The Official Blog of the

Archive for the ‘The Search for Peace’ Category


Hugh Joseph Schonfield, the World Citizen Pioneer who Tried to Unite the Holy Land

In Being a World Citizen, Conflict Resolution, Cultural Bridges, Current Events, Middle East & North Africa, Solidarity, The Search for Peace, United Nations, World Law on May 24, 2014 at 8:50 PM

HUGH JOSEPH SCHONFIELD, THE WORLD CITIZEN PIONEER WHO TRIED TO UNITE THE HOLY LAND

By René Wadlow

 

Hugh Joseph Schonfield (1901-1988) was the first to incorporate the term “world citizen” into the name of a nongovernmental organization: the Commonwealth of World Citizens in 1938. The Commonwealth of World Citizens was to have an emphasis on service to humanity and a potential role as impartial mediator in international disputes. The founding was what he called a “revolt into sanity” from a mentally-deranged world in which Fascism, Nazism, Communism and militarized Shintoism flourished. From 1941 to 1948, Schonfield published a magazine called The World Citizen. As he said in a speech to the Constructive World Peace Conference in April 1940 “External forces, the agents of God, have caused the emergence in the world itself of ideas of World Community and World Citizenship. It is seen by serious political thinkers that if peace and justice are to reign here there must be a loyalty above that which is due from subjects to their own nation state. Much is being done, and rightly, to encourage such ideas. What we have to concern ourselves with is the bridge that will bring us safely to that farther shore. The bridge must be one that will carry us eventually to the New Jerusalem, not to a new Babylon.”

He wrote, “So many of the grave problems of our time are due to the fact that we are living in a radical transition, having to relate to the rapid advances of science which are requiring us to move forward into a wholeness and interdependence for which we are not sufficiently prepared. There are inevitable consequences, which chiefly affect our self-consciousness. The problems of the transition period affect individuals just as much as nations. Multitudes find themselves incapable of adjusting to the new demands and fear loss of identity.”

In his Mondcivitan Writings ('mondcivitan" coming from "mondcivitano" which is the Esperanto for "World Citizen"), Schonfield developed a comprehensive World Citizen thought, long before the Association of World Citizen was created.

In his Mondcivitan Writings (‘mondcivitan” coming from “mondcivitano” which is the Esperanto for “World Citizen”), Schonfield developed a comprehensive World Citizen thought and ideology, long before the Association of World Citizens itself was created.

Hugh Schonfield drew parallels between the current period of transition with the Jewish society at the time of Jesus, a period which was the focus of most of his writings. He wrote in 1936 History of Jewish Christianity and in 1939 Jesus: A Biography. During the Second World War while working on Middle East issues for the British government, he published in 1943 Judaism and World Order. Shortly afterwards he published Jesus: Man and Messiah, Readings from the Aprocryphal Gospels. A major work was published in 1955, a translation of the New Testament with notes relating the work to the thoughts of the period in which it was written and linking it to Jewish writings of the same period. As a Jew, he did not want his translation to become known as the “Schonfield New Testament” so it was published in 1955 as The Authentic New Testament. He continued his research on Jesus and messianic expectations and in 1965 published The Passover Plot which became a ‘best seller’ selling over two million copies. He became very interested in the Dead Sea scrolls and one of his last books in 1984 was The Essene Odyssey.

With his interest in the Holy Land, he was particularly concerned with Arab-Jewish relations and became an active champion for the idea of an Israel-Palestine Confederation, setting out proposals in 1944 which also concerned what is now Jordan, the pre-Independence Mandate area.

As Dr. Schonfield wrote in Transnational Perspectives in 1982, “What is clearly called for is a Confederation, possibly on the Swiss model, composed of the states of Palestine and Israel, with Jerusalem as the federal capital. The city would not have to be divided or fought over as to who should possess it. Palestine could have a state capital in the eastern part and Israel in the western sector, if they so desired, but the city as a whole would represent the Confederation.

Jerusalem is the cradle of the world's two major religions, Islam and Christianity, as well as of Judaism. Therefore, why should it have to be a place of hatred and division, and not a place of brotherhood and unity?

Jerusalem is the cradle of the world’s two major religions, Islam and Christianity, as well as of Judaism. Therefore, why should it have to be a place of hatred and division, and not a place of brotherhood and unity instead?

“The advantage of this plan should be obvious. The frontiers between the two states would be internal and unfortified, and would therefore not create a risk of future war. As citizens of the Confederation, both Palestinians and Israelis would enjoy rights of access to all parts for purposes of travel and commerce, and questions of settlement would be covered by federal laws. There should be freedom of conscience for all citizens of the Confederation, but if so desired the religious laws of Islam and Judaism could be operative in the respective component states. The important thing would be that the Confederation would be the common homeland of both Palestinians and Israelis, who would yet have their own states.

“This is not a dream and could readily become a practical reality. What has been provided here is no more than a plan in outline, but it does keep the Holy Land as a unity, a common homeland for both Israelis and Palestinians, and satisfies their aspirations for self-governing statehood. With imagination and goodwill, it would inaugurate a new era in the Near East, and become an inspiration to mankind.” He saw that forms of regional integration are increasingly considered as the principal methodology for general security, development and the safeguard of human rights. Individual, national and regional security should be accompanied by a spirit of mutual acceptance – with economic cooperation and development as a by-product for a future Israel-Jordan-Palestine grouping.

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

As the Middle East remains hopelessly plagued by violence, a rocket is being fired by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) to counter an incoming rocket attack on Israel coming from Gaza. (AP Photo/Tsafrir Abayov)

However, the World Citizen proposals have not been followed by the strong national political leadership needed to bring them to the fore of real political negotiations. The quality of government leadership in the Middle East has been uneven at best. But even the Israeli-Palestinian problems are more complex than the quality of leadership. A new spirit of mutual acceptance will only flourish in the region when individual security and dignity for all will become rooted in law – everywhere in the region. This can happen with a general process of democratization and respect for human rights, with safeguards for ethnic and religious minorities. Such democratic values and practices must become the natural bedrock of society in all the countries of the Middle East.

World Citizens can take inspiration from Hugh Schonfield and in their Middle East efforts put an emphasis on unity rather than division.

 

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


Ukraine: What Future for ‘Self-Rule’?

In Conflict Resolution, Current Events, Europe, The former Soviet Union, The Search for Peace on May 24, 2014 at 7:59 PM

UKRAINE: WHAT FUTURE FOR “SELF-RULE”?

By René Wadlow

 

On the eve of the election for President in Ukraine, the heated tensions among factions within the country and between the Russian Federation, the European Union (EU) and the USA seem to be cooling. Talk of a new ‘Cold War’, of economic sanctions, of Russian or NATO imperialism is lessening. More rational discussion on the structures of the Ukrainian State and its relations with other countries now seems possible.

Ukraine faces real internal problems: political, economic and social. There is a need for dialogue, trust-building, and reconciliation within the country − all stepping stones to stable internal peace. The earlier situation in Ukraine did not lend itself to calm considerations of basic orientations or for compromises.

In an April 15 report, the Office of the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights had warned that “Misinformation, propaganda and incitement to hatred need be urgently countered in Ukraine to avoid further escalation of tensions in the country… It is critical for the Government to prioritize respect for diversity, inclusiveness and equal participation of all − including minorities in Ukraine.”

One possibility of lowering tensions on a longer-term basis is to start serious discussions on a federal-decentralized government structure that would not divide the country but would foster local and regional autonomy. World Citizens who have a long history of reflection on federalist approaches as elements of conflict resolution have warned against simplified concepts in the Ukraine discussions. Federalism is not a first step to the disintegration of the Ukraine. But it is not a “magic solution” either.

When Ukraine declared independence from the Soviet Union in late 1991 the country's Russian community did not have any objections. However, since the eviction of President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, oddly enough, many of Ukraine's Russians have risen up against Kiev and demanded reunification with Russia. (C) (AFP / Genya Savilov)

When Ukraine declared independence from the Soviet Union in late 1991 the country’s Russian community did not express any objections. However, since the eviction of President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, oddly enough, many of Ukraine’s Russians have risen up against Kiev and demanded reunification with Russia. (C) (AFP / Genya Savilov)

Factions in eastern Ukraine decided to hold a referendum on Sunday 11 May in a hastily organized way, with little if any public debate on the consequences of the referendum and strong pressure to vote “yes” on the only option presented. The central government, the EU and the USA have all indicated that they considered the referendum and its results as not valid − in fact, illegal. President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation had suggested on the eve of the referendum that it be postponed or not held. However, after the referendum, the Russian government indicated that the referendum showed the “will of the people” and that Russia would abide by the results.

The referendum was organized in only part of eastern Ukraine, in what is newly proclaimed as the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic. The question posed concerned “yes” or “no” on the Russian word samostoyatelnost which can be translated as “self rule”. Since there had been no real public discussion, the term could mean − and did mean − different things to different people − everything from greater autonomy within the existing constitution of Ukraine but with a greater recognition of Russian language and culture, autonomy within a to-be-created new Ukrainian federation, an independent state along the lines of Abkhazia, formerly part of neighboring Georgia, or a willingness to join the Russian Federation on the model of Crimea. People were discouraged from voting “no” and few did.

Since Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, leading to the declaration of independence of the two Georgian provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as separate republics, Moscow has made all efforts to assert regional leadership and pressure all neighboring countries into recognizing local Russians as its own nationals. (AP Photo/Mikhail Metzel)

Since Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008, leading to the declaration of independence of the two Georgian provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as separate republics, Moscow has exerted substantial political and military pressure to assert regional leadership over Russians both at home and abroad and have all neighboring countries recognize local Russians as Moscow’s own nationals. (AP Photo/Mikhail Metzel)

Thus one possible model for the Donetsk and Luthansk People’s Republics are the states created earlier in Republics at the time of the breakup of the Soviet Union: Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, Transnistra in Moldova, Nagorno-Karabagh still torn between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the ill-fated Chechen Republic. One reason that President Putin suggested not having a referendum in Ukraine may have been his fears that the pattern of holding an unauthorized referendum would spread. There are a good number of peoples in Russia who are unhappy with the current constitutional status of their area and could look to creating a referendum to express their wishes. “You know where things start but not where they end.”[i]

With the lowering of tensions, the options of creating an independent State on the model of Transnistra or of integration into Russia on the Crimea pattern seems to be ever less likely. Thus the option of greater autonomy under the existing constitution by Parliamentary action seems the more likely, though there may be demands for a constitutional convention and the institutionalizing of autonomy in a new constitution.

The Ukraine crisis showed how easily the dogs of Cold War can be awakened from their sleep. The military, intelligence services and ad hoc armed groups are never far away. While many of us who had worked for better relations between the USA-USSR, NATO-Warsaw Pact during the 1960-1990 period have often gone on to other conflict resolution issues such as the conflicts in the wider Middle East and Africa, the Ukraine events point out dramatically that there is still work to do in Europe.

 

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

 

[i] For a useful and detailed history of the creation and current status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia see: George Hewitt Discordant Neighbors: A Reassessment of the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-South Ossetian Conflicts (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2013, 389pp.)


World Citizens Welcome Serious Considerations of Federalist Government Structures for Ukraine, but Warn Against Simplified Concepts

In Conflict Resolution, Cultural Bridges, Current Events, Europe, The former Soviet Union, The Search for Peace on April 16, 2014 at 2:22 PM

WORLD CITIZENS WELCOME SERIOUS CONSIDERATIONS OF FEDERALIST GOVERNMENT STRUCTURES FOR UKRAINE, BUT WARN AGAINST SIMPLIFIED CONCEPTS

-- AWC-UN Geneva Logo --

The Association of World Citizens (AWC), in an April 14, 2014 message to the Secretary-General of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), welcomed the serious consideration of federalist government structures for Ukraine being proposed both by the current President of Ukraine in an April 13 statement and by the authorities of the Russian Federation.

As Professor René Wadlow, President of the AWC, pointed out in the message, such proposals can have a positive impact to lessen the growing tensions both within Ukraine and among the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and the European Union. The President recalled that World Citizens have always stressed that government structures should be as close as possible to the people so that their views can have a direct impact on government decisions. Federalist forms of government can facilitate the balance between the need for larger government units for policy making and units close to local communities so that those impacted are able to influence policy.

The current tensions, first within the Ukraine, followed by the change of status of Crimea and its integration into the Russian Federation, the massing of Russian troops on the Ukraine frontier with Russia, and the violent demonstrations within parts of Ukraine have created the most serious European tensions since the conflicts related to the breakup of the Yugoslav federation.

Efforts of both governments and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) must be undertaken to lessen tensions and to create opportunities for creative dialogue. Proposals for new governmental forms within Ukraine offer a possibility for such creative dialogue.

The current tensions in Ukraine highlight two crucial political and economic orientations possible for Ukraine. On one side, there is a growing but not clearly defined revival of an economic and strategic zone with the Russian Federation as the main motor. This possible “Eurasian Customs Union” could include Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan and perhaps Moldova and Ukraine. Such a Eurasian association would probably develop into more than a common market. However, the full structure and tasks of such a Eurasian association have not been fully discussed publicly.

On the other side is the European Union (EU) with which Ukraine has already some treaty agreements. The refusal by the then President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich, to sign a more detailed plan of action with the EU was the reason or a pretext for the start of the massive demonstrations in Kiev.

The current situation in Ukraine does not lead itself to calm considerations of basic orientations or for compromises. Both the EU and Russian diplomacy will weigh in the Ukraine decisions, and the USA and Chinese diplomacy is not likely to be absent.

World Citizens who have a long history of reflection on federalist approaches, warn against simplified concepts in the Ukraine discussions. Federalism is not a first-step to the disintegration of the Ukraine. But it is not a “magic solution” either. Government structures are closely related to the aims which people wish to achieve. The aims of the Ukrainians are multiple. Dialogue and open discussion is needed so that these aims are seen more clearly and then structures created to facilitate these aims. Those outside Ukraine, both governments and NGOs must facilitate discussions of aims and structures so that common interests may be found and current tensions reduced.

Le droit universel à la fraternité

In Being a World Citizen, Cultural Bridges, Fighting Racism, Human Rights, Solidarity, The Search for Peace, Uncategorized, World Law on February 11, 2014 at 9:25 PM

LE DROIT UNIVERSEL A LA FRATERNITE

Par Bernard Henry

(D’après « The Universal Right to Brotherhood », du même auteur :

https://awcungeneva.com/2014/02/10/the-universal-right-to-brotherhood/)

En tant qu’Organisation Non-Gouvernementale (ONG) dotée du Statut Consultatif auprès de l’ONU et active au sein du Conseil des Droits de l’Homme, l’Association of World Citizens a toujours défendu les Droits de l’Homme partout dans le monde, tous les Droits de l’Homme, qu’ils soient civils, politiques, économiques, sociaux, culturels ou autres, tels que ceux plus récemment reconnus au développement et à un environnement sain.

Depuis le début de la décennie, le désir mondial de Droits de l’Homme est plus visible que jamais auparavant. Mais les nombreux auteurs de violations auxquels le peuple du monde doit faire face – les gouvernements des Etats, les corporations multinationales, les groupes politiques non-étatiques, armés ou non – balaient ouvertement les Droits de l’Homme comme étant de simples revendications politiques qui en valent d’autres, leur refusant le moindre caractère de prérogatives universelles reconnues en droit international.

Parfois même, les gouvernements répressifs et autres entités qui le sont tout autant vont jusqu’à prétendre qu’ils agissent au nom même des Droits de l’Homme, accusant en cela leurs critiques et leurs opposants d’attenter eux-mêmes aux Droits de l’Homme.

C’est comme si chacun ne revendiquait plus les Droits de l’Homme qu’à son seul profit, ignorant superbement autrui et considérant les Droits de l’Homme comme étant tout ou rien – mes droits ou les leurs, l’un ou l’autre mais pas les deux. Rien ne saurait être plus contraire à l’idée même de défense des Droits de l’Homme.

Le Préambule de la Déclaration universelle des Droits de l’Homme, depuis 1948 clé de voûte du droit international des Droits de l’Homme, affirme très clairement qu’une protection effective des Droits de l’Homme par la loi est essentielle « pour que l’homme ne soit pas contraint, en suprême recours, à la révolte contre la tyrannie et l’oppression ». Même si certains peuvent voir en les Droits de l’Homme une question trop « conflictuelle » à aborder, ignorer ou renier les Droits de l’Homme rend bel et bien impossible à toute personne, tout gouvernement, ou toute autre entité que ce soit, d’espérer en tout bon sens atteindre une quelconque paix ou un quelconque progrès dont il ou elle puisse tirer parti.

L’Article Premier de la Déclaration se fait encore plus explicite sur ce point :

« Tous les êtres humains naissent libres et égaux en dignité et en droits. Ils sont doués de raison et de conscience et doivent agir les uns envers les autres dans un esprit de fraternité. »

Fraternité – c’est bien là le mot qui compte, car c’est là tout ce que les Droits de l’Homme veulent dire.

Se soucier de son prochain, un être humain comme soi-même. Accorder de l’importance à la vie, la liberté, la sécurité d’un ou d’une autre autant qu’aux siennes propres. Vouloir faire le bien des autres plutôt que de concevoir sa propre vie comme un combat permanent et inexorable contre tous. C’est cela, vivre « dans un esprit de fraternité », et partant de là, respecter les Droits de l’Homme, à commencer par le plus essentiel d’entre eux – le droit à la fraternité.

Même s’il est devenu très à la mode de chercher des noises à autrui en invoquant les Droits de l’Homme, se conduire ainsi n’a aucun sens, dans la mesure où la défense des Droits de l’Homme doit être par essence inclusive et jamais sectaire. Lorsque l’on reconnait le droit à la fraternité en tant que droit inaliénable devant être garanti à toutes et à tous, l’on en vient tout naturellement à reconnaître tous les autres droits consacrés par la Déclaration et par bien d’autres instruments internationaux de Droits de l’Homme – civils, politiques, économiques, sociaux et culturels.

La Déclaration universelle des Droits de l'Homme en langue française, langue maternelle de son principal créateur, le Français René Cassin.

La Déclaration universelle des Droits de l’Homme en langue française, langue maternelle de son principal artisan, le Français René Cassin.

Dans la droite ligne de ce principe, la Déclaration se termine sur trois articles rappelant la primauté du droit à la fraternité sur tous les autres :

Article 28

« Toute personne a droit à ce que règne, sur le plan social et sur le plan international, un ordre tel que les droits et libertés énoncés dans la présente Déclaration puissent y trouver plein effet. »

Bien évidemment, cela veut dire que chacun a droit à la paix, et plus évident encore, il ne peut y avoir de paix sans la fraternité.

Article 29

« 1. L’individu a des devoirs envers la communauté dans laquelle seul le libre et plein développement de sa personnalité est possible. 

2. Dans l’exercice de ses droits et dans la jouissance de ses libertés, chacun n’est soumis qu’aux limitations établies par la loi exclusivement en vue d’assurer la reconnaissance et le respect des droits et libertés d’autrui et afin de satisfaire aux justes exigences de la morale, de l’ordre public et du bien-être général dans une société démocratique. 

3. Ces droits et libertés ne pourront, en aucun cas, s’exercer contrairement aux buts et aux principes des Nations Unies. »

Peut-on être plus clair ? L’on ne peut jouir de ses droits qu’au sein de la communauté humaine, « dans un esprit de fraternité », donc, ni en dehors de la communauté ni contre la communauté.

Article 30

« Aucune disposition de la présente Déclaration ne peut être interprétée comme impliquant pour un Etat, un groupement ou un individu un droit quelconque de se livrer à une activité ou d’accomplir un acte visant à la destruction des droits et libertés qui y sont énoncés. »

La plus forte, et la plus logique, conclusion possible à une déclaration universelle des droits – les droits ne peuvent être revendiqués, à plus forte raison utilisés, pour faire du tort à qui que ce soit, ce en aucune circonstance. En d’autres termes, si vous ne reconnaissez pas le droit à la fraternité, vous ne pouvez tout simplement pas vous prévaloir de vos droits du tout.

Jargon juridique mis à part, ce n’est là rien d’autre que ce que disait déjà Albert Schweitzer lorsqu’il a créé son concept de Respect de la Vie (Ehrfurcht vor dem Leben). Dans son livre paru en 1923, La Civilisation et l’Ethique, Schweitzer résumait ce concept ainsi : « L’éthique n’est rien d’autre que le Respect de la vie. Le Respect de la vie me fournit le principe fondamental de la morale, à savoir que le bien consiste à entretenir, assister et mettre en valeur la vie, et que détruire la vie, lui faire du tort ou y faire obstacle est mal. »

En un temps où il n’existait aucune véritable institution politique ou juridique au niveau mondial, ce qui s’en rapprochait le plus étant une Société des Nations bâtie pour l’essentiel sur des vœux pieux et dénuée de tout pouvoir de promulguer des lois, Schweitzer proclamait déjà, de la manière la plus claire qui puisse être, le droit universel à la fraternité.

En 1952, la philosophie de "Respect de la Vie" valut à Albert Schweitzer le Prix Nobel de la Paix.

En 1952, la philosophie du “Respect de la Vie” valut à Albert Schweitzer le Prix Nobel de la Paix.

Plus le « respect », selon l’idée que Schweitzer s’en faisait, du droit à la fraternité est important, plus l’oppression et l’injustice ont du mal à s’installer dans une société. Que l’on se batte contre une dictature, que l’on engage le combat contre des politiciens qui propagent le racisme, que l’on manifeste pour un salaire décent, que l’on dispense un enseignement à des enfants démunis ou que l’on fournisse à un village isolé l’accès à l’eau potable, l’on affirme une seule et même chose : nous sommes citoyens du monde entier, l’humanité est notre famille, et en tant qu’êtres humains, nous avons le droit de vivre en famille avec nos frères sur la Terre.

Bernard Henry est Officier des Relations Extérieures du Bureau de Représentation auprès de l’Office des Nations Unies à Genève de l’Association of World Citizens.


The Universal Right to Brotherhood

In Being a World Citizen, Cultural Bridges, Fighting Racism, Human Rights, Solidarity, The Search for Peace, World Law on February 10, 2014 at 7:47 PM

THE UNIVERSAL RIGHT TO BROTHERHOOD

By Bernard Henry

As a Nongovernmental Organization (NGO) in Consultative Status with the United Nations (UN) and accredited with the UN Human Rights Council, the Association of World Citizens has always stood up for human rights everywhere in the world, all human rights, whether civil, political, economic, social, cultural or others, such as the more recently recognized rights to development and to a sound environment.

Since the beginning of this decade, the global yearning for human rights has been more visible than ever before. But the many violators to whom the people of the world have had to stand up – national governments, multinational corporations, non-state political groups, whether armed or not – have been openly dismissing human rights as mere political claims pro se, denying these may ever be a universal prerogative officially recognized in international law.

Sometimes repressive governments or other entities even claim to be acting in the very name of human rights, accusing their critics and opponents of being themselves human rights offenders.

It looks like everybody is now claiming human rights for their sole benefit, totally leaving out others and viewing human rights as a zero-sum game – my rights or theirs, it can’t be both. That is completely out of line with the concept of human rights advocacy.

The Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, since 1948 the cornerstone of international human rights law, makes it clear that effective legal protection of human rights is essential “if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression”. Even though some people may think of human rights as an overly “divisive” issue to deal with, ignoring or rejecting human rights makes it impossible for any person, government, or other to sensibly hope to achieve any peace or progress for their own enjoyment.

Article 1 of the Declaration is even more explicit about it:

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Brotherhood – that is the one word that counts, for that is just what human rights are all about.

Caring for one’s fellow human being. Valuing another person’s life, liberty, and safety like one’s own. Wishing well on others rather than thinking of one’s own life as an inescapable, permanent fight against everybody else. That is what it means to live “in a spirit of brotherhood”, and accordingly, to respect human rights, starting with the most essential of them all – the right to brotherhood.

Although it has become fashionable to antagonize others while citing human rights, a conduct like that makes no sense, as the defense of human rights shall be by essence inclusive, never sectarian. In recognizing the right to brotherhood as an inalienable right to be guaranteed for everyone, one naturally comes to recognize all other rights enshrined in the Declaration and other international human rights instruments – civil, political, economic, social and cultural.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in French, the mother tongue of its main initiator, Frenchman René Cassin.

In line with this principle, the Declaration ends with three articles that recall the primacy of the right to brotherhood over all other rights:

Article 28

“Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.”

Obviously, this means everyone has a right to peace, and more obviously still, there can be no peace without brotherhood.

Article 29

“(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

Clear as day. Rights are there to be enjoyed within the human community, “in a spirit of brotherhood”, thus neither apart from the community nor against the community.

Article 30

“Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”

The strongest, most logical possible conclusion to a universal declaration of rights – rights can never be claimed, let alone used, to do any harm to anyone under any circumstances. In other words, if you don’t recognize the right to brotherhood, you just cannot claim any rights at all.

All legalese aside, that is just what Albert Schweitzer was already saying when he developed his concept of Reverence for Life (Ehrfurcht vor dem Leben). In his 1923 book Civilization and Ethics, Schweitzer outlined the concept in these words: “Ethics is nothing other than Reverence for Life. Reverence for Life affords me my fundamental principle of morality, namely, that good consists in maintaining, assisting and enhancing life, and to destroy, to harm or to hinder life is evil.”

At a time when there was no real global political or legal institution in existence, the closest thing to it being a League of Nations largely built on wishful thinking and with no lawmaking powers, Schweitzer was already asserting, in the plainest possible manner, the universal right to brotherhood.

In 1952 Albert Schweitzer was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his philosophy of “Reverence for Life”.

The greater the “reverence”, as Schweitzer said, for the right to brotherhood, the harder it gets for oppression and injustice to settle down. Whether fighting a dictatorship, confronting racist politicians, demonstrating for decent wages, teaching poor children or providing a remote community with access to clean water, it all comes down to stating loud and clear this one universal claim: We are citizens of one world, humanity is our family, and as human beings, we all have a right to family life with our brothers on earth.

Bernard Henry is External Relations Officer of the Representative Office to the United Nations in Geneva of the Association of World Citizens.


M.K. Gandhi: “The Free Spirit: One and manifold”

In Anticolonialism, Asia, Being a World Citizen, Conflict Resolution, Cultural Bridges, The Search for Peace on January 30, 2014 at 1:41 PM

M. K. GANDHI: “THE FREE SPIRIT: ONE AND MANIFOLD”

By René Wadlow

“I do daily perceive that while every thing around me is ever changing, ever dying, there is underlying all that change, a living power that is changeless, that holds all together, that creates, dissolves, and re-creates.  That informing power or spirit is God. I see it as purely benevolent, for I can see in the midst of death, life persists.  In the midst of untruth, truth persists.  In the midst of darkness, light persists.  Hence I gather that God is life, God is light, God is love. God is the supreme good.”

–Mahatma Gandhi

On the anniversary of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, January 30, we still try to find peaceful ways to resolve conflicts.  Mahatma Gandhi was a man of dialogue and compromise.  A British-trained lawyer, he always knew the limits of the law and when not to push too far or ask for more than what could be seen as reasonable to the authorities in South Africa or British-controlled India even if the authorities were not willing to accept the demands at the time.

Yet what does one do when opponents refuse dialogue and when events move so fast that no compromise seems possible?  These questions are crucial as difficult negotiations on the armed conflict in Syria have started in Switzerland — first one day in the calm of the resort Montreux on Lake Geneva with some 40 states present, some directly involved, others to give moral support to the UN-led negotiations. The negotiations then moved to the UN’s Palais des Nations in Geneva and, no doubt, to restaurants for small groups.

To make matters more complex, some key actors are not officially there, though they are not very hidden in the shadows: Iran has a large mission to the UN in Geneva; the Kurds from Syria-Iraq-Turkey- and Iran have a permanently strong presence in Geneva and gather from outside when events merit; there is a large community of people from Lebanon — some bankers but also, no doubt, representative from Hezbollah as well.  The foothills of the Alps above Montreux have long been the home of international arms merchants — though the arms are stocked elsewhere. If they were unable to make sales on the sideline of the Montreux meeting, they can afford to drive to Geneva to see what factions may want to buy arms which they cannot receive supplied by governments.

Among the dangerous aspects of the armed conflict in Syria is the extent to which all factions use images of the “eternal enemy” — Arabs and Iranians, Kurds and Arab, Christian, Alawit and Muslim, Sunni and Shia.  These enemy images make compromise all the more difficult.  It is sad to see the writing of history deformed, intellectual short cuts taken, the media used to strengthen prejudice rather than to inform.

Thus for the anniversary of Gandhi’s assassination, carried out by a narrow Hindu to cut short Gandhi’s efforts at Hindu-Muslim reconciliation in the middle of the Partition Riots, it is useful to recall the appeal of Romain Rolland, biographer of Tolstoy, Gandhi, Ramakrishna and Vivekananda, who Gandhi visited on his journey to Europe.  In 1919, shortly after the end of the First World War which had divided the intellectual community, Romain Rolland wrote to a wide range of intellectuals to raise the Arch of the Free Spirit.

When asked once by his fellow Hindus to allow retaliatory action against India's Muslims after sectarian violence struck the Hindu community, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the Mahatma, had this to say about revenge: "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."

When asked once by his fellow Hindus to allow retaliatory action against India’s Muslims after sectarian violence had struck the Hindu community, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the Mahatma, had this to say about revenge: “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.”

“To the pestilence which is corroding in body and spirit, thinkers and artists have added an incalculable amount of poisoned hate; they have searched in the arsenal of their knowledge, their memory and their imagination for old and new reasons, historical, scientific, logical and poetic reasons, for hating; they have laboured to destroy love and understanding. And in so doing they have disfigured, dishonoured, debased and degraded Thought, whose ambassadors they were. They have made it an instrument of passions and (perhaps without knowing it) of the egotistic interests of a social or political clan, of a state, of a country or a class…

“Let us extricate the spirit from these humiliating alliances, this secret slavery!… We serve Truth alone, which is free, with no frontiers, with no limits, with no prejudices of race or caste.  Of course, we shall not dissociate ourselves from the interests of Humanity!  We shall work for it, but for it as a whole. We do not recognise nations.  We recognise the People — one and universal — the People who suffer, who struggle, who fall and rise again and who ever march forward on the rough road, drenched with their sweat and their blood — the People comprising all men, all equally our brothers.  And it is in order to make them, like ourselves, aware of this fraternity, that we raise above their blind battles the Arch of Alliance, of the Free Spirit, one and manifold, eternal.”[i]

* * *

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

[i] Quoted from Rolland and Tagore (Calcutta: Visva-Bharati, 1945, pp 20-24)

Nelson Mandela and the Struggle for Universal Human Rights

In Africa, Anticolonialism, Being a World Citizen, Current Events, Fighting Racism, Human Rights, International Justice, The Search for Peace, Uncategorized, World Law on December 10, 2013 at 12:43 PM

NELSON MANDELA AND THE STRUGGLE FOR UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS

By René Wadlow

 

It is appropriate that a major part of the commemoration for Nelson Mandela should fall on December 10, the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Mandela was both a major actor in developing human rights in South Africa and a symbol of the worldwide struggle for the respect of human rights.  Pressure from human rights groups worldwide played an important part in his release from prison in 1990 as well as bringing an end to the deeply entrenched system of apartheid that enforced racial segregation in every aspect of South African life.

The efforts on the part of the Afrikaner-led National Party Government to enforce apartheid and to prevent opposition had led to many violations of human rights in South Africa: limits on press and expression, on the freedom of association, and the right to fair trial. Therefore, the dismantling of the apartheid system was a necessary pre-requisite for the establishment of the rule of law and respect for human rights.

Nelson Mandela led the efforts to end apartheid, a victory without the blood bath that so many had predicted and feared. He led on the path of constructive reconciliation and an inclusive society.

There is still much to do to develop equality of opportunity in South African society.  Years of discrimination, of lack of education and training, of lack of access to resources leave deep structural divides.  However, much has been undertaken, and South Africa has the potential to be an economic and political leader in Africa.

Nelson Mandela is an example of courage and conviction to secure human rights, both in his own country and worldwide, an example of the long and continuing efforts needed for human freedom.

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

 

5583290-la-sante-de-nelson-mandela-s-ameliore-selon-la-presidence


Can Persistent Racism be a Prelude to Genocide?

In Being a World Citizen, Fighting Racism, Human Rights, International Justice, The Search for Peace, United Nations, War Crimes, Women's Rights, World Law on December 9, 2013 at 1:31 PM

CAN PERSISTENT RACISM BE A PRELUDE TO GENOCIDE?

An Interrogation to Mark the Anniversary of the Genocide Convention

By René Wadlow

December 9 is the anniversary of the 1948 Convention on Genocide, signed at the UN General Assembly held in 1948 in Paris. The Genocide Convention was signed the day before the proclamation on December 10, 1948 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The two texts were much influenced by the Second World War. The crimes of Nazi Germany were uppermost in the minds of those who drafted the Convention in order to deal with a new aspect of international law and the laws of war.

The protection of civilians from deliberate mass murder was already in The Hague and Geneva Conventions of international humanitarian law. However, genocide is different from mass murder. Genocide is the most extreme consequences of racial discrimination and ethnic hatred. Genocide has as its aim the destruction, wholly or in part, of national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such. The term was proposed by the legal scholar Raphael Lemkin, drawing on the Greek genos (people or tribe) and the Latin cide (to kill)[i].

Mass deaths are not genocide. The largest number of deaths since the end of the Second World War was the failure of Chinese agricultural policies between 1958 and 1962 with over 20 million deaths, but the aim was not to destroy the Chinese as a people. Likewise, the destructive famine in Ukraine 1932-1933 with its seven million dead had a political motivation to reduce opposition but not to destroy the Ukrainians as a people. The United States-led war in Vietnam killed some two million Vietnamese, but the aim was not to destroy the Vietnamese as a people.

Genocide in the sense of a desire to eliminate a people has nearly always a metaphysical aspect as well as deep-seated racism. This was clear in the Nazi desire to eliminate Jews, first by forced emigration from Europe and, when emigration was not possible, by physical destruction.

With the horrendous Jewish Holocaust committed by Nazi Germany in mind, on December 9, 1948 the UN General Assembly made genocide the subject matter of the very first human rights instrument created by the World organization, one day before even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the Assembly in Paris.

With the horrendous Jewish Holocaust committed by Nazi Germany during World War II in mind, on December 9, 1948 the UN General Assembly made genocide the subject matter of the very first human rights instrument created by the World organization, one day before even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the Assembly in Paris.

We see a desire to destroy totally certain tribes in the Darfur conflict in Sudan that did not exist in the much longer and more deadly North-South Sudan Civil War (1956-1972, 1982-2005). Darfur tribes are usually defined by “blood lines” — marriage and thus procreation is limited to a certain population, either within the tribe or with certain other groups with which marriage relations have been created over a period of time. Thus children born of rape — considered ‘Janjaweed babies ‘— after the government-sponsored Janjaweed militias— are left to die or are abandoned. The raped women are often banished or ostracized. By attacking both the aged, holders of traditional knowledge, and the young of child-bearing age, the aim of the destruction of the continuity of a tribal group is clear.

We find the same pattern in some of the fighting in the eastern provinces of the Democratic Republic of Congo where not only are women raped but their sexual organs are destroyed so that they will not be able to reproduce.

Thanks to the efforts of Raphael Lemkin, the international community does have a legal instrument to deal with genocide and punish perpetrators whenever necessary. The only trouble is that in this day and age, "genocide" has still not become an anachronism in global affairs.

Thanks to the efforts of Raphael Lemkin, the international community does have a legal instrument to deal with genocide and punish the perpetrators thereof. It is a shame, though, that in this day and age, “genocide” has still not become an anachronism in global affairs.

Article VIII of the Genocide Conventions provides that “Any Contracting Party may call upon the Competent Organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the UN as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III”. Unfortunately no State has ever done so.

Thus we need to look more closely at the ways in which deep-set racism and constant and repeated accusations against a religious, ethnic or social category can be a prelude to genocide.

 

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

 

[i] Raphael Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (Washington: Carnegie Endowment for World Peace, 1944)

For good overviews see:

Walliman and Dobkowski (Eds), Genocide and the Modern Age (New York: Greenwood Press, 1987)

F. Chalk, K. Jonassohn, The History and Sociology of Genocide (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990)

G.J. Andreopoulos (Ed), Genocide Conceptual and Historical Dimensions Philadelphia (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994)

Samantha Power, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide (New York: Basic Books, 2002)

John Tirman, The Death of Others (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011)

The UN and the Disappearing State of the Central African Republic

In Africa, Anticolonialism, Conflict Resolution, Current Events, Democracy, Human Rights, International Justice, The Search for Peace, United Nations, War Crimes, World Law on November 22, 2013 at 10:36 AM

THE UN AND THE DISAPPEARING STATE OF THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

By René Wadlow

In a November 19, 2013 statement to the United Nations (UN) Security Council, the Secretary General, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, warned that communal violence in the Central African Republic (CAR) was spiraling out of control and backed the possibility of an armed UN peacekeeping force to complement the civilian UN staff, the Integrated Peacebuilding Office in the Central African Republic (BINUCA).

The UN faces a double task in the CAR. There is the immediate problem of violence among tribal-based militias in the absence of a national army or central government security forces. The militias basically pit the north of the country against the south. In addition, there are other militias from the Democratic Republic of the Congo which use the CAR as a “safe haven” and live off the land by looting villages. There are also segments of the Lord’s Resistance Army, largely from the Acholi tribes of northern Uganda who also use the CAR as a safe area looting as they move about.

In the absence of a standing UN peacekeeping force, UN peacekeepers would have to be redeployed from the eastern areas of the Democratic Republic of Congo, an area also torn apart by fighting among different militias and an incompetent Congolese national army. Although the UN forces have been in the Congo for a number of years, it is only in the last couple of months that they have had a mandate to be active in a military way and have started to make an impact on the security situation. By deploying UN troops away from the Congo, there is a danger that the security progress made will fade away.

The longer range task of the UN, the peacebuilding effort, is to create a national administration which provides services beyond the capital city, Bangui. This is the aim of the BINUCA, but its work is largely impossible in the light of the ongoing violence. The challenge is “State-building” which was not done during the colonial period by France.

The area covered by the current State had no pre-colonial common history, but was incorporated into French Equatorial Africa when it could have been as easily part of the Belgium Congo or added to Uganda as part of British East Africa.

Oubangui-Chari as it was then known was the poor cousin of French Equatorial Africa (AEF) whose administrative center was Brazzaville, Congo, with Gabon as the natural resource base. The Cameroon, although legally a League of Nations Mandate, was basically part of AEF. Oubangui-Chari was used as an “exile post” for African civil servants considered “trouble makers”. French colonial administrators also considered Oubangui-Chari as a posting in exile, a place to get away from as soon as possible. Schools were few, and secondary school students were sent away to Brazzaville.

There was only one political figure of standing who emerged from Oubangui-Chari, Barthelemy Boganda (1910-1959). He was the first Roman Catholic priest ordained in 1938. After the Second World War, he was elected to serve in the French Parliament as a member of the Catholic-influenced MRP Party, although he was stripped of his priesthood for going into politics and also for marrying his legislative assistant.

Boganda advocated keeping the AEF together as a federation of independent States knowing that Oubangui-Chari was the poorest of the AEF States and most in need of help from its neighbours. Unfortunately, he was killed in a plane crash on the eve of independence, and with him disappeared all enlightened leadership.

However, his stature in the political life of Oubangui-Chari was such that political power passed on to two cousins, David Dacko, first President of the independent Central African Republic and then Jean-Bedel Bokassa in 1965 who changed the name of the country to Central African Empire and ruled (or misruled) as Bokassa 1er. His dreams of being a new Napoleon was ended in 1979 by a French military intervention after Bokassa had too visibly killed young school children who were protesting.

Jean-Bedel Bokassa aka Bokassa the First, the man who would be emperor – even if it meant reigning over scorched earth.

Jean-Bedel Bokassa aka Bokassa the First, the man who would be emperor – even if it meant reigning over scorched earth.

Since Bokassa, all pretext of a unified administration has disappeared. General Kolingba, Ange-Felix Patassé, followed by Francois Bozizé were considered “Head of State”, but the State had no visible administration. Bozizé was overthrown in March 2013 by Michel Djotodia and his Seleka (alliance in the Sango language) militia. The Alliance has now been dissolved by Djotodia but replaced by nothing. A fact-finding mission sent by the UN Human Rights Council concluded that “both the forces of the former government of President Bozizé and the non-State armed group Seleka committed serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law during the conflict”.

Creating order from disorder is a difficult task, especially as the pre-colonial tribal structures no longer function. There were very few inter-tribal mechanisms to settle disputes in any case. The State-building process merits close attention. Somalia remains a good example of the difficulties. The UN faces real challenges in the Central African Republic and requires help from national governments and NGOs.

Politically, Africa has always been a continent of many dramas. Hopefully, if the international community finally decides to take quick, decisive action at last, the Central African Republic will not be just another name on the list.

Politically, Africa has always been a continent of many dramas. Hopefully, if the international community finally decides to take quick, decisive action, the Central African Republic will not be just another name on the list.

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

November 15, 1920 : First Meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations in Geneva

In Conflict Resolution, The Search for Peace, World Law on November 15, 2013 at 1:38 PM

NOVEMBER 15, 1920: FIRST MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS IN GENEVA
By René Wadlow

The real contributions made by the League of Nations to the development of a sense of world community have been widely disregarded. The League is too often disparaged because of the failure of its Members to carry out their obligations, especially in the face of armed aggression.

Yet it has been said that when a star breaks, it gives birth to a thousand suns. That is just what happened with the League, for the League prepared the way for the United Nations and the further development of world law. Let us look at some of its achievements.

The official emblem of the League of Nations.

The official emblem of the League of Nations.

1)An essential precondition to any solid world organization is an impartial civil service responsible only to the head of the organization, under obligation not to accept instructions from any government or outside authority, and committed to the promotion of the aims and principles of the Organization. This the League of Nations provided for the first time under the leadership of the first Secretary-General, Sir Eric Drummond. He took bold, if discrete, initiatives in drawing the attention of the League Council to conflicts and suggested conflict resolution measures.

2)The League also dealt with the economic and monetary reconstruction of Austria, Hungary and some other countries, with the issues of minorities, with the administration of former German and Ottoman territories under the mandates system. The League provided the starting point for future work on refugees and drug control. The International Labor Organization was created alongside the League, its budget being voted by the League Assembly.

3)With the League, for the first time, it became possible to develop a world review of production, trade, health and other economic and social data. No doubt, the studies produced by the League were embryonic — the basic information in the hands of governments being nowhere near what it is today. However, without this start, the kind of world economic planning — or at least overview — which we have today would not have been conceivable.

The League of Nations, inspired by Immanuel Kant and created by Woodrow Wilson, was supposed to put an end to all wars. Due to its lack of resolve, it allowed the opposite to happen as World War II put a brutal end to its existence.

The League of Nations, inspired by Immanuel Kant and created by Woodrow Wilson, was supposed to put an end to all wars. Unfortunately, though, it allowed the exact opposite to happen, as World War II eventually put a brutal end to its existence.

Unfortunately, the League of Nations ran into difficulties from the start. The United States refused to join; too long a time elapsed before Germany and the Soviet Union were admitted. The legacy of the First World War — not primarily a matter for the League — upset both the political and economic climate: huge reparations due by Germany, the payment of large debts by the Allies to the United States, monetary collapse in several countries with general economic protectionism rampant. All this contributed to the Great Depression of the 1930s, and in turn accentuated the structural weaknesses of the world economy.

Then came the aggression committed by Japan, Italy and Germany, which found the resolve of the Western European countries and the USA weakened. The national foreign offices and the war offices were still thinking in terms of balance of power and could not bring themselves to think outside a narrow nationalistic framework.

Fortunately, today, a sense of global citizenship, of world loyalty, has been growing. By looking back to the first meeting of the League Assembly, we can mark the progress not only of institutions but also in the spirit of the women and men who shape them. Today, we see more and more people whose chosen vocation is to make this earth a true home for humanity. They have dedicated themselves to the same tasks that the League began but left unfinished.

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