The Official Blog of the

Archive for the ‘The Search for Peace’ Category

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.

World Citizens Call for a Ceasefire and Renewed Good-faith Negotiations by All Parties in Syria

In Conflict Resolution, Current Events, Middle East & North Africa, The Search for Peace, United Nations, World Law on September 9, 2013 at 10:55 PM

WORLD CITIZENS CALL FOR A CEASEFIRE AND RENEWED GOOD-FAITH NEGOTIATIONS BY ALL PARTIES IN SYRIA

By René Wadlow

World Citizens have called for good-faith negotiations among all the parties from the start of the demonstrations in March 2011 which had begun in a spirit of non-violence. Neither the Government nor the oppositions were willing to set an agenda or a timetable for such good-faith negotiations. The Government held out vague promises for reform but without details and without open discussion among those concerned. As the fighting has escalated, the possibility of good-faith negotiations has increasingly faded, despite efforts by the United Nations (UN) mediators to facilitate such negotiations.

Discussion of specific issues for reform or setting an overall agenda seems impossible for the moment.  However, there is a growing awareness that there is a dangerous stalemate and that there is no military “solution”. It is often at this “stalemate” stage of a conflict that the parties turn to a negotiated compromise.[i]  The dangers of a wider conflict with more States involved are real. Thus the situation requires careful concerted action.

The use of chemical weapons in violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol (by government forces or by the armed opposition) has added an additional element of danger but not modified the stalemated structure of the conflict.

awc-un-geneva-logo

Therefore, the Association of World Citizens (AWC) calls upon the Syrian Government, armed opposition, and representative associations of Syrians to initiate a ceasefire followed quickly by good-faith negotiations.

The AWC calls upon all other States to refrain from arming or in other ways strengthening the military capacities of the Government’s armed forces and the armed forces of the armed oppositions.  Other States should, through the UN and through other institutions, encourage good-faith negotiations.

The AWC calls upon Nongovernmental Organizations, both Syrian and international, to facilitate the transition from the ongoing violence to a situation conducive to creative dialogue.

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


[i] See: Louis Kriesberg and Stuart Thorson (Eds), Timing the De-Escalation of International Conflicts (Syracuse University Press, 1991)

New Fires Relight in Eastern Congo

In Africa, Conflict Resolution, Current Events, Human Rights, International Justice, The Search for Peace, United Nations, World Law on August 25, 2013 at 4:25 PM

NEW FIRES RELIGHT IN EASTERN CONGO

By René Wadlow

In a message of August 24, 2013 addressed to United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the Association of World Citizens (AWC) highlighted that the Democratic Republic of Congo’s eastern capital of North Kivu Province, Goma, had been shelled for the past three days, including Saturday 24.

The shelling seems to be a continuation of the struggle for power and wealth between heavily-armed rebels, called the March 23 Movement (M23) and the Congolese central government’s army – the Democratic Republic of Congo Armed Forces (FARDC).

This struggle with ever-changing groups began in 1996, two years after the genocide in Rwanda which led to a refugee influx into eastern Congo.  From 1998 to 2003, the area was the scene of fighting between forces of at least six countries – Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania.

A fighter with the M23 Movement.

A fighter with the M23 Movement.

Since the end of the international fighting, the area has been divided into what can be called “mafia clans” running protection rackets and trying to make a profit from minerals, timber, food supplies for the UN forces and humanitarian nongovernmental organizations present. A deep and deadly struggle for influence is being played out in the shadows with an ever-changing cast of characters.

The UN has a large and expensive peacekeeping group in the area, the MONUC, but with uneven results.  UN forces are seen by the local population as favorable to the far-away incompetent central government.  The M23 is widely considered to be favored by the government of Rwanda.

UN peacekeeping troops are generally effective when there is peace to keep. However what is required today in eastern Congo is not so much more soldiers under UN command as reconciliation bridge-builders, persons who are able to restore relations among the ethnic groups of the area.  The UN, national governments, and non-governmental organizations need to develop bridge-building teams who can help to strengthen local efforts at conflict resolution and re-establishing community relations.

World Citizens were among those in the early 1950s who stressed the need to create UN peacekeeping forces with soldiers especially trained for such a task.  Today a new type of world civil servant is needed – those who in areas of tension and conflict can undertake the slow but important task of restoring confidence among peoples in conflict, establishing contacts and looking for ways to build upon common interests.

There is only so much the MONUC mission can do to keep the peace and assist the civilian population in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

There is only so much the MONUC mission can do to keep the peace and assist the civilian population in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

As the militias and “mafia clans” have proliferated, rivalries, particularly over land tenure and use have become a key source of conflict.  With the breakdown of society, there was a parallel breakdown of local, traditional conflict reduction mechanisms.  The precolonial tribal society had been too weakened during the colonial period to return to precolonial forms of governance.  Post-colonial administration had never been put into place, and so the result was a void of social rules and mechanisms for dispute settlement.

In particular, disputes over land became critical.  Land tenure issues have always been complex.  Land is often thought of as belonging to the ethnic community and is given to clans or to individuals for their use, sometimes for a given period, sometimes for several lifetimes if the land is continually cultivated.  The rules of land tenure often differ from one ethnic group to another, even a small distance apart. Traditionally, clan chiefs would be called upon to settle land disputes, often by compromises, so win-win solutions were often found. With the large displacement of people, land disputes have become frequent, and clan chiefs have often disappeared or lost their function as judges.

Many people have left villages near main roads to live in relative safety far from roads. They have had to move several times and to re-clear land for planting.  Local markets have been destroyed.  Social organizations such as churches have been disbanded, and family links, which provide the African “safety net” have been destroyed by death and displacement.  What trust existed between groups has been largely replaced by fear.  A few people are making money from the disorder by plundering natural resources, but economic injustice and deprivation remain the order of the day.

There is a short-term need to bring the current fighting to a negotiated end, but future security is closely linked to the ways in which land tenure and land use issues are settled.

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

Sergio Vieira de Mello, un héros des Droits de l’Homme

In Being a World Citizen, Human Rights, Middle East & North Africa, The Search for Peace, United Nations, World Law on August 18, 2013 at 10:01 PM

SERGIO VIEIRA DE MELLO, UN HEROS DES DROITS DE L’HOMME

Par Bernard Henry

Il y a dix ans jour pour jour, le 19 août 2003, Sergio Vieira de Mello trouvait la mort dans l’attentat contre l’Hôtel Canal à Bagdad.

Citoyen brésilien, francophone de culture, Sergio Vieira de Mello s’était imposé au plus haut du système de l’ONU comme un incontournable des missions de maintien de la paix et de nation-building, dans ces années 1990 qui avaient vu la redistribution des cartes au niveau mondial et l’émergence de nouvelles urgences dans des pays où les conflits gelés par la Guerre Froide avaient repris leurs droits.

Après s’être illustré aux côtés de Bernard Kouchner au Kosovo, Sergio Vieira de Mello avait pris la suite de l’ancienne Présidente irlandaise Mary Robinson au poste de Haut Commissaire des Nations Unies pour les Droits de l’Homme, couronnement d’une carrière consacrée exclusivement à ce domaine dans diverses instances onusiennes, en particulier au sein du Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les Réfugiés.

Devenu Haut Commissaire, Sergio Vieira de Mello n’a pas ménagé ses efforts pour renforcer un Haut Commissariat encore jeune et mal armé pour réagir rapidement aux atteintes aux Droits de l’Homme qui lui étaient signalées. Il aimait le contact et la coopération étroite avec les représentants d’organisations non-gouvernementales, dont l’AWC.

Après que la « coalition » menée par les Etats-Unis a envahi l’Irak en mars 2003, court-circuitant le Conseil de Sécurité de l’ONU et prétendant rechercher des armes de destruction massives qu’aurait détenu le régime de Saddam Hussein, il a bien fallu que Washington et ses alliés admettent deux évidences. D’une part, les fameuses armes de destruction massive qu’une entrée en force en Irak permettrait à coup sûr de trouver, là où les experts internationaux affirmaient pourtant dès 2002 qu’elles n’existaient pas, n’avaient plus été fabriquées en Irak depuis au moins dix ans et n’existaient effectivement pas. D’autre part, malgré sa victoire militaire, la « coalition » sans existence légale qui occupait l’Irak avait balayé l’ONU d’un revers de main un peu rapide et avait maintenant besoin, comble de l’ironie, de l’assistance de l’Organisation mondiale pour rétablir une légitimité de droit dans le pays.

C’est Sergio Vieira de Mello, lauréat de fraîche date du Prix des Droits de l’Homme des Nations Unies, qui fut choisi comme Représentant spécial du Secrétaire Général – à l’époque Kofi Annan – en Irak, tout en conservant, fait exceptionnel, sa charge de Haut Commissaire aux Droits de l’Homme.

Le mardi 19 août 2003, en début d’après-midi, un camion chargé d’explosifs détruit l’Hôtel Canal à Bagdad, devenu siège de la mission des Nations Unies dans le pays. Sergio Vieira de Mello est grièvement touché, et faute par les secours de pouvoir le sortir à temps des débris, il succombe à ses blessures. L’attaque est revendiquée par Abou Moussab al-Zarqaoui, chef d’Al-Qaïda en Irak, dont l’un des lieutenants, Abou Omar al-Kurdi, directement impliqué dans l’attentat, sera arrêté en 2005.

Inhumé le 28 août 2003, Sergio Vieira de Mello repose au Cimetière des Rois à Genève, ville abritant les Hauts Commissariats de l’ONU pour les Réfugiés et aux Droits de l’Homme.

Aucun Défenseur des Droits de l’Homme ne cherche à être un héros, et s’il le fait, il a tort. Certains le deviennent, contre leur gré, sans s’y attendre. Et le premier héros des Droits de l’Homme de ce siècle encore jeune, c’est Sergio Vieira de Mello.

Après la mort de Sergio Vieira de Mello, l'ONU lui a dédié un mémorial, en l'occurrence un buste qui orne l'entrée du siège du Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les Droits de l'Homme.

Après la mort de Sergio Vieira de Mello, l’ONU lui a dédié un mémorial, en l’occurrence un buste qui orne l’entrée du siège du Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les Droits de l’Homme à Genève. Un hommage mérité à ce grand serviteur des Droits de l’Homme et de la paix.

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.

Garry Davis : “Et maintenant, la parole est au peuple !”

In Being a World Citizen, The Search for Peace, World Law on July 29, 2013 at 12:07 PM

GARRY DAVIS : « ET MAINTENANT, LA PAROLE EST AU PEUPLE ! »

Par René Wadlow

Garry Davis, qui est décédé le 24 juillet 2013 à Burlington (Vermont, Etats-Unis), était souvent appelé le « Premier Citoyen du Monde ». Ce titre n’était pourtant pas tout à fait correct, car le mouvement citoyen du monde est apparu sous sa forme structurée dans l’Angleterre de 1937, avec Hugh J. Shonfield et son Commonwealth of World Citizens, lequel fut suivi en 1938 par la création, aux Etats-Unis et en Angleterre de manière conjointe, de la World Citizen Association[i]. Néanmoins, c’est bien Garry Davis qui, en 1948 et 1949 à Paris, toucha un large public et popularisa ainsi le terme « citoyen du monde ».

Garry Davis fut l’initiateur de ce que je considère être la « deuxième vague de l’action des Citoyens du Monde ». La première vague eut lieu entre 1937 et 1940, dans une tentative de contrer le nationalisme étroit qu’incarnaient l’Italie fasciste, l’Allemagne nazie et le Japon militariste. Cette première vague d’action des Citoyens du Monde ne parvint pas à empêcher la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, mais elle mit en lumière le besoin d’une vision cosmopolite globale. Henri Bonnet, du Comité pour la Coopération intellectuelle de la Société des Nations (SDN), également fondateur de la Section des Etats-Unis de la World Citizen Association, devint l’un des intellectuels les plus influents de la France Libre du Général de Gaulle à Londres durant la guerre. Bonnet fut ensuite l’un des fondateurs de l’UNESCO – ce qui explique que l’organisation soit basée à Paris – dont il est aussi à l’origine de l’insistance sur la compréhension entre les cultures.

La Deuxième Vague de l’action des Citoyens du Monde, dans laquelle Garry Davis joua un rôle de premier plan, dura de 1948 à 1950 – soit jusqu’à ce qu’éclate la guerre en Corée et que chacun puisse se rendre compte que la Guerre Froide avait commencé, même si, en réalité, la Guerre Froide avait commencé dès 1945, lorsqu’il était devenu évident que l’Allemagne et le Japon allaient être vaincus. Les Grandes Puissances victorieuses commencèrent vite à consolider leurs positions respectives. La Guerre Froide dura de 1945 à 1991, année de la disparition de l’Union soviétique. Durant la période 1950-1951, l’activité des Citoyens du Monde consista principalement en la prévention d’une guerre entre les Etats-Unis et l’URSS, très largement dans le cadre du contrôle des armements ainsi que du désarmement, et non sous un quelconque « drapeau des Citoyens du Monde ».

La Troisième Vague de l’action des Citoyens du Monde commença en 1991, avec la fin de la Guerre Froide et la montée, une nouvelle fois, de mouvements incarnant le nationalisme étroit, tels qu’ils se manifestèrent lors de la dislocation de l’Union soviétique et de la Yougoslavie. De par son insistance particulière sur la résolution des conflits, les Droits de l’Homme, le développement écologiquement durable et la compréhension entre les différentes cultures, l’Association of World Citizens est la force motrice de cette Troisième Vague.

Pendant les deux ans qu’elle a duré, la Deuxième Vague fut en fait une tentative de prévenir la Guerre Froide, et avec elle, la guerre chaude qu’elle aurait pu devenir, à savoir une Troisième Guerre Mondiale. En 1948, le Parti Communiste s’empara de la Tchécoslovaquie, dans ce que l’Occident qualifia de « coup d’Etat » mais qui s’apparentait bien plus précisément à une manipulation cynique des institutions politiques. Ce coup d’Etat fut le premier exemple du changement de l’après-1945 de l’équilibre du pouvoir entre l’Est et l’Ouest, et de là naquit la conjecture sur d’autres éventuels changements du même ordre, comme dans l’Indochine française ou en 1950 en Corée. Mais 1948, c’est aussi l’année où l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU s’était réunie à Paris. Les Nations Unies ne disposaient pas encore d’un siège permanent à New York, aussi l’Assemblée générale s’était-elle réunie d’abord à Londres puis ensuite à Paris. Tous les yeux, à commencer par ceux des médias, étaient fixés sur l’ONU. Personne ne savait avec certitude ce qu’il adviendrait de l’ONU, si elle serait capable de répondre aux défis politiques sans cesse plus importants ou si elle « suivrait la SDN dans sa tombe » …

A Paris, en 1948, Garry Davis ouvre la voie au mouvement Citoyen du Monde.

A Paris, en 1948, Garry Davis ouvre la voie au mouvement Citoyen du Monde.

Garry Davis, né en 1921, était un jeune acteur de Broadway, à New York, avant que les Etats-Unis ne se joignent à la Guerre Mondiale en 1941. Garry Davis était le fils de Meyer Davis, célèbre chef d’orchestre populaire qui jouait souvent dans des bals mondains et était bien connu des milieux du spectacle dont New York était alors le berceau. Il n’était donc que très naturel que son fils intègre lui aussi la profession, ce qu’il fit en tant qu’acteur-chanteur-danseur spécialiste des comédies musicales de l’époque. Garry avait étudié au Carnegie Institute of Technology, une institution de pointe en matière de technologie.

Quand les Etats-Unis sont entrés en guerre, Garry a rejoint l’U. S. Air Force et est devenu pilote de bombardier B-17, basé en Angleterre et ayant pour mission de bombarder des cibles désignées en Allemagne. Le frère de Garry avait été tué durant l’invasion de l’Italie par les Alliés, ce qui conférait en lui un aspect de vengeance à ses bombardements de cibles militaires, qui durèrent jusqu’à ce que l’on lui donne l’ordre de bombarder des villes allemandes dans lesquelles se trouvaient des civils.

Après la fin de la guerre, redevenu acteur à New York, il se sentit investi d’une responsabilité personnelle de contribuer à créer un monde en paix et devint ainsi actif au sein des Fédéralistes mondiaux, qui proposaient la création d’une fédération mondiale dotée des pouvoirs nécessaires à empêcher toute guerre, s’inspirant largement de l’expérience américaine de transformation d’un gouvernement fortement décentralisé, suivant les Articles de Confédération, en un Gouvernement fédéral plus centralisé et structuré par la Constitution des Etats-Unis.

A cette époque, Garry avait lu un livre très populaire chez les Fédéralistes, L’Anatomie de la Paix (The Anatomy of Peace) d’Emery Reves, Hongrois d’origine. Reves écrivait : « Nous devons clarifier tous les principes et parvenir aux définitions axiomatiques de ce qui cause la guerre et de ce qui engendre la paix dans la société humaine. » Si la guerre était le produit du nationalisme qu’est l’égocentrisme national, comme l’affirmait l’observateur avisé de la SDN qu’avait été Reves, alors la paix exige que l’on se défasse du nationalisme. Comme l’écrivait Garry dans son autobiographie, Mon Pays, C’est le Monde (My Country is the World)[ii], « Pour devenir un citoyen du monde entier, pour proclamer mon allégeance première à l’humanité, il me fallait d’abord renoncer à détenir la nationalité des Etats-Unis. J’allais donc faire sécession de l’ancien et proclamer le nouveau. »

En mai 1948, ayant appris que l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU devait se réunir à Paris en septembre et qu’auparavant, la conférence de fondation du Mouvement fédéraliste mondial au niveau international devait avoir lieu pour sa part au Luxembourg, il s’est rendu à Paris. C’est là qu’il a renoncé à sa nationalité américaine et a rendu son passeport. Toutefois, il ne disposait d’aucun autre document d’identité, dans une Europe où la police peut vous accoster dans la rue et exiger que vous lui montriez vos papiers sur-le-champ. Il avait donc imprimé une « Carte d’Identité Internationale des Citoyens du Monde Unis », même si les Français l’avaient pour leur part enregistré comme « apatride d’origine américaine ». Dans le Paris de l’après-guerre, les « apatrides » ne manquaient pas, mais en dehors de lui, il n’y en avait probablement aucun autre « d’origine américaine ».

Renoncer à une nationalité américaine, ainsi qu’à un passeport que bon nombre des réfugiés présents à Paris auraient rêvé d’avoir à n’importe quel prix, cela ne pouvait que passionner la presse et valoir à Garry de très nombreuses visites. Parmi ses visiteurs se trouva un jour Robert Sarrazac, qui avait combattu dans la Résistance française et partageait les points de vue de Garry sur la nature destructrice du nationalisme étroit ainsi que sur le besoin de développer une idéologie citoyenne du monde. Garry fut aussi rejoint par un jeune homme qui se nommait Guy Marchand[iii], lequel jouerait plus tard un rôle important dans la création des structures du mouvement citoyen du monde.

Comme la police française n’aimait guère voir des gens sans papiers d’identité valables se balader ici et là, Garry Davis déménagea pour s’installer dans le bâtiment spacieux et moderne qu’était le Palais de Chaillot, avec ses terrasses qui avaient été proclamées « territoire mondial » pour la durée de l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU. Il y avait monté sa tente, attendant de voir ce que ferait l’ONU pour promouvoir la citoyenneté mondiale. Dans l’intervalle, Robert Sarrazac, qui conservait de nombreux contacts de son temps dans la Résistance, avait créé un « Conseil de Solidarité » formé de personnes admirées pour leur indépendance d’esprit et qui n’étaient liées à aucun parti politique en particulier. Le Conseil était dirigé par Albert Camus, romancier et rédacteur dans plusieurs journaux, André Breton, poète surréaliste, l’Abbé Pierre et Emmanuel Mounier, rédacteur en chef d’Esprit, tous deux étant des Catholiques dotés d’une forte indépendance d’esprit, ainsi qu’Henri Roser, pasteur protestant et secrétaire en charge des pays francophones du Mouvement international de la Réconciliation.

Davis et ses conseillers pensaient qu’il ne fallait pas que la citoyenneté mondiale soit laissée à la porte de l’Assemblée générale mais qu’elle devait être présentée à celle-ci même comme un défi lancé à la manière conventionnelle de faire les choses, en un mot, « une interruption ». C’est pourquoi il avait été décidé que Garry Davis, depuis le balcon des spectateurs, interromprait la session de l’Assemblée générale pour lire un court texte ; Robert Sarrazac avait le même texte en français et Albert Crespey, fils d’un chef du Togo, avait un discours écrit dans sa langue natale togolaise.

Après la pause qui suivait une longue intervention de la Yougoslavie, Davis s’est levé. Le Père Montecland, « prêtre le jour et citoyen du monde la nuit », a dit d’une voix bondissante : « Et maintenant, la parole est au peuple ! ». Davis a dit en anglais : « Messieurs les Président et Délégués, je vous interromps au nom du peuple du monde qui n’est pas représenté ici. Même si mes mots devaient ne pas être entendus, notre besoin commun d’une loi et d’un ordre mondiaux ne peut plus être ignoré. » Après cela, des gardes de la sécurité sont intervenus, mais Robert Sarrazac, de l’autre côté de la Galerie des Visiteurs, a continué en français, suivi par un plaidoyer pour les Droits de l’Homme en togolais. Plus tard, vers la fin de la session de l’ONU à Paris, l’Assemblée générale adopta, sans une seule voix contre, la Déclaration universelle des Droits de l’Homme qui devint le fondement des efforts des Citoyens du Monde pour mettre en avant le droit mondial.

C’est le Docteur Herbert Evatt, d’Australie, qui était le Président de l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU en 1948. C’était un internationaliste qui avait travaillé pendant la Conférence de San Francisco d’où était née l’ONU pour limiter les pouvoirs des cinq Membres Permanents du Conseil de Sécurité. Evatt s’entretint avec Davis quelques jours après cette « interruption » et encouragea Davis à continuer de travailler en direction de la citoyenneté mondiale, même s’il n’était pas forcément des plus judicieux pour ce faire d’interrompre des réunions de l’ONU.

Peu après avoir mis en lumière la citoyenneté mondiale à l’ONU, Garry Davis vint au soutien de Jean Moreau, jeune Citoyen du Monde français et Catholique militant qui, en tant qu’objecteur de conscience au service militaire, avait été emprisonné à Paris, en l’absence d’une loi sur le service alternatif à l’époque en France. Davis campa devant la porte de la prison militaire de la Rue du Cherche-Midi, dans le centre de Paris. Comme l’a écrit Davis, « Alors qu’il est clairement visible que les citoyens d’autres nations sont prêts à souffrir pour un homme né en France qui revendique le droit moral d’œuvrer pour son prochain et de l’aimer plutôt que d’être formé à le tuer, comme l’ont enseigné Jésus, Bouddha, Lao Tseu, Tolstoï, Saint François d’Assise, Gandhi, ainsi que d’autres grands penseurs et dignitaires religieux, le monde devrait commencer à comprendre que la conscience de l’Homme elle-même transcende toutes les divisions et toutes les peurs artificiellement créées »[iv]. D’autres rejoignirent Davis dans son campement de rue. Garry Davis travailla étroitement sur ce cas avec Henri Roser et André Trocmé du Mouvement international de la Réconciliation. Davis fut jeté en prison pour avoir campé dans la rue en pleine ville ainsi que pour manque de documents d’identité valides, mais d’autres vinrent bientôt le remplacer dans la rue, parmi lesquels un pacifiste allemand, véritable acte de courage si peu de temps après la fin de la guerre. Il allait falloir encore une décennie pour qu’un service alternatif soit mis en place en France, mais l’action de Davis avait permis à la question de recueillir une large attention dans le pays et le lien était désormais clairement établi entre la citoyenneté mondiale et l’action non-violente.

Plus d'une fois, l'apatridie de Garry Davis et son militantisme Citoyen du Monde l'ont amené devant les tribunaux, comme ici en France. Mais pour autant, il n'a jamais renoncé à son idéal.

Plus d’une fois, l’apatridie de Garry Davis et son militantisme Citoyen du Monde l’ont amené devant les tribunaux, comme ici en France. Mais pour autant, il n’a jamais renoncé à son idéal.

Garry Davis n’a jamais été un « homme d’organisation ». Il se concevait comme un symbole en action. Après une année en France avec quelques courts séjours en Allemagne, il décida en juillet 1949 de retourner aux Etats-Unis. Comme il l’avait écrit à l’époque, « J’ai souvent dit que ce n’était pas mon intention de diriger un mouvement ou de devenir président d’une organisation. En toute honnêteté et sincérité, je dois définir la limite de mes capacités à être le témoin du principe d’unité mondiale, à défendre jusqu’à la limite de mes capacités l’Unicité de l’homme et ses immenses possibilités sur la planète Terre, et à combattre les peurs et les haines créées artificiellement pour perpétuer les divisions étroites et obsolètes qui mènent et ont toujours conduit au conflit armé ».

Peut-être du fait du karma, pendant le voyage en bateau qui le ramenait aux Etats-Unis, il a rencontré le Docteur P. Natarajan, enseignant religieux du sud de l’Inde dans la tradition oupanishadique. Natarajan avait vécu à Genève et à Paris et détenait un doctorat en philosophie de l’Université de Paris. Lui et Davis étaient devenus amis proches et Davis avait passé quelques temps en Inde, au centre créé par Natarajan qui mettait l’accent sur le développement de la vie intérieure. « La méditation consiste à faire entrer en vous toutes les valeurs », avait pour devise Natarajan.

C’est au domicile de Harry Jakobsen, disciple de Natarajan, sur le Mont Schooly dans le New Jersey, que j’avais fait la connaissance de Garry Davis au début des années 1950. J’étais moi aussi intéressé par la philosophie indienne et quelqu’un m’avait mis en contact avec Jakobsen. Cependant, j’avais rejoint les Fédéralistes mondiaux Etudiants en 1951 et je connaissais donc les aventures de Garry à Paris. Nous nous sommes vus depuis lors à Genève, en France et aux Etats-Unis de temps en temps.

Garry Davis pose ici devant le drapeau de son Gouvernement mondial des Citoyens du Monde, tenant à la main le Passeport mondial dont il était l'inventeur.

Garry Davis pose ici devant le drapeau de son Gouvernement mondial des Citoyens du Monde, tenant à la main le Passeport mondial dont il était l’inventeur.

Certains chez les Fédéralistes mondiaux et les Citoyens du Monde pensaient que sa renonciation à la nationalité américaine en 1948 avait créé la confusion chez le public. Les Fédéralistes mondiaux, davantage adeptes du fonctionnement en organisation, préféraient mettre en avant l’idée que l’on peut être un bon citoyen tout à la fois d’une communauté locale, d’un Etat-nation et en tant que Citoyen du Monde. Toutefois, l’intérêt de Davis et le mien propre pour la pensée asiatique nous a toujours liés, en dépit même de nos désaccords tactiques.

Aujourd’hui, il paraît approprié de citer l’image souvent invoquée de la vague solitaire qui représente en fait un seul et unique éternel océan d’énergie. Tout individu est à la fois une vague solitaire et une partie de la source impersonnelle d’où tout part et où tout revient. La vague qu’était Garry Davis est retournée à l’océan dans toute son étendue. Il nous laisse un défi permanent avec cette phrase qu’il a écrite : « Il existe à présent un besoin vital de leadership qui soit à la fois sage et pragmatique, et les symboles, qui ne sont utiles que jusqu’à un certain point, doivent à présent faire place à des hommes qualifiés pour un tel leadership ».

Garry Davis nous a quittés. Nous ne l'oublierons jamais.

Garry Davis nous a quittés. Nous ne l’oublierons jamais.

 

René Wadlow est Président et Représentant en Chef auprès de l’Office des Nations Unies à Genève de l’Association of World Citizens.

 


[i] A ne pas confondre avec l’Association of World Citizens d’aujourd’hui.

[ii] Garry Davis, My Country is the World (London: Macdonald Publishers, 1962).

[iii] A ne pas confondre avec l’acteur et chanteur français du même nom.

[iv] Garry Davis, Over to Pacifism:A Peace News Pamphlet (London: Peace News, 1949)