The Official Blog of the

Archive for the ‘The Search for Peace’ Category

Omar al-Bashir: As a Thief in the Night

In Africa, Being a World Citizen, Conflict Resolution, Current Events, Human Rights, International Justice, Middle East & North Africa, The Search for Peace, United Nations, War Crimes, World Law on June 19, 2015 at 9:39 PM

OMAR AL-BASHIR: AS A THIEF IN THE NIGHT

By René Wadlow

In what was almost a “Pinochet moment” in South Africa, a South African nongovernmental organization (NGO), Southern African Litigation Centre, requested a South African court to serve two International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants against President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan. The South African Supreme Court issued an order that al-Bashir not leave South Africa until the Supreme Court had been able to decide on the validity of the request. Al-Bashir had been in Johannesburg, South Africa, to participate in the yearly Summit of the African Union (AU). Al-Bashir left by his governmental jet on June 13 before the Supreme Court was able to meet.

The ICC arrest warrants of 2009 issued by a panel of three judges contains seven charges including crimes against humanity, murder, extermination, forcible transfer, torture, rape, attacks against civilian populations and pillaging. The through examinations of the evidence presented by the then Chief Prosecutor of the ICC confirmed the statements which NGOs, including the Association of World Citizens (AWC), had been making to the United Nations (UN) human rights bodies in Geneva since early 2004.

The charges against al-Bashir concern the conflict in Darfur which began in 2003 and not the 1982-2005 civil war between north and south Sudan which led to the creation of a separate State of South Sudan in 2011. The 1982-2005 civil war was the second half of a civil war which had started in 1954 on the eve of the independence of Sudan which was granted in 1956. The 1954-1972 war was stopped when a ceasefire largely organized by the World Council of Churches came into force. Unfortunately, the ten years of “non-war” were not used to deal with the basic issues of the structure of the State and the need for regional autonomy in light of the cultural-ethnic differences within the State. Thus in 1982 the civil war started again during which there were many violations of the laws of war (now usually called humanitarian law). The north-south civil war violations are not part of the ICC charges which concern only the Darfur conflict.

It was Baltasar Garzon, a Spanish judge, who in 1998 urged the United Kingdom to arrest Chile’s former military ruler Augusto Pinochet while he was on British soil, hoping to make him accountable for his deeds as leader of the country’s brutal military dictatorship from 1973 to 1989. Although the British government eventually allowed Pinochet to return to Chile without being prosecuted, the case did set a precedent in international law against enduring impunity for human rights violators. (C) AFP

Darfur (the home of the Fur) was always marginal to the politics of modern Sudan. In the 19th century, Darfur, about the size of France, was an independent Sultanate loosely related to the Ottoman Empire. Darfur was on a major trade route from West Africa to Egypt and so populations from what is now northern Nigeria, Niger, Mali and Chad joined the older ethnic groups of the area: the Fur, Massalits, Zaghawa, and the Birgit.

France and England left Darfur as a buffer zone between the French colonial holdings − what is now Chad − and the Anglo-Egyptian controlled Sudan. French-English rivalry in West Africa had nearly led earlier in the 1880s to a war. Thus a desert buffer area was of more use than the low agricultural and livestock production would provide to either colonial power. It was only in 1916 during the First World War when French-English colonial rivalry in Africa paled in front of the common German enemy that the English annexed Darfur to the Sudan without asking anyone in Darfur or in the Sudan if such a ‘marriage’ was desirable.

Darfur continued its existence as an environmentally fragile area of Sudan. It was marginal in economics but largely self-sufficient. Once Sudan was granted its independence in 1956, Darfur became politically as well as economically marginal. Darfur’s people have received less education, less health care, less development assistance and fewer government posts than any other region.

In 2000, Darfur’s political leadership and intellectuals met to draw up a ‘Black Book’ which detailed the region’s systematic under-representation in the national government since independence. The ‘Black Book’ marked the start of a rapprochement between the Islamists and the secular radicals of Darfur which took form three years later with the rise of the more secular Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Islamist-leaning Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). However, at the level of the central government, the ‘Black Book’ led to no steps to increase the political and economic position of Darfur. This lack of reaction convinced some in Darfur that only violent action would bring about recognition and compromise as the war with the South had done.

Members of the Sudanese Liberation Army in Susuwa, north Darfur. (C) Candace Feit/Reuters

Members of the Sudanese Liberation Army in Susuwa, north Darfur. (C) Candace Feit/Reuters

The two Darfur groups, SLA and JEM, in 2002 started to structure themselves and to gather weapons and men. Their idea was to strike in a spectacular way which they hoped would lead the government to take notice and to start wealth-sharing negotiations. Not having read the ‘Little Red Book’ of Mao, they did not envisage a long drawn-out conflict of the countryside against the towns of Darfur. By February 2003, the two groups were prepared to act, and in one night attacked and destroyed many of Sudan’s military planes based at El Fasher. The Sudan military lost in one night more planes than it has lost in 20 years of war against the South.

However, the central government’s ‘security elite’ − battle hardened from the fight against the South but knowing that the regular army was over-extended and tired of fighting − decided to use against Darfur techniques that had been used with some success against the South: to arm and to give free reign to militias and other irregular forces.

Thus the government armed and directed existing popular defense forces and tribal militias. Especially the government also started pulling together a fluid and shadowy group, now called the Janjaweed (“the evildoers on horseback”). To the extent that the make-up of the Janjaweed is known, it seems to be a collection of bandits, of Chadians who had used Darfur as a safe haven for the long-lasting insurgencies in Chad and the remains of Libya’s Islamic Forces which had once been under the control of the Libyan government but left wandering when Libyan policy changed.

A member of the murderous, death-sowing Janjaweed militia of Sudan. (C) Sudan Tribune

A member of the murderous, death-sowing Janjaweed militia of Sudan. (C) Sudan Tribune

The Sudanese central government gave these groups guns, uniforms, equipment and indications where to attack by first bombing villages but no regular pay. Thus the Janjaweed militias had to pay themselves by looting houses, crops, livestock, by taking slaves and raping women and girls. Village after village was destroyed on the pretext that some of the villagers supported either the SLA or the JEM; crops were burned, water wells filled with sand. As many people as possible fled to Chad or to areas thought safer in Darfur. The current situation in 2015 in Darfur remains complex and will be described in a later article.

The crimes which the ICC investigated and issued the arrest warrants concern the earlier 2004-2005 period. Although the SLA and the JEM have now divided into numerous armed groups, the type of violations of the laws of war continue and are about the same. There is a certain irony that the crimes cited by the ICC were less the work of the Sudanese Army which is more or less under the command of al-Bashir than of the Janjaweed. However, al-Bashir as President is responsible for all activities in Sudan.

President al-Bashir of Sudan may have escaped arrest and prosecution in South Africa, but now he is warned: Whatever country he may visit in the near future, he is no longer guaranteed to freely fly back to Sudan afterward and avoid answering for his crimes back home.

President al-Bashir of Sudan may have escaped arrest and prosecution in South Africa, but now he is warned: Whatever country he may visit in the near future, he is no longer guaranteed to freely fly back to Sudan and avoid answering for his crimes back home.

For the moment, the ICC has dropped active involvement in the al-Bashir case due to the impossibility of an arrest and a trial. Al-Bashir proclaimed that the recent dropping of the case was the same as being declared “innocent” but it is not. He had no doubt checked with the South African government what its policy would be in practice if he went there for the AU Summit. He must have been told that all the police in South Africa have a blind eye and would not see him coming or going. The government did not expect an NGO action or the Supreme Court order. But the South African police all do have a blind eye, and as a thief in the night, al-Bashir returned to Sudan.

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

Palmyra: Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Humanity in Periods of Armed Conflict

In Being a World Citizen, Conflict Resolution, Cultural Bridges, Current Events, International Justice, Middle East & North Africa, The Search for Peace, United Nations, World Law on May 22, 2015 at 9:16 PM

PALMYRA: PROTECTION OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE OF HUMANITY IN PERIODS OF ARMED CONFLICT

By René Wadlow

In a May 15, 2015 message to Madame Irina Bokova, UNESCO Director-General, the Association of World Citizens (AWC) highlighted its Appeal for a Humanitarian Ceasefire in and around Palmyra, Syria, a UNESCO Heritage of Humanity site.

On May 15, there was an intensification of fighting around Palmyra between the forces of ISIS/Daesh and the Syrian Government. A humanitarian ceasefire was an appropriate measure at that time. Now, it seems that the ISIS/Daesh forces have taken control of the city and some of the area around it. Thus, the AWC Appeal must be addressed to the leadership of the ISIS/Daesh, although the AWC has no direct communication avenues to the ISIS/Daesh leadership.

Palmyra is a rich contribution to the cultural heritage of all the Syrian people, no matter to what political faction they may now belong. Moreover, Palmyra is for all of humanity a moving example of trade routes such as the Silk Road and cultural exchanges through the centuries. For some 400 years, Palmyra was an important outpost of the Roman Empire, a link between the Gulf and the Mediterranean.

The ruins of the ancient city of Palmyra were designated a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1980. Is ISIS/Daesh going to destroy such a place which stands out as a jewel of history in the Middle East?

The ruins of the ancient city of Palmyra were designated a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1980. Is ISIS/Daesh going to destroy this site which stands out as a jewel of history in the Middle East? (C) Encyclopaedia Britannica

We believe that if ISIS/Daesh wishes to be seen as a valid participant in future negotiations concerning the future of Syria and Iraq, it must show its willingness to respect world law.  The protection of the cultural heritage of humanity is an important element of world law binding on States, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and individuals.

The AWC works in the tradition of the Roerich Peace Pact and its Banner of Peace for the protection of cultural institutions.

Early efforts for the protection of educational and cultural institutions were undertaken by Nicholas Roerich (1874-1947) a Russian and world citizen. Nicholas Roerich had lived through the First World War and the Russian Revolution and saw how armed conflicts can destroy works of art and cultural and educational institutions. For Roerich, such institutions were irreplaceable and their destruction was a permanent loss for all humanity. Thus, he worked for the protection of works of art and institutions of culture in times of armed conflict.  Thus, he envisaged a universally-accepted symbol that could be placed on educational institutions in the way that a red cross had become a widely-recognized symbol to protect medical institutions and medical workers.

Roerich proposed a “Banner of Peace” − three red circles representing the past, present and future − that could be placed upon institutions and sites of culture and education to protect them in times of conflict.

The Banner of Peace once proposed by World Citizen Nicholas Roerich.

The Banner of Peace once proposed by World Citizen Nicholas Roerich.

Roerich mobilized artists and intellectuals in the 1920s for the establishment of this Banner of Peace.  Henry A. Wallace, then the United States Secretary of Agriculture and later Vice-President, was an admirer of Roerich and helped to have an official treaty introducing the Banner of Peace − the Roerich Peace Pact − signed at the White House on April 15, 1935 by 21 States in a Pan-American Union ceremony.  At the signing, Henry Wallace on behalf of the USA 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 additions 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.”

As Nicholas Roerich said in a presentation of his Pact “The world is striving toward peace in many ways, and everyone realizes in his heart that this constructive work is a true prophesy of the New Era.  We deplore the loss of libraries of Lou vain and Overdo and the irreplaceable beauty of the Cathedral of Reims.  We remember the beautiful treasures of private collections which were lost during world calamities.  But we do not want to inscribe on these deeps any worlds of hatred.  Let us simply say: Destroyed by human ignorance − rebuilt by human hope.”

 

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


The Cultural Heritage of Iraq and Syria: “Destroyed by Human Ignorance – Rebuilt by Human Hope”

In Being a World Citizen, Cultural Bridges, Current Events, Human Rights, International Justice, Middle East & North Africa, Religious Freedom, The Search for Peace on March 3, 2015 at 9:25 PM

THE CULTURAL HERITAGE OF IRAQ AND SYRIA: DESTROYED BY HUMAN IGNORANCE – REBUILT BY HUMAN HOPE”

By René Wadlow

On Friday, February 27, 2015, the United Nations (UN) Security Council condemned “the deliberate destruction of irreplaceable religious and cultural artifacts housed in the Mosul Museum and burning of thousands of books and rare manuscripts from the Mosul Library” and having burned a few days earlier thousands of books from the Mosul, Iraq, University Library. The Mosul Museum which was not yet open to the public had a large number of statues from the pre-Islamic Mesopotamian civilizations as well as statues from the Greek Hellenistic period. The spokesman for the Islamic State (ISIS) faction which carried out the destruction − filmed and posted on the internet by them − maintained that the statues represented gods which had been worshipped while only the true god should receive worship.

This approach to pre-Islamic faiths and their material culture is the same as had led to the destruction of the large Buddha statues in Afghanistan − monuments that attested to the rich culture along the Silk Road.

There have been iconoclastic movements in the past, especially among Muslims and early Protestants holding that the spiritual world cannot (and thus should not) be represented in forms. All forms lead to confusing the specific form with the spiritual formless energy behind it. The iconoclastic reasoning can be defended, but not the destruction of objects which represented other philosophies, cultures and levels of understanding. (1)

As if to drive home to the least philosophical in the area, the ISIS also attacked Assyrian Christian villages in the area; villages were emptied, persons taken as hostages and younger women forced into slavery. The Assyrian Christians are among the oldest of the Christian communities; some speak Aramaic, the language spoken at the time of Jesus.

The shameless destruction by ISIS members of historical treasures Iraq will never be able to get back.

The shameless destruction by ISIS members of historical treasures Iraq will never be able to get back.

There are world laws against slavery going back to the abolitionist movements of the 1800s and made universal by conventions of the League of Nations and the UN. These conventions are rarely cited except in discussions of the current trafficking of persons as a “modern form of slavery”. Now ISIS has given us examples of slavery in its old forms, nearly to the point of caricature. We need to dust off these conventions and see that they are applied.

Syria and Iraq are home to some of the world’s first cities, a complex and unique meeting of states, empires and faiths. The protection of works of art and cultural heritage is a newer aspect of world law in which UNESCO is playing a leading role. Until the filming and posting of the destruction in Mosul, the looting of museums in Apamea, Aleppo and Raqqa as well as numerous archaeological sites had been known to specialists but had not gained wide public attention. Most of the looted objects were not destroyed but sold on a parallel international art market to fill the ISIS coffers. There is a need to develop global awareness and to campaign against this illicit trade in looted Syrian and Iraqi artifacts which first pass through the neighboring countries of Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan before ending in the hands of dealers and small auction houses who also profit from the theft.

The protection of cultural heritage owes much to the vision and energy of the Russian artist Nicholas Roerich (1874-1947). Roerich’s desire to make known the artistic achievements of the past through archaeology, coupled with the need to preserve the landmarks of the past from destruction, led to his work for the Banner of Peace to preserve art and architecture in time of war. Roerich had seen the destruction brought by the First World War and the civil war which followed the 1917 Russian Revolution. He worked with French international lawyers to draft a treaty by which museums, churches and buildings of value would be preserved in time of war through the use of a symbol − three red circles representing past, present and future − a practice inspired by the red cross to protect medical personnel in times of conflict.

In the areas it has conquered, ISIS has established formal slavery, including for girls as sex slaves.

In the areas it has conquered, ISIS has established formal slavery, including for girls as sex slaves. (C) CNN

Roerich mobilized artists and intellectuals in the 1920s for the establishment of this Banner of Peace. Henry A. Wallace, the United States Secretary of Agriculture and later Vice-President, was an admirer of Roerich and helped to have an official treaty introducing the Banner of Peace − the Roerich Peace Pact − signed at the White House on April 15, 1935 by 21 States in a Pan-American Union ceremony. At the signing, Henry Wallace on behalf of the USA 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 contribution 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.”

As Nicholas Roerich said in a presentation of his Pact “The world is striving toward peace in many ways and everyone realizes in his heart that this constructive work is a true prophesy of the New Era. We deplore the loss of the libraries of Louvain and Oviedo and the irreplaceable beauty of the Cathedral of Reims. We remember the beautiful treasures of private collections which were lost during world calamities. But we do not want to inscribe on these deeds any words of hatred. Let us simply say: Destroyed by human ignorance − rebuilt by human hope.”

After the Second World War, UNESCO has continued these efforts, and there have been additional conventions on the protection of cultural and educational bodies in times of conflict, in particular the Hague Convention of May 1954, though no universal symbol as proposed by Nicholas Roerich has been developed.

In 2001 Afghanistan's Taleban militia, an "early version" of ISIS, blew up the magnificent Buddha statues of Bamiyan, thinking this would help them strengthen their implacable grip on the country. This most unwise move only hastened their downfall.

In 2001 Afghanistan’s Taleban militia, an “early version” of ISIS, blew up the magnificent Buddha statues of Bamiyan, thinking this would help them strengthen their implacable grip on the country. This most unwise move only hastened their downfall. (C) RAWA

As too often, governments and people react after events rather than affirm from a deeper level of consciousness. Now, we have seen mindless but deliberate destruction of both art and people. Let us not inscribe on these deeds any words of hatred, but let us work unitedly and creatively to establish a just peace.

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

(1) A good overview of iconoclastic movements in the non-Muslim world see: Alain Besancon, L’Image interdite. Une histoire intellectuelle de l’iconoclasme (Paris: Gallimard, 1994, 722pp.)

Religious Liberty: Challenges and Tasks Ahead for Nongovernmental Organization Action

In Being a World Citizen, Conflict Resolution, Cultural Bridges, Current Events, Human Rights, International Justice, Religious Freedom, Solidarity, The Search for Peace, United Nations on February 2, 2015 at 4:21 PM

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY:

CHALLENGES AND TASKS AHEAD FOR NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION ACTION

By René Wadlow

Every year, January 30 is a most appropriate day on which to reflect on issues of religious liberty and to the challenges facing us as members of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as the Association of World Citizens (AWC). January 30 is the anniversary of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by Nathuram Godse, an agent of the semi-military militant Hindu organization RSS (Rashtriya Swayam-sevah Sangh). In the eyes of Godse, Gandhi was too tolerant of Muslims in the riots then going on at the time of independence and partition between India and Pakistan. Currently, the RSS is still very active trying to force with its militias Indian Christians to become Hindus. The RSS is backed by some factions within the Indian government. The RSS is a good example of the fact that efforts to destroy or limit strongly freedom of thought and religious liberty come from both governments and from religious organizations.

As the AWC has been very active on religious liberty issues within the United Nations (UN) human rights committees in Geneva, I will list briefly the types of challenges which we face and then mention UN standards which we can use in our efforts to promote religious liberty.

  • The first situation is when a State has a State Religion and persecutes minority religions within the country. An example is the Islamic Republic of Iran which has banned the Baha’i religion (which began in Iran) and persecutes its members.
  • The second situation is when a State has a State Religion and persecutes branches of that religion with which it disagrees: the Pakistan government persecution of the Ahmadi branch of Islam (which began in what is now Pakistan) is an example.
  • The third situation is when a State has a State Religion and persecutes those who wish to bring about reforms within that religion. A recent example is in Saudi Arabia where a young man posted on his Internet blog a plea to limit the powers of the “moral police” who try to enforce what the government considers “moral behavior” such as women not driving an auto. For his blog statement, Ralf Badawi was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes of a whip (50 lashes in public each week during 20 weeks). The AWC’s External Relations Officer, Bernard Henry, was among those protesting this decision in front of the Saudi Embassy in Paris a few days ago in a demonstration led by Amnesty International.
  • The fourth situation is when a State has not State Religion and is against all religious movements and institutions in general. The Soviet Union from 1922 to 1942. In 1942, Stalin changed his policy to encourage religious people to fight the German invaders. Mainland China during the Cultural Revolution years and the Pol Pot government of Cambodia are examples of governments hostile to all religious movements.
  • The fifth situation: Armed movements which control some territory and who wish to create a State with a State Religion and who are hostile to religious minorities. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is a dramatic example of an armed movement which controls an area as large as France, partly in Iraq, partly in Syria. There are forced conversions to Islam and girls and women from minority religions are sold as slaves. The Boko Haram movement, active in nearly as large an area as France in northeast Nigeria, northern Cameroon, and part of Niger acts in the same way. Boko Haram and ISIS follow the same policy and ideology and cooperate when possible. We have very similar patterns, but on a smaller scale, in the Central African Republic where Christian militias have attacked Muslim communities so that the majority of Muslims have fled to neighboring countries. However, the Christian militias have not said that they wish to set up a State with Christianity as a State religion.
  • The sixth situation are States which have no State Religion but where there are popular, nongovernmental currents or movements against specific religions. France, Germany and Myanmar can be good examples. France, most recently after attacks against journalists of a satiric journal by two brothers of Muslim religion, has seen a relatively large number of people attacking Islamic institutions largely at night. In Germany, there is a movement which is holding large demonstrations against Muslims. The German government has been against these demonstrations but is limited in what sort of police actions it can take to prevent them. In Myanmar (Burma) although Buddhism was never officially proclaimed a State Religion, the military-led government favored Buddhist groups to such an extent that Buddhism could nearly be considered a State Religion. Currently there are Buddhist monk-led attacks against the Rohingyas − a Muslim minority − and the government has done nothing to prevent such attacks.
On January 23 Amnesty International France and Reporters Without Borders held a protest before the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Paris in support of blogger Raif Badawi. (C) Bernard J. Henry/AWC

On January 23 Amnesty International France and Reporters Without Borders held a protest before the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Paris in support of blogger Raif Badawi. (C) Bernard J. Henry/AWC

These six situations highlight violent situations in which religions are banned, followers killed, imprisoned, sold into slavery and living in fear of being attacked.

There are, of course, many examples of more subtle forms of discrimination, the use of tax policies, the non-recognition of a group as a religion, the banning of healing practices, images making fun of a religion etc. It is important to be aware of these more subtle forms. They need to be prevented, but they are less visible than the imprisonment of a person so they lead to fewer protests.

The front door of a mosque in France in 2009, covered by racist and neo-Nazi graffiti. Over the last five years anti-Islam acts have soared in the country, hitting an all-time high in the wake of the terror attack against the weekly satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo of January 7, 2015. (C) Thierry Antoine/AFP

The front door of a mosque in France in 2009, covered by racist and neo-Nazi graffiti. Over the last five years anti-Islam acts have soared in the country, hitting an all-time high in the wake of the terror attack against the weekly satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo of January 7, 2015. (C) Thierry Antoine/AFP

Universal Standards for Religious Liberty

The universal standard is set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 18) “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 and observance.” Article 18 of the Universal Declaration is reaffirmed in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights but made stronger by adding “no one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.” The Covenant was followed, after many years of discussion and debate in which the Association of World Citizens played an important role, with a UN General Assembly “Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief” of November 25, 1981. This is a strong Declaration. I believe that such a strong and comprehensive statement would not be possible today given the coordinated strength of the Islamic States in opposition to the idea in the Declaration of being able to change one’s religion. Unlike the Covenant, the Declaration is not a treaty and so there is no institution to study the action of governments in the light of the Declaration. Nevertheless, the Declaration, relatively little known, should be widely quoted by NGOs working on religious liberty issues.

What Can Be Done Today?

Governments are relatively inactive − or not active at all − when it comes to States restricting religious liberty. We have seen these recent days government leaders going to Saudi Arabia to wish the new king well, as Saudi Arabia sells oil and buys arms from Western governments. Saudi Arabia is one of the most violent oppressors of religious liberty. Thus I would expect no action on the part of governments toward other governments.

However, we do see governmental action against nongovernmental militias who violate religious liberty. There is a coalition of States, led by the United States, England and France to bomb from the air positions of the ISIS in Iraq-Syria. That such bombing will transform the ISIS into liberal advocates of human rights seems to me unlikely.

Likewise the army of Chad has joined the army of Nigeria to fight Boko Haram. As the Nigerian and Chadian armies are best known for their practice of burning villages and raping women, their contribution to a society of respect and tolerance is to be doubted.

Thus, to sum up: the possibilities for the defense of religious liberty are few. There are norms and standards set by the United Nations: Article 18 of the Universal Declaration and the Covenant, and especially the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Governments are basically unwilling to do anything in the UN even against the worst offenders. On the one hand governments need resources from the country − oil from Saudi Arabia − or they are more concerned with security issues of the country than with religious liberty issues − the case with Iran and North Korea.

If, as I believe, governmental action is useless and will make situations worse, what can NGOs do? One must not be discouraged. The challenges are great; the resources of NGOs are few. A worldwide erosion of religious freedom is causing large-scale human suffering, grave injustice and serious threats to world peace and security. Yet I believe that NGOs have through UN standards a clear set of international principles and standards to maintain. We must find ways for common action today.

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


“A Living Thing is Born”

In Being a World Citizen, Conflict Resolution, Human Development, International Justice, The Search for Peace, United Nations, World Law on November 15, 2014 at 4:18 PM

“A LIVING THING IS BORN”
by René Wadlow

 

 

November 15, 1920 – The First Assembly of the League of Nations, Geneva

 

 

 

“A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small States alike.” President Woodrow Wilson. The last of the fourteen points in which he set out in January 1918 the Allied war aims.

November 15 marks the anniversary of the first session of the Assembly of the League of Nations. Representatives of 44 States entered La Salle de la Réformation in central Geneva. The Salle had been built originally as a meeting place for Protestant refugees from France and Italy who needed a place of worship and a place for discussions and welfare. In the large hall, there was Léon Bourgeois, the oldest delegate and a long-time French worker for peace. Ignace Paderewski headed the Polish delegation in a room where he had given piano concerts. There was Lord Robert Cecil, who with Jan Christian Smuts of South Africa was a principle author of the League Covenant. There were delegates from South Africa and India which had “dominion status” but were not yet fully independent.

Significant were the countries not represented: the USA, the USSR, Germany, Austria and Hungary − all of whom had participated in parts of the First World War. Woodrow Wilson had welcomed the birth of the League of Nations: “A living thing is born.” Unfortunately, the League ran into difficulties from the start. The United States refused to join; too long a time elapsed before Germany was admitted or the USSR asked to join. The legacy of the First World War, codified in the Versailles Treaty, upset both the political and economic climate: huge reparations due by Germany, the payment of large debts by the Allies to the US, monetary collapse in several countries and economic protectionism rampant. All this contributed to the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The greatest trouble, however, was the mentality of the officials in national foreign ministries and war offices who were thinking in terms of the balance of power and who could not bring themselves to face new challenges. Nor was there among the general public a sense of global citizenship, of world loyalty which might have influenced government leaders in a more positive direction. Even today, as Brian Urquhart has said of the United Nations (UN), “There has yet to emerge, on the international scene, a great combined popular constituency to insist on the necessity of a respected central order and an orderly process of law and the keeping of peace.” However, there were real contributions of the League to the development of world institutions. The UN’s structure is that of the League − only the names have been changed: The League Assembly became the General Assembly, the League Council became the Security Council, the Mandates Commission became the Trusteeship Council.

A crucial contribution was the creation of an impartial civil service responsible only to the head of the organization under the obligation not to accept instructions from any government or outside authority. The League created a high quality staff under the direction of the first Secretary-General, Sir Eric Drummond, who served from the start until 1933.

The League also provided the starting point for future work on refugees, drug control, health and agriculture through its close cooperation with the International Institute of Agriculture set up in Rome. The International Labor Organization functioned alongside the League, its budget being voted by the League Assembly.

Looking back, we can mark the progress not only of the institutions but also the persons who shape them. A new breed of international civil servants are evolving within world organizations and non-governmental organizations active within the UN system to make this earth a true home for humanity. They have dedicated themselves to the same tasks that the League began but left unfinished.

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


A l’ombre du Pays des Cèdres, pas de refuge pour les Syriens

In Current Events, Human Rights, International Justice, Middle East & North Africa, Solidarity, The Search for Peace, War Crimes, World Law on September 29, 2014 at 11:51 AM

A L’OMBRE DU PAYS DES CEDRES, PAS DE REFUGE POUR LES SYRIENS

Par Bernard Henry

 

Lorsque l’on pense au Liban et à la Syrie, l’on ne peut oublier la longue guerre civile libanaise, l’ingérence permanente de Damas et la fin du conflit en 1990 qui laissa Hafez el-Assad, le Président syrien, seul maître du Liban. L’on se souvient de l’assassinat, le 14 février 2005 à Beyrouth, de l’ancien Premier Ministre libanais Rafic Hariri, élément déclencheur du retrait précipité du Liban de cette Syrie qui s’y croyait pour toujours en terrain conquis.

Rares sont ceux qui pensent, aujourd’hui, aux 1 200 000 Syriens réfugiés au Liban voisin, fuyant le conflit qui ravage leur pays depuis trois ans et la répression sanglante de toute résistance à la dictature de Bachar el-Assad, le fils d’Hafez. Ayant succédé en 2000 à son père décédé, le jeune Bachar avait tôt fait de décevoir les espoirs de réforme placés en lui, ayant tout au contraire accru l’écrasement de la dissidence à partir de 2004 et n’ayant laissé d’autre choix à son peuple, au printemps 2011, que de prendre les armes.

Ce n’est pas une actualité dominée par les conquêtes militaires de Daesh, le fameux « Etat islamique en Irak et au Levant », qui se veut même « Etat islamique » tout court maintenant qu’il a soumis une portion conséquente de l’Irak, qui va y changer quelque chose. Persécutant les minorités dans les zones tombées sous sa coupe, Chrétiens et Yazidis notamment, Daesh a réalisé l’exploit de concentrer sur ses méfaits l’attention d’une Session spéciale du Conseil des Droits de l’Homme de l’ONU le 1er septembre dernier.

Il n’en fallait guère plus à de bonnes consciences occidentales déjà enclines à soutenir Bachar al-Assad, certes jugé désagréable parce que dictateur, contre une révolution syrienne condamnée par contumace parce que contenant des éléments islamistes, pour parler aujourd’hui, en dépit même de faits accablant le régime de Damas, de blanchir Assad en tant qu’allié de circonstance contre l’islamisme barbare de Daesh, quitte à lui faire ainsi crédit de la création du groupe islamiste dont son régime est pourtant le premier fautif, à la manière d’un Frankenstein.

Mais que diraient ceux-là du sort des réfugiés syriens d’Ersal, ce village de trente mille âmes de la Beqaa à quelques cent vingt kilomètres au nord-est de Beyrouth ?

Un village libanais au cœur de la guerre en Syrie

Depuis le début de la guerre, bien que protégé en théorie par la frontière libanaise, Ersal est littéralement partie prenante au conflit syrien. La population locale ayant pris fait et cause depuis le départ pour l’Armée syrienne libre, Ersal accueille aujourd’hui non moins de cent dix mille réfugiés syriens, répartis dans plusieurs camps de la ville, dont par exemple celui d’Alsanabel.

L’été dernier, c’est la guerre proprement dite qui a fini par s’inviter à Ersal, avec l’incursion dans le village de combattants du groupe armé syrien Jahbat al-Nosra, avatar syrien d’Al-Qaïda, après l’arrestation de l’un de ses dirigeants, Imad Ahmad Joumaa.

D’interminables et violents combats ont ensuite opposé Jahbat al-Nosra et l’armée libanaise, avec, sous leurs feux croisés, des réfugiés syriens pris dans des affrontements par trop semblables à ceux auxquels, chez eux, ils avaient échappé. Même le retrait d’Ersal de Jahbat al-Nosra le 6 août dernier ne ramena pas la paix, l’armée libanaise se livrant depuis lors à une répression féroce à travers la ville et dans les camps de réfugiés – les réfugiés, dont treize mille sur les cent vingt-trois mille que comptait Ersal ont regagné la Syrie, leur lieu d’asile espéré étant devenu pire encore que l’enfer qu’ils avaient fui.

L’armée libanaise n’est pas celle d’Assad. Mais dans un Liban se cherchant désespérément un Président depuis mai dernier, elle est ce qui s’approche le plus d’une colonne vertébrale de l’Etat. Et bien sûr, sa mission première demeure la défense du territoire, mission dans laquelle un passé d’humiliation, non dans une moindre mesure pendant la guerre civile, lui interdit la moindre faiblesse.

Septembre porte le noir souvenir d’un épisode de cette guerre des plus humiliants pour l’armée libanaise – Sabra et Chatila, en 1982, lorsque plus de mille civils palestiniens et sud-libanais furent exécutés dans les deux camps de réfugiés beyrouthins par les Kataeb, les Phalanges chrétiennes d’extrême droite du Président Bechir Gemayel, sous le regard complice de l’armée d’invasion israélienne.

Cet été, Tsahal s’est à nouveau distinguée de manière macabre en se livrant à Gaza à son opération la plus meurtrière depuis la création de l’Etat d’Israël, rendant plus vivace et brûlante encore la mémoire de Sabra et Chatila.

Tant le présent que le passé privent l’armée libanaise de tout droit à l’indulgence face à une force armée étrangère sur son sol. Il n’en faut pas plus pour céder aux traumatismes du passé, quitte à voir Jahbat al-Nosra là où il n’est plus, à la manière des Kataeb obsédées par la présence de fedayin de l’OLP tapis dans l’ombre de Sabra et Chatila. Et Alsanabel en a fait les frais.

Des réfugiés bombardés délibérément, l’un d’entre eux torturé à mort

Le 25 septembre, sous le commandement du Général Chamel Roukoz, des blindés font feu sans sommation sur le camp de réfugiés, dont s’emparent aussitôt les flammes. Tout se consume, et bientôt, le camp entier n’est plus que ruines. Les militaires pénètrent dans un Alsanabel livré à la panique et arrêtent quatre cent cinquante réfugiés, les plaquant face contre terre aux pieds des soldats.

Le 25 septembre dernier, les blindés libanais attaquent le camp d’Alsanabel.

Le 25 septembre dernier, les blindés libanais attaquent le camp d’Alsanabel.

Les flammes ravagent le camp, réduisant les maigres biens des réfugiés syriens en cendres.

Les flammes ravagent le camp, réduisant les maigres biens des réfugiés syriens en cendres.

Les forces armées libanaises forcent les réfugiés d’Alsanabel à se coucher à leurs pieds, les dépouillant de la moindre dignité humaine.

Les forces armées libanaises forcent les réfugiés d’Alsanabel à se coucher à leurs pieds, les dépouillant de la moindre dignité humaine.

Non, ce ne sont pas des sacs poubelle que l’on voit aux pieds des soldats libanais ; ce sont des réfugiés syriens, dont la vie et la dignité ne semble pourtant pas, aux yeux des militaires, valoir plus que cela.

Non, ce ne sont pas des sacs poubelle que l’on voit aux pieds des soldats libanais ; ce sont des réfugiés syriens, dont la vie et la dignité ne semble pourtant pas, aux yeux des militaires, valoir plus que cela.

Ce même jour à Alsanabel, les parents d’un jeune Syrien, Ahmad Mohammad Abdalla Aldorra, originaire de Qara, voient les soldats libanais leur apporter la dépouille mutilée de leur fils, arrêté le 20 septembre et qui a succombé à la torture.

Ahmad Mohammad Abdalla Aldorra, arrêté le 20 septembre par des soldats libanais.

Ahmad Mohammad Abdalla Aldorra, arrêté le 20 septembre par des soldats libanais.

Ses parents devaient ne le revoir que mort, son corps couvert de blessures reçues sous la torture.

Ses parents devaient ne le revoir que mort, son corps couvert de blessures reçues sous la torture.

Le sort des quatre cent cinquante personnes arrêtées demeure indéterminé.

D’aucuns peuvent bien s’obstiner à dire que, face au danger islamiste de Daesh, la dictature réputée « laïque » de Bachar el-Assad, même récusée par les capitales occidentales comme moindre mal face à une révolution syrienne jugée dévoyée par le djihadisme, peut constituer un rempart, pas idéal certes, mais un rempart.

Ce n’en est pas moins faire la scandaleuse économie, d’une part, de l’amnistie générale de cette année qui a ouvert grand les portes des prisons du régime pour en faire sortir, on ne peut plus sciemment venant de Damas, ceux qui sont allés aussitôt grossir les rangs de Daesh, et d’autre part, du verrouillage total de la société syrienne par le régime Assad depuis 2004, notamment au détriment des Kurdes qui, au sein de leur propre pays, sont devenus, plus encore que des étrangers, des invisibles.

Quant à la persécution de réfugiés syriens par une armée étrangère, en l’occurrence l’armée libanaise, contre quoi celle-ci peut-elle bien constituer un « rempart » ?

Une armée libanaise aux atours plus « laïcs » que Daesh est-elle plus fondée à harceler des civils, qui plus est des réfugiés ? Est-ce différent, a fortiori meilleur, que les attaques d’installations civiles et de lieux protégés, tels que des hôpitaux ou des écoles de l’ONU, reprochées à l’Etat d’Israël lors de sa campagne à Gaza l’été dernier ?

Un crime de guerre

Sabra et Chatila était un crime de guerre, Gaza cet été était un crime de guerre, et de la même façon, Alsanabel est un crime de guerre. Soit les autorités libanaises, cette fois seules en cause puisque c’est leur armée qui est intervenue et non une quelconque armée étrangère ou milice partisane, s’expliquent et/ou enquêtent de manière réelle et sérieuse, soit l’on saura quel parti elles ont désormais choisi – celui d’Assad et de Daesh, « les deux têtes du serpent » comme l’écrivaient le 18 septembre dernier dans Libération les Syriens Bassma Kodmani et Bicher Haj Ibrahim[i].

Ce serait dommage, et pour tout dire inexplicable, de la part d’un pays qui a tant souffert, dans son histoire récente, du fanatisme religieux et de la volonté de conquête militaire au mépris de l’intégrité territoriale d’un Etat et de l’unité de son peuple.

Ce que l’on reproche à Damas et Daesh tout à la fois, l’on ne peut l’admettre des soldats d’un pays qui accueille en connaissance de cause des réfugiés de Syrie. Le Liban a beau n’avoir pas ratifié la Convention des Nations Unies relative au Statut des Réfugiés de 1951, s’il accepte la présence de réfugiés étrangers sur son sol, il sait ce qu’il fait et, précisément, il le fait sous les auspices du Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les Réfugiés, qui œuvre pour faire respecter cette convention.

Si en 1982, les Libanais, des Kataeb jusqu’aux communistes, avaient su mettre de côté leurs divisions partisanes après Sabra et Chatila au profit de l’intérêt national, alors l’on s’attendrait à ce qu’ils en tirent aujourd’hui l’enseignement au profit des réfugiés syriens présents sur leur sol, en commençant par ceux d’Alsanabel. A moins qu’ils ne le fassent, jamais le Liban, le « Pays des Cèdres », ne pourra offrir le moindre refuge digne de ce nom à ceux qui sont venus, dans un dernier espoir, l’y chercher de Syrie.

 

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

 

[i] « L’Etat islamique et Assad, les deux têtes du serpent », Libération, 18 septembre 2013, www.liberation.fr/monde/2014/09/15/l-etat-islamique-et-assad-les-deux-tetes-du-serpent_1100773.


The Open Conspiracy for Peace

In Being a World Citizen, Conflict Resolution, Human Development, Introductory, The Search for Peace on September 21, 2014 at 2:26 AM

THE OPEN CONSPIRACY FOR PEACE

By René Wadlow

Behind the short-sighted governments that divide and mismanage human affairs, a real force for world unity and order exists and grows.”

H. G. Wells, A Short History of the World, 1943.

September 21 is the United Nations (UN)-designated World Day of Peace. It is also the anniversary of the birth of Herbert George Wells, usually known as just H. G. Wells.[i]

From the publication of The Time Machine in 1895 to his death in 1946, Wells ‘bestrode his world like a colossus’. He was a creator of modern science fiction, a pioneer of women’s rights (though he treated some badly in his many love affairs), a journalist, historian and novelist. Above all, he was a social thinker devoted to peace and a stable world order. It is this last aspect of his writing that makes his birth anniversary and the World Day of Peace appropriate.[ii]

Wells first studied biology under Thomas H. Huxley, the leading Darwinian of Victorian times, and came to see the ethical principles underlying humanity’s social systems as being rooted in the evolutionary process and therefore having the potential for onward development. Just as there was one major factor in biological progress − natural selection − so in social progress, there was one major factor − the quality of enlightened thought.

As he wrote, “However urgent things may seem, a great mental renascence must precede any effectual reorganization of the world. A systematic development and a systematic application of the sciences of human relationship, of personal and group psychology, of financial and economic sciences, and of education − sciences still in their infancy − is required. Narrow and obsolete, dead and dying moral and political ideas have to be replaced by a clearer and simpler conception of the common origins and destinies of our kind.”

"If we don't end war, war will end us." H. G. Wells.

“If we don’t end war, war will end us.”
H. G. Wells.

Wells was critical of democracy as being too slow and always tending toward the middle of the road on important issues. In 1928, he tried to alert to new dangers and possibilities by proposing an “open conspiracy” − an elite group of pioneer world citizens who would organize to move humanity forward[iii]. The Open Conspiracy was his organizing manual for the diverse constituencies of globally-minded citizens to bring sanity to the organizing of human affairs.

Wells clearly foresaw the need for a re-organization of the economic affairs of humanity. “Certain things, the ocean, the air, rare wild animals must be the collective property of all humankind and cannot be altogether safe until they are so regarded and until some concrete body exists to exercise these proprietary rights … the raw material of the earth should be for all.”

Some progress has been made in the identification of endangered species, and a variety of international conventions have at least slowed the despoliation of an amount of our natural heritage. Yet the ongoing destruction of forests, over-exploitation of the oceans as well as other signs of the environmental crisis are constant reminders of how much distance is left to travel.

Wells was harshly critical of Marxist theory and of the Communist rule of Stalin in the USSR. Thus he contrasts his “open conspiracy” with the closed conspiracies and vanguard approach of Lenin whom he had met in 1920. He was also highly opposed to Fascism and its closed conspiracies. The “open conspiracy” is a project for every manner of person once an individual has developed a ‘world consciousness’, though Wells was himself very Eurocentric in his world outlook.

He summed up his views as a race between education for world citizenship and catastrophe − a task or bold and creative minds.

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

[i] For a detailed biography see: David Lodge, A Man of Parts (New York, Viking, 436pp.)

[ii] For an overview of his political thinking see: John S. Partington. Building Cosmopolis: The Political thought of H.G. Wells Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003)

[iii] The Open Conspiracy was first published in 1928 and slightly revised published in 1933. The 1933 edition is republished much more recently with a strong introduction and notes in W. Warren Wagar. The Open Conspiracy/H.G. Wells on World Revolution (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 151pp.).


UN Human Rights Protection: Small Steps, But No Turning Back

In Anticolonialism, Asia, Being a World Citizen, Conflict Resolution, Cultural Bridges, Current Events, Human Rights, International Justice, Middle East & North Africa, Solidarity, The Search for Peace, United Nations, War Crimes, World Law on September 7, 2014 at 10:11 PM

UN HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION: SMALL STEPS, BUT NO TURNING BACK

By René Wadlow

 

The effectiveness of United Nations (UN) action to promote human rights and prevent massive violations grows by small steps. However, the steps, once taken, serve as precedents and can be cited in future cases. Once the steps taken, it is difficult to refuse such action later.

Such small steps can be seen in the contrasting response to two situations:

1) The current situation in Iraq and Syria, in particular the areas held by the Islamic State (IS) and

2) The massacres and refugee flow from East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, in 1971.

I will contrast briefly the Special Session on Iraq held on September 1, 2014 in Geneva of the Human Rights Council with efforts at the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in August 1971 when I was among the representatives of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) which had signed a joint appeal to the Sub-Commission for action in East Pakistan.

The September 1 Special Session stands out for two precedents which can be important:

1) The affirmation that non-State actors are bound to respect UN human rights standards;

2) The speedy creation of a UN Committee of Inquiry by using members of the UN human rights secretariat.

The massive violations of human rights in those parts of Iraq and Syria held by the IS is the first time that a major UN human rights body, the Human Rights Council or the earlier Commission on Human Rights, deals with an area not under the control of a State.

The diplomats working on a Special Session decided to focus only on Iraq. If Syria had been included, the actions of the Syrian government would have had to be considered as well.

Holding non-State actors responsible for violations of UN human rights norms is an important precedent and can have wide implications. The Declaration of the Eliminations of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, adopted by the UN General Assembly on November 25, 1981 sets the standard − a standard repeatedly being violated by the forces of the IS.

Likewise, the speedy creation of a Committee of Inquiry is a major advance. The Human Rights Council in the past, following a practice of the earlier Commission on Human Rights, has created “Commissions of Inquiry” also called “Fact-finding Missions.” Currently there are four such Commissions at work:

1) Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,

2) The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic,

3) The OHCHR Investigation on Sri Lanka,

4) The Commission of Inquiry on Gaza.

It was under Navanethem Pillay, who was the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights from 2008 to September 2014, that all of the existing four UN Commissions of Inquiry were created. The world has the former High Commissioner to thank for such valuable efforts in defense of human rights.

It was under Navanethem Pillay, who was the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights from 2008 to September 2014, that all of the existing four UN Commissions of Inquiry were created. The world has the former High Commissioner to thank for such valuable efforts in defense of human rights.

Each commission has three, sometimes four, members each from a different geographic zone. The members have usually had experience in UN activities, and the chair is usually someone who has a reputation beyond his UN efforts.

Since the commissions are usually not welcomed by the government of the country to be studies, the fact-finding is done by interviewing exiles and refugees. NGOs, scholars as well as governments can also provide information in writing. The commission reports rarely contain information that is not already available from specialized NGOs, journalists, and increasingly the Internet. However, the commission reports give an official coloring to the information, and some UN follow up action can be based on the reports.

It takes a good deal of time to put these commissions together as there must be regional balance, increasingly gender balance, as well as a balance of expertise. Moreover, the people approached to be a commission member are often busy and have other professional duties. It can sometimes take a month or more to put together a commission. In light of the pressing need presented by the situation in Iraq, it was decided that the members of the fact-finding group for Iraq would be members of the Secretariat of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights so that they can get to work immediately.

For the UN, this is a major step forward and must have led to a good deal of discussion before the proposal was presented in the resolution. As it is, India and China objected publicly in official statements just before the final resolution was accepted. Both States maintained that using Secretariat members went beyond the mandate of the Office of the High Commissioner. They were worried by the increasing investigative role of the Office which should be limited only to helping develop national capacity building. Iraq today, Kashmir and Tibet tomorrow. The Indians and the Chinese are probably not the only governments worried, but they were the only States which spoke on the issue, Objecting strongly but saying they would not block consensus on the resolution.

In contrast to these steps: I had followed as closely as possible, from Geneva, the events in East Pakistan, having at one stage helped a representative of the Bangladesh opposition to speak to relevant diplomats in Geneva. Later, he became the Ambassador of Bangladesh to the UN in Geneva, and for a year was president of the Commission on Human Rights.

In December 1970, the Awami League led by Sheik Mujib Rahman won a majority of seats in the national assembly. The government of Pakistan refused to convene the national assembly, since it would result in shifting political power from West to East Pakistan. For three months, the government and the Awami League tried to negotiate a political settlement. On March 25, 1971, the government discontinued negotiations and unleashed the Pakistan army against the civilian population of East Pakistan. Hindus, members and sympathizers of the Awami League, students and faculty of the universities and women were especially singled out.

These atrocities continued until the Indian army which had been drawn into the conflict, in part by the large number of refugees that had fled to India, took control of Dacca on December 1, 1971.

When India gained independence from Britain in 1947, the predominantly Muslim-inhabited parts of the former colony became a separate country called Pakistan. Originally a Dominion within the British Empire, Pakistan eventually established a republic of its own in 1956. In March 1971 the province of East Pakistan launched a war of independence, waged by an armed force called the Mukti Bahini, also called the Bengali Liberation Army, and the Indian military which came to the aid of the rebels. Eventually, in December 1971 Pakistani troops were defeated and East Pakistan became a sovereign nation with the name of Bangladesh.

When India gained independence from Britain in 1947, the predominantly Muslim-inhabited parts of the former colony became a separate country called Pakistan. Originally a Dominion within the British Empire, Pakistan eventually established a republic of its own in 1956.
In March 1971 the province of East Pakistan launched a war of independence, waged by an armed force called the Mukti Bahini, also called the Bengali Liberation Army, and the Indian military which came to the aid of the rebels. Eventually, in December 1971 Pakistani troops were defeated and East Pakistan became a sovereign nation with the name of Bangladesh.

The UN Security Council was unwilling or unable to deal with the human rights situations in East Pakistan. The U. S. government strongly supported the Pakistan army while the Soviet Union supported India. For NGO representatives our hopes rested on the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities which was to meet in Geneva from August 2 to 20, 1971. At the time, the Commission on Human Rights and the bulk of the human rights secretariat was still in New York. However, the Sub-Commission would meet in Geneva once a year, usually in July or August.

The Sub-Commission members were not diplomatic representatives of governments as was the Commission on Human Rights. Rather they were “independent experts”. The saying among NGOs was that some were more independent than others, and some were more expert than others. Most were professors of law in their countries − thus the August dates when universities were on vacation. It was easier to have informal relations with Sub-Commission members than with diplomats, and NGO representatives could get advice on the best avenues of action.

NGOs had two formal avenues of action. We could present written statements that were distributed as official documents, and we could make oral statements, usually 10 minutes in which to develop ideas and to call attention to additional elements in the written statement. Written statements could be that of a single NGO or, often to give more weight, there could be a “joint statement”. On the East Pakistan situation, with the violence being covered by the world media, it was decided to have a joint statement. The statement called upon the Sub-Commission “to examine all available information regarding allegations of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in East Pakistan and to recommend measures which might be taken to protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people of East Pakistan”. Twenty-two NGOs with representatives in Geneva signed the joint statement, and John Salzberg, a representative of the International Commission of Jurists, made an oral statement presenting the written joint statement.

Government representatives were always present in the room and had the right to make statements (and also to try to influence the independent experts behind the scene). Najmul Saguib Khan, the independent expert from Pakistan contended that the Sub-Commission could not consider East Pakistan since the UN role in human rights “did not extend to questions arising out of situations affecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Member States and that attention to such situations would encourage those seeking the dismemberment of Member States.” The Indian diplomat, N.P. Jain, replied highlighting the influx of eight million refugees into India.

"On 13 June 1971, an article in the UK's Sunday Times exposed the brutality of Pakistan's suppression of the Bangladeshi uprising. It forced the reporter's family into hiding and changed history. (...) Written by Anthony Mascarenhas, a Pakistani reporter, and printed in the UK's Sunday Times, it exposed for the first time the scale of the Pakistan army's brutal campaign to suppress its breakaway eastern province in 1971. (...) There is little doubt that Mascarenhas' reportage played its part in ending the war. It helped turn world opinion against Pakistan and encouraged India to play a decisive role." (C) BBC News

“On 13 June 1971, an article in the UK’s Sunday Times exposed the brutality of Pakistan’s suppression of the Bangladeshi uprising. It forced the reporter’s family into hiding and changed history. (…)
Written by Anthony Mascarenhas, a Pakistani reporter, and printed in the UK’s Sunday Times, it exposed for the first time the scale of the Pakistan army’s brutal campaign to suppress its breakaway eastern province in 1971. (…)
There is little doubt that Mascarenhas’ reportage played its part in ending the war. It helped turn world opinion against Pakistan and encouraged India to play a decisive role.”
(C) BBC News

The Sub-Commission members took the “diplomatic way out” and said nothing. In drafting the report of the session, one member, Adamu Mohammed from Nigeria proposed deleting any reference to the discussion on East Pakistan. He held that the Sub-Commission had listened to, but had not considered the statements made by the representative of the International Commission of Jurists, the Sub-Commission member from Pakistan and the observer of India.

The NGO representatives were saddened by the lack of action but not totally surprised. No other UN human rights body took action, and the massacres stopped only after the ‘lightning war’ of India defeated the Pakistan army and occupied the country until a Bangladesh government could be set up.

There remains real danger that the situation in Iraq and Syria will continue through military means, but at least progress has been made within the UN in calling attention to conflicts within a State and holding all parties responsible for maintaining the standards of human rights.

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


Tribal Societies: Survival and Transformations

In Being a World Citizen, Cultural Bridges, Current Events, Environmental protection, Foundations for the New Humanism, Human Development, Human Rights, International Justice, Solidarity, The Search for Peace, United Nations, World Law on August 9, 2014 at 10:46 AM

TRIBAL SOCIETIES: SURVIVAL AND TRANSFORMATIONS

by René Wadlow

 

August 9 has been chosen by the UN General Assembly as the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples.

As Paulo Freire has written, “While both humanization and dehumanization are real alternatives, only the first is man’s vocation. This vocation is constantly negated. It is hindered by injustice, exploitation, oppression, and the violence of the oppressors; it is affirmed by the yearning of the oppressed for freedom and justice, and by their struggle to recover their lost humanity.”

The world society is filled with many different types of collective actors: clans, tribes, castes, ethnic groups, cities, races, social classes, religious organizations, nation-states, multi-state alliances for military or economic goals, transnational corporations and associations. Each is the creation of individuals who have grouped together − or have been grouped together − to achieve goals considered common to the group’s members. All such collective groups have techniques to socialize new members to share the common values, to accept the ideology and beliefs of the tribe, the nation-state or the association. This socialization process goes so deeply that a person’s sense of identity becomes associated with these collective identity, the school, the army, the church, the political process and institutions − each propose a sense of group purpose.

Yet none of these groups is static and unchanging. Even clans and tribes whose members often consider that they have a common ancestor do, in fact, change. Tribes merge and divide; new identities are formed; new ancestors are created to justify the new groupings.

Some types of collective belonging are more easily left than others. One can move relatively easily from a city and take on the character, the values and the goals of a new city. Social mobility can produce changes in social class, and even caste lines become blurred. Persons change nationality or acquire new nationalities as frontiers are modified. Race is less easily changed but definitions of what constitutes a race do change. Ethnic identity is often associated with birth, but parents can belong to different ethnic communities, although the child is usually raised as belonging to the more dominant group. However the socialization process of group identity goes to the level of sub-conscious behavior and is not easily set aside.

In Peru, some tribes remain uncontacted. Some live no more than 100 kms from the legendary mountain site of Machu Picchu. Today, however, the future of these tribes who live in the heartland of the ancient Inca Empire is threatened by a gas project. (C) Survival International

In Peru, some tribes remain uncontacted. Some live no more than 100 kms from the legendary mountain site of Machu Picchu. Today, however, the future of these tribes who live in the heartland of the ancient Inca Empire is threatened by a gas project. (C) Survival International

Today the nation-state claims to be the dominant collective association − setting the boundaries of loyalty and identity. The State claims the right to set out the major collective goals and values. Through laws, the State claims the right to set out the rules by which other collective entities may pursue their goals; through taxation the State draws the resources to further the goals it has set, and the State claims to have the only legitimate use of violence to punish those who break the laws and rules it has set.

There have always been tensions between these collective groups for their spheres of goal-setting and value-setting have overlapped. Thus there have been tensions between religious organizations and the State as to who should set what goals and the means to achieve these goals. There have also been tensions between economic classes and the State when it was felt that the State was dominated by another economic class who used its power within State institutions not for the good of all but only to advance class interests. The same is true of other collective units − races or ethnic groups − excluded from power within State institutions.

Today in many parts of the world those most excluded from power within State institutions are people living in alternative structures of authority, goal-setting and rule-making: persons living in tribal societies.

Tribal societies predated most of today’s nation-state. A tribal society usually has all the same functions as the nation-state: it sets out membership, loyalties, common goals and rules of behavior. It has sanctions against those breaking the laws of the tribe and has − or had − the monopoly of the legitimacy of using violence against those breaking the laws. Tribes are, in fact, more realistically “nation-states” if one defines nation as a common language, a common history and a common will to act together.

Thus because the tribal society is the closest in function to that of the nation-state, it is also the most feared. Tribes are institutions with whom it is difficult to compromise because they have the same pretensions as the State. It is relatively easy for a government to offer higher wages to the industrial worker or higher prices to the farmer as these social classes do not claim to carry out an alternative way the functions of the State. It is more of a challenge to the State’s image of its role to allow tribal societies to set out a land policy or fishing rights or trans-frontier trading rights because these activities conflict directly with the functions that the government has set for itself.

Thus there has been a long history of the State destroying alternative institutions of governance on its territory. The nation-states of Europe were built upon the ruins of feudal institutions; much of Asia on the destruction of local rulers. We see the pattern today as we watch traditional chiefs in Africa lose their authority to the heads of State and the military. In the Americas, many of the indigenous tribal societies were destroyed. Others were pushed into areas that those who controlled the government did not want − the “reservations” of the USA and Canada.

In Latin America and Asia, there is still active struggle going on between those trying to preserve their tribal institutions and homelands and the State which claims complete authority over all its territory and who often wished to put new settlers on tribal lands.

A Koma tribe woman at her farm. Alantika Mountain, Cameroon. (C) Middle Africa The Koma people are indigenous hill-dwelling people occupying the Alantika Mountains in northern Adamawa State, Nigeria and in Northern Cameroon (Faro National Park), near the border with Adamawa State.

A Koma tribe woman at her farm. Alantika Mountain, Cameroon. (C) Middle Africa
The Koma people are indigenous hill-dwelling people living in the Alantika Mountains in northern Adamawa State, Nigeria and in Northern Cameroon (Faro National Park), near the border with Adamawa State.

The amount of violence and suffering is considerable. Slowly, the fate of tribal societies has come to the attention of the United Nations (UN). The UN was set up to facilitate relations among nation-states. However, because wide-spread violations of individual rights had been one of the consequences of the Second World War, a Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted and proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in December 1948. The aim of the Declaration is to stress the rights of the individual − a natural consequence of the philosophy of the drafters. The rights of collective bodies which the drafters knew were also protected: trade unions, churches, professional associations. However tribal societies were not particularly thought of as one sees by reading the drafting negotiations. Thus, the Universal Declaration protects the rights of all individuals − including, of course, individuals living in tribal societies − but there is no direct recognition of the functions of tribal societies.

Thus for many years, indigenous and tribal peoples were the forgotten stepchildren of the UN system dealing with human rights. Yet they needed protection at least as much as those on whom the political limelight had focused. The situation began to change with the publication by the International Labor Organization’s study Indigenous Peoples: Living and working conditions of aboriginal populations in independent countries (1953). This was followed by the study by Jose Martinez Cobo Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations of the UN Commission on Human Rights (1986). While the Cobo study was being written, a Working Group on Indigenous Populations was set up under the then-existing Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities under the dynamic leadership of Erica-Irene Daes.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a document that was long awaited by indigenous peoples and their defenders throughout the world.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a document that was long awaited by indigenous peoples and their defenders throughout the world.

From the Working Group, with a good deal of interaction with the representatives of Nongovernmental Organizations and tribal groups came a United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A61/295) in 2007 after some 20 years of efforts. The Declaration sets out a useful framework for action. A UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has been created and meets once a year in New York. Conditions “on the ground” change slowly but there is now a UN institutions where issues can be raised. It is still the task of non-government organizations and tribal groups to continue to draw attention and to seek cooperation with governments.

See the useful Making the Declaration Work published by the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (Copenhagen) available on their website: www.iwgia.org.

 

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

 

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


Could the Use of Rockets Be Banned in the Middle East?

In Conflict Resolution, Current Events, Middle East & North Africa, The Search for Peace, United Nations, World Law on August 1, 2014 at 8:50 PM

COULD THE USE OF ROCKETS BE BANNED IN THE MIDDLE EAST?

By René Wadlow

 

The use of rockets by Islamic groups from Gaza toward Israel and the more deadly use of rockets and bombs by Israeli forces toward Gaza have raised in a dramatic way the possibility of banning rocket use in the Middle East.

Arms control in the Middle East has always been difficult as there is no equivalent of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in the Middle East. The United Nations (UN) as a universal organization has difficulty dealing with security matters on a regional basis. There are UN regional bodies to deal with economic and social issues but not for security matters. Thus, discussions and negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program is an ad hoc grouping. Likewise, negotiations on a Middle East Nuclear-weapon Free Zone often proposed by UN General Assembly resolutions as well as agreed upon during the 5-year reviews of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons has never advanced, though Finland had proposed to host a governmental conference on the issue.

There had been in the 1992-1995 period the creation of the Arms Control and Regional Security Working Group (ACRS) which grew from the Madrid “peace process” with 14 States. In the words of the then United States Secretary of State, James Baker, the agenda of the Working Group was to consider “a set of modest confidence-building or transparency measures covering notification of selected military-related activities and crisis-prevention communications. The purpose would be to lessen the prospects for incidents and miscalculations that could lead to heightened competition or even conflict”. The approach followed the pattern of NATO-Warsaw Pact discussions as part of what was then still the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The ACRS confidence-building and transparency measures were so modest as to have been unseen when they ended in 1996.

A rocket being fired by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) to counter an incoming rocket attack from Gaza. (AP Photo/Tsafrir Abayov)

A rocket being fired by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) to counter an incoming rocket attack from Gaza. (AP Photo/Tsafrir Abayov)

Arms control can succeed when they are part of a larger process that addresses the human, social and psychological elements that undermine security. The NATO-Warsaw Pact confidence-building measures took place as the first “winds of change” were blowing in Eastern Europe and there were subtle signs of change in the Soviet Union leading to the 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.

Unfortunately, confidence and security-building measures that would lead to missile control do not seem to be high on the current agendas of Middle East governments. With violence exploding, hopes for positive steps toward an Israeli-Palestinian accord in the near future seem dim. Some believe that regional arms control can only come after a comprehensive peace has been established in the region, to be followed by a state of peace among peoples beyond the terms of a formal peace agreement. Only then can there be an arms control process linked to confidence-building measures. In this approach, arms are seen as a result of political tensions, not the cause of political instability.

Thus, some feel that pressures to force premature disarmament in the absence of reliable alternative security structures will be seen as efforts to gain unilateral advantage rather than part of a broader approach towards co-operative security and stability.

No one will argue that the general political “climate” is not important to arms control efforts. However, a “one-weapon at a time approach” has had some success at the world level concerning chemical weapons, land mines, cluster bombs, as well as the small-arms trade. In nearly all the “one-weapon at a time approach” non-governmental organizations played an important role in raising the issue at the start and then building momentum once a few governments took an interest and provided leadership within government meetings.

Islamic Jihad rockets, ready to fire, in northern Gaza. (C) Flash90/File)

Islamic Jihad rockets, ready to fire, in northern Gaza. (C) Flash90/File

Thus, the Association of World Citizens (AWC) proposed in an 18 July 2014 message to the UN Secretary General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States that serious consideration be given to a pledge by States as well as non-State actors such as Hamas to refuse to use rockets and missiles at any time.

The AWC’s proposal is based on the “no first use” pledges concerning the use of nuclear weapons − a commitment never under any circumstance to initiate a nuclear attack. This commitment has become an accepted international norm though few nuclear-weapon States have made such a pledge. The norm is re-stated in UN General Assembly Resolution 36/100 which states in its Preamble, “Any doctrine allowing the first use of nuclear weapons and any actions pushing the world toward a catastrophe are incompatible with human moral standards and the lofty ideals of the UN.”

The AWC’s proposal follows the pattern of the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, often called the 1925 Geneva Protocol. The Protocol bans the use, not the possession of poison gas so widely used during the 1914-1918 World War. The idea of inspection and the total destruction of stocks of chemical weapons came much later. It was the signature by Syria of the 1925 Geneva Protocol that led to the recent agreement by Syria to honor the no-use provisions and ultimately to have destroyed existing stocks under the provisions of the more recent Chemical Weapons Treaty which Syria signed as part of the recent agreement. However, it was the 1925 Geneva Protocol, as incomplete as it is, which “opened the door” to effective action.

Thus, efforts to eliminate stocks of rockets and missiles seem unlikely of success in the current context. However, a ban on use might be a real possibility and merits speedy consultations.

 

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