The Pact for the Future was accepted by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in a three-stage process. The first stage was a nearly year-long drafting of the document with many small revisions in the 56 paragraphs setting out the goal of a renewed UN better able to guarantee peace and development. The second stage was a last moment motion by the Russian Federation which asked for a vote, finding some of the wording, especially on human rights, too strong. The Russian motion was put to a vote with 143 States voting for the text of the Pact, 15 abstentions, and 7 opposed (Russia, Belarus, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Nicaragua.)
After this vote, the President of the General Assembly called for a vote by acclamation. Everyone applauded, some more vigorously than others. Thus, the Pact was adopted by consensus.
The Pact should be seen as a springboard for action rather than as an end point. With the 193 UN members potentially involved in drafting the document, there was a need for compromises and general ideas rather than any new specific proposals. The Pact is a reaffirmation of the goals and processes of the UN system, but it also notes the need for constant renewal. In paragraph 6, the Pact states, “We recognize that the multilateral system and its institutions, with the United Nations and its Charter at the center, must be strengthened to keep pace with a changing world. They must be fit for the present and the future – effective and capable, prepared for the future, just, democratic, equitable and representative of today’s world, inclusive, interconnected and financially stable.”
Paragraph 9 states, “We also reaffirm that the three pillars of the United Nations – sustainable development – peace and security, and human rights – are equally important, interlinked and mutually reinforcing. We cannot have one without the others.”
In practice, it was easier to stress sustainable development since the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals had already been set out, through progress is very uneven. For peace and security, there are Articles 25 and 26 stating that, “We will advance the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. We will uphold our disarmament obligations and commitments.” A culture of peace is mentioned in a number of places, but no specific steps are set out.
For two days prior to the governments’ discussion and voting on the Pact, there was what were called “Action Days” to which were invited Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs), academics working on UN issues, and the representatives of business corporations involved in international trade. The two days were certainly a time for networking if not for “action”.
The Pact is a partially open door for UN cooperation with NGOs stating in a general way the “participation of relevant stakeholders in appropriate formats.” More specifically, the Pact calls to “Facilitate more structured, meaningful and inclusive engagement of nongovernmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council in the activities of the Council in line with ECOSOC resolution 1996/21”. The door of the Pact was most open to youth calling for an increase in the representation of youth, which can only be via NGOs. We will have to see what, as NGO representatives, we can make of the partly open door.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
Antonio Guterres, the United Nations (UN) Secretary General, said in his opening remarks to the UN General Assembly on September 24, 2024, “Gaza is a nonstop nightmare that threatens to take the entire region with it. Look no further than Lebanon. We should all be alarmed by the escalation. Lebanon is on the brink. The people of Lebanon – the people of Israel – and the people of the world – cannot afford Lebanon to become another Gaza.”
Lebanon may have already moved over the brink. Israeli strikes on Lebanon on September 23 killed at least 356 people and injured more than 1,200 others. Hezbollah deputy chief Naim Qassem has just said, “We have entered a new phase – an open-ended battle of reckoning.” Until now, Hezbollah has designed its attacks to stay below the threshold of a full-scale conflagration, but these deadly exchanges of fire carry a high risk of miscalculation, spiraling violence upward.
A rapid escalation in recent days, starting with the attack on Hezbollah members via booby-trapped pagers and walkie-talkies followed by Israeli bombardments, has raised the specter of a new phase in the conflict with a possible ground invasion by Israeli troops as in 1982 and 2006. There are fears that Iran could be drawn into the fighting. The new Iranian President, Masoud Pezeshkian, speaking at the UN General Assembly also on September 24, demanded a global response to the Lebanon situation, “not to allow Lebanon to become another Gaza.”
In 2007, young people from Beirut posing with a Hezbollah flag on the ruins of the Khiam prison formerly run by the pro-Israeli South Lebanon Army (C) Paul Keller
Hezbollah is supported by Iran but not fully under Iranian control. Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, has in recent days made widely watched television talks attacking Israeli politics and indicating continuing Hezbollah support for the Palestinians in Gaza, saying that a ceasefire in Gaza was necessary before any negotiations with Hezbollah could take place. Since negotiations for a ceasefire in Gaza seem unlikely for the moment, Hezbollah’s current campaign is likely to continue. In addition, recent tensions in the West Bank between Israeli settlers, Israeli soldiers and Palestinians in settled villages have added more heat to the general tensions in the area.
The issue is what can be done now to prevent escalation and reduce tensions. A first step is to stress respect for international humanitarian law – often cited by the Association of World Citizens (AWC). Hospitals, medical facilities, educational institutions have been destroyed in the exchanges of fire. There is a need for resolute action on the violations of humanitarian law. Regular military personnel of all countries are theoretically informed of the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949 and the Protocol Additional adopted in 1977 in light of the experiences of the war in Vietnam. Today, international human rights standards are also considered part of international humanitarian law, thus providing additional protection for vulnerable population groups such as women, children and minorities.
A possible second phase is the “good offices” function of the UN Secretary-General. It is certain that the UN Secretariat is concerned, but their ability for action may be very limited.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres
It is not clear what governments at the UN can do. The Security Council has been blocked on many issues by the veto. The resolutions of the General Assembly are “recommendations” with little follow up in practice.
A 21-day ceasefire proposal has just been set out at the UN by France and the USA but rejected by Israel.
There may be some role for non-official mediation carried out by groups representing religious, academic, or charitable organizations. One advantage of non-official mediation is that all concerned are aware that such mediation is genuinely impartial seeking only a reduction of suffering caused by the conflicts. The disadvantage is that non-official mediators lack the resources, political, economic or military on which governmental mediators can draw.
It is certain that strong measures are needed to prevent escalation. Vision and creativity are important factors. The role of nongovernmental organizations in consultative status with the UN such as the AWC may be able to play a role in these dangerous times.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
September 21 is the United Nations (UN) designated International Peace Day, set out in 1981 by a UN General Assembly resolution as being a day close to the start of the General Assembly. The Day is devoted to creating a culture of peace through dialogue in a spirit of mutual understanding and a consciousness of the unity of humanity. As the psychoanalyst Erick Fromm wrote, “I believe that the One World which is emerging can come into existence only if a new man comes into being – a man who has emerged from the archaic ties of blood and soil, who feels himself to be a Citizen of the World, whose loyalty is to the human race and to life.”
This year, September 21 is one of the two Action Days of the Summit for the Future being held at the UN in New York. We are all aware that in many parts of the world there is armed conflict, political rivalries and growing tensions. The current heavily State-centered approaches to world politics hampers the effectiveness of the UN and its Specialized Agencies. In these times of insecurity when many people feel uncertain about the future, when anxieties and fears are promoted and then exploited by political populists, old-fashioned nationalists and religious fundamentalists, we need to present a positive vision and to build bridges of understanding over the current divides of nationalism, ethnicity and social classes.
Today, the revolutionary character of our times is recognized by many observers. Those who live in the midst of swift social change confront the upheaval of their way of life. We are entering a period of change for which there are no blueprints. Therefore, it is essential that we learn to work together. We celebrate our similarities rather than our differences. Thus, on this Day of Peace, we are called to new levels of creativity and constructive action.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
The United Nations (UN) Independent International Fact-Finding Mission for the Sudan chaired by Mohamed Chande Othman of Tanzania said, in its first Report of September 6, 2024, that Sudan’s warring parties, the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces as well as their respective militia allies, have committed an appalling range of human rights and international humanitarian law violations including indiscriminate airstrikes and shelling against civilians, schools, hospitals, and vital water services.
The current armed conflict which began on April 15, 2023 between two former allies is led, on the one side, by General Abdel Fattah Al Burham of the Sudanese Armed Forces and, on the other, by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagulo, known by his battle name of Hemedhi, of the Rapid Support Forces. The conflict, which has spread to 14 of the 18 provinces of Sudan, has killed and wounded tens of thousands of civilians, displaced nearly 8 million people and forced two million to flee to neighboring countries and beyond.
Mohamed Chamde Othman (C) U.S. Government
As the Fact-Finding Mission Report highlights, the warring parties targeted civilians through rape, sexual slavery and other forms of sexual violence, arbitrary arrest as well as torture and ill-treatment. Assaults have been carried out against ethnic minorities, in particular the Masalit in West Darfur.
The Fact-Finding Mission, mandated by the Human Rights Council in October 2023, carried out a wide range of discussions and interviews. As the Expert Member of the Mission Mona Rishmawi said, “These findings should serve as a wakeup call to the international community to take decisive action to support survivors, their families and affected communities and hold perpetrators accountable. A comprehensive approach to transitional justice is vital for addressing the root causes of the conflict and ensuring accountability.”
Mona Rishmawi
Efforts for a ceasefire and the start of negotiations by the Personal Envoy for the Sudan of the UN Secretary-General have led to no advances. Thus, wider action is needed. Mohamed Othman has said, “The international community must support the Sudanese aspiration for an inclusive and representative civilian government that respects the rights of all citizens, fostering a path toward equality, justice and sustainable peace in Sudan.” In light of the many difficulties, he has called for sending UN peacekeeping forces to Sudan. “Given the failure of the warring parties to spare civilians, it is imperative that an independent and impartial force with a mandate to safeguard civilians be deployed without delay. The protection of the civilian population is paramount, and all parties must comply with their obligations under international law and immediately and unconditionally cease all attacks on the civilian population.”
As the deployment of an independent and impartial force depends on the UN Security Council the focus for action shifts from the Human Rights Council to the Security Council. We appeal for vitally needed action now.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
LA AWC LLAMA A LAS AUTORIDADES DE NICARAGUA A DEROGAR LA PROHIBICIÓN ANUNCIADA DE 1.500 ORGANIZACIONES NO GUBERNAMENTALES
La Association of World Citizens (Asociación de Ciudadanos del Mundo; AWC) expresa su alarma al aprender que las autoridades de la República de Nicaragua anunciaron el 19 de agosto la prohibición de 1.500 organizaciones no gubernamentales (ONG), la mayoría de ellas organizaciones de beneficencia católicas romanas, aunque, lamentablemente, la medida también ha afectado a la Cruz Roja Nicaragüense.
Desde abril de 2018, el Gobierno encabezado por el Presidente Daniel Ortega ha adoptado un cariz abiertamente autoritario, tras las protestas cuya violenta represión, según las Naciones Unidas (ONU), ha dejado más de 300 muertos. En este contexto, casi todos los opositores políticos han sido encarcelados o forzados al exilio.
En cuanto a los grupos de la sociedad civil, esta última medida eleva a 5.000 el número de ONG prohibidas por las autoridades en los últimos seis años. Todos los grupos prohibidos han visto sus bienes confiscados por el Gobierno. Aunque la razón oficial esgrimida es que estas ONG no han declarado sus ingresos, la semana pasada se aprobó una normativa que obliga a las ONG a establecer “alianzas de asociación” con las autoridades, con lo que prácticamente se acaba su carácter “no gubernamental”.
La Oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos ha pedido “a las autoridades nicaragüenses que dejen de imponer restricciones severas a los espacios cívicos y democráticos del país y que garanticen el respeto de los derechos humanos, de conformidad con las obligaciones internacionales de Nicaragua en materia de derechos humanos”.
La AWC respalda sin reservas este llamamiento, instando al Gobierno de Nicaragua a rescindir de inmediato su prohibición anunciada y a restablecer a todas las ONG ilegalizadas desde 2018 su estatus jurídico y financiero inicial, garantizando además que sean libres de operar como consideren conveniente, un requisito básico para cualquier país que pretenda defender el Estado de derecho.
THE AWC CALLS ON THE AUTHORITIES OF NICARAGUA TO RESCIND THEIR ANNOUNCED BAN ON 1,500 NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
The Association of World Citizens (AWC) is alarmed to hear that the authorities of the Republic of Nicaragua announced on August 19 that they were banning 1,500 Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs), most of them Roman Catholic charities – even though, regrettably, the Nicaraguan Red Cross has been struck by the measure too.
Since April 2018, the Government led by President Daniel Ortega has taken an openly authoritarian turn, after protests whose violent repression the United Nations (UN) claims left more than 300 people dead. In this context, nearly all political opponents have been jailed or forced into exile.
As for civil society groups, this latest move brings to 5,000 the number of NGOs banned by the authorities over the last six years. All groups thus banned have had their assets seized by the Government.
Even though the official reason put forward is that these NGOs have failed to declare their income, last week, a regulation was passed requiring NGOs to enter “partnership alliances” with the authorities, therefore practically ending their “nongovernmental” nature.
The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has called “on the Nicaraguan authorities to stop imposing severe restrictions on civic and democratic spaces in the country, and to ensure that human rights are respected, in line with Nicaragua’s international human rights obligations.”
The AWC unreservedly endorses this call, urging the Nicaraguan Government to rescind immediately its announced ban and restore all NGOs outlawed since 2018 to their initial legal and financial status, further ensuring that they are free to operate as they see fit, a basic requirement for any country which claims to be upholding the rule of law.
The United Nations (UN) General Assembly has designated August 19 each year as “World Humanitarian Day” to pay tribute to aid workers in humanitarian service in difficult and often dangerous conditions. August 19 was designated in memory of the August 19, 2003 bombing of the UN office building in Baghdad, Iraq, in which Sergio Vieira de Mello, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and at the time Special Representative of the UN Secretary General, was killed along with 21 UN staff members. Over 200 UN employees were injured. The exact circumstances of the attack are not known, and why UN security around the building was not tighter is still not clear. A truck with explosives was able to drive next to the building and then blew itself up.
Sergio Vieira de Mello had spent his UN career in humanitarian efforts, often with the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees and at other times as Special Representative of the UN Secretary General. As a Nongovernmental Organization (NGO) representative to the UN in Geneva and active on human rights issues, I knew him during his short 2002-2003 tenure as High Commissioner for Human Rights. Many of us had high hopes that his dynamism, relative youth (he was 54), and wide experience in conflict resolution efforts would provide new possibilities for human rights efforts. His death along with the death of others who had been Geneva-based was a stark reminder of the risks that exist for all engaged in humanitarian and conflict resolution work.
Sergio Vieira de Mello (C) UN Photo/Patrick Bertshmann
The laws of war, now more often called humanitarian law, have two wings. One wing, dealing with the treatment of medical personnel in armed conflicts, the military wounded, prisoners of war and the protection of civilians is set out in the Geneva (Red Cross) Conventions. The second wing, often called the Hague Conventions, limits or bans outright the use of certain categories of weapons. These efforts began at the Hague in 1900 and have continued with the recent limitations on land mines, cluster weapons and certain chemical weapons. The Association of World Citizens was one of the NGOs leading the campaign against cluster weapons.
The current situation concerning refugees and internally-displaced persons can also be considered as part of humanitarian law. To prevent and alleviate suffering, to protect life and health, and to ensure respect for the human person, these are the core values of humanitarian law which we strongly reaffirm on World Humanitarian Day.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
Muhammad Yunus, the founder of the microcredit banking system in Bangladesh, the Grameen Bank (which translates as “Village Bank”), was sworn in as the interim leader of the Bangladesh government on August 8, 2024. The former leader, Sheikh Hasina, resigned and then fled to India, driven out by the protests first of students and then by other sectors of the population during which some 400 persons were killed by the military and the police. Muhammed Yunus has called for calm and an end to uncontrolled violence often directed against the minority Hindu population.
Muhammad Yunus is an economist. Now 84 years old, he is retired from teaching, originally at the University of Chittagong, the port city of Bangladesh. As an economist, he was quickly aware of rural poverty in many parts of the country and the unrest of the tribal minorities in the Chittagong Hill Tracks. He developed the concept of the Grameen Bank, small loans, especially to women, in order to improve their trading efforts. Much of what is called “the informal sector” – marginal to the more developed economy – are the efforts of market women and women small producers. With small loans which must be repaid before a new loan is possible, women are able to have more security and can expand their business.
Prof. Muhammad Yunus at the University of Salford, UK, on May 18, 2013 (C) University of Salford Press Service
The Grameen Bank approach spread to nearly all areas of Bangladesh and then to other countries, especially in Africa. The success of the Grameen Bank approach has lifted many from the cycle of poverty and instability. In recognition of the impact of the Grameen Banks, Muhammad Yunus was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2006.
Muhammad Yunus has formed an interim government of 16 persons, mostly drawn from civil society organizations, including two, Nahid Islam and Asif Mahmud, both 26 years old, who were leaders of the student movements which overthrew Sheikh Hasina who had been in power for 15 years – whose government had become increasingly authoritarian. Muhammad Yunus has promised that elections will be held shortly but that calm must be restored first. He faces difficult tasks, but he is a fresh mind outside the narrow political milieu. We must wish him well in his vital efforts.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
Government representatives and some Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) are participating from July 22 to August 2, 2024 in Geneva, Switzerland in the Preparatory Session for the Review Conference on the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. As the political and strategic situation in the world can evolve over time, the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) had as one of its provisions (Article VIII) that a review conference be held every five years to judge the situation and to see if new elements should be added. At the end of each Review a “Chairman’s Statement” must be agreed upon by all the States present.
The NPT, which had taken 10 years to negotiate, was proclaimed in 1970, and the first Review Conference was held in Geneva in 1975. As the Review Conference was a meeting of the States Party to the Treaty and not a regular United Nations (UN) disarmament negotiation, NGO representatives had more opportunity for interaction with governments. NGO texts were considered as “official documents” and were printed and distributed by the conference secretariat. I was asked to chair the group of NGO participants, which I did both in 1975 and 1980. As a result of my chairing the NGOs at the 1975 Review, I was invited to Moscow to discuss with Soviet military and arms control specialists. I have remained concerned with the issues ever since.
Each Review Conference has been concerned with the three fundamental aspects of the Treaty: non-proliferation, promotion of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and the disarmament initiatives of the five nuclear-weapon States when the Treaty was signed: the USA, USSR, the United Kingdom, France, and China as set out in Article VI.
To make matters more complicated but politically realistic, the policies of nuclear-weapon States which have not signed the NPT – India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea – color the discussions of each Review. Iran is a State Party to the NPT, but questions have been raised about the effectiveness of the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities and if nuclear material is being enriched to weapon-production levels.
The nuclear weapons of Israel and their meaning for Middle East policies have long been “an elephant in the room” – too large not to notice but too dangerous to deal with if anything else in the Review process is to be done. In 1995, there was an annex to the final Chairman’s Statement of the Review proposing that a conference on a potential nuclear-weapon-free Middle East should be called. In practice, “the time was never ripe”, but the concept is still there.
The concept of nuclear-weapon-free zones has been an important concept in disarmament and regional conflict-reduction efforts. A nuclear-weapon-free zone was first suggested by the Polish Foreign Minister, Adam Rapacki, at the UN General Assembly in October 1957 – just a year after the crushing of the uprising in Hungary. The crushing of the Hungarian revolt by Soviet troops and the unrest among Polish workers at the same time showed that the East-West equilibrium in Central Europe was unstable with both the Soviet Union and the USA in possession of nuclear weapons, and perhaps a willingness to use them if the political situation became radically unstable. The Rapacki Plan, as it became known, called for the denuclearization of East and West Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland.
The Plan went through several variants which included its extension to cover reduction of armed forces and armaments, and as a preliminary step, a freeze on nuclear weapons in the area. The Rapacki Plan was opposed by the NATO powers, in part because it recognized the legitimacy of the East German State. It was not until 1970 and the start of what became the 1975 Helsinki Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) that serious negotiations on troop levels and weapons in Europe began. While the Rapacki Plan never led to negotiations on nuclear-weapon policies in Europe, it had the merit of restarting East-West discussions which were then at a dead point after the Hungarian uprising.
Adam Rapacki
The first nuclear-weapon-free zone to be negotiated – the Treaty of Tlatelolco – was a direct aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. It is hard to know how close to a nuclear exchange between the USA and the USSR the Cuban missile crisis was. It was close enough so that Latin American leaders were moved to action. While Latin America was not an area in which military confrontation was as stark as in Europe, the Cuban missile crisis was a warning that you did not need to have standing armies facing each other for there to be danger.
Mexico, under the leadership of Ambassador Alfonso Garcia-Robles at the UN, began immediately to call for a denuclearization of Latin America. There were a series of conferences, and in February 1067 the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America was signed at Tlatelolco, Mexico. For a major arms control treaty, the Tlatelolco was negotiated in a short time, due partly to the fear inspired by the Cuban missile crisis but especially to the energy and persistence of Garcia-Robles and the expert advice of William Epstein, the UN’s Director of Disarmament Affairs. The Treaty established a permanent and effective system of control which contains a number of novel and pioneering elements as well as a body to supervise the Treaty.
Alfonso Garcia Robles (C) Marcel Antonisse
On September 8, 2006, the five States of Central Asia – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan – signed a treaty establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone. The treaty aims at reducing the risk of nuclear proliferation and nuclear-armed terrorism. The treaty bans the production, acquisition, deployment of nuclear weapons and their components as well as nuclear explosives. Importantly, the treaty bans the transportation of nuclear weapons as both Russia and the USA have established military airbases in Central Asia where nuclear weapons could have been placed in times of crisis in Asia.
Superman is not coming to rid the world of nuclear weapons. World Citizens need to take the problem to UN delegates by themselves. Or own Quest for Peace deserves a happy ending too.
It is an unfortunate aspect of world politics that constructive, institution-building action is usually undertaken only because of a crisis. Perhaps the growing pressures in the Middle East could lead to concerted leadership for a Middle East nuclear-weapon-free zone. The IAEA has the technical knowledge for putting such a zone in place. Now there needs to be leadership from within the Middle East as well as from the broader international community. There are urgent needs for new common security approaches.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
At a time when Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip are under violent tensions, on July 19, the International Court of Justice (the World Court), published an Advisory Opinion, “Legal Consequences Arising from Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory Including East Jerusalem”. The request for an Advisory Opinion came from the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 2023. The drafting by the World Court judges followed the oral hearings in February 2024 of the representatives of 50 States, the written statement of the Israeli authorities, and a voluminous dossier submitted by the UN Secretary-General on UN investigations and peacemaking efforts.
The international law framework concerns the standards set for the administration of occupied territories and the duties of an occupying power. The Advisory Opinion sets out the legal consequences for Israel, the legal consequences for other States, and the legal consequences for the UN.
(C) International Court of Justice
The Advisory Opinion does not offer new information. Nongovernmental Organizations (NGO), both in Israel and internationally, have documented in sad detail much of the violence against Palestinians, the destruction of homes by Israeli military forces, the increased presence of Israeli settlers in the West Bank, and many other forms of discrimination. The World Court considers this information reliable, and the information can serve as the basis of its deliberation without asking for new investigations.
The question which is now open is “What will be the consequences of the Advisory Opinion?” The World Court has no enforcement provisions for its decisions. The impact of the World Court depends for the most part on what national governments decide to do and on what pressure NGOs can develop. The tensions in the wider Middle East are real, and the Advisory Opinion may provide an impetus for action. The Association of World Citizens is devoted to strengthening international law and will follow these efforts with strong interest.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
Association of World Citizens 