With the
administrative-political situation in Libya badly stalemated and a meeting for
negotiations to be held April 14-16 unlikely to make progress, on Thursday, April
4, 2019, General Khalifa Haftar, one of the key players in the drama decided to
start a “March on Tripoli” and to take overall power by force.
Most of the
significant buildings in Libyan cities were built by Italians during the
Fascist period, when Libya was an Italian colony. Thus, General Haftar has
patterned himself on Mussolini’s 1922 “March on Rome”. In 1922, the diplomats
of most States looked away when Mussolini marched or the diplomats took it as a
domestic affair.
In 2019, the “March
on Tripoli” has drawn more international attention and concern. The United Nations
(UN) Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, met with Haftar a few hours before
the March began. Guterres was in Libya to facilitate the April 14-16 meeting on
which his Special Representative, Ghassan Salamé, has been working for some
time in the hope of drawing a road map for long-delayed elections. On Friday,
April 5, the UN Security Council held a closed-door emergency meeting. The
Security Council called for a halt to the March on Tripoli and the de-escalation
of the growing armed conflict.
The Security
Council recognized the real possibilities of broader armed conflict and its
consequences on the civilian population. In the recent past, the Libyan armed
factions have violated the laws of war and have a sad record of abuses against
civilians.
We will now have
to see if Khalifa Haftar is more open to international appeals than was Benito
Mussolini. My impression is that the goal of holding overall power is stronger
than the respect of international law. However, even a successful “March on
Tripoli” will not create the conditions for an administration of a culturally
and geographically-diverse country. New and appropriate constitutional
structures must be developed.
There cannot be a
return to the earlier Italian colonial structures, nor to the forms of
government at independence developed by King Idris al Sanussi which depended
largely on his role as a religious leader using religious orders, nor the
complicated pattern of “direct democracy” developed by Muammar al-Qadhafi.
The Association of World Citizens has proposed the possibility of con-federal
structures.
The post 2011
Libyan society faces large and complex issues. Resolving the institutional,
economic and political issues is urgent and cannot be settled by elections
alone. There are three distinct regions which must have some degree of
autonomy: Tripolitania and Cyrenaica both bordering the Mediterranean and
Fezzan in the southern Sahara. Within each of the three regions there are
differing and often rival tribal societies which are in practice more kinship
lines than organized tribes. (1) There are differing economic interests and
there are differing ideologies ranging from “Arab Socialism” to the
Islamist ideology of the Islamic State which has spread from its Syrian-Iraqi
base.
The situation is
critical, and the next few days may be crucial for the future of the country.
Note
1) See J. Davis. Libyan Politics, Tribes and Revolution (London: I. B. Tauris, 1987)
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
The United Nations
(UN) Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration has drawn attention
to the positive aspects of migration. However, there are also negative aspects
so that we are also concerned with migration that is not safe such as
trafficking in persons. A UN report presented to the Commission on the Status
of Women at the start of its current two-week session in New York highlighted
that human trafficking is one of the fastest growing criminal industries and
one of the biggest human rights crises today. The vast majority of victims
trafficked are for sexual exploitation, while others are exploited for forced
labor and forced marriage.
One aspect of
migration issues is the issue of the trans-frontier trafficking in persons.
Awareness has been growing, but effective remedies are slow and uncoordinated. Effective
remedies are often not accessible to victims of trafficking owing to gaps between
setting international standards, enacting national laws and then implementation
in a humane way.
The international
standards have been set out in the “United Nations Convention against
Transnational Organized Crime” and its “Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and
Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children.” The Convention
and the Protocol standards are strengthened by the “International Convention on
the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families.”
The worldwide standards have been reaffirmed by regional legal frameworks such
as the “Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human
Beings.”
Despite clear
international and regional standards, there is poor implementation, limited
government resources and infrastructure dedicated to the issue, a tendency to
criminalize victims and restrictive immigration policies in many countries.
Trafficking in
persons is often linked to networks trafficking in drugs and arms. Some gangs
are involved in all three; in other cases, agreements are made to specialize
and not expand into the specialty of other criminal networks.
Basically, there
are three sources of trafficking in persons. The first are refugees from armed
conflicts. Refugees are covered by the Refugee Conventions supervised by the UN
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in the country of first asylum. Thus,
Syrian refugees are protected and helped by the UNHCR in Lebanon, but not if
they leave Lebanon. As ¼ of the population of Lebanon are now refugees from the
conflicts in Syria, the Lebanese government is increasingly placing
restrictions on Syrian’s possibility to work in Lebanon, to receive schooling,
medical services, proper housing etc. Therefore, many Syrians try to leave Lebanon
or Turkey to find a better life in Western Europe. Refugees from Iraq,
Afghanistan, Sudan follow the same pattern.
The second
category are people leaving their country for economic reasons − sometimes
called “economic refugees.” Migration for better jobs and a higher standard of
living has a long history. Poverty, ethnic and racial discrimination, and
gender-based discrimination are all factors in people seeking to change
countries. With ever-tighter immigration policies in many countries and with a
popular “backlash” against migrants in some countries, would-be migrants turn
to “passers” − individuals or groups that try to take migrants into a country,
avoiding legal controls.
A third category − or a subcategory of economic migration − is the sex trade, usually of women but also children. As a Human Rights Watch study of the Japanese “sex-entertainment” businesses notes, “There are an estimated 150,000 non-Japanese women employed in the Japanese sex industry, primarily from other Asian countries such as Thailand and the Philippines. These women are typically employed in the lower rungs of the industry either in ‘dating’ snack bars or in low-end brothels, in which customers pay for short periods of eight or fifteen minutes. Abuses are common as job brokers and employers take advantage of foreign women’s vulnerability as undocumented migrants: they cannot seek recourse from the police or other law enforcement authorities without risking deportation and potential prosecution, and they are isolated by language barriers, a lack of community, and a lack of familiarity with their surroundings.” We find similar patterns in many countries.
The scourge of
trafficking in persons will continue to grow unless strong counter measures are
taken. Basically, police and governments worldwide do not place a high priority
on the fight against trafficking unless illegal migration becomes a media
issue. Thus, real progress needs to be made through nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) such as the Association of World Citizens. There are four
aspects to this anti-trafficking effort. The first is to help build political
will by giving accurate information to political leaders and the press. The
other three aspects depend on the efforts of the NGOs themselves. Such efforts
call for increased cooperation among NGOs and capacity building.
The second aspect
is research into the areas from which children and women are trafficked. These
are usually the poorest parts of the country and among marginalized
populations. Socio-economic and educational development projects must be
directed to these areas so that there are realistic avenues for advancement.
The third aspect
is the development of housing and of women’s shelters to ensure that persons
who have been able to leave exploitive situations have temporary housing and
other necessary services.
The fourth aspect
is psychological healing. Very often women and children who have been
trafficked into the sex trades have a disrupted or violent family and have a
poor idea of their self-worth. This is also often true of refugees from armed
conflict. Thus, it is important to create opportunities for individual and
group healing, to give a spiritual dimension to the person through teaching
meditation and yoga. There are needs for creating adult education facilities so
that people may continue a broken education cycle.
There are NGOs who are already working along these lines. Their efforts need to be encouraged and expanded.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
Navroz, usually
celebrated on March 21 in Iran and Central Asia, is the “New Day”, the end of
the old year with its hardships and deceptions and the start of the New Year to
be filled with hope and optimism. With each periodical festival, the
participants find the same sacred time – the same that had been manifested in
the festival of the previous year or the festival of a century earlier. It is a
day for spiritual renewal and physical rejuvenation and is usually a time for
reciting devotional poetry, presenting food with symbolic meaning to guests,
and visits among family and close friends.
Navroz, which
coincides with the Spring Equinox, is related to myths focused on the sun and
thus symbolizes the connections of humans to Nature. In some of the myths, Navroz
is considered as symbolizing the first day of creation − thus a time when all
can be newly created. It is a day between times − old time has died; new time
will start the day after Navroz. In this one-day period without time, all is
possible. The seeds are planted for a new birth. Among some who celebrate
Navroz, real seeds are planted, usually in seven pots with symbolic meanings of
virtues. Their growth is an indication of how these virtues will manifest
themselves in the coming year. Among those influenced by Islam and
Christianity, Navroz is the day when God will raise the dead for the final
judgment and the start of eternal life.
Navroz has an
ancient Persian origin, related to Abura Mazda, the high god who was symbolized
by the sun and manifested by fire. Navroz is also related to the opposite of
fire, that is, water. However, water can also be considered not as opposite but
as complementary, and thus fire-water can become symbols of harmony. Fire – as
light, as an agent of purification, as a manifestation of the basic energy of
life − played a large role in Zoroastrian thought and in the teachings of
Zarathoustra. Thus, we find fire as a central symbol and incorporated into
rituals among the Parsis in India, originally of Iranian origin.
From what is today
Iran, Zoroastrian beliefs and ritual spread along the “Silk Road” through
Central Asia to China, and in the other direction to the Arab world. As much of
this area later came under the influence of Islam, elements of Navroz were
given Islamic meanings to the extent that some today consider Navroz an
“Islamic holiday”. Navroz is also celebrated among the Alawites in Syria, the
Baha’i, the Yezidis, and the Kurds, each group adapting Navroz to its spiritual
framework.
In Turkey, for
many years, Navroz was officially banned as being too related to the Kurds and
thus to Kurdish demands for autonomy or an independent Kurdistan. I recall a
number of years ago being invited to participate in a non-violent Kurdish
protest in Turkey on Navroz to protest the ban. I declined as the idea of going
from Geneva to be put in a Turkish jail was not on top of my list of
priorities. Fortunately, for the last few years, the ban has been lifted.
Navroz was marked
in 2018 in the Syrian Kurdish area of Afrin by the arrival of Turkish troops
and their Syrian allies. One of the first acts of the Turkish troops was to
pull down and destroy a statue of Kawa, a mythological founder of the Kurdish
people. In the myth, Kawa is a blacksmith who melted iron to make swords and
liberate the people from an evil ruler who had been helped by spirits.
2018 Navroz was also the end of a seven-year cycle begun in March 2011, the uprising and then war in Syria. Seven years in many traditions is a significant number.
Thus, Navroz as a day outside of time can be a moment of reflection on the armed conflict in Syria, and on our inability as peace makers to facilitate negotiations in good faith. Now, a new cycle of secular time has begun, made even more complex by the arrival of Turkish troops.
The armed conflict
in Syria is complex with outside official players: Iran, Russia, USA, Turkey,
the United Nations, the Arab League and more shadowy characters: the Islamic
State, a host of intelligence agencies, money and fighters from a variety of
sources. We find some of the same players in the war in Yemen. There is,
however, agreement among all that killing those who disagree is the only
realistic policy. It is a very old and wide-spread idea found in most cultures.
The techniques of killing have become more sophisticated – drones and car bombs
– but the idea has remained the same and is easily understood.
In contrast, ideas
of conflict reduction through changes in structure are more complex: broadening
the base of the Syrian government by bringing in individuals from groups
largely excluded, creating con-federal forms of association among the Kurds
without necessarily creating a separate State, creating a cosmopolitan,
humanist society which meets the basic needs of all. Moreover, we on the
outside can suggest approaches, but the effort will have to be made by local
people.
Those who advocate (and carry out) killing have funds and staff which conflict resolution nongovernmental organizations lack. Yet conflict resolution efforts must continue and grow stronger. A new, even more complex cycle of time has started. The old approach of killing those who disagree remains strong. Yet, I believe that there are possibilities of renewal and cooperative action for a more peaceful and just wider Middle East.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of
World Citizens.
World law, as World Citizens use the term, is more
than current international law. World law has, as its base, universally-recognized
international law but also the human rights declarations and standards, the
oft-repeated declarations of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly as well
as the international legal bodies such as the World Court and the International
Criminal Court (ICC). The International Criminal Court is the most recent of
the world courts, and its Rome Status has not been ratified by all UN Member
States, the United States (U. S.) being a significant holdout.
ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda
Some States have withdrawn from the ICC and other
States do not cooperate with it, such as the Sudan. The ICC can act only after
the relevant national courts have acted or when national courts are unable to
act (the case of some ‘failed States’) or when there is an unjustified
unwillingness of national courts to act when crimes against humanity have been
committed.
The Association of World Citizens (AWC) has repeatedly
stressed that humanitarian law (international law in times of war, primarily
the Geneva Conventions) are being systematically violated and that there should
be a UN-led World Conference for the Re-affirmation of Humanitarian Law.
In the armed conflicts in Afghanistan, there have been
repeated violations of humanitarian law by all sides: violations in the
treatment of prisoners of war, violation of the prohibition of torture,
prohibition of attacking medical facilities and medical personnel. The ICC has
undertaken preliminary investigations to collect evidence. Among those who have
violated humanitarian law are U. S. troops, and thus evidence should be
collected.
Although most evidence could be collected within
Afghanistan itself, it would be useful to interview persons who had served in
Afghanistan but now have returned to the U. S. and to see written reports no
longer stored in Afghanistan. Thus, the ICC plans to send investigators to the
U. S. to interview and collect documentation.
However, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced on
March 15, 2019 that the U. S. will revoke or deny visas to ICC personnel
investigating allegations of torture or other war crimes committed in the
conflicts in Afghanistan. Pompeo also announced that the U. S. will consider
imposing financial sanctions and restrictions on “persons who take or have
taken action to request or further such ICC investigation”. He could have
added imprisonment if we recall those who provided evidence of war crimes in
Iraq.
Unfortunately, Pompeo sends the wrong message to all
other parties that torture, rape, attacks on medical facilities will not be
tried. Pompeo helps to undermine further international humanitarian law.
We have to think back to 1947-1948 and the leadership
of Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt as chair of the UN Commission on Human Rights to
recall any U.S. leadership on world law. Unfortunately, law has never been part
of U. S. culture. The lone cowboy taking the law into his own hands by shooting
it out on a dusty street seen in many films remains the U. S. ideal.
As mentioned, most of the necessary evidence can be
found in Afghanistan itself. Bringing anyone from any party to trial for crimes
in Afghanistan seems to me unlikely. Nevertheless, as world citizens, we need
to keep the standards of world law in mind. These standards should be clear. Thus,
our repeated call for a UN-led conference on the re-affirmation of
international humanitarian law.
Prof. René Wadlow is
President of the Association of World Citizens.
March 15 is widely used as the date on which the conflict in Syria began. March 15, 2011 was the first “Day of Rage” held in a good number of localities to mark opposition to the repression of youth in the southern city of Daraa, where a month earlier young people had painted anti-government graffiti on some of the walls, followed by massive arrests.
I think that it is important for us to look at why organizations that promote nonviolent action and conflict resolution in the US and Western Europe were not able to do more to aid those in Syria who tried to use nonviolence during the first months of 2011. By June 2011, the conflict had largely become one of armed groups against the government forces, but there were at least four months when there were nonviolent efforts before many started to think that a military “solution” was the only way forward. There were some parts of the country where nonviolent actions continued for a longer period.
There had been early on an effort on the part of some Syrians to develop support among nonviolent and conflict resolution groups. As one Syrian activist wrote concerning the ‘Left’ in the US and Europe but would also be true for nonviolent activists “I am afraid that it is too late for the leftists in the West to express any solidarity with the Syrians in their extremely hard struggle. What I always found astonishing in this regard is that mainstream Western leftists know almost nothing about Syria, its society, its regime, its people, its political economy, its contemporary history. Rarely have I found a useful piece of information or a genuinely creative idea in their analyses “(1)
A Syrian opposition rally in Paris (C) Bernard J. Henry/AWC
In December 2011, there was the start of a short-lived Observer Mission of the League of Arab States. In a February 9, 2012 message to the Secretary General of the League of Arab States, Ambassador Nabil el-Araby, the Association of World Citizens (AWC) proposed a renewal of the Arab League Observer Mission with the inclusion of a greater number of non-governmental organization observers and a broadened mandate to go beyond fact-finding and thus to play an active conflict resolution role at the local level in the hope to halt the downward spiral of violence and killing. In response, members from two Arab human rights nongovernmental organizations (NGO) were added for the first time. However, opposition to the conditions of the Arab League Observers from Saudi Arabia let to the end of the Observer Mission.
On many occasions since, the AWC has indicated to the United Nations (UN), the Government of Syria and opposition movements the potentially important role of NGOs, both Syrian and international, in facilitating armed conflict resolution measures.
In these years of war, the AWC, along with others, has highlighted six concerns:
1) The widespread violation of humanitarian law (international law in time of war) and thus the need for a UN-led conference for the re-affirmation of humanitarian law.
2) The widespread violations of human rights standards.
3) The deliberate destruction of monuments and sites on the UNESCO World Heritage list.
4) The use of chemical weapons in violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol signed by Syria at the time, as well as in violation of the more recent treaty banning chemical weapons.
5) The situation of the large number of persons displaced within the country as well as the large number of refugees and their conditions in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. In addition, there is the dramatic fate of those trying to reach Europe.
6) The specific conditions of the Kurds and the possibility of the creation of a trans-frontier Kurdistan without dividing the current States of Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Iran.
These issues have been raised with diplomats and others participating in negotiations in Geneva as well as with the UN-appointed mediators. In addition, there have been articles published and then distributed to NGOs and others of potential influence.
The Syrian situation has grown increasingly complex since 2011 with more death and destruction as well as more actors involved and with a larger number of refugees and displaced persons. Efforts have been made to create an atmosphere in which negotiations in good faith could be carried out. Good faith is, alas, in short supply. Efforts must continue. An anniversary is a reminder of the long road still ahead.
Notes:
(1) Yassin al-Haj Saleh in Robin Yassin-Kassal and Leila Al-Shami, Burning Country, Syrians in Revolution and War (London: Pluto Press, 2015, p. 210)
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
March
8 is the International Day of Women and thus a time to highlight the specific
role of women in local, national and world society. International Women’s Day
was first proposed by Clara Zetlin (1857-1933) at the Second International
Conference of Socialist Women in Copenhagen in 1911. Later, she served as a
socialist-communist member of the German Parliament during the Weimar Republic
which existed from 1920 to 1933 when Hitler came to power. Zetlin went into
exile in the Soviet Union shortly after Hitler came to power. She died there
several months later in 1933.
Zetkin had lived some years in Paris and was active in women’s movements there. The women were building on the 1889 International Congress for Feminine Works and Institutions held in Paris under the leadership of Ana de Walska. De Walska was part of the circle of young Russian and Polish intellectuals in Paris around Gerard Encausse (1865-1916), a spiritual writer who wrote under the pen name of Papus and edited a journal, L’Initiation (1). Papus stressed the need for world peace. In 1901 Papus spent time in Russia as a spiritual adviser to Tsar Nicholas II. Papus had warned the Tsar against the growing influence of Rasputin.
Clara Zetkin
This
turn-of-the-century spiritual milieu was influenced by Indian and Chinese
thought. Translations of fundamental Asian philosophical texts were
increasingly known in an educated public. ‘Feminine’ and ‘masculine’ were
related to the Chinese terms of Yin and Yang − not opposed but in a harmonic
balance. Men and women alike have within
themselves the Yin and Yang psychological characteristics. ‘Feminine’
characteristics or values include intuitive, nurturing, caring, sensitive and
relational traits. ‘Masculine’ traits
are rational, assertive and analytical.
Yin and Yang
As
individual persons, men and women alike can achieve a state of wholeness, of
balance between the Yin and Yang.
However, in practice, ‘masculine’ refers to men and ‘feminine’ to
women. Thus, some feminists identify the
male psyche as the prime cause of the subordination of women around the
world. Men are seen as having nearly a
genetic coding that leads them to ‘seize’ power, to institutionalize that power
through patriarchal societal structures and to buttress that power with masculine
values and culture.
Thus,
Clara Zetkin saw the need to call attention in a forceful way to the role that
women as women play in society and the many blocks which men place in their
way. She made her proposal in 1911 and the
idea of the Day was taken up within the Socialist movements.
The
harmonious balance of Yin and Yang, present in the early discussions around Ana
de Walska and Papus, largely dropped out of the Socialist version of
International Women’s Day. However, with
greater attention being given to Chinese philosophical thought, we may see a
revival of the theme.
The emerging world society has been slow to address the problem of injustice to women, because it has lacked a consensus on sex-based inequality as an urgent issue of political justice. The outrages suffered every day by millions of women − domestic violence, child sexual abuse, child marriage, inequality before the law, poverty and lack of dignity require concerted action. Leadership on these issues comes more often from nongovernmental organizations rather than legislative action. Solidarity and organization are crucial elements to create sustainable ways of living in which all categories of people are encouraged to contribute. March 8, 2019 is a reminder of the positive steps taken but also the distance yet to be covered.
Note
1.
See the biography by Marie-Sophie André and Christophe Beaufils, Papus (Paris: Berg International, 1995,
354pp.)
Prof. René Wadlow is President of
the Association of World Citizens.
When the drums of war start beating, can cooler heads prevail and negotiations in good faith start? Vijay Mehta has written a useful overview of efforts to create a Department of Peace within governments so that there would be an institutionalized official voice proposing other avenues than war. (1)
Such proposals are not new. In 1943, Alexander Wiley, a liberal Republican senator had proposed to President Franklin Roosevelt that he establish a cabinet-level post of Secretary of Peace as there was already a Secretary of War. The Secretary of War has now been renamed Secretary of Defense, but the function has not radically changed.
A Secretary of Peace in Wiley’s vision would be charged with preempting conflicts before they exploded into violence and proposing peaceful resolutions. In the USA after the end of the Second World War, in a “never again” atmosphere, other members of Congress suggested the creation of such a Department of Peace. However, such a vision was never transformed into a reality.
As the Cold War took up ever more energy and funds, a compromise was reached in 1984 at the time that Ronald Reagan was President. The United States (U. S.) Institute of Peace was created and has produced some useful publications and does some conflict resolution training for diplomats and mediators. However, the leadership of the Institute of Peace has not played a visible role in foreign policy formation. One must look elsewhere for cooler voices to cover the beat of the war drums.
The headquarters of the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, D. C.
There is currently a test in real time as the situation in Venezuela grows more complex. There are real possibilities of armed violence, ranging from armed violence within the country to the creation of armed militias operating from Colombia and Brazil as the Contras had in the Nicaragua case, to an old-fashioned intervention by U. S. troops. All these “cards are on the table”. There is no Secretary of Peace officially in the U. S. Government (nor in that of Venezuela either) The influence of national security advisors to the U. S. President has grown, and they have the advantage of frequent personal contact.
Latin America has often been considered as a U. S. “zone of influence”. Unlike current situations in the Middle East which are of direct concern to European States, Latin America has never been a priority of European countries with the exception of Soviet-Cuban relations. Spain has a cultural and economic interest in Latin America but does not try to influence U. S. policy toward individual States. The current U. S. administration seems largely indifferent to the views of the United Nations (U. N.). On the Venezuela crisis the U. N. Secretary-General has called for calm and restraint but has made no specific proposals.
In the U. S. there are a good number of “Think Tanks” devoted to policy making as well as university departments and programs with a geographic – area studies – orientation. As I am not a specialist on Latin America (most of my academic focus has been Africa and the Middle East), I do not know which have strong policy impact. I have seen relatively few public statements coming from academic Latin American specialists, though there is probably outreach to representatives in Congress.
Thus, we must watch the policy-making process closely. Obviously, my hope is that the cooler minds will win out and compromises made, such as holding new elections with international election monitors. This is a test in real time of Vijay Mehta’s aim How Not to Go to War.
Note: (1) Vijay Mehta. How Not to Go to War: Establishing Departments for Peace and Peace Centres Worldwide (Oxford: New Internationalist Publications, 2019)
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
On January 23, 2019, the Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN), Antonio Guterres, in a statement listed States which had carried out reprisals or intimidation including killings, torture, and arbitrary arrests against individuals cooperating with the UN on human rights issues. He said,
“The world owes it to these brave people standing up for human rights, who have responded to requests to provide information and to engage with the United Nations to ensure their rights to participate is respected. Punishing individuals for cooperating with the United Nations is a shameful practice that everyone must do more to stamp out.” He went on to add “Governments frequently charged human rights activists with terrorism or blamed them for cooperating with foreign entities or damaging the state’s reputation of security.”
The UN human rights bodies and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights have established a number of mechanisms for gathering information on the status of human rights in certain countries or about certain issues. In practice, most of this information is complaints on the violation of human rights. In some cases, the information comes from the local branch of an international nongovernmental organization and also from a national human rights organization. In other cases, it comes from a victim or the family of a victim. Information may also come from journalists, religious groups, or visitors to a country who are willing to carry a message out of the country.
Many human rights defenders are people working in isolated, remote areas far from the international networks of protection. These unsung defenders become a vulnerable target in areas where impunity prevails, and assailants operate with virtual no fear of having to account for their crimes. Nevertheless, international appeals with accuracy of information and speed of reaction can be helpful which the Association of World Citizens (AWC) knows from direct experience.
With the often cited “War on Terrorism”, there is a disturbing trend to use national security reasons and counterterrorism strategies by States as a justification for blocking access by communities and civil society groups to UN human rights staff. Women cooperating with the UN have reported threats of rape and being subject to on-line smear campaigns.
The information is collected at the UN High Commissioner’s Office in Geneva and is evaluated to see if the information fits into a pattern of continuing human rights violations or if it is an individual event. In some cases, the same information is also given to well-known human rights NGOs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The AWC receives a certain amount of information which is usually passed on orally to the UN Secretariat in Geneva without the names of the contacts. Like journalists, one must protest one’s sources. On the other hand, the AWC cannot prove the information. Thus, in its public statements, this association only raises broad country situations such as the national minorities and the Rohingya in Myanmar (Burma). However, in private letters to the UN Ambassadors in Geneva and New York, we raise specific cases, often of what is increasingly called “human rights defenders”.
I present the States listed by broad geographic region rather than all together in alphabetical order as they are in the UN statement as other States in each region may also have human rights violation issues, often inter-related to the State named. Thus, the list of States is only those which the UN is aware that there have been reprisals against individuals who have given information to the UN units. We will close with some observations on what NGOs can do to limit such reprisals.
Middle East & North Africa
Bahrain Egypt Israel Saudi Arabia Morocco
Africa
Cameroon Democratic Republic of Congo Djibouti Mali Rwanda South Sudan
Asia
China India Maldives Myanmar Philippines Thailand Turkey
Latin America
Colombia Cuba Guatemala Guyana Honduras Trinidad and Tobago Venezuela
Europe
Hungary Russian Federation
Central Asia
Kyrgyzstan Turkmenistan
The impact and increasingly higher profile of human rights informants has left them more and more exposed to a high risk of harassment, repression, arbitrary detention and extra-judicial executions. Governments are not the only actors. Depending on the country, there can be gangs, militias, paramilitary and other nongovernmental groups who also menace people thought to be giving information to the UN or to international human rights organizations.
The publication by the UN of its list is done with the hope that governments themselves will take positive action to protect. In some countries, internal security services or police-related “death squads” may act without the knowledge of the highest authorities of the State. In other States, there is little repression that does not come on orders of the higher authorities. There is a need for representatives of NGOs and also the media to be alert, especially for violations in States which are not otherwise in the news. Active networking remains crucial.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
The present era of globalization of the economy is not new, but as a term and also as an organizing concept for policy making, it dates from 1991 and the formal end of the Soviet zone of influence which had some of the structures of an alternative trading system.
Earlier, dating from the 1970s the term used was “interdependence”. The emphasis was on economic relations but there was also some emphasis on cultural and political factors. In a July 1975 speech, United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who had an academic background and kept himself informed of theoretical trends said “All of us – allies and rivals, new nations and old nations, the rich and the poor – constitute one world community. The interdependence on our planet is becoming the central fact of our diplomacy… The reality is that the world economy is a single global system of trade and monetary relations on which hinges the development of all our economies. An economic system thrives if all who take part in it thrive.”
Interdependence was to help build a world society based on equality, justice, and mutual benefit. As Secretary Kissinger said the need was “to transform the concept of world community from a slogan into an attitude.”
Interdependence was to be articulated into policies leading to disarmament, peaceful change, improved welfare especially for the poorest and respect for human rights. However, in practice the continuing USA-USSR tensions, questions of access to oil especially in the Middle East and the difficulties of establishing rules and controls for the world trade system kept “interdependence” as a slogan and not as a framework for policies and decisions of major governments.
The term “globalization” has progressively replaced that of “interdependence” The concept of globalization continues the interdependence focus on global economic linkages but adds an emphasis on the organization of social life on a global scale and the growth of a global consciousness. Global consciousness is the essential starting point of world citizenship. Globalization is a socio-economic process in which the constraints of geography on social and cultural patterns recede and in which people become increasingly away that these geographic constraints are receding.
The rapid pace of globalization requires that research and practice keep up with the speed of changes in order to reduce unnecessary risks and to provide legitimacy and confidence in the world system. However, within the world society – as within national societies – there are many different interests. At the world level, there are not yet the web of consensus-building techniques found in public and private institutions at the national level.
There were recently two intergovernmental conferences being held at the same time which indicated the possibilities and the difficulties of reaching agreement among most of the States of th World: COP 24 held in Katowice, Poland devoted to issues of climate change and the conference on the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, held in Marrakech, Morocco.
The COP 24 had the advantage of building on the 2015 Paris Climate Accord and on the serious scientific research carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Katowice conference was to develop a common system of rules, reporting and measurement for the Paris Climate Accord. This “rule book” was largely accomplished. A sub-theme was to show that the international spirit which had led to the Paris Agreement was still alive and well despite criticism and a lack of visible progress.
The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration is the first of its kind, although there are earlier agreements on the status of refugees. In many countries, there has been sharp debates on immigration policy – often with more heat than light. Some States have already indicated that they will not sign the Compact even though it has been repeatedly pointed out that the Compact is not a treaty and thus not legally binding. The Compact sets out aspirations and strengthens some of the processes already in practice. The representatives of some States which signed indicated that they will be “selective” in the processes which they will put into practice.
Blue: Will adopt the Compact, Red: Will not adopt the Compact, Yellow: Considering not adopting, Gray: Undetermined
There was an agreement to hold a review conference in 2022. There is a growing tendency in inter-governmental treaties to set a review conference every four or five years to analyze implementation and the changing political and economic situation.
The Association of World Citizens (AWC) has been stressing for some years the importance of migration issues. Migration is likely to increase as climate changes have their impact. Thus, the AWC calls upon Nongovernmental Organizations to focus cooperatively and strongly on migration and the standards of the Global Compact.
Prof. René Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.
What is an “uncontacted tribe”? Come on, you’ve heard of them. These are native communities living in their traditional forest or island habitat, following their millennia-old, nature-based lifestyle and refusing contact with the outside world. Since Jair Bolsonaro, the far-right candidate for the presidency of Brazil, won the election on October 28, the future of Brazilian uncontacted tribes lies in the balance as Bolsonaro pledged during his campaign to have all these tribes wiped out.
One would assume that an uncontacted tribe is logically a people living in one single place, not a group scattered throughout the world, thus being more appropriately called an “uncontacted diaspora”, although the expression wouldn’t make much sense. If that’s what you think, then, think again.
This world of ours is indeed home to a global uncontacted tribe. The tribe has a name – disabled people. And I happen to be one of them. You may be glad that you’re not.
The Real Wretched of the Earth
If you have the firm belief that you could never live with a single one of your rights being violated or not properly implemented, then, indeed, be glad you’re not of our own. Disabled people, currently one billion people making up 15 per cent of the world’s population,are the largest minority in the world and, indignantly enough, the category of human beings whose rights are the most blatantly ignored and violated.
Poverty hits us hard, as, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), eighty per cent of persons with disabilities live in developing countries and studies by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) show that disability rates are significantly higher among groups with lower educational attainment in OECD member states. Among the world’s poorest people, says the World Bank, 20 percent have some form of disability and their communities view them as the most disadvantaged.
Disability doesn’t even spare women and children. A 2004 survey in Orissa, India, found that virtually all the women and girls with disabilities were beaten at home, 25 per cent of women with intellectual disabilities had been raped and 6 per cent of women with disabilities had been forcibly sterilized. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reports that 30 per cent of street youths are in some way disabled. Mortality for disabled children may be as high as 80 per cent in countries where underage mortality has, overall, decreased below 20 per cent, says the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development, adding that, in some cases, it seems as if children are being “weeded out”. Due to malnutrition, diseases, child labor and other causes, disabled children in developing countries are projected to increase over the next thirty years.
When not faced with ignorance, as the OECD says an average 19 per cent of less educated people have disabilities, compared to 11 per cent among the better educated, we must cope with the consequences of armed conflict and violence. The WHO estimates that, for every child killed in warfare, three are injured and left with a permanent form of disability. In some countries, up to a quarter of disabilities result from injuries and violence.
While local uncontacted tribes strive to keep away from “civilization”, we, the global uncontacted tribe, try to fit in but get pushed back by everyone, everywhere. Being a global tribe, the issues we face can rightly be called global issues. But seldom are found global solutions, let alone sought to begin with.
A Global People with No Global Rights
It wasn’t until 2006 that a billion inhabitants of planet Earth saw their rights formally enshrined in a binding treaty – the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, signed on March 30, 2007. The Convention came into force on May 3, 2008 and, to date, 177 countries are States Parties. A specifically-dedicated United Nations (UN) agency, UN Enable, is tasked to ensure that the Convention is respected and enforced throughout the world. And even obtaining that didn’t come easy.
In 2004, the U. S. Administration, then led by President George W. Bush and at odds with much of the world over the Iraq war, opposed the Convention with all its might and argued that national laws within individual countries would always be better than a world treaty. Save that only 45 countries have anti-discrimination and other disability-specific laws, whose background varies heavily from country to country and makes it impossible to have a common global pattern of law emerge from domestic legislation.
In the U. S., disabled people were part of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, which landed them laws granting formal rights binding on federal, state, and local government and courts. By contrast, in France, disabled people started to gain specific rights after World War I, when so many veterans returned from the battlefield with injuries for life, needing either specific welfare pensions or assistance in finding a job. In the latter case, French disabled people had to wait until 1975 for a broader law, which was itself succeeded only in 2005 by a more thorough law, in both instances thanks to the determination of one man – Jacques Chirac, who was Prime Minister in 1975 and President in 2005, and whose daughter Laurence, who died in 2016, was gravely disabled. France is a State Party to the Convention, while the U. S. is only a signatory.
The Convention does not allow UN Enable to recognize and register persons as disabled people in the absence of a national framework, in the style of UNHCR which registers refugees in those countries without a national asylum agency. A shameful instance of national sovereignty without the limitations that would guarantee the greater good for everyone. Making us, disabled people, even more of a global uncontacted tribe.
We
Are World Citizens – Sometimes World Leaders, Too
Are we doomed to remain forever global outcasts, a global uncontacted tribe as no one wants to contact us, at least without being judgmental and paternalistic toward us? Can we ever fit into society? To borrow a quote from Mark Twain, some of us “did not know it was impossible, so they did it”. And their names may just astound you.
Stephen Hawking, the British theoretical physicist. John Nash, the American mathematician, whose life inspired the movie A Beautiful Mind. Vincent Van Gogh. Ludwig van Beethoven. Frida Kahlo. Tom Cruise. Robin Williams. Stevie Wonder. Ladyhawke, the New Zealand singer and musician who became world famous in 2008 with her worldwide hit Paris is Burning. To name but a few.
Others still made it to top government posts. Joaquin Balaguer, former President of the Dominican Republic. Wolfgang Schaüble, several times a Federal Minister and now Speaker of Germany’s Federal Assembly (Bundestag). Gordon Brown, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. In the United States, Robert Dole, a longtime Senator from Kansas and the Republican presidential candidate in 1996, as well as his recently-deceased fellow Senator and former Republican presidential nominee John McCain of Arizona – and, most importantly, two former Presidents, both Democrats, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, no less.
The latter won four presidential elections, got his country out of a major economic and social crisis, won World War II and created the United Nations – having done all that from a wheelchair. For an uncontacted tribe, we may not be deemed a completely useless portion of the world’s population.
Don’t Look at Our Name – Look at Our Selves
Even the name “disabled people”, coined by the non-disabled to refer to us, seems to have become more than this world can bear. Some are now using the name “differently abled”, at the very risk of stressing how different we are while we need to be recognized for our specificities but also for our similarities to the so-called “able” people. What’s in a name? Too much.
Disabled people need to be considered for what they are – people forced to live with a disability that requires special attention from society, while each of them retains his or her own self, skills and, unlike what our name suggests, abilities.
December 3 was proclaimed International Day of Disabled Persons in 1992, through UN General Assembly Resolution 47/3. Every year, the same question is asked of the people of the world: Why are you so afraid of the global uncontacted tribe? What makes you think they cannot be but a burden to society? Wouldn’t it be better for both you and them if you would only choose a more inclusive lifestyle that creates equal opportunities, regardless of (dis)ability?
And the world continues to wonder. It sees the global uncontacted tribe. It talks to us. But it uses a language we cannot understand, for its words cannot convey our own thoughts. And uncontacted we remain.
If you really want to contact us, just start by realizing that what you call “disability” originates in your own minds. We, the global uncontacted tribe, hold fortunes in knowledge and experience, different from yours. Please let us help you make this world a better place.
Bernard J. Henry is
the External Relations Officer of the Association of World Citizens.
