The Official Blog of the

Archive for the ‘United Nations’ Category

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.


Is the UN Trying to Legalize Prostitution Worldwide?

In Current Events, Human Rights, International Justice, United Nations, Women's Rights, World Law on October 15, 2013 at 7:13 PM

IS THE UN TRYING TO LEGALIZE PROSTITUTION WORLDWIDE?

By Bernard Henry

In February 2012 Claude Guéant, the then Minister of Interior of France, caused a stir in the country by stating that “Not all civilizations are equal”, adding that one of the yardsticks against which a society could be viewed as “civilized” was “the subservience of women”[i].

For months, Guéant had spoken out almost obsessively against Islam, even branding all of France’s Muslim population “a problem” once. That latest statement was thus just another attack on a community heavily targeted by Guéant’s party, the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), to attract voters from the anti-Muslim extreme right National Front. Eventually, President Nicolas Sarkozy and the UMP were defeated at the polls in May 2012 by Socialist Party candidate François Hollande. As for the National Front, it scored a historic 17% and was able to deprive Sarkozy of its much-needed support for the second round.

Guéant’s statement was nonsensical in many ways, not least because the subservience of women is anything but a matter of allegedly unequal civilizations. As the Charter of the United Nations has provided from the very start, and as was recalled by the Beijing Conference in 1995, women’s rights are by essence a global issue, never to be rescinded because of cultural or other differences between societies.

Then, just what is to be deducted from the proposal by two United Nations (UN) agencies to simply legalize, throughout the world, prostitution and everything that goes with it?

This is not a joke. In a September 20 appeal to the UN leadership[ii], the New York-based women’s rights organization Equality Now expressed concern about the recommendations contained in the Global Commission on HIV and the Law’s report HIV and the Law: Risks, Rights and Health (2012), published by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and the report Sex Work and the Law in Asia and the Pacific (2012), backed by the UNDP, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS).

In these two reports, Equality Now wrote, the UN agencies tell Member States that “in order to support efforts to reduce HIV/AIDS and to promote the human rights of people in prostitution, all aspects of the commercial sex industry should be decriminalized, including pimping, brothel-keeping and the purchase of sex”. The organization denounces these recommendations as being “in direct opposition to international human rights standards,” adding that these “also largely ignore the experiences and views of survivors of prostitution and sex trafficking.”

Direct opposition to human rights standards is right. When it comes to women’s rights, the international legal instrument of reference is the UN’s own Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). And CEDAW’s Article 6 provides, “States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.” Not quite what the two reports suggest, indeed.

Besides the letter of the law, evidence on the ground, too, does not seem to support the UN agencies’ claims. As Equality Now further recalls, “[I]n 2000 Nongovernmental Organizations and sex trafficking survivors worked to ensure that the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (the “UN Trafficking Protocol”) defined trafficking to reflect the wide variety of sex trafficking survivors’ experiences”.

The UN Trafficking Protocol’s definition, Equality Now stresses, was the result of years of discussion and negotiation by countries and reflects a carefully drawn political consensus that should not be challenged by UN agencies. Yet the two reports disturbingly recommend revising and narrowing the definition. Should this recommendation be adopted, many victims would lose all chances of being recognized as victims of sex trafficking and their traffickers would now enjoy legal impunity for their crimes.

Sex trafficking and prostitution – two scourges that would soon be gone if there were no buyers in the first place. So why is the United Nations calling for the removal of domestic laws that make them illegal?

Sex trafficking and prostitution – two scourges that would soon be gone if there were no buyers in the first place. So why is the United Nations calling for the removal of domestic laws against them?

Ironically, in a report issued in September, UNDP, UNFPA, UN Women and UN Volunteers actually established a direct link between rape perpetration and the purchase of commercial sex, noting that both stem from gender inequality. So why are UNDP and UNFPA now advocating the decriminalization of prostitution – and accordingly the inherent decriminalization of rape?

When it comes to protecting the rights of people in prostitution, including the right to health – especially to protection from HIV – safety and freedom from violence and exploitation, throwing in the towel and letting both pimps and customers walk away with their dirty business is obviously not the way.

On September 30 the AWC issued an appeal to the UN, in line with Equality Now’s own recommendations, urging the World organization to clarify its position on the decriminalization of prostitution in all its aspects and ensure that the future development of policies and programs affecting people in the commercial sex industry includes the views of survivors and groups working on the issue.

In the Preamble to the UN Charter, “[T]he peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women”. There can be no equality between human beings when a man can officially buy another man as a slave, all right. Now what kind of equality can there be between a man and a woman when the latter can officially be rented for sex? We would very much like an answer.

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

 

[i] Al Jazeera, « Sarkozy ally says all civilisations not equal », February 5, 2012.


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)


Syria: Chemical Weapons and Restraints in War

In Current Events, International Justice, Middle East & North Africa, United Nations, War Crimes, World Law on August 31, 2013 at 3:21 PM

SYRIA: CHEMICAL WEAPONS AND RESTRAINTS IN WAR

By René Wadlow

There was a recent political drawing in the International Herald Tribune which showed high piles of skulls with signs on them which said “Killed by Assad’s Machine Guns”, “Killed by Assad’s Tanks” and two men with the two letters “UN” on their coats saying “If they really were killed by chemical weapons we’ll have to stop Assad.”

The accusations of the recent use of chemical weapons (CWs) in the Syrian conflict has led to a United Nations (UN) investigation as well as discussions at the UN and in national capitals as to the appropriate response to what has been called “a clear violation of international norms.” Yet there has been little discussion of why chemical weapons are prohibited and not tanks, and machine guns which in practice have killed many more people in Syria. To be more accurate, the drawing should have also shown piles of skulls with signs saying “Killed by armed opposition machine guns, snipers etc”.

A short review of the prohibitions on the use of chemical weapons, the UN response, and the use of chemical weapons in conflicts in the Middle East may be useful as background to a discussion of appropriate responses.

I had been active in 1975 with some other Geneva-based representatives of Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) in highlighting the fiftieth anniversary of the 1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare which is the core treaty on the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. We were encouraging states to ratify the Protocol, in particular the French-speaking African states which were not covered by the original signature of the Protocol by France even though France was the Depository Power for the treaty. The Protocol is, in fact, an international treaty. It is called a protocol because it was to have been a protocol — an attachment — to a disarmament treaty never completed within the League of Nations. We were also proposing that there be some sort of investigation – dispute settlement mechanism integrated into the Protocol along the lines then being discussed in Geneva concerning what was to become the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (Enmod Convention) which came into force in 1978 and has an innovative mechanism for a Committee of Experts to investigate complaints.

However, in 1968, governments had begun discussing a more comprehensive ban on chemical weapons in what was then the main UN arms control body — the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Conference. In the UN, when negotiations are not fruitful, the practice is to add more states to the body and to change the name. Thus the Eighteen-Nation Conference became the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament (1969-1979), the Committee on Disarmament (1979-1984) and the Conference on Disarmament from 1984 until today. After nearly 30 years of negotiations a far-reaching Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention) came into force in 1997, and an Organization for the Prohibition on Chemical Weapons with a sizeable Secretariat was created in The Hague. Syria is not a party to the Convention, but it is to the 1925 Geneva Protocol.

Thus, in 1975, few governments were interested in strengthening the 1925 Geneva Protocol, hoping for a speedy conclusion of the broader CW treaty. However when in the late 1970s there were serious accusations of the use of chemical agents in the on-going conflict against the Hmong in Laos — the Yellow Rain accusations — I presented a paper distributed to the members of the Commission on Disarmament (the only ways NGOs could participate directly in the disarmament discussions) “The Strengthening of the 1925 Geneva Protocol Against Poison Gas as an Interim Step Toward a Broader Chemical Weapons Ban” (April 22, 1980). The text led to a number of private discussions with the diplomats but to no specific action.

My text did, however, build a “profile” for my concern with investigating chemical weapon use and thus for my early efforts for a UN investigation of chemical weapon use in the 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran War.

CWs had been used by the Egyptian forces in their support of the republican forces in the Yemen Civil War (1962-1967). Although Egypt had signed the 1925 Geneva Protocol in 1928, its forces used them widely in Yemen. Investigations were carried out by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) who said that it was “extremely disturbed and concerned by these methods of warfare which are absolutely forbidden by codified international and customary law.” However, the ICRC is extremely cautious in commenting publicly on abuses in conflict situations fearing that publicity would hinder its main task of care of the wounded and visits to war prisoners. Government responses to the report of Egyptian CW use were weak. The US response was muted, presumably because of its own use at the time of chemical agents in the form of herbicides and harassing agents in Vietnam. On the Geneva front, it was not until the early 1970s that NGO representatives became visibly active in UN disarmament negotiations. So there was little NGO activity over the conflict in Yemen — not a high priority area in any case.

However, the Egyptian experience was not lost on everyone. Soon after the 1967 end of fighting in Yemen, Syria requested Egyptian technical assistance in developing its own chemical weapons capabilities. Iraq was also interested in the Egyptian experience; it began its own CW program in the late 1960s turning to the US for help. In 1967, Saddam Hussein and some 15 Iraqi officials participated in a fact-finding trip to the USA to familiarize themselves with chemical warfare and defensive techniques including observation of CW tests at US proving grounds.

On March 16, 1988, the Iraqi regime, then led by Saddam Hussein, used chemical weapons in a genocidal attack on the town of Halabja, in Iraqi Kurdistan. The attack on Iraq’s own Kurdish population killed 5,000 civilians and injured at least 10,000 more. Generally dubbed “Bloody Friday”, the Halabja attack also remains in the memory of the Kurdish people of Iraq and beyond as the "Kurdish Hiroshima”. (Photo by Sayeed Janbozorgi)

On March 16, 1988, the Iraqi regime, then led by Saddam Hussein, used chemical weapons in a genocidal attack on the town of Halabja, in Iraqi Kurdistan. The attack on Iraq’s own Kurdish population killed 5,000 civilians and injured at least 10,000 more. Generally dubbed “Bloody Friday”, the Halabja attack also remains in the memory of the Kurdish people of Iraq and beyond as the “Kurdish Hiroshima”. (Photo by Sayeed Janbozorgi)

I had thought from the start that an Iraq-Iran war was not a good thing and that if frontier delimitation issues were the real reason for the war as Iraq claimed, then there were better ways of dealing with the conflicting claims. I had started seeing if mediation were possible. Saddam Hussein’s half-brother was the Iraqi Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, and I think that my proposals were sent on. The formal UN-led mediation efforts had to wait until late 1985 to be carried out in Geneva and leading to the UN-brokered ceasefire of August 1988.

The first official Iranian complaint on CW use to the UN was in November 1983. The complaint ran into the same structural difficulties I had set out in my text: the 1925 Geneva Protocol has no investigative measures and no dispute settlement provisions. Thus there was a long discussion among governments about what steps to take. Finally, there was a UN Security Council resolution authorizing an investigation. The UN investigations were largely based on examination of victims in medical facilities but which took place some days after the occurrence. The highly-regarded Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) carried out independently interviews with victims as part of its extensive work on chemical weapons arms control possibilities.

The UN investigations led to the conclusion that the Iraq military had used CWs in violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol, but no further action was taken. The military effectiveness of chemical weapons in the Iraq-Iran War is a matter of debate among military specialists. According to figures released by the Iranian authorities, CWs accounted for only three per cent of their one million war casualties. However, CW impact on military morale and creating fears in the civilian population is difficult to measure. In March 1988, when Iraq publicly threatened to use CWs against Iranian cities, many persons momentarily left Teheran. In the same month, the Iraq army used chemical weapons against unprotected civilians in the Iraqi-Kurdish city of Halabja.

There is also a Red Cross convention that was invoked at the time of the mass killing at Halabja and is relevant to the Syrian case as well. In the light of the experiences of the war in Vietnam which was not an “international war” in the sense that the original Red Cross conventions cover, there was a conference in Geneva so that protection could be provided in cases of “civil” or internal conflicts. The conference led to the Geneva Additional Protocols of 1977 which states in article 51.2 “The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence, the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited” Further article 51.6 stipulates that “Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.”

It is now an established fact that chemical weapons have been used this month in the Syrian conflict; but just who used them? It is the Assad regime, or did armed groups with the Free Syrian Army do it? Hopefully, the report of the UN investigation mission that was sent in to investigate will yield the much-awaited answer to this question. (C) UPI

It is now an established fact that chemical weapons have been used this month in the Syrian conflict; but just who used them? It is the Assad regime, or did armed groups with the Free Syrian Army do it? Hopefully, the report of the UN mission that was sent in to investigate will yield the much-awaited answer to this question. (C) UPI

There is as yet no agreed upon international sanctions concerning the violation of humanitarian (Red Cross) law. Humanitarian law can be cited in national court trials as was the use of CWs against the Kurds in some of the Iraq trials but not the use against the Iranians. Moreover, the post-Saddam trials resemble too much “victors’ justice” to be used as a basis of world law. The International Criminal Court can also use humanitarian law as a basis for judgments, but its justice grinds slowly.

The use of poison gas strikes a deep, partly subconscious, reaction not provoked in the same way as being shot by a machine gun. The classic Greeks and Romans had a prohibition against the use of poison in war, especially poisoning water wells because everyone needs to drink. Likewise poison gas is abhorred because everyone needs to breath to live.

The UN investigations and the appropriate responses are yet to be made. More shelling of military installations in Syria is unlikely to bring about the negotiations in good faith needed in the Syrian conflict. Thus there is a short-term need to stop beating the drums of war while at the same time stressing the condemnation of the use of chemical weapons. There is a need for longer-term efforts to start serious negotiations with as many factions of the opposition as possible and the Syrian government to create government structures more fully representative of the multi-cultural Syrian society.

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


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.


World Citizens Call for the Unconditional Respect of the Right to Life, Liberty and Security of Person in Egypt

In Conflict Resolution, Current Events, Democracy, Human Rights, Middle East & North Africa, United Nations, World Law on August 16, 2013 at 1:58 PM

-- AWC-UN Geneva Logo --

WORLD CITIZENS CALL FOR THE UNCONDITIONAL RESPECT OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON IN EGYPT

Paris & Geneva, August 16, 2013

 

The Association of World Citizens (AWC) is gravely concerned at the serious human rights violations which have been committed in recent weeks by both the security and armed forces and the Muslim Brotherhood movement in Egypt.

Thus, the AWC welcomes the August 15 Appeal of the United Nations Security Council urging both the Egyptian Government and the Muslim Brotherhood to exercise “maximum restraint” with a view to ending the violence which has spread across the country.  The military-police-security forces confronted the predictable resistance of pro-Morsi forces with a brutal show of force designed to instill fear and submission but gave rise instead to a collective display of resolve-until-death and a readiness for martyrdom.

However, the AWC stresses that more than “maximum restraint” is needed. The majority of Egyptians desire a more representative government based on respect for human rights which will provide the basis for a much-needed economic recovery.

The AWC underlines the need for strong civil society institutions and Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs). Both domestic and international NGOs working for freedom of expression, religious freedom and women’s rights have been under unwarranted pressure.

The AWC has protested the recurrent violent attacks carried out by Muslim Brotherhood supporters against the Coptic Christians of Egypt, a community that has been for two and a half years the target of outrageous sectarian violence, including the August 14-15 burning of some 14 Coptic churches in reprisal attacks to the police violence against pro-Morsi sit-in protesters.

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly provides that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person ». This right belongs to everyone, not just to people who think as we do. Democracy and the rule of law should never be a one-way flow.

The AWC therefore calls on the Egyptian Government, including the police and armed forces, to ensure at all times full respect for human rights in the maintenance of public order, and on the Muslim Brotherhood party to refrain from any actions that are not strictly related to the right to peaceful demonstration, and unequivocally condemn any such actions committed by its members.

The AWC further urges that immediate, special protection be given to the Coptic Christian community and any other national, religious or other minorities that may find themselves in harm’s way due to the current unrest in Egypt.

Finally, the AWC is concerned with the consequences of the proclamation of the one-month State of Emergency across the country.  Past States-of-Emergency periods have always opened the door to human rights abuses and to military authoritarianism. Therefore, the AWC calls for a speedy return to civilian rule, new democratic elections, and a new constitution which places human rights as a core value.

N’abandonnez pas la lutte pour les Droits de l’Homme !

In Being a World Citizen, Current Events, Democracy, Human Rights, International Justice, The Search for Peace, United Nations, World Law on May 3, 2013 at 11:06 PM

N’ABANDONNEZ PAS LA LUTTE POUR LES DROITS DE L’HOMME !

Par Bernard Henry

 

(D’après « Don’t Give Up the Fight for Human Rights! », du même auteur :

https://awcungeneva.com/2013/05/03/dont-give-up-fight-human-rights/)

 

Le début du mois de mai est un bon moment pour fêter les Droits de l’Homme. En dehors du 1er mai, Fête internationale du Travail, il y a aussi le 3 mai, Journée internationale de la Liberté de la Presse, instaurée par l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU en 1993 et célébrée chaque année sous l’égide de l’institution spécialisée de l’ONU en charge de la communication, l’UNESCO[1].

Alors faisons la fête. Mais le restant de l’année, les Droits de l’Homme ne nous donnent guère d’occasions de le faire. Depuis l’année 2000, en dépit même de développements historiques à l’ONU et dans d’autres organisations intergouvernementales, ainsi que dans un certain nombre d’Etats-nations pris isolément, les Droits de l’Homme au niveau international, indiscutablement le plus noble héritage politique du vingtième siècle, semblent avoir largement perdu leur place prioritaire dans la vie politique mondiale.

Rien d’étonnant. Après l’élection présidentielle de 2000 aux Etats-Unis et le coup ainsi porté au modèle occidental de démocratie protégeant les libertés, les attaques terroristes contre le World Trade Center et le Pentagone l’année suivante ont entièrement tourné l’attention du monde vers une menace terroriste capable de frapper quiconque, où que ce soit, à tout instant, semant la peur et entraînant un appel aux armes. Il s’en est suivi une « guerre contre le terrorisme » menée par les Etats-Unis, dont l’horreur est symbolisée par la zone de non-droit sous direction gouvernementale de Guantanamo Bay et les « restitutions secrètes » de personnes soupçonnées d’actes de terrorisme et convoyées par avion de pays en pays. Dans les premières années, brandir les Droits de l’Homme en protestation, c’était être vu tout simplement comme un partisan d’Al Qaïda.

Après les attaques terroristes du 11 septembre 2001 à New York et Washington, de nombreux Américains se sont dits prêts à accepter des restrictions des libertés civiles pour combattre le terrorisme. C’est ce qui a permis à l’Administration Bush de réagir à la menace terroriste par de nombreuses et graves atteintes aux Droits de l’Homme, plus particulièrement à l’établissement pénitentiaire américain de Guantanamo Bay à Cuba.

Après les attaques terroristes du 11 septembre 2001 à New York et Washington, de nombreux Américains se sont dits prêts à accepter des restrictions des libertés civiles pour combattre le terrorisme. C’est ce qui a permis à l’Administration Bush de réagir à la menace terroriste par de nombreuses et graves atteintes aux Droits de l’Homme, plus particulièrement à l’établissement pénitentiaire américain de Guantanamo Bay à Cuba. (C) Reuters

Puis ce furent les émeutes de la faim de 2008 – les premiers symptômes de la crise du système mondial de finance et d’économie de marché qui se poursuit aujourd’hui. Après que la spéculation financière sur les denrées alimentaires de base a produit des effets dévastateurs dans la plupart des pays en développement, la crise des subprimes aux Etats-Unis a mis à genoux même le pays le plus fortuné au monde, conduisant une corporation de premier plan comme Lehman Brothers à la faillite pure et simple et mettant au jour le système de fraude à long terme du courtier-vedette Bernard Madoff. Autant dire que des droits fondamentaux comme l’alimentation ou le logement, on pouvait les oublier. Dans de nombreux pays, riches comme pauvres, le sentiment général était que la mondialisation économique était coupable et que les frontières nationales étaient désormais les (seuls) remparts des peuples contre la violation de leurs droits économiques et sociaux, comme ce fut le cas au Venezuela de Hugo Chavez. Le populisme est également monté en Occident, restreignant les limites du questionnement politique au fait de savoir à quel point exactement les immigrés faisaient du tort à l’emploi et au pouvoir d’achat. Considérés à présent comme élitistes en Occident et comme « occidentaux » dans le reste du monde, les Droits de l’Homme furent forcés de plier sous le poids de l’écroulement de l’économie.

Le résultat en fut que, lorsque la première décennie du siècle nouveau toucha à sa fin, les Droits de l’Homme tels qu’ils avaient été codifiés à Paris et New York à l’issue de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale apparaissaient comme morts et enterrés. Dans son édition du 18 février 2010, Newsweek alla jusqu’à proclamer la « Mort des Droits de l’Homme »[2], expliquant en détail comment les Etats occidentaux en étaient venus à ne plus prêter aucune attention aux bilans désastreux en matière de Droits de l’Homme de leurs partenaires économiques, politiques et militaires en Asie, en Afrique et au Moyen-Orient. Alors que la crise économique s’éternise et que l’islamisme armé essaime aujourd’hui jusque dans une Afrique subsaharienne relativement épargnée, l’homme de la rue désabusé et des grands de ce monde qui le sont tout autant ont appris à s’en remettre au jeu cynique de la géopolitique et à ne plus guère aimer les Droits de l’Homme que comme une philosophie bienveillante qui serait politiquement irréalisable.

Serait-ce vrai ? Mais pourquoi alors quiconque, où que ce soit, devrait-il continuer à se battre pour les Droits de l’Homme ?

Le 11 décembre 2008, le courtier-vedette Bernard Madoff fut arrêté aux Etats-Unis pour avoir commis une présumée fraude d’un montant de 50 milliards de dollars. ( C ) The Telegraph – Derek Blair

Le 11 décembre 2008, le courtier-vedette Bernard Madoff fut arrêté aux Etats-Unis pour avoir commis une présumée fraude d’un montant de 50 milliards de dollars. ( C ) The Telegraph – Derek Blair

Pas si vite. Dire que les décennies actuelle et précédente n’ont rien apporté de bon aux Droits de l’Homme, en ce qu’elles auraient été au mieux infructueuses et au pire dangereuses, serait des plus naïfs – ou des plus malhonnêtes.

Tout d’abord, même si elle a fait aux Droits de l’Homme un mal indiscutable, la crise économique n’offre pas matière à s’inquiéter, du moins en ce qui concerne les pays occidentaux. Comme l’ont expliqué les politologues américains Christian Welzel et Ronald Inglehart dans leur livre de 2005 Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy (Modernisation, changement culturel et démocratie)[3], cité par Larry Diamond, professeur à l’Université de Stanford, dans The Spirit of Democracy (L’esprit de la démocratie)[4], les difficultés économiques rendent la population plus encline à affirmer des valeurs de survie, à savoir des valeurs conservatrices, sectaires et casanières, plutôt que des valeurs d’expression de soi qui permettent la liberté, l’autonomie et la tolérance.

Nous ne traversons donc pas un moment de rejet des Droits de l’Homme en eux-mêmes, mais en fait un moment d’angoisse et de doute alimentés par l’incertitude quant au présent et à l’avenir de l’emploi, de la sécurité sociale et de la fiscalité. Les politiques d’austérité, toutefois, jouent bel et bien un rôle en faisant naître chez les citoyens un sentiment que l’on en fait plus pour sauver leurs banques que pour venir en aide à leurs comptes bancaires en souffrance.

Alors que le mécontentement social monte dans les pays en faillite ou risquant de l’être, de plus en plus d’électeurs frustrés en arrivent à traduire leur adhésion aux valeurs de survie en votant pour la première fois de leur vie pour l’extrême droite, laquelle va du Front National qui, en France, s’escrime à se donner bon genre, au parti ouvertement néo-nazi Aube Dorée en Grèce. L’attitude parfois ambiguë des partis au pouvoir envers les migrants, particulièrement envers les Roms, vient fournir un encouragement malvenu à l’intolérance en faisant penser aux citoyens que leur haine de tout ce qui vient d’ailleurs est justifiée.

En Grèce, Nikólaos Michaloliákos dirige le parti Aube Dorée, dont l’emblème rappelle le svastika des Nazis et dont la rhétorique violente et haineuse fait resurgir des souvenirs des heures les plus noires de l’histoire européenne moderne.

Ensuite, bien que les années 2000 aient été en effet largement perturbées tout à la fois par le terrorisme et par la réaction agressive de l’Amérique à celui-ci, elles furent indéniablement des années de progrès authentiques et importants pour les Droits de l’Homme dans le monde, dans la parfaite continuité de l’année 1998 qui avait vu l’adoption tout à la fois du Statut de Rome créant la Cour pénale internationale (CPI) et, le 9 décembre, de la Déclaration sur les Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme, « née » Résolution 53/144 de l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU.

La CPI, justement, a vu le jour en 2002, le seuil de la ratification du Statut de Rome par soixante Etats ayant été atteint cette année-là.

Quatre ans plus tard, c’est encore un autre organe de l’ONU qui était créé, cette fois à partir d’un qui existait déjà – le Conseil des Droits de l’Homme, conçu pour remplacer la Commission des Droits de l’Homme qui se trouvait depuis déjà longtemps sous le feu des critiques en raison de ses mécanismes archaïques et inefficaces de surveillance et de sanctions, ainsi que pour avoir permis à des régimes autoritaires et répressifs de prendre part à ses activités.

En septembre 2007, l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU a adopté la Déclaration sur les Droits des Peuples indigènes, premier instrument international de Droits de l’Homme de tous les temps à définir de manière universelle les droits spécifiques des populations indigènes dans chaque pays, qu’ils soient civils, politiques, économiques, sociaux ou culturels. Sans surprise, quatre gouvernements connus pour être encore aux prises avec des revendications autochtones chez eux ont voté contre – les Etats-Unis, le Canada, la Nouvelle-Zélande et l’Australie.

L’année suivante vit l’entrée en vigueur de la Convention sur les Droits des Personnes handicapées, enfin rédigée en 2006 après des années d’opposition farouche de la part de l’Administration Bush qui soutenait que les Etats-Unis et tous les autres pays du monde devraient avoir des lois nationales propres quant aux droits des handicapés plutôt qu’un traité mondial. En fait, la réticence américaine s’avéra être la meilleure justification possible pour la création d’un traité de l’ONU sur les droits liés au handicap, en ce qu’elle rappelait à une communauté internationale oublieuse que le handicap était, depuis les années 1970, une question pleine et entière de Droits de l’Homme au sein de l’Organisation mondiale[5]. Même si les Etats-Unis ont fini par rejoindre la Convention en qualité de signataires, l’Administration Obama ne l’a toujours pas ratifiée.

Avec la création de la Convention vint celle d’une agence de l’ONU chargée d’encourager et de surveiller le respect par les Etats membres des dispositions de celle-ci, UN Enable. Une autre nouvelle agence de l’ONU de premier plan créée pendant les années 2000 fut ONU Femmes, officiellement dénommée l’Entité des Nations Unies pour l’Egalité de Genre et l’Autonomisation des Femmes. Sa Directrice exécutive fondatrice fut l’emblématique ancienne Présidente socialiste du Chili Michelle Bachelet.

Un monde qui serait devenu totalement obsédé par l’idée d’arrêter le terrorisme n’aurait jamais pu aller si loin pour faire progresser les Droits de l’Homme et les enraciner sans conteste, au bout du compte, dans le vingt-et-unième siècle.

Le siège de la Cour pénale internationale à La Haye (Pays-Bas).

Le siège de la Cour pénale internationale à La Haye (Pays-Bas).

CQFD. Les Droits de l’Homme ont beau être moins populaires de nos jours, l’on en a pourtant toujours autant besoin qu’avant, besoin mais aussi envie, même si l’on sera moins prompt que dans le passé à l’avouer.

Le problème est que la « guerre contre le terrorisme » et les valeurs de survie inspirées par la crise qui se sont répandues à travers le monde depuis le début du siècle font qu’il est beaucoup plus difficile pour les Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme, qu’ils soient isolés ou membres d’organisations non-gouvernementales (ONG), d’exercer leurs fonctions et activités habituelles sans craindre d’être réprimés ou à tout le moins intimidés. Certains gouvernements ont même commencé à les fustiger comme « ennemis de l’Etat », ainsi de la Russie qui impose aujourd’hui un label « agent de l’étranger » aux ONG recevant un soutien financier depuis l’extérieur du pays.

Le 15 mars, en réaction à de tels développements catastrophiques, quinze ans après que l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU a adopté la Déclaration sur les Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme, le Conseil des Droits de l’Homme a adopté une résolution au titre éloquent – « Protéger les Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme ».

Dans son Préambule, la résolution, proposée à l’origine par la Norvège, rappelle que « toutes les dispositions de la [déclaration de 1998] restent fondées et applicables », rappelant aussi les résolutions précédentes du Conseil et de l’Assemblée générale ainsi que le Programme d’Action de la Conférence de Vienne de 1993 sur les Droits de l’Homme, qui fut le premier événement international d’envergure consacré aux Droits de l’Homme après la fin de la guerre froide. La résolution réaffirme que « les États sont tenus de protéger tous les droits de l’homme et libertés fondamentales de tous », reconnaît que « les défenseurs des droits de l’homme apportent une contribution importante, aux niveaux local, national, régional et international, à la promotion et à la protection des droits de l’homme », et souligne en conséquence que « le respect et le soutien manifestés pour les activités des défenseurs des droits de l’homme, y compris les femmes qui défendent ces droits, sont déterminants pour la jouissance globale des droits de l’homme ».

La résolution appelle tous les Etats membres de l’ONU à éviter ou cesser de recourir au droit interne et aux dispositions administratives, en ce comprises « les lois et autres mesures relatives à la sécurité nationale et à la lutte antiterroriste, telles que les lois régissant les organisations de la société civile », pour entraver le travail des Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme, a fortiori pour les stigmatiser ainsi que leur dévouement sans relâche. Elle met également l’accent sur le rôle important que jouent « les nouvelles formes de communication, y compris la diffusion d’informations en ligne et hors ligne, peuvent constituer pour les défenseurs des droits de l’homme », car elles sont des « outils importants leur permettant de promouvoir et favoriser la protection des droits de l’homme ».

Le Conseil des Droits de l’Homme en session au Palais des Nations à Genève (Suisse).

Le Conseil des Droits de l’Homme en session au Palais des Nations à Genève (Suisse).

Prenant la mesure de la « discrimination et la violence systémiques et structurelles subies par les femmes qui défendent les droits de l’homme », la résolution « engage les États à prendre en compte les considérations liées au genre » dans leurs entreprises de sécurisation et de garantie de la liberté d’action des Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme au sein de leurs frontières.

Dans l’une des déclarations les plus fortes de toute la résolution, le Conseil, s’appuyant directement sur des instruments de Droits de l’Homme de l’ONU aussi primordiaux que la Déclaration universelle des Droits de l’Homme, le Pacte international relatif aux Droits civils et politiques et le Pacte international relatif aux Droits économiques, sociaux et culturels, appelle tous les pays à « instaurer un climat sûr et porteur qui permette aux défenseurs des droits de l’homme d’agir sans entrave et en toute sécurité, dans l’ensemble du pays et dans tous les secteurs de la société, et notamment à apporter leur appui aux défenseurs des droits de l’homme au niveau local ».

Adoptée avec le soutien de nombreux Etats non-membres du Conseil, tels que la France, le Costa Rica, le Portugal, la Suède et l’Uruguay, mais aussi, de manière plus surprenante lorsqu’il s’agit de Droits de l’Homme, de la Côte d’Ivoire, de la Géorgie et de la Turquie, la résolution survient tel un vibrant rappel à l’ordre, réaffirmant la pertinence et l’importance du travail des Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme dans le monde d’aujourd’hui et confirmant que celui-ci n’est ni un luxe suranné, ni une croisade d’arrière-garde coupée de la réalité, mais une nécessité claire et immédiate.

Dans l’un de ses plus grands succès, parfois utilisé comme un « hymne de la maison » par Amnesty International, Bob Marley chantait :

 “Get up, stand up,

Stand up for your right,

Get up, stand up,

Don’t give up the fight”,

« Allez, debout,

Luttez pour vos droits,

Allez, debout,

N’abandonnez pas. »

Marley a disparu depuis trente-deux ans, mais ses mots n’ont jamais cessé de résonner comme un appel au courage et à l’action pour les Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme en tous lieux.

Plus que jamais, nous, Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme, devons faire briller la flamme, cette même flamme qui symbolise les Droits de l’Homme au sein de l’ONU, et poursuivre notre combat, sans nous laisser dissuader, sans nous laisser décourager, sans nous laisser impressionner. A présent, la dernière ligne de défense de l’humanité contre la peur et le désespoir, c’est nous.

A l’ONU, les Droits de l’Homme sont représentés par un flambeau, le flambeau pour une vie de plein épanouissement. Le flambeau représente également ceux qui le portent à travers le monde – les Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme.


A l’ONU, les Droits de l’Homme sont représentés par un flambeau, le flambeau pour une vie de plein épanouissement. Le flambeau représente également ceux qui le portent à travers le monde – les Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme.

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

 

 

Don’t Give Up the Fight for Human Rights!

In Being a World Citizen, Current Events, Democracy, Human Rights, International Justice, The Search for Peace, United Nations, Women's Rights, World Law on May 3, 2013 at 1:34 PM

DON’T GIVE UP THE FIGHT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS!

By Bernard Henry

Early May is a good time to celebrate human rights. Besides May 1, International Labor Day, there is also May 3, World Press Freedom Day, first established by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 1993 and celebrated yearly under the auspices of the UN’s specialized institution in charge of communication, UNESCO[1].

So let’s celebrate. But during the rest of the year, human rights actually give cause to little celebration. Since the year 2000, in spite of milestone developments at the UN and other intergovernmental organizations as well as in a number of individual nation-states, international human rights, arguably the noblest part of the political inheritance of the twentieth century, seem to have lost much of their prominence in global political life.

No wonder. After the 2000 presidential election in the United States dealt a severe blow to the until then sacrosanct, universally-revered Western pattern of liberal democracy, the terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon of the following year definitely shifted the world’s attention to the reality of a terrorist threat that could strike anyone, anywhere, anytime, creating calamity and leading to a call to arms. A “war on terror” led by the United States ensued, infamously symbolized by the government-operated lawless zone of Guantanamo Bay and the “secret renditions” of terror suspects by plane from one country to another. In the early years, holding out human rights in protest was viewed as merely being an Al Qaeda supporter.

After the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington, many Americans said they were willing to accept restrictions on civil liberties to fight terrorism. This allowed the Bush Administration to respond to the terrorist threat with numerous, serious human rights abuses, most notably at the U. S. detention facility of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

After the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington, many Americans said they were willing to accept restrictions on civil liberties to fight terrorism. This allowed the Bush Administration to respond to the terrorist threat with numerous, serious human rights abuses, most notably at the U. S. detention facility of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (C) Reuters

Then came the hunger riots of 2008—the first symptoms of the crisis of the global trade and free-market system we are still in today. After financial speculation on basic food items had devastating effects in most developing countries, the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States brought even the world’s wealthiest country to its knees, leading a major corporation like Lehman Brothers to plain, simple bankruptcy and exposing the long-running fraud schemes of star trader Bernard Madoff. So much for basic rights such as food and housing. In many countries rich and poor, it was felt that economic globalization was at fault and national borders were now the (only) safeguards of peoples against abuse of their economic and social rights, as was seen in Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. Populism also rose in the West, limiting the scope of political questioning to how much damage immigrants were causing to employment and purchasing power. Now perceived as elitist in the West and “Western” in the rest of the world, human rights were forced to yield under the weight of economic collapse.

As a result, by the end of the first decade of the new century, human rights as codified in Paris and New York in the wake of World War II appeared to be dead in space. In its edition of February 18, 2010, Newsweek went so far as to declare the “Death of Human Rights”[2], detailing how Western states were now disregarding the poor human rights records of their economic, political and military partners in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. As the economic crisis lingers on and armed Islamism now spawns also in the relatively spared Sub-Saharan Africa, jaded everyday citizens and world leaders have learned to leave it to a cynical game of geopolitics and like human rights as little more than a benevolent philosophy which would be politically unrealizable.

Could this be true? If so, why should anyone, anywhere in the world, continue to fight for human rights?

On December 11, 2008, star trader Bernard Madoff was arrested for an alleged $50 billion fraud. (C) The Telegraph - Derek Blair

On December 11, 2008, star trader Bernard Madoff was arrested in the United States for an alleged $50 billion fraud.
(C) The Telegraph – Derek Blair

Not so fast. Dismissing the previous and current decades as having been at best fruitless, at worst damaging in terms of human rights development would be quite foolish—or quite dishonest.

First, harmful as it may have been to human rights, the economic crisis is nothing to worry about, at least as far as Western countries are concerned. As the American political scientists Christian Welzel and Ronald Inglehart explained in their 2005 book Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy[3], quoted by Stanford professor Larry Diamond in The Spirit of Democracy[4], economic hardship makes it more natural for people to affirm survival values, i. e. conservative, sectarian, inward-looking  values, rather than self-expression values allowing for freedom, autonomy and tolerance.

This is thus hardly a time of rejection of human rights per se, actually a time of anguish and doubt fueled by uncertainty about the present and future of employment, health care and taxation. Austerity policies, however, do play a role in alienating constituents who feel more is being done to save their banks than to support their ailing bank accounts.

As social discontent grows in those bankrupt or economically-fledgling countries, an increasing number of disgruntled voters come to translate their adhesion to survival values into a first-time vote for the extreme right, ranging from the would-be nice-looking National Front in France to Greece’s openly neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party. The sometimes ambiguous attitude of ruling parties toward migrants, especially the Roma, in some European countries further provides an unwelcome encouragement of intolerance, making people feel justified in their hatred of outsiders.

In Greece, Nikólaos Michaloliákos leads the Golden Dawn party, whose emblem resembles the Nazi swastika and whose violent, hateful rhetoric brings back memories of the darkest hours of modern European history.

In Greece, Nikólaos Michaloliákos leads the Golden Dawn party, whose emblem resembles the Nazi swastika and whose violent, hateful rhetoric brings back memories of the darkest hours of modern European history.

Second, although the 2000s were largely marred by both terrorism and America’s pushy response to it, these were years of genuine, significant progress for human rights in the world, very much in continuity with the year 1998 which saw the adoption of both the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and, on December 9, the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders née Resolution 53/144 of the UN General Assembly.

Precisely, the ICC came to existence in 2002 after the threshold of ratification of the Rome Statute by 60 UN Member States was reached that year.

Four years later, another new UN body was created out of an existing one—the Human Rights Council, designed to replace the Human Rights Commission which had been for some time under heavy fire for its outdated, unassertive monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms and for allowing authoritarian, repressive regimes to participate in its activities.

In September 2007 the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the first ever international human rights instrument to universally define the specific rights of indigenous groups in every country, whether civil, political, economic, social or cultural. Unsurprisingly, four governments notoriously still scrambling with indigenous rights claims at home voted against—the USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

The following year saw the entry into force of the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, finally drafted in 2006 after years of fierce opposition from the Bush Administration which claimed the USA and all other countries should have national laws of their own about disability rights instead of a world treaty. Actually, the American reluctance turned out to be the best possible justification for the creation of a UN treaty on disability rights, as it reminded an oblivious international community that since the 1970s, disability has been a full-fledged human rights issue within the World organization[5]. Although the USA eventually joined the Convention as a signatory, the Obama Administration still hasn’t ratified it.

Along with the creation of the Convention came that of a UN agency tasked to encourage and monitor compliance by Member States with its provisions, UN Enable. Another paramount new UN agency created in the 2000s was UN Women, officially named the UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. Its founding Executive Director was the emblematic former Socialist Chilean President Michelle Bachelet.

A world gone completely obsessed with stopping terrorism could never have gone that far in making human rights progress and definitely take root after all in the twenty-first century.

The headquarters of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.

The headquarters of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.

Q.E.D.  Human rights may be less popular nowadays but they are still just as needed as ever, needed and wanted too, although the latter will not be said publicly as easily as before.

The problem is that the “war on terror” and crisis-inspired survival values that have spread throughout the world since the beginning of the century have made it a lot more difficult for Human Rights Defenders, whether on their own or as members of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), to carry out their usual work and activities without fear of repression or at the very least intimidation. Some governments have even begun to lash out at them as “enemies of the state”, such as Russia which is now imposing a “foreign agent” label on NGOs receiving financial support from outside the country.

On March 15, in response to such alarming developments, fifteen years after the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration of Human Rights Defenders, the Human Rights Council adopted a resolution whose title says it all – “Protecting Human Rights Defenders”.

In its Preamble, the resolution, originally proposed by Norway, recalls “the continued validity and application of all the provisions” of the 1998 declaration, as well as other Council and General Assembly resolutions and the Program of Action of the Vienna Conference on Human Rights of 1993 which was the first post-Cold War main event dedicated to human rights on the international stage. It reaffirms that “States are under the obligation to protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms of all persons” and acknowledges that “human rights defenders play an important role at the local, national, regional and international levels in the promotion and protection of human rights”, accordingly “[s]tressing that respect and support for the activities of human rights defenders, including women human rights defenders, is essential to the overall enjoyment of human rights.”

The resolutions calls on UN Member States to avoid or stop using domestic law and administrative provisions, including “national security and counter-terrorism legislation and other measures, such as laws regulating civil society organizations”, to hinder the work of Human Rights Defenders, let alone to stigmatize them and their tireless campaigning. It also highlights the important role played by “new forms of communication, including the dissemination of information online and offline” as “tools for human rights defenders to promote and strive for the protection of human rights”.

The Human Rights Council in session at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland.

The Human Rights Council in session at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland.

Taking stock of the “systemic and structural discrimination and violence faced by women human rights defenders”, the resolution “calls upon States to integrate a gender perspective” in their work to ensure the freedom and safety of Human Rights Defenders within their borders.

In one of the most powerful statements in the entire resolution, the Council, referring directly to such major UN human rights instruments as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, urges all countries to “create a safe and enabling environment in which human rights defenders can operate free from hindrance and insecurity, in the whole country and in all sectors of society, including by extending support to local human rights defenders”.

Adopted with the support of many non-Member States of the Council, such as France, Costa Rica, Portugal, Sweden and Uruguay but also, more surprisingly when it comes to human rights, Ivory Coast, Georgia and Turkey, the resolution came as a powerful reminder that the work of Human Rights Defenders is still relevant and important to today’s world and that it is neither an old-fashioned luxury nor a rear-guard crusade out of touch with reality but a clear and present necessity.

In one of his greatest hits, sometimes used as a “house anthem” by Amnesty International, the late Bob Marley sang,

“Get up, stand up,

Stand up for your right,

Get up, stand up,

Don’t give up the fight.”

Marley has been gone for thirty-two years but his words never ceased to resonate as a call to courage and action for Human Rights Defenders everywhere.

More than ever, we Human Rights Defenders must keep the flame alive, that very flame which symbolizes human rights at the UN, and carry on with our fight, undeterred, unabated, uncompromising. We are now humanity’s last line of defense against fear and despair.

At the United Nations, human rights are represented by a flame, the flame for a life of full self-fulfillment. The flame also symbolizes those who carry it throughout the world - Human Rights Defenders.

At the United Nations, human rights are represented by a flame, the flame for a life of full self-fulfillment. The flame also symbolizes those who carry it throughout the world – Human Rights Defenders.

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

Citizens of the World Call for a UN-led Korean Peace Settlement Conference

In Asia, Conflict Resolution, The Search for Peace, United Nations on March 13, 2013 at 8:35 PM

CITIZENS OF THE WORLD CALL FOR A UN-LED KOREAN PEACE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

By René Wadlow

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula have recently increased, highlighted by the nuclear weapon test of North Korea and the subsequent reactions. In a message to the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Prof. René Wadlow, President of the Association of World Citizens (AWC), stressed that a crisis also can be an opportunity for strong initiatives and action and that the UN with historic responsibilities for Korea should take the lead.

The 1950-1953 Korean War was undertaken by UN Security Council Resolutions 82, 83, and 84. Subsequently, 21 UN Member States (16 combatants and 5 humanitarian) joined to support the UN Command.

The July 27, 1953 Armistice was signed by the UN Command Delegation and by Delegations of the Korean People’s Army and the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army.

The 1950-1953 Korean War set the stage for later Cold War tensions in Asia, tensions which have prevented an Asia-wide organization of security and cooperation as was possible in Europe with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

"The Americans drew the 38th parallel across the peninsula to prevent the Soviet army from invading towards South, and the barrier continues until today."(C) Mount Holyoke College

“The Americans drew the 38th parallel across the peninsula to prevent the Soviet army from invading towards South, and the barrier continues until today.”
(C) Mount Holyoke College

Today, with the entry of the two Korean States to the UN in 1991, all the States involved in the Korean War are members of the UN.

Partial measures of cooperation between the two Korean States, the 6-Party talks on nuclear issues and a number of Track II diplomatic efforts have shown the possibilities but also the limits of partial measures.

With conditions of insecurity growing and also threatening Korea’s neighbors, the Korean situation is a “matter which may threaten international peace and security.” Therefore, the Citizens of the World call for a UN-led Korean Peace Settlement Conference to be organized during 2013 — the 60th anniversary of the 1953 Armistice.

The UN which once went to war over Korea is now headed by a national of South Korea, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Hopefully, his own experience of the suffering of the Korean people stuck in a never-ending Cold War will help to prevent the longtime standoff from turning into all-out war.

The UN which once went to war over Korea is now headed by a South Korean, Ban Ki-moon, who has been the World organization’s Secretary-General since 2007. Could this be a positive sign for the prompt conclusion of a UN-brokered peace settlement?

Such a UN-sponsored Korean Peace Settlement Conference can build upon past partial measures and especially meet the new challenges of security and cooperation in Asia. The Association of World Citizens also stresses that such a Peace Settlement Conference is of concern not only of Governments but is one in which the voices of civil society are legitimate and should be heard.

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