LA AWC LLAMA A LAS AUTORIDADES DE NICARAGUA A DEROGAR LA PROHIBICIÓN ANUNCIADA DE 1.500 ORGANIZACIONES NO GUBERNAMENTALES
La Association of World Citizens (Asociación de Ciudadanos del Mundo; AWC) expresa su alarma al aprender que las autoridades de la República de Nicaragua anunciaron el 19 de agosto la prohibición de 1.500 organizaciones no gubernamentales (ONG), la mayoría de ellas organizaciones de beneficencia católicas romanas, aunque, lamentablemente, la medida también ha afectado a la Cruz Roja Nicaragüense.
Desde abril de 2018, el Gobierno encabezado por el Presidente Daniel Ortega ha adoptado un cariz abiertamente autoritario, tras las protestas cuya violenta represión, según las Naciones Unidas (ONU), ha dejado más de 300 muertos. En este contexto, casi todos los opositores políticos han sido encarcelados o forzados al exilio.
En cuanto a los grupos de la sociedad civil, esta última medida eleva a 5.000 el número de ONG prohibidas por las autoridades en los últimos seis años. Todos los grupos prohibidos han visto sus bienes confiscados por el Gobierno. Aunque la razón oficial esgrimida es que estas ONG no han declarado sus ingresos, la semana pasada se aprobó una normativa que obliga a las ONG a establecer “alianzas de asociación” con las autoridades, con lo que prácticamente se acaba su carácter “no gubernamental”.
La Oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos ha pedido “a las autoridades nicaragüenses que dejen de imponer restricciones severas a los espacios cívicos y democráticos del país y que garanticen el respeto de los derechos humanos, de conformidad con las obligaciones internacionales de Nicaragua en materia de derechos humanos”.
La AWC respalda sin reservas este llamamiento, instando al Gobierno de Nicaragua a rescindir de inmediato su prohibición anunciada y a restablecer a todas las ONG ilegalizadas desde 2018 su estatus jurídico y financiero inicial, garantizando además que sean libres de operar como consideren conveniente, un requisito básico para cualquier país que pretenda defender el Estado de derecho.
THE AWC CALLS ON THE AUTHORITIES OF NICARAGUA TO RESCIND THEIR ANNOUNCED BAN ON 1,500 NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
The Association of World Citizens (AWC) is alarmed to hear that the authorities of the Republic of Nicaragua announced on August 19 that they were banning 1,500 Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs), most of them Roman Catholic charities – even though, regrettably, the Nicaraguan Red Cross has been struck by the measure too.
Since April 2018, the Government led by President Daniel Ortega has taken an openly authoritarian turn, after protests whose violent repression the United Nations (UN) claims left more than 300 people dead. In this context, nearly all political opponents have been jailed or forced into exile.
As for civil society groups, this latest move brings to 5,000 the number of NGOs banned by the authorities over the last six years. All groups thus banned have had their assets seized by the Government.
Even though the official reason put forward is that these NGOs have failed to declare their income, last week, a regulation was passed requiring NGOs to enter “partnership alliances” with the authorities, therefore practically ending their “nongovernmental” nature.
The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has called “on the Nicaraguan authorities to stop imposing severe restrictions on civic and democratic spaces in the country, and to ensure that human rights are respected, in line with Nicaragua’s international human rights obligations.”
The AWC unreservedly endorses this call, urging the Nicaraguan Government to rescind immediately its announced ban and restore all NGOs outlawed since 2018 to their initial legal and financial status, further ensuring that they are free to operate as they see fit, a basic requirement for any country which claims to be upholding the rule of law.
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.
Muhammad Yunus, the founder of the microcredit banking system in Bangladesh, the Grameen Bank (which translates as “Village Bank”), was sworn in as the interim leader of the Bangladesh government on August 8, 2024. The former leader, Sheikh Hasina, resigned and then fled to India, driven out by the protests first of students and then by other sectors of the population during which some 400 persons were killed by the military and the police. Muhammed Yunus has called for calm and an end to uncontrolled violence often directed against the minority Hindu population.
Muhammad Yunus is an economist. Now 84 years old, he is retired from teaching, originally at the University of Chittagong, the port city of Bangladesh. As an economist, he was quickly aware of rural poverty in many parts of the country and the unrest of the tribal minorities in the Chittagong Hill Tracks. He developed the concept of the Grameen Bank, small loans, especially to women, in order to improve their trading efforts. Much of what is called “the informal sector” – marginal to the more developed economy – are the efforts of market women and women small producers. With small loans which must be repaid before a new loan is possible, women are able to have more security and can expand their business.
Prof. Muhammad Yunus at the University of Salford, UK, on May 18, 2013 (C) University of Salford Press Service
The Grameen Bank approach spread to nearly all areas of Bangladesh and then to other countries, especially in Africa. The success of the Grameen Bank approach has lifted many from the cycle of poverty and instability. In recognition of the impact of the Grameen Banks, Muhammad Yunus was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2006.
Muhammad Yunus has formed an interim government of 16 persons, mostly drawn from civil society organizations, including two, Nahid Islam and Asif Mahmud, both 26 years old, who were leaders of the student movements which overthrew Sheikh Hasina who had been in power for 15 years – whose government had become increasingly authoritarian. Muhammad Yunus has promised that elections will be held shortly but that calm must be restored first. He faces difficult tasks, but he is a fresh mind outside the narrow political milieu. We must wish him well in his vital efforts.
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.
At a time when Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip are under violent tensions, on July 19, the International Court of Justice (the World Court), published an Advisory Opinion, “Legal Consequences Arising from Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory Including East Jerusalem”. The request for an Advisory Opinion came from the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 2023. The drafting by the World Court judges followed the oral hearings in February 2024 of the representatives of 50 States, the written statement of the Israeli authorities, and a voluminous dossier submitted by the UN Secretary-General on UN investigations and peacemaking efforts.
The international law framework concerns the standards set for the administration of occupied territories and the duties of an occupying power. The Advisory Opinion sets out the legal consequences for Israel, the legal consequences for other States, and the legal consequences for the UN.
(C) International Court of Justice
The Advisory Opinion does not offer new information. Nongovernmental Organizations (NGO), both in Israel and internationally, have documented in sad detail much of the violence against Palestinians, the destruction of homes by Israeli military forces, the increased presence of Israeli settlers in the West Bank, and many other forms of discrimination. The World Court considers this information reliable, and the information can serve as the basis of its deliberation without asking for new investigations.
The question which is now open is “What will be the consequences of the Advisory Opinion?” The World Court has no enforcement provisions for its decisions. The impact of the World Court depends for the most part on what national governments decide to do and on what pressure NGOs can develop. The tensions in the wider Middle East are real, and the Advisory Opinion may provide an impetus for action. The Association of World Citizens is devoted to strengthening international law and will follow these efforts with strong interest.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
On June 15, 2024, Russian Federation Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that “Russia will not view Western European countries as possible partners for at least one generation. The acute phase of the military-political confrontation with the West continues and is in full swing.” He was echoed in an interview by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov who said that NATO is “a group in which we feel not an ounce of trust, which triggers political and even emotional rejection in Moscow.”
It is likely that the two Sergeys express a view held by many governmental decision-makers in Moscow. Where they are wrong is that the world cannot wait for one generation to reestablish a Europe-wide security zone but most start now. Given current governmental preoccupations, it is likely that nongovernmental organizations must take the lead.
In the 1960s, the idea of a European security conference was launched by the USSR followed in 1966 by a proposal of the Warsaw Pact Organization. After a good deal of discussion and some modifications of policies, especially the West German Ostpolitik, it was decided to convene a Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. At the invitation of the Finnish government, multilateral preparatory talks began near Helsinki in November 1972. There were numerous preparatory aspects, especially the subjects of such a conference.
The admission card to the Conference for Security and Cooperation Meeting in Helsinki for Erich Honecker, the hardline Communist ruler of East Germany from 1971 to 1989 (C) Wikimedia Commons-HajjiBaba
Thus, the main issues of the conference were transferred for negotiation to Geneva, Switzerland to be undertaken by experts. During this period of negotiations in Geneva, nongovernmental organization (NGO) representatives in Geneva who were known for their activities at the United Nations (UN) were able to present proposals for possible consideration. The Association of World Citizens (AWC) was particularly active in presenting ideas on the resolution of conflicts and the possible use of arbitration as an appropriate means of dispute settlement. The Helsinki process later created an arbitration body in Geneva, but it is little used. The Association was also active with other NGOs in what was called the “human dimension” of the Helsinki agreement. The conference had deliberately not used a human rights vocabulary. The extensive participation of nongovernmental representatives is recognized in the text of the Final Act and encouraged to continue. The results of the Geneva negotiations led to the signature of the Final Act in Helsinki on August 1, 1975.
Today, it is likely that the Russia-Ukraine conflict starting with the 2014 annexation of Crimea has ended the effectiveness of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Thus, in many ways, we are “back to square one” in the organization of a Europe-wide security zone with many more States to be involved due to the breakup of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. There is also the issue of what has been called “The Phantom Republics”: Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, Transnistria in Moldova, Kosovo, formerly part of Serbia, and the disputed Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics in Ukraine. These are “ministates” economically fragile, potentially manipulated by more powerful States but which will not be reintegrated into their former State even if granted significant autonomy.
There is a rich heritage of efforts made within the OSCE. However, the OSCE has also very real limitations. It has a tight budget and a lack of specialized personnel. Much of the staff are diplomats seconded from national governments. This results in a high turnover of staff and a lack of primary loyalty to the organization. Nevertheless, the OSCE has been able to respond to situations which were not foreseen at its creation. Much of the future depends on the attitude of the Russian Federation which at present seems negative. New avenues are likely to be needed, and NGOs may again be able to play positive roles.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
On June 13, 2024, the United Nations (UN) Security Council called for an end to the siege on El Fasher, the capital of the North Darfur Province of Sudan. The Council requested all parties to enable lifesaving aid to enter the city of El Fasher, the center of the most vicious fighting. The brutality of the fighting makes it impossible for aid workers to enter the city.
The civil war has gone on since April 2023 between the Rapid Support Forces led by General Mohamed Hamdan, known by his battle name of Hemedti, and the Sudanese Armed Forces led by General Abdul Fattah al-Burham. The fighting has led to some 15,000 persons being killed and 8 million displaced. The agriculture in the country is disorganized, and many people face acute hunger and, in some areas, famine.
Each of the two generals has created local militias which rob, torture, rape, and create conditions of disorder. Many of the militias use child soldiers in violation of UN treaties on the protection of children. Each of the two generals has opened the door to foreign fighters. There are Russian mercenaries which had been under the control of the Russian Wagner Group who had been fighting in Mali, Chad, Niger, and the Central African Republic. There are Ukrainian mercenaries who have come to fight the Russians.
It is difficult to understand the intensity of the current divisions represented by the two generals who had once been allies. The current divisions do not follow earlier fault lines in Sudan.
(C) Cable News Network
On behalf of the Association of World Citizens (AWC), I had been the first to raise in the UN Commission on Human Rights in 2004 the violent conditions in Darfur, Sudan, having been informed by a member of the UN Secretariat who was leaving the country and who could not speak out for himself. The violent conditions in Darfur were largely based on ethnic divisions linked to lifestyle differences between settled agriculturalists and cattle herders. There were also aspects of political divisions at the national level.
We kept in close contact with the Sudanese Mission to the UN in Geneva. Thus, the AWC was invited to be observers in the referendum which led to the creation of the State of South Sudan. The World Citizens had sent a team of observers.
Today, the suffering is real. Enlightened action is necessary. The conflictual situation requires close cooperation among humanitarian and peace nongovernmental organizations to see what is possible.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
For a historic background on Darfur, see Julie Flint and Alex de Wall, Darfur: A Short History of a Long War (London: Zed Books, 2005).
Association of World Citizens 