acquisition, deployment of nuclear weapons and their components as well as nuclear explosives. Importantly, the treaty bans the transportation of nuclear weapons as both Russia and the USA have established military airbases in Central Asia where nuclear weapons could have been placed in times of crisis in Asia.
Superman is not coming to rid the world of nuclear weapons. World Citizens need to take the problem to UN delegates by themselves. Or own Quest for Peace deserves a happy ending too.
It is an unfortunate aspect of world politics that constructive, institution-building action is usually undertaken only because of a crisis. Perhaps the growing pressures in the Middle East could lead to concerted leadership for a Middle East nuclear-weapon-free zone. The IAEA has the technical knowledge for putting such a zone in place. Now there needs to be leadership from within the Middle East as well as from the broader international community. There are urgent needs for new common security approaches.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
Association of World Citizens 