The Official Blog of the

Archive for the ‘Religious Freedom’ Category

Politics Beyond National Frontiers

In Being a World Citizen, Conflict Resolution, Cultural Bridges, Democracy, Environmental protection, Human Development, Human Rights, Humanitarian Law, International Justice, Migration, Modern slavery, NGOs, Nonviolence, Refugees, Religious Freedom, Social Rights, Solidarity, Sustainable Development, The Search for Peace, Track II, United Nations, Women's Rights, World Law on May 24, 2023 at 6:38 AM

By René Wadlow

In our current globalized world society, there is an increased role for politics without borders. Politics no longer stops at the water’s edge but must play an active role on the world stage. However, unlike politics at the national level which usually has a parliament at which the actors can recite their lines, the world has no world parliament as such. Thus, new and inventive ways must be found so that world public opinion can be heard and acted upon.

The United Nations (UN) General Assembly is the closest thing to a world parliament that we have today. However, all the official participants are diplomats appointed by their respective States – 195 member states. UN Secretariat members, the secretariat members of UN Specialized Agencies such as UNESCO and the ILO, are in the hallways or coffee shops to give advice. Secretariat members of the financial institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF are also there to give advice on costs and the limits of available funds. The representatives of Nongovernmental Organizations (NGO) in Consultative Status with the UN who can speak at sessions of the Economic and Social Council and the Human Rights Council cannot address the General Assembly directly. However, they are also in the coffee shops and may send documents to the UN missions of national governments.

(C) Jérôme Blum

Politics without borders requires finding ways to express views for action beyond the borders of individual countries. Today, most vital issues that touch the lives of many people go beyond the individual State: the consequences of climate change, the protection of biodiversity, the resolution of armed conflicts, the violations of human rights, and a more just world trade pattern. Thus we need to find ways of looking at the world with a global mind and an open heart. This perspective is an aim of world citizenship.

However, World Citizens are not yet so organized as to be able to impact political decisions at the UN and in enough individual States so as to have real influence. The policy papers and Appeals of the Association of World Citizens (AWC) are often read with interest by the government representatives to whom they are sent. However, the AWC is an NGO among many and does not have the number of staff as such international NGOs as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Greenpeace.

The First Officer and External Relations Officer, Bernard J. Henry, and the Legal and Mediation Officer, Attorney Noura Addad, representing the AWC at an OECD roundtable in March 2019 (C) Bernard J. Henry/AWC

We still need to find effective ways so that humanity can come together to solve global problems, that is, politics without borders. Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.

Assault on Religious Liberty: July 20, 1937

In Being a World Citizen, Human Rights, NGOs, Religious Freedom, Solidarity, Spirituality, The Search for Peace, Track II, United Nations, World Law on July 20, 2021 at 3:17 PM

By René Wadlow

The Nazi Government of Germany had first moved against the Jews, considered as both a racial and a religious group. The Jews had long been a target of the Nazi movement and the attack on them came as no surprise. However, the July 20, 1937 banning of the theosophical movement and of others «theosophically related» in the Nazi ideology was a turning point in Nazi repression.

On July 20, 1937, the Theosophical Society and the related Anthroposophical Society which had been founded by Rudolf Steiner who had been president of the German section of the Theosophical Society were banned. The banning order was signed by Reichsführer Reinhard Heydrich who warned that “The continuation and new foundation of this as well as the foundation of disguised succession organizations is prohibited. Simultaneously I herewith state because of the law about confiscation of property hostile to people and state that the property of the abovementioned organizations was used or intended for the promotion of intentions hostile to people and state.” Thus, all offices and buildings were confiscated.

At the time there was little organized protest. The League of Nations, while upholding tolerance and freedom of thought in general had no specific declaration on freedom of religion and no institutional structures to deal with protests. Now, the United Nations (UN) has a specific Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief of November 25, 1981 which builds upon Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion : this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship or observance.” As with all UN Instruments relating to freedom of religion, Article 18 represents a compromise. One of its achievements was the inclusion of the terms “thought” and “conscience” which quietly embraced atheists and non-believers. The most divisive phrase, however, was “freedom to change one’s religion”.

The Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief took nearly 20 years of difficult negotiations to draft. Preparations for the Declaration had begun in 1962. One of the most difficult areas in drafting the Declaration concerned the rights of the child to have “access to education in the matter of religion or belief in accordance with the wishes of his parents and shall not be compelled to receive teaching on religion or belief against the wishes of his parents or legal guardians, the best interests of the child being the guiding principle.”

The Declaration goes on to state that “The child shall be protected from any form of discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. He shall be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood, respect for freedom of religion or belief of others, and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the services of his fellow men.”

The Declaration highlights that there can be no doubt that freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief and the elimination of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief are of a fundamental character and derive from the inherent dignity and worth of the human person.

The gradual evolution of UN norms on the issue of religious liberty has been a complex process and is often a reflection of bilateral relations among Member States. This was especially true during the 1980s – the last decade of the USA-USSR Cold War. However, the end of the Cold War did not end religious tensions as an important factor in internal and international conflicts.

The 1981 Declaration cannot be implemented by UN bodies alone. Effective implementation also requires efforts by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). NGOs play a vital role in the development of the right to freedom of religion or belief, especially by advancing the cause of those still struggling to achieve this right.

Thus, the Association of World Citizens (AWC) had been active in the late 1970s when the UN Commission on Human Rights moved from New York to Geneva on the formulation of the 1981 Declaration. Since then, the AWC has worked closely with the Special Rapporteurs on Religious Liberty of the Commission (now the Human Rights Council). The AWC has also raised publicly in the Commission certain specific situations and violations. The AWC stresses the need for sound research and careful analysis. Citizens of the World have an important role to play in bringing spiritual and ethical insights to promote reconciliation and healing in many parts of the world.

Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.

24 mars : La vérité est un Droit Humain

In Being a World Citizen, Democracy, Human Rights, Latin America, NGOs, Religious Freedom, Solidarity, Spirituality, Track II, United Nations on March 26, 2021 at 5:00 PM

Par Bernard J. Henry

Trente-cinq ans déjà, en janvier dernier, que le chanteur français Daniel Balavoine trouvait la mort tragiquement lors du Paris-Dakar où il était présent non comme coureur, mais, fidèle à ses convictions telles qu’il les exprimait dans ses chansons, pour une opération humanitaire qu’il avait mise en place et voulait voir aboutir – littéralement, il l’aura payé de sa vie.

Dans ses chansons, Balavoine évoquait souvent les Droits Humains, le sous-développement, les atteintes à l’environnement et, bien sûr, le racisme, comme dans son dernier succès de son vivant, L’Aziza. A sa manière, il était un Citoyen du Monde au sens où le conçoit l’Association of World Citizens (AWC). Dans son album de 1983 intitulé Loin des yeux de l’Occident, il chantait le sort des femmes dans le Tiers Monde, comme l’on appelait alors le monde en développement, les écrivains emprisonnés par les dictatures militaires d’Amérique latine et, dans cette même région du monde, les Mères de la Place de Mai en Argentine. Depuis 1977, deuxième année de la dictature militaire dans le pays, ces mères de «disparus forcés» manifestent face au siège du gouvernement en demandant la vérité sur le sort des leurs. La junte au pouvoir les avait surnommées les «folles de la Place de Mai» pour les discréditer ; elle n’a ainsi fait que rendre leur cause mondialement célèbre.

Dans Revolución, dernière piste de Loin des yeux de l’Occident qui a pour titre le dernier vers de cette même chanson, Balavoine chantait ainsi d’elles :

«Comme on porte une couronne,

Elles ont la peur sur leur visage ruisselant,

Espérant la maldonne,

Elles frappent leur poitrine en défilant,

Pieusement questionnent :

‘Est-ce que disparus veut dire vivants ?’

Faut-il qu’elles pardonnent

Pour croire que leurs morts ne sont qu’absents ?»

Et c’est bien là toute la question, au-delà même des atteintes aux Droits Humains – la question de la vérité sur les sévices commis, cette vérité que l’on refuse aux proches des victimes et qui, dans notre monde d’aujourd’hui, est pourtant considérée en elle-même comme un Droit Humain à part entière.

Monseigneur Romero : le plomb d’une balle pour le plomb du silence

Chaque année, dans le langage technique et bureaucratique, comme l’ONU et les autres organisations intergouvernementales bien intentionnées mais lourdes à manier en ont le secret, le 24 mars est la «Journée internationale pour le droit à la vérité en ce qui concerne les violations flagrantes des droits de l’homme et pour la dignité des victimes», même s’il suffit d’en retenir quatre mots, les plus «essentiels» comme le dit ce monde de pandémie – droit à la vérité.

Si Balavoine chantait les disparitions forcées, violation des Droits Humains qui invisibilise par excellence le martyre infligé aux victimes et permet comme nulle autre le mensonge, y compris en sa forme la plus cruelle et cynique qu’est le silence, le droit à la vérité concerne tout type d’atteinte aux Droits Humains, qu’elle soit perpétrée derrière les épais murs d’un bâtiment gouvernemental ou sous les yeux de qui voit soudain un proche connaître le pire. Et bien sûr, de la même manière que Chamfort parlait au dix-huitième siècle d’une France où «on laisse en repos ceux qui mettent le feu, et on persécute ceux qui sonnent le tocsin», dans un pays qui attente au droit, quiconque le dénonce devient soi-même une victime de choix.

Monseigneur Óscar Romero

C’est en mémoire de l’une de ces victimes, qui avait osé élever la voix sur les atrocités dont il avait été témoin, que la Journée internationale a été proclamée. Il se nommait Óscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdámez, il était Archevêque catholique romain de San Salvador, capitale du Salvador où la guerre civile opposait depuis peu le gouvernement conservateur et une guérilla marxiste. Lui aussi conservateur au départ, Monseigneur Romero reçoit un choc avec l’assassinat en 1977 d’un prêtre jésuite de son diocèse par un escadron de la mort pro-gouvernemental. Il devient alors un ardent défenseur des Droits Humains, notamment de ceux des paysans. Devenu un farouche dénonciateur des exactions de l’armée et des paramilitaires, il est abattu d’un coup de fusil en pleine poitrine le 24 mars 1980 alors qu’il dit sa messe dans un hôpital.

Le Salvador, autre pays dont avait parlé Balavoine dans Dieu que l’amour est triste, où il le rebaptisait le «San Salvador». Et autre exemple de la guerre aux Droits Humains que menaient à travers l’Amérique latine, du Guatemala jusqu’à la Terre de Feu, des dictatures civiles ou militaires auxquelles tout était bon pour réprimer la moindre opposition, cette guerre qui, en 1982, allait avoir pour victime collatérale à des milliers de kilomètres par-delà l’Atlantique, au Palais des Nations de Genève, Theo van Boven, chassé de la direction du Centre des Nations Unies pour les Droits de l’Homme pour avoir lui aussi élevé la voix trop fort, même si lui, au moins, y survécut et en témoigne encore à ce jour.

Le mensonge, première atteinte aux Droits Humains

Bien entendu, le temps a passé. Trente-cinq ans depuis le décès tragique de Daniel Balavoine. Plus de quarante ans depuis l’assassinat de Monseigneur Romero et bientôt tout autant depuis l’éviction de Theo van Boven. Mais le temps et l’évolution des atteintes aux Droits Humains n’ont fait, surtout depuis la Conférence de Vienne en 1993, que renforcer la victime, réelle ou potentielle, dans sa position centrale dès qu’il est question de défendre les Droits Humains ou, comme ici donc, de diffuser l’information sur les violations.

Theo van Boven

Ce qui est vrai pour les «folles de la Place de Mai», comme les appelaient avec mépris les «hommes des casernes» de Buenos Aires, est vrai pour toute autre situation où des droits sont violés et le secret est invoqué pour en cacher l’existence, ou la réalité au profit d’une version plus commode. Il n’est pas un type de violation des Droits Humains où le droit à la vérité ne s’avère crucial, même ce qui paraît évident pouvant receler une réalité plus occulte.

Qui a tué Lokman Slim au Liban ? Qui donne l’ordre de harceler Nidžara Ahmetašević, militante bosnienne de l’aide aux migrants à la frontière entre Croatie et Bosnie-Herzégovine ? Pourquoi Mohamed Gasmi, Défenseur des Droits Humains en Algérie, est-il poursuivi au pénal par son gouvernement sous les accusations calomnieuses, désormais devenues typiques des régimes autoritaires et des démocraties illibérales à travers le monde, d’avoir «eu des contacts avec des agents étrangers ennemis du pays» et «d’avoir comploté pour commettre des actes terroristes en sol national» ? Autant de questions auxquelles l’AWC s’est employée depuis le début de cette année à recueillir des réponses, autant que possible. Parce que le mensonge, à commencer par le silence qui en est la forme la plus venimeuse, est la première et la pire des atteintes aux Droits Humains.

Le droit à la vérité sur les atteintes aux Droits Humains n’est donc pas un pur vœu moral, pas plus qu’il ne doit demeurer un vœu pieux. Il est un véritable droit, dont la revendication n’est pas morale ou spirituelle mais bel et bien juridique, et au sens large du terme, politique. A défendre toujours, contre le mensonge et le silence des violateurs et contre les fausses vérités des tenants du complotisme et du confusionnisme sur Internet et ailleurs de par le monde.

Bernard J. Henry est Officier des Relations Extérieures de l’Association of World Citizens.

Taiwan, Etat non-membre de l’ONU, se dote d’une Commission nationale des Droits Humains en suivant les règles des Nations Unies

In Anticolonialism, Asia, Being a World Citizen, Conflict Resolution, Cultural Bridges, Current Events, Democracy, Human Rights, NGOs, Religious Freedom, Solidarity, Spirituality, The Search for Peace, Track II, United Nations, World Law on August 2, 2020 at 9:26 PM

Par Bernard J. Henry

 

La Déclaration universelle des Droits de l’Homme ayant été proclamée par l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies, faut-il être citoyen d’un Etat membre de l’ONU pour s’en réclamer ?

Absurde, comme question ? Elle ne l’était pas tant lorsque la Déclaration fut adoptée, en 1948, dans le monde de l’après-Seconde Guerre Mondiale où le colonialisme existait encore et des centaines de millions d’êtres humains vivaient encore sous l’autorité d’un pays européen qui avait un jour pris leur terre par la force.

René Cassin et les rédacteurs de la Déclaration savaient ce qu’ils voulaient. Le Préambule précise que les Droits de l’Homme, aujourd’hui Droits Humains, doivent être respectés «tant parmi les populations des Etats Membres eux-mêmes que parmi celles des territoires placés sous leur juridiction». L’Article 2.2 se veut tout aussi explicite en affirmant qu’ «il ne sera fait aucune distinction fondée sur le statut politique, juridique ou international du pays ou du territoire dont une personne est ressortissante, que ce pays ou territoire soit indépendant, sous tutelle, non autonome ou soumis à une limitation quelconque de souveraineté».

Tout être humain était donc titulaire des droits énoncés par la Déclaration, la colonisation n’y devant apporter aucune différence. Mais pour ne citer qu’elles, les réponses de la France et de la Grande-Bretagne aux velléités d’indépendance allaient bientôt démontrer une réalité tout autre, en particulier pendant la guerre d’Algérie.

Au début du vingt-et-unième siècle, la terre était entièrement composée d’Etats membres de l’ONU. Parmi les Etats mondialement reconnus, seule la Suisse ne l’était pas, ayant toutefois fini par rejoindre les Nations Unies en 2002. A ce jour, seuls trois Etats reconnus à travers le monde ne sont pas membres de l’ONU – l’Etat de Palestine, cependant membre de l’UNESCO, le Saint-Siège, Etat que dirige le Pape au sein de la Cité du Vatican à Rome, et Taiwan, ou plutôt, selon son nom officiel, la République de Chine.

En fait, pour l’Organisation mondiale, Taiwan n’est même pas un Etat. En 1949, à l’issue de la guerre civile opposant le Gouvernement chinois aux troupes communistes, l’île devient le seul territoire restant à l’Etat chinois reconnu et qui, à l’ONU, le reste bien qu’ayant perdu la Chine continentale. Ce n’est qu’en 1971 que les Nations Unies reconnaissent le régime de Beijing et retirent sa reconnaissance à Taiwan. Depuis cette époque, Taiwan se considère comme une province de la République de Chine, qu’elle estime être l’Etat légitime chinois en lieu et place de celui représenté au Conseil de Sécurité de l’ONU dont la Chine populaire est l’un des cinq Membres permanents.

Inexistante aux yeux des Nations Unies, Taiwan y a donc perdu tout droit – mais aussi tout devoir, notamment envers les normes internationales de Droits Humains. Pour autant, les Taïwanais sont loin d’avoir cessé d’y croire et viennent même de remporter une considérable victoire.

Des principes universels – mais qui ne lient pas Taiwan

A Taiwan, la situation est tendue, tant du fait de la Chine populaire qu’à l’intérieur même des frontières. Aux menaces de Beijing qui, s’employant à réprimer la révolte contre le projet de loi ultrasécuritaire à Hong Kong, annonce à Taiwan qu’elle est la prochaine sur laquelle viendra s’abattre sa force armée, viennent s’ajouter les poursuites judiciaires et fiscales contre le groupe spirituel Tai Ji Men, en cours depuis les années 1990 et qui ont fait descendre Taipei dans la rue.

Tout se prête à une crispation tant externe qu’interne des dirigeants, et dans de telles conditions, autant dire qu’espérer en une avancée sociale ou sociétale majeure relève au mieux du vœu pieux. Or, le «vœu pieux» vient précisément de devenir réalité.

Le 1er août, la République de Chine s’est dotée d’une Commission nationale des Droits Humains, placée sous l’autorité administrative du Yuan de Contrôle qui œuvre à l’observation du bon fonctionnement des institutions au sein de l’exécutif. Selon la Présidente taïwanaise, Tsai Ing-wen, souvent citée en exemple pour sa gestion de la COVID-19 avec plusieurs de ses homologues féminines comme Jacinda Ardern ou Angela Merkel, la Commission aura pour tâche de rendre les lois nationales plus conformes aux normes internationales de Droits Humains. Et à l’appui de sa revendication, la cheffe de l’Etat taïwanais choisit une référence frappante.

Tsai_Ing-wen_20170613

Tsai Ing-wen, Présidente de la République de Chine

Lors de la cérémonie de création de la Commission, Tsai Ing-wen a invoqué les Principes de Paris, créés par une résolution de la Commission des Droits de l’Homme de l’ONU, ancêtre du Conseil du même nom, en 1992 puis validés par l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies l’année suivante, également l’année de la Conférence de Vienne sur les Droits Humains qui créa en la matière le poste de Haut Commissaire.

Instaurant le concept d’Institution nationale des Droits Humains (INDH), rôle que remplit en France, par exemple, la Commission nationale consultative des Droits de l’Homme créée en 1947, les Principes de Paris fixent des buts fondamentaux à accomplir pour toute INDH : protéger les Droits Humains, notamment en recevant des plaintes et en enquêtant en vue de résoudre l’affaire, en œuvrant à titre de médiateur dans des litiges et en observant les activités liées aux Droits Humains dans la société, mais aussi assurer la promotion des Droits Humains à travers l’éducation, l’information du public dans les médias réguliers et à travers des publications propres, ainsi que la formation, la création des aptitudes et, in fine, le conseil et l’assistance au gouvernement national.

Mais attention. N’est pas une INDH qui veut. Afin d’être reconnue comme telle, puis autorisée à rejoindre l’Alliance mondiale des Institutions nationales des Droits Humains (Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions, GANHRI), une INDH doit remplir, toujours selon les Principes de Paris, six critères incontournables :

– Disposer d’un mandat large se fondant sur les normes universelles de Droits Humains,

– Disposer d’une autonomie réelle de fonctionnement envers le Gouvernement,

– Disposer d’une indépendance garantie par son statut ou son acte constitutif,

– Assurer en son sein le pluralisme,

– Bénéficier de ressources financières suffisantes pour accomplir sa tâche, et

– Bénéficier de pouvoirs d’enquête effectifs pour obtenir des résultats probants.

Il est facile pour un gouvernement, surtout sentant la pression internationale, de créer une INDH de complaisance. Mais il sera moins facile pour celle-ci d’être reconnue par ses paires. Au demeurant, la Chine populaire reconnue par l’ONU n’a pas créé à ce jour d’INDH …

Non membre de l’ONU, Taiwan n’est en théorie pas tenue par les normes internationales auxquelles se réfère la Présidente Tsai. Autant dire que le choix est risqué. S’il est risqué, c’est parce qu’il est courageux. Et s’il est courageux, c’est parce qu’il est subjectif.

Taiwan sait quels risques elle veut prendre

Entre 1949, année de la scission du peuple chinois sur le plan politique, et 1975, date de son décès, Tchang Kai-chek, ancien général puis dictateur de type fasciste en Chine continentale, aura dirigé Taiwan d’une main de fer face à Mao Zedong, patron de la Chine populaire, à laquelle il imposera un règne tyrannique ponctué par une sanglante «révolution culturelle» et qui ne survivra que quelques mois à son adversaire taïwanais.

774px-Chiang_Kai-shek（蔣中正）

Tchang Kaï-chek

Jusqu’alors démocratie de façade, Taiwan en devient progressivement une plus réelle et, dans les années 1980, l’Etat insulaire émerge comme l’une des grandes puissances économiques de l’Asie, formant avec la Corée du Sud, la cité-Etat de Singapour et Hong Kong, alors toujours colonie britannique, les «Quatre Dragons».

Pour la Chine populaire, la fin de la Guerre Froide n’est pas symbole de liberté, le Printemps de Beijing et les manifestants de la Place Tienanmen étant réprimés dans le sang en juin 1989. La décennie voit le pouvoir central poursuivre et accentuer ses manœuvres d’intimidation contre les minorités ethniques et religieuses, Bouddhistes au Tibet et Ouighours musulmans au Xinjiang. Quant à Taiwan, sa position unique de non-Etat membre de l’ONU apparaît plus que jamais problématique, au sein d’un nouvel ordre mondial introuvable et pour lequel l’interminable exclusion de l’Etat insulaire fait figure d’épine dans le pied.

C’est aussi l’époque où, sous le leadership de Lee Teng-hui, Taiwan parachève sa démocratisation et entame une vaste campagne diplomatique mondiale pour trouver de nouveaux alliés. L’un des effets les moins connus de cette campagne est que, lorsque le Conseil de Sécurité des Nations Unies est appelé en 1999 à renouveler le mandat de l’UNPREDEP, force déployée à titre préventif en Macédoine – aujourd’hui République de Macédoine du Nord –, Beijing met son veto en raison de la reconnaissance accordée par l’ancienne république yougoslave à Taiwan, une opération de l’OTAN devant prendre la relève.

444px-Mao_Zedong_1959

Mao Zedong

Ayant suivi depuis la fin de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale un parcours politique semblable à celui, en Europe, de l’Espagne et du Portugal, avec un régime de type fasciste disparaissant avec son créateur dans les années 1970 et une démocratisation qui va de pair avec une envolée économique, entre un modèle communiste disparu presque partout ailleurs dans le monde et celui de la démocratie de libre marché, certes imparfait mais non moins plébiscité à travers la planète, Taiwan a choisi. Entre un Etat qui se donne droit de vie et de mort sur ses citoyens, la dernière forme en étant celle de Ouighours parqués dans des camps et de femmes stérilisées de force qui confèrent à cette campagne tous les traits d’un génocide, et un Etat qui se dote d’une Commission nationale des Droits Humains en dépit même de convulsions internes et d’une menace militaire externe plus criante que jamais, Taiwan sait quels risques elle veut prendre.

Organisations intergouvernementales : un modèle à revoir ?

Une organisation comme l’AWC n’est pas là pour soutenir une idéologie politique précise, que ce soit le communisme, le capitalisme ou aucune autre. Nous ne sommes pas là non plus pour prendre parti pour un Etat contre un autre, notre but étant le règlement pacifique des différends entre nations.

Mais les contextes politiques permettant ou non le respect des Droits Humains sont une réalité. Deux Etats se veulent la Chine, l’un à Beijing, l’autre à Taipei. A présent, l’un d’eux possède une Commission nationale des Droits Humains. Et ce n’est pas celui qui, juridiquement parlant, est tenu par les Principes de Paris.

Lee_Teng-hui_2004_cropped

Lee Teng-hui

Douglas Mattern, Président-fondateur de l’AWC, décrivait notre association comme étant «engagée corps et âme» auprès de l’ONU. Elle l’est, mais envers l’esprit de l’Organisation mondiale, la lettre de ses textes, et non envers la moindre de ses décisions politiques. En l’occurrence, l’exclusion totale de Taiwan du système onusien, déjà battue en brèche par la COVID-19 qui remet à l’ordre du jour la question de l’admission de Taiwan à l’Organisation mondiale de la Santé où elle a perdu son statut d’observateur au moment de l’arrivée au pouvoir de Tsai Ing-wen, apparaît plus incompréhensible encore avec l’accession à un mécanisme onusien de Droits Humains de la République de Chine quand la République populaire de Chine, Membre permanente du Conseil de Sécurité, s’affiche de plus en plus fièrement indifférente à ses devoirs les plus élémentaires.

L’expérience taïwanaise qui vient de s’ouvrir devra être observée avec la plus grande attention. S’il vient à être démontré qu’une institution de fondement onusien peut se développer avec succès sur un territoire et dans un Etat extérieurs à l’ONU, et on les sait bien peu nombreux, alors une révision du modèle des organisations intergouvernementales du vingtième siècle s’imposera, avec pour point de départ, du plus ironiquement, une leçon de cohérence donnée à l’une d’entre elles par un Etat-nation. 

Bernard J. Henry est Officier des Relations Extérieures de l’Association of World Citizens.

Hagia Sophia: The Divine Spark in All

In Cultural Bridges, Current Events, Middle East & North Africa, Religious Freedom, Spirituality, The Search for Peace on August 2, 2020 at 3:20 PM

By René Wadlow

 

There is a certain irony in the return of the Hagia Sophia to being an Islamic mosque which it had been from 1453 to 1934. From 1934 till today, it was considered a museum and was visited by many especially for the fine quality of its artwork.

Sophia is the incarnation of wisdom in a feminine figure, providing light in a dark, material world. Only the feminine, the channel of creation in the world, has the power and compassion necessary to overcome the darkness of ignorance.

Sophia as the incarnation of wisdom was a concept among the philosophers of Alexandria and from there entered Jewish thought. (See the Book of Proverbs) The Sophia myth was widespread in the Middle East at the time of Jesus. (1) Sophia was also an important part of Manichean. The Sophia image was also used in various gnostic systems and underwent a great variety of treatments.

Hagia_Sophia,_Constantinople,_Turkey,_ca._1897

Probably developed independently, the feminine embodiment of wisdom and compassion is Shakti in Hinduism and Kuan Yin, the compassionate Bodhisattva in Taoism and Chinese Buddhism.

In our own time, Carl G. Jung highlights the Sophia myth as a many-layered structure of an individual’s search for health and wholeness. Jung stresses the archetypal fall into darkness and the return to light in related myths such as the Egyptian Isis and the descent of Orpheus into the underworld to rescue his wife Eurydice.

It is not certain that all who go to pray at the newly restored mosque will know of the cultural and spiritual meaning of Sophia. However, the central theme of Sophia is that wisdom is the divine spark within each person. That spark is there if one knows the myth or not.

Note: (1) See James M. Robenson (Ed), The Nag Hammadi Library in English (San Francisco: Harper Collins).

Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.

Pakistan Blasphemy Death Sentence Overturned: A One-time Event or a Trend Toward Justice?

In Asia, Current Events, Human Rights, NGOs, Religious Freedom, Solidarity, Track II, United Nations, Women's Rights on November 1, 2018 at 10:55 PM

By René Wadlow

On October 29, 2018, the Supreme Court of Pakistan reversed the decision of lower courts sentencing to death Asia Bibi, a Christian mother of four for blasphemy. After 3,422 days of imprisonment in solitary confinement, the Supreme Court reversed a 2010 lower court verdict. Asia Bibi is now in seclusion and will probably leave the country as some 60 persons in Pakistan have been murdered since 1990, accused of blasphemy.

Her case had drawn attention in Pakistan. Salman Taseer, the Governor of Punjab Province, was murdered by his bodyguard for commenting on the Bibi case and suggesting that the blasphemy laws should be modified or abolished. Shahbaz Phatti, the Central Government’s Minister for Minorities likewise was murdered for commenting on the Asia Bibi case. Already, there are angry groups in the streets near the homes of the Supreme Court justices attacking their decision. The military has been called to protect them, but radical Islamist groups such as the Tehreek-i-Labaik may incite more demonstrations.

Asia Bibi

During the presidency of General Zia ul-Haq (1977-1988) the Hudaad (Punishment) Ordinances were introduced in 1984 which “define crimes against Islam”. In hudaad cases, the testimony of a non-Muslim is considered worth half that of a Muslim. Section 298-B and 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code dealing with blasphemy singles out the Ahamadiyya as “non-Muslim”, considered by Sunni theologians as heretics, while the Ahmadi consider themselves as the final flowering of Islam. Shi’a Muslims have also been arrested for blasphemy as the law has been expanded to include defiling of the Prophet’s family and companions. (1)

Section 298-C is very broad. “Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him) shall be punished with death.”

While the blasphemy laws were originally directed against the Ahmadi, some of whom hold high position in society, the blasphemy laws are increasingly used against Christians who are often the rural poor, having been converted from low caste Hindus prior to Independence. While there is a small Protestant elite, the bulk of Christians in Pakistan are Roman Catholic and rural poor. Those in cities often carry out menial work, sweeping streets, garbage collection. Thus, when accused, it is difficult for them to pay a lawyer, and lawyers who have taken the defense have been threatened with death. In the climate of intolerance which prevails and in view of threats and pressures brought on the judiciary, it has become nearly impossible to obtain a fair hearing for those charged under the blasphemy laws.

In practice, the blasphemy charges are often used to mask more material motivations, often disputes over land ownership and land use as well as personal vendetta. The failure of successive Governments to bring under control the Islamist extremist movements in the country has strengthened their hands to victimize individuals and groups with impunity.

The Association of World Citizens (AWC) is opposed to the death penalty in all cases, which certainly includes the “crime of blasphemy”. The AWC has appealed to the authorities of Pakistan to repeal the blasphemy laws and raised the Asia Bibi case in the human rights bodies of the human rights bodies of the United Nations (UN) in Geneva. There can be no doubt that freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief is of a fundamental character and arises from the inherent dignity and worth of the human person.

Capture d'écran 2018-11-01 23.48.17

In 1981, after almost 20 years of formulation and reformulation, the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (GA Res 55, November 25, 1981). The Declaration represented the efforts of a relatively small group of governments and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) both religious and secular such as the AWC. The UN Commission on Human Rights, continued by the Human Rights Council, has a Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief who makes reports largely based on information provided by NGOs. The existence of the Special Rapporteur and thus an automatic agenda item allows NGO representatives to highlight issues as they develop. An example is my 2008 intervention at a time when the Government of Indonesia was about to follow the pattern of Pakistan in its attacks on the Ahmadiyya.

-- Logo 2017 --

         “Mr President, One of the important functions of NGO representatives in the work of our Council is that of ‘early warning’. By calling attention at the first signs of danger, our hope is that governments and NGOs working together in a cooperative spirit can uphold universally recognized human rights standards. Our aim is to avoid violence and to prevent an escalation of tensions which often take on a life of their own.

It is in this spirit that we raise what seems to be a growing pressure against the Ahmadiyya branch of Islam in Indonesia. We raise it under agenda item 9 as the defamation of a religion can be understood as attacks without reasoned discussion on the doctrine of a religion, on the founder of a religious movement or on the current representatives of a religious movement.

Thus, attacks on the Ahmadiyya are often focused on the founder of the movement: Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who is considered by his followers as the promised Madhi who is to mark the birth of a new era. The movement began in the early 1880s in what was then British India’s Punjab province, now split between India and Pakistan.

From there, the movement has spread to many different countries, including Indonesia. In normally tolerant Indonesia, the Ahmadiyya movement has carried on its activities of worship, education and social services in relative peace for many years.

The causes of the recent flair up of defamation against the founder and the charges of being heretics against the Ahmadiyya followers need to be looked at carefully if we are to prevent what seems to be some violent attacks against flowers followed by police closings of places of worship. The constant defamation of the founder should serve as a warning. In cooperation with the Government of Indonesia, the Council must do all it can to encourage the restoration of mutual understanding among people of different religious movements. Thank you Mr. President”

The AWC welcomes the decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. We will have to watch if it is a one-time event not to be repeated soon or if, more hopefully, it is a sign of a trend toward justice on the part of the new Pakistan Administration.

Note:

(1) See Charles H. Kennedy. “Repugnance to Islam. Who Decides? Islam and Legal Reform in Pakistan” in International and Comparative Law, Vol. 41, Part 4, p. 772, October 1992.

Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.

Nadia Murad: A Yazidi Voice Against Slavery

In Being a World Citizen, Current Events, Human Rights, International Justice, Middle East & North Africa, NGOs, Refugees, Religious Freedom, Solidarity, Syria, The Search for Peace, United Nations, Women's Rights, World Law on October 24, 2018 at 9:33 PM

By René Wadlow

Nadia Murad, now a United Nations (U. N.) Goodwill Ambassador on Trafficking of Persons, is the co-laureate of the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize. In 2014, when she was 21, she and her neighbors in a predominantly Yazidi village in the Simjar mountainous area of Iraq were attacked by the forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). These forces were following a pattern of targeted killings, forced conversions to Islam, abductions, trafficking of women, sexual abuse and slavery. In Murad’s village, most of the older men were killed, the younger men taken to be soldiers in the ISIS forces, and the women taken into slavery, primarily as sex slaves, in Mosul, the city which served as the headquarters of ISIS.

There were some 500,000 Yazidi in Iraq though Iraqi demographic statistics are not fully reliable. Yazidi leaders may give larger estimates by counting Kurds who had been Yazidis but had converted to Islam. There had been some 200,000 Yazidis among the Kurds in Turkey but now nearly all have migrated to Western Europe, Australia and Canada. Many of the Yazidi are ethnic Kurds and the government of Saddam Hussein was opposed to them not so much for their religious beliefs but because some Yazidi played important roles in the Kurdish community seen as largely opposed to his government.

Nadia Murad

 

After a time in Mosul, Murad, with the help of a compassionate Muslim family, was able to escape Mosul and make her way to the Iraqi Kurdistan area where many Yazidis from the Sinjar area had already arrived. Once there she joined a newly created association of Yazidi women who had organized to defend their rights and so that the voices of women could be heard. A few of these women were able to be resettled in Western Europe. Nadia Murad was able to live in Germany where she became the spokesperson for Yazidi women and other women who had met a similar fate. In December 2015, she addressed the U. N. Security Council and became the public face both for the Yazidi women and for an even larger number of women victims of the fighting in Iraq and Syria.

The structure of the Yazidi world view is Zoroastrian, a faith born in Persia proclaiming that two great cosmic forces, that of light and good, and that of darkness and evil, are in constant battle. Man is called upon to help light overcome darkness. However, the strict dual thinking of Zoroastrianism was modified by another Persian prophet, Mani of Ctesiplon in the third century CE. Mani tried to create a synthesis of religious teachings that were increasingly coming into contact through trade: Buddhism and Hinduism from India, Jewish and Christian thought, Gnostic philosophy from Egypt and Greece, as well as many smaller traditional and “animist” beliefs. He kept the Zoroastrian dualism as the most easily understood intellectual framework, though giving it a more Taoist (yin/yang) character. Mani had traveled in China. He developed the idea of the progression of the soul by individual effort through reincarnation – a main feature of Indian thought.

Yazidi_Girl_tradicional_clothes

Within the Mani-Zoroastrian framework, the Yazidi added the presence of angels who are to help humans in their constant battle for light and good. The main angel is Melek Tavis, the peacock angel. Although there are angels in Islam, angels that one does not know could well be demons, so the Yazidi are regularly accused of being “demon worshipers” (1).

While it is dangerous to fall into a good/evil analysis of world politics, there is little to see of “good” in the ISIS actions. Thus, Nadia Murad can be seen as a bringer of light into a dark time.

 

Note
(1) A Yazidi website has been set up by Iraqis living in Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. The website is uneven but of interest as self-presentation: http://www.yeziditruth.org (“Yazidi” is sometimes written “Yezidi”)

Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.

Human Rights: Government Failures, NGO Need to Organize!

In Being a World Citizen, Children's Rights, Democracy, Fighting Racism, Human Rights, Humanitarian Law, International Justice, NGOs, Religious Freedom, Social Rights, Solidarity, The Search for Peace, United Nations, War Crimes, Women's Rights, World Law on March 4, 2018 at 10:08 PM

By René Wadlow

In his final address to the Human Rights Council on February 26, 2018, United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein decried the “pernicious use of the veto” by permanent members of the UN Security Council – the USA, Russia, and China in particular – to block any unity of action to reduce the extreme suffering of innocent people in “the most prolific slaughterhouse of humans in recent times.”

However, it is not only the veto in the Security Council which prevents governments from acting. There is a widespread failure of governments to act. “Time and again, my office and I have brought to the attention of the international community violations of human rights which should have served as a trigger for preventive action. Time and again, there has been minimal action.”

He continued by mentioning States in which armed conflicts were the framework for constant human rights violations, including the fundamental right to life: Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

United_Nations_High_Commissioner_for_Human_Rights_(21509596784)_(cropped)

He highlighted the growing wave of narrow nationalism promoted by political parties and in some cases by the leaders of government. “Xenophobes and racists in Europe are casting off any sense of embarrassment – like Hungary’s Viktor Orban who earlier this month said ‘We do not want our color…to be mixed in with others’ “

He concluded with a warning and an encouragement to action. “It is accumulating unresolved human rights violations which will spark the conflicts that can break the world…For the worst offenders’ disregard and contempt for human rights will be the eventual undoing of all of us. This we cannot allow to happen.”

In the light of the use of the veto in the UN Security Council and the realpolitik considerations of States in general, it is the task of nongovernmental organizations (NGO) to promote the resolution of armed conflicts through negotiations in good faith and the respect of humanitarian international law while the armed conflicts go on. NGOs must work so that universal human rights are the basis of society at all times.

In order to carry out these crucial tasks, NGOs must become stronger, have greater access to the media, increase their networks to more countries, and develop greater cooperation among themselves. These challenges require a wise use of current resources and efforts to increase them. There is a need to increase cooperation with universities and other academic institutions for background information and analysis. Government representatives always look for factual errors in NGO presentations as a way to discredit the whole presentation. Dialogue with the representatives of governments must be continued and, if possible, made more regular. States will continue to be important agents in the world society, and we must try to be in contact even when government actions are unreasonable, even criminal.

Cooperation among NGOs will facilitate an outreach to more sectors of the world society. Often a specific NGO will reach a particular milieu – religious, geographic, professional, social class. By cooperation a wider audience can be reached, and techniques for positive action set out.

As the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stressed armed violence, systematic repression, waves of hate and xenophobia are strong today, and there is a real danger that they will grow. To meet these negative challenges, we who uphold the unity of the human family must organize ever-more effectively.

Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.

The Faiths of the Past and the Challenges of the Future: Interfaith Harmony Week

In Being a World Citizen, Cultural Bridges, Religious Freedom, The Search for Peace, World Law on February 2, 2018 at 9:15 PM

By René Wadlow

On October 20, 2010, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, by resolution A/RES/65/PV.34, designated the first week of February of every year as the World Interfaith Harmony Week among all religions, faiths and beliefs.

The General Assembly, building on its efforts for a culture of peace and nonviolence, wished to highlight the importance that mutual understanding and inter-religious dialogue can play in developing a creative culture of peace and non-violence. The General Assembly Resolution recognized “the imperative need for dialogue among different faiths and religions in enhancing mutual understanding, harmony and cooperation among people.” The week has a potential to promote the healing of religion-based tensions in the world.

As the then Secretary General Ban Ki-moon wrote “At a time when the world is faced with many simultaneous problems — security, environmental, humanitarian, and economic — enhanced tolerance and understanding are fundamental for a resilient and vibrant international society. There is an imperative need, therefore, to further reaffirm and develop harmonious cooperation between the world’s different faiths and religions.”

2000px-P_religion_world

There has always been interaction and borrowing of ideas among spiritual and religious groups. Early Christianity took ideas and rituals from the Jewish milieu of its early members including its founder, Jesus. However, ideas from the mystical traditions of the Middle East and Greece were also incorporated — Neo-Platonism as well as aspects of the Eleusinian and other initiation rituals. Christian Gnostic groups had relations with Zoroastrian thought and probably Buddhists from India.

In Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries in reaction to the violent religious conflicts between Catholics and Protestants during the Reformation, humanists such as Erasmus appealed for tolerance and tried to find an intellectual basis for reconciliation. The Erasmian spirit found one of its most beautiful expressions in a small but influential group known as the Domus Charitatis (the Family of Love). Founded in the 1540s, the Family of Love recruited its members from all over Europe and included both Catholics and Protestants. The Familists placed an emphasis on the practice and growth of spiritual love as a way of building bridges between dogmatic religious positions.

During the same period of the 16th and 17th centuries, in a more esoteric way, the alchemists turned to a wide variety of sources in their search for a symbolic language to express the mystery of both physical and spiritual transformation. In addition to Christian symbolism, they used the symbolism of Greek and Roman mythology, Gnosticism, the Jewish Kabbalah and Islamic culture. Drawing on such a wide variety of traditions, the alchemists paved the way for the gradual interest in the study of the world religions in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries.

However, we can date the start of formal inter-religious understanding and cooperation from the first World Parliament of Religions held in Chicago. In 1893, interfaith dialogue was almost unknown in the United States when immigration up until that time was nearly exclusively Christian with the addition of a small number of Jews coming from Germany and Central Europe.

John_Henry_Barrows

John Henry Barrows

The 1893 World Parliament of Religions (sometimes called the World’s Congress of Religions) was convened in Chicago in connection with the World Fair of that year (1). The Parliament owed much to the efforts of its organizing president, John Henry Barrows. Barrows was a well-known Chicago lawyer as well as a Swedenborg minister. The Parliament was heavily weighted in favor of liberal Protestant denominations: the Unitarians, the Universalists, the Congregationalists along with two more conservative Protestant churches: the Presbyterians and the Baptists. The Roman Catholics were represented by the prominent Cardinal Gibbons.

Barrow depended on his contacts in Chicago with members of the Theosophical Society for advice on Asian religions. Thus, Annie Besant, President of the Theosophical Society, living at its headquarters in India and active in Indian reform movements suggested the Asian speakers — all of whom represented a modern, social reformist wing of their faiths. Annie Besant participated and had insisted that there be an important contribution from women highlighting their specific roles — a theme then new to the largely hierarchical and patriarchal structures of religious groups.

Annie_Besant,_2

Annie Besant

Buddhism was represented by the theosophically-trained H. Dharmapala, an educator and social reformer in what is now Sri Lanka but not a member of the orthodox Buddhist Sanga of the island. The Zoroastrians were represented by an Indian Parsee, Jananji Modi, a friend of the Theosophical Society and a friend of the Oxford scholar of religions Max Muller who also played an important intellectual role in the preparation of the Parliament. Muller did not attend but sent a paper on “Greek Philosophy and the Christian Religion” which was read by Barrow. An aspect of Indian thought was represented by B. R. Nargarkara of the reformist Bhahmo-Sumaj who quoted its spirit saying “When scriptures differ, and faith disagree, a man should see truth reflected in his own spirit…We do not believe in the revelation of books and men, of histories and historical records for today God communicates His will to mankind as truly and as really as He did in the days of Christ or Moses, Mohammed or Buddha.”

Swami-vivekananda

Vivekananda

The most striking voice of Indian thought came from the young Vivekananda (born Naremdranath Datta to an aristocratic Calcutta family.) He alighted in Chicago in ochre robes and turban and gave a series of talks to the 4,000 attendees of the Parliament. Vivekananda, a follower of the more mystic thinker, Ramakrishna, defined Hinduism as a few basic propositions of Vedantic thought, the foremost being that “all souls are potentially divine”, and he quoted Ramakrishna that “the mystical experience at the heart of every religious discipline was essentially the same.” Being 31, Vivekananda had the energy to travel throughout the United States, meeting intellectuals who were discovering Indian thought not through translations of Indian scriptures as had Emerson and other New England writers but through a learned and dynamic Indian.

From the USA, his writings spread, influencing such thinkers as Leo Tolstoy and Romain Rolland who wrote a Life of Ramakrishna and a Life of Vivekananda (1928). Later the English writer, Aldous Huxley, wrote The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna. Vivekananda’s enthusiasm for the USA as a new land unburdened by the old ways was boundless, and quite fittingly, he died on July 4, 1902 — the U. S. national day. He was just 39 years old but was exhausted from ceaseless work and untreated diabetes.

For many decades, the exposition of Indian thought by Vivekananda was considered to be Hinduism. It was not until the late 1950s and the coming to the University of Chicago of Mircea Eliade, the Romanian specialist of Indian religious thought that the many different strands of Hinduism were stressed. Hinduism was a term coined by the English colonists as they wanted a term to cover all Indian thought as they were already used to “Islam” for the Arabs and “Christians” for the West. At the start of the English colonial period in India, Indians never referred to themselves as Hindus, but used more often the term dharma —the law of Nature — for their faith. Likewise, Buddhists also never spoke of themselves as Buddhists. Buddha was also said to have explained the dharma which had existed eternally, and they were only following the dharma as explained by the Buddha; they were not following the historical Buddha.

Since 1893, interfaith discussions have increased, but many of the issues have remained the same: how to make religious thought relevant to the social-economic-political issues of the day. Can religious organizations play a useful role in the resolution of violent conflicts? (2)

It is important to build on past efforts, but many challenges remain. These challenges call for responses from a wide range of people and groups, motivated by good will to break down barriers and to reconcile women and men within the world community.

************************************

Notes

For a record of the talks and statement of the Parliament see: Rev. Minot J. Savage, The World’s Congress of Religions (Boston: Arena Publishing Co. 1893, 428pp.)

For a useful overview of recent multifaith dialogue and cooperation by a participant in many of the efforts see: Marcus Braybrooks, Faith and Interfaith in a Global Age (Grand Rapids, MI: Co-Nexus Press, 1998, 144pp)

************************************

Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.

Recent UN Reports Point To Anti-Rohingya Genocide in Myanmar

In Asia, Being a World Citizen, Conflict Resolution, Current Events, Democracy, Human Rights, International Justice, NGOs, Refugees, Religious Freedom, Solidarity, The Search for Peace, Track II, Uncategorized, United Nations, World Law on November 27, 2017 at 8:23 AM

By René Wadlow

Recent reports of October 25, 2017 from the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights based on extensive interviews with Rohingya refugees from Myanmar (Burma) now in Cox’s Bazar area of Bangladesh as well as reports from the World Food Program and UNICEF point to anti-Rohingya genocide in Myanmar without using the “G” word. The High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad al Hussein, said that the Rohingya flight was a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing”. The brutal attacks against the Rohingya in Rakhine state have been well organized, coordinated and systematic, with the intent of not only driving the Rohingya population out of Myanmar but preventing them from returning to their home.

The Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 requires action on the part of governments once genocide has been determined. Although any State party to the Convention can bring the situation to appropriate UN bodies, no State has ever evoked the 1948 Genocide Convention. However, the Convention is clear that a group need not have been totally destroyed for acts to be considered genocide. Intent is the key concept. Article VIII of the Convention states “Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide, or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III.”

The Genocide Convention in its Article III states that the following acts shall be punishable:

a) Genocide

b) Conspiracy to commit genocide

c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide

d) Attempt to commit genocide

e) Complicity in genocide.

Article IV states that “Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III shall be punished whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.”

Rohingya_displaced_Muslims_021

The Burmese military have since shortly after the independence of the country in 1947 carried on a policy of repression against national minorities advocating independence of their area, later modified to demanding greater autonomy within a federal Union of Burma. The first and second (1974) constitutions of Burma took over the nationalities policy designed by Joseph Stalin when he was Commissioner of Nationalities in the then newly created USSR. A state within the Union would be named after a dominant ethnic group with a larger homeland of provinces for the majority population. Thus, there were seven ethnic minority states: the Chin, Kachin, Karen, Kayah (formerly called Karenni), Mon, Shan, and Rakhine (or Arakan) and seven divisions which are largely inhabited by the majority, sometimes called Burman or Bamar. As in the USSR, states had people other than the dominant nationality which gave its name to the state. Some were ethnic minorities which had always lived there; others were people living there who had moved from elsewhere for work, marriage or other life events. Some were Chinese or Indians who had moved to Burma for economic reasons.

In these conflicts, war crimes have been committed by the military and reported to UN human rights bodies:

a) arbitrary arrest and torture

b) enforced disappearances

c) systematic rape

d) confiscation of property

e) internal displacement of populations.

However, only in the case of the Rohingya can one speak of an intent of genocide – with calls by some nationalists and military to make Myanmar “Rohingya free”. Among the ‘nationalists’, there are ‘Buddhist extremists’. A form of Buddhist influence has grown since 2012 when speech and media restrictions fell away, opening a vacuum that extremists have helped to fill.

rodih01_400.jpg

 

The chief difference between the Rohingya case and those of the national minorities along the Thai and China frontiers is economic. The Burmese military are brutal but also corrupt, especially among the officer corps. The minorities along the Burma-Thai-China frontiers are deeply involved in the trade of drugs, arms, gem stones, timber and the trafficking of women to Thailand and China. There are close economic links between the Thai and Burmese military as well as between the military and the armed insurgencies.

As long as the military get their cut of the income from trade, they are willing to put up with periodic cease-fire agreements, are selective in their scorched earth policy and close their eyes to certain cross-frontier economic measures. Unfortunately for the Rohingya, they live in a poor, subsistence agriculture area next to a poor, subsistence agricultural part of Bangladesh. There might be oil resources off the coast of Rakhine state, but they have not been exploited, and it is not sure that they are really there. Thus, there is no money among the Rohingya with which to bribe the military. The idea of getting rid of the Rohingya is not so wild a dream as most had already been declared as “stateless” in a 1982 citizenship law.

21458141_10212466027940730_8269643013544204944_o

A September rally in Paris to support Myanmar’s Rohingya community

As government representatives are reluctant to raise the issue of genocide, in part for fear that they might have to do something, it has been the representatives of nongovernmental organizations who have publicly highlighted the issue, although no government has followed.

On behalf of the Association of World Citizens, I had raised the issue of genocide concerning the Fur and related groups in the Darfur, Sudan violence. Darfur means “House of the Fur” but there are also other small tribal groups in the area whose way of life may be destroyed by the systematic killing of old persons, those’ who hold tribal history and tribal law in memory – there being no written records.

In 2004, in the UN Sub-commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, in “Darfur, Sudan: Non-impunity and Prosecutions for Genocide (E/CN.4/Sub/2004/NGO24), I stressed the systematic nature of the violence against the Fur, Massaleit, Zayhawa and Birgit. After citing the evidence from public UN staff reports, I wrote, “The evidence of systematic actions – to quote from Article II of the Genocide Convention – committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such – is clear. What is less clear is the determination of UN Member States to act to end this violence. Until now, the efforts of governments in Darfur have been inadequate as reliable reports indicate that human rights violations have grown worse. The Genocide Convention provides an adequate framework for urgent action. Only one State needs to call on the UN to act under Article VIII. We need political will for rapid UN action to stop genocide in Darfur now – and not after it is all over, when the cry will go up, as in the past ‘Never Again!'”

A month after our appeal, the Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, Dr. Bertrand Ramcharan, firmly stressed the Darfur situation in its harshest light.” First, there is a reign of terror in this area, second, there is a scorched-earth policy, third, there is repeated war crimes and crimes against humanity, and fourth, this is taking place under our eyes.” (Associated Press Report, May 8, 2004).

However, governments were able to avert their eyes, and no government invoked the Genocide Convention. Governments have often been unwilling to use the international legal structures which they themselves have created.

We continue to face the same issue with the massive flight of the Rohingya from Myanmar to Bangladesh and India. The welcome of the Rohingya by these governments has been “cool” if not hostile. It is very likely that a “Rohingya-free” Myanmar has been created as few persons are likely to return to Myanmar. The current challenge is how the Rohingya will be resettled in Bangladesh and India without creating new socio-economic tensions. The wider issue is to what extent are representatives of governments willing to act creatively on the few structures of world law which they have created.

Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.