The Official Blog of the

Archive for the ‘World Law’ Category

Les Citoyens du Monde condamnent le terrorisme et l’intolérance basés sur la religion

In Cultural Bridges, Current Events, Human Rights, International Justice, World Law on May 30, 2013 at 2:26 PM

awc-un-geneva-logo

 

ATTAQUES TERRORISTES A LONDRES ET PARIS :

LES CITOYENS DU MONDE CONDAMNENT LE TERRORISME

ET L’INTOLERANCE BASES SUR LA RELIGION

L’Association of World Citizens (AWC) est totalement consternée par les récentes attaques terroristes commises contre des militaires à Londres et Paris par des jeunes gens qui étaient chrétiens au départ et se sont convertis à l’Islam.

Même si elle n’est pas une organisation religieuse, l’AWC estime que la religion est précieuse en ce qu’elle remplit, selon sa définition étymologique, un rôle important de création de liens entre les êtres humains. Invoquer la religion pour justifier des actes terroristes délibérés n’est donc jamais excusable ni a fortiori acceptable.

En conséquence, les convertis d’une religion à une autre qui s’avèrent commettre des actes terroristes au nom de leur nouvelle religion ne peuvent en aucun cas être considérés comme représentatifs de quelque foi religieuse que ce soit.

L’AWC appelle les citoyens tant du Royaume-Uni que de la France à avoir pleinement conscience de ces faits cruciaux et à ne pas céder, en conséquence, à quelque parallèle hâtif et infondé que ce soit entre de tels individus et l’entière population musulmane de l’un ou l’autre des deux pays concernés.

World Citizens Condemn Terrorism and Intolerance Based on Religion

In Cultural Bridges, Current Events, Human Rights, International Justice, World Law on May 30, 2013 at 12:56 PM
awc-un-geneva-logo
TERROR ATTACKS IN LONDON AND PARIS:
WORLD CITIZENS CONDEMN TERRORISM AND INTOLERANCE
BASED ON RELIGION
The Association of World Citizens (AWC) is completely dismayed at the recent terror attacks against soldiers committed in London and Paris by young people who are Christians by birth and converts to Islam.
Although not a religious organization, the AWC values religion as, in its etymological definition, a valuable instrument of bonding between human beings. Citing religion for deliberate terrorist acts is thus never excusable, let alone acceptable.
Consequently, people who convert from their original religion to another and wind up committing terrorist acts on behalf of their chosen religion shall never be deemed representative of any religious faith whatsoever.
The AWC calls on all citizens of Britain and France to be fully aware of these crucial facts and thus refrain from any hasty, unfounded parallel between such people and the Muslim community in either country as a whole.
— 30 —

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.

The Association of World Citizens Promotes Knowledge and Skills for World Citizenship

In Being a World Citizen, Human Rights, Solidarity, The Search for Peace, United Nations, World Law on February 10, 2013 at 4:16 PM

THE ASSOCIATION OF WORLD CITIZENS PROMOTES KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS FOR WORLD CITIZENSHIP

By René Wadlow

 

The Association of World Citizens (AWC) stresses that our oneness with humanity and our acceptance of the whole planet as our home involves a process of change both in the attitudes of individuals and in the policies of States. Humanity is clearly moving toward participation in the emerging World Society. An awareness of the emerging World Society and preparation for full and active participation in the emerging World Society is a necessary element of education at all levels, from primary schools, through university and adult education.

 

The AWC stresses that a World Citizen is one:

Aware of the wider world and who:

–  has a sense of his or her role as a world citizen;

–   respects and values diversity;

–   has an understanding of how the world works economically, politically, socially, culturally, technologically and environmentally;

–   is outraged by social injustice;

–   is willing to act to make the world a more equitable and sustainable place;

–   participates in and contributes to the community at a range of levels from the local to the global.

 

The AWC believes that World Citizenship is based on rights, responsibility and action.

 

The rights and freedoms are set out by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related human rights conventions such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. These United Nations (UN)-sponsored human rights treaties are the basis of world law which deals directly with individuals and not just with States.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, is truly the building block of World Citizenship.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, is truly the most important building block of World Citizenship.

In most cases, there are procedures that exist for the redress of violations of these rights at the national, regional, and UN levels. These rights should enable all persons to participate effectively in national, regional and the world society.

 

The idea of responsibility has been often discussed within the UN, but it has been impossible to set out agreed-upon obligations. Rather, a sense of responsibility toward the Planet and toward others is left to the individual’s conscience and moral sense. Nevertheless, a sense of responsibility, an ethical concern for social justice, and the dignity of humanity is central to the values of a world citizen.

 

Action is at the heart of the attitude of a vibrant world citizen. Action must be based on three pillars: knowledge, analysis and skills.

Knowledge: Background knowledge, a sense of modern history, of world trends, and issues of ecologically-sound development is fundamental. As one can never know everything about issues that require action, one needs to know where to find information and to evaluate its quality for the actions one wants to undertake.

Analysis: It is important to be able to analyse current trends and events, to place events in their context, to understand the power relations expressed in an event. One needs to try to understand if an event is a “one-time only” occurrence or if it is part of a series, an on-going process, if it is a local event or if it is likely to happen in other parts of the world as well.

Analysis is closely related to motivation. If from one’s analysis, one sees a possibility for creative action alone or with others, one will often act. If from analysis, it seems that little can be done as an individual, then one can urge a government to act. The degree of personal involvement will usually depend on the results of the analysis of a situation.

Skills: Political skills are needed to make an effective world citizen. A wide range of skills is useful such as negotiation, lobbying, networking, campaigning, letter writing, communications technology and preparing for demonstrations. These are all essential skills to join with others for a strong world citizen voice in world politics. Some of these skills can be taught by those having more experience, for experience is the best teacher. It is by networking to new individuals and groups that one learns the potentials and limits of networking.

 

In our period of rapid social and political change, the past cannot provide an accurate guide to the future. Anticipation and adaptability, foresight and flexibility, innovation and intuition, become increasingly essential tools for creative political action.

 

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

L’AWC DEMANDE VÉRITÉ ET JUSTICE POUR CHOKRI BELAÏD

In Conflict Resolution, Current Events, Democracy, Human Rights, Middle East & North Africa, The Search for Peace, World Law on February 6, 2013 at 3:39 PM

awc-un-geneva-logo

COMMUNIQUE

 

Genève, Mercredi 6 Février 2013

 

L’AWC DEMANDE VERITE ET JUSTICE APRES L’ASSASSINAT

DU DIRIGEANT POLITIQUE CHOKRI BELAÏD EN TUNISIE

L’Association of World Citizens (AWC), organisation non-gouvernementale internationale œuvrant pour le respect de l’Etat de droit et le dialogue politique dans les Etats en crise ou en conflit armé, s’indigne de l’assassinat de Maître Chokri Belaïd, avocat tunisien, Secrétaire général du Mouvement des Patriotes démocrates et ancien membre de la Haute instance pour la Réalisation des Objectifs de la Révolution, de la Réforme politique et de la Transition démocratique en Tunisie.

Qui que l’on prenne pour cible, l’assassinat n’est jamais admissible dans une démocratie. Négation ultime de l’état de droit en politique, il est l’arme exclusive de ceux qui voudraient faire prévaloir l’ordre de la terreur et la loi du plus fort.

L’AWC appelle instamment les autorités tunisiennes à diligenter une enquête indépendante, impartiale et exhaustive sur le meurtre de Maître Chokri Belaïd, enquête dont les résultats devront être sans faute rendus publics et qui devra aboutir sans faiblesse à la comparution des responsables devant la justice, selon toutes les normes de droit international en la matière.

La violence vient de frapper en Tunisie. Il faut maintenant l’empêcher de triompher.

* * *

World Citizens Highlight 2013 as the International Year of Water Cooperation

In Environmental protection, Human Development, Solidarity, United Nations, World Law on January 6, 2013 at 11:32 PM

WORLD CITIZENS HIGHLIGHT 2013 AS THE INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF WATER COOPERATION

By René Wadlow

 

The United Nations (UN) General Assembly by Resolution A/RES/65/154 has declared 2013 as the UN International Year of Water Cooperation with UNESCO as the lead agency for the Year. The objective of this International Year is to raise awareness both on the potential for increased cooperation and on the challenges facing water management in the light of the increase in demand for water access, allocation and services. The Year should build on the momentum created at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio plus 20) in which the Association of World Citizens played an active role.

The Association of World Citizens (AWC) has in the past stressed the important role of trans-boundary lake and river basins, including reservoirs of fresh water that move silently below the borders in underground aquifers. While there is much trans-frontier cooperation among States to which we can justly point as “Best Practices”, there are also trans-frontier tensions related to access to fresh water.

There are conflicts at the national level concerning the use of water in urban areas and water for irrigation within rural areas. The main causes of urban water conflicts are characterized by complex socio-economic and institutional issues related to urban water management. The debates about public water services versus private water suppliers are frequently associated with conflicts over water price and affordability. Likewise, the issue of centralization verses decentralization of water utilities is also discussed in the framework of institutional aspects of urban water management. A critical and interdisciplinary examination of the socio-economic and institutional aspects of national water management is important and one in which both government and civil society needs to be involved.

 

A Jewish proverb says, "No water, no life". Who wants to live a dried-up planet?

As the Jewish proverb goes, “No water, no life”. Who wants to live on a dried-up planet?

 

However, it is on trans-frontier cooperation that the AWC will put its emphasis as the dangers of trans-boundary conflicts over water use, the creation of dams, and modification of river courses are real world issues in which world citizens have a role to play.

In one of the early presentations of world citizen proposals on economic issues, Stringfellow Barr called attention to the multi-purpose efforts of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for water management, farming and industrial development. Citizens of the World (New York: Doubleday, 1952, 285pp.) Barr cited Herman Finer’s analysis The TVA: Lessons for International Application published by the ILO then displaced from Geneva by the Second World War (Montreal: International Labor Office, 1944). The TVA was proposed as a possible model for an Indus River Valley Authority and a Jordan Valley Authority. Both the Middle East and Asia continue to present real challenges for trans-frontier water management. The Association of World Citizens will propose during 2013 new avenues for action and multi-State cooperation.

 

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

Does the Non-Aligned Movement Still Matter?

In Africa, Anticolonialism, Asia, Cultural Bridges, Current Events, Middle East & North Africa, United Nations, World Law on August 27, 2012 at 11:36 AM

DOES THE NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT STILL MATTER?

by René Wadlow

With Iran taking over the three-year term of the presidency of the Non-Aligned Movement (N.A.M.) at the end of August 2012, the question arises: Does the Non-Aligned Movement still matters in world politics and how will Iran use the presidency?

At the time of its founding at the Bandung Conference in April 1955, the major world powers were aligned in Soviet- and United States-led blocs. The war in Korea had recently ended in an armistice with the same frontiers as at the start but could have been the forerunner of a world war. The French war in Indochina had ended with independence of the three Indochina states, but a new independence conflict had just started in Algeria. Basically Bandung marked the end of formal colonialism. As Sir John Kotelawala, Premier of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), said at the end of the conference “Bandung will be a name to reverberate in history and earn the gratitude and blessings of ages to come.”

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India delivering the closing speech at the Bandung Conference that created the Non-Aligned Movement.

For fear that the new Non-Aligned movement might supplement or weaken the United Nations (UN), no implementary organization was set up. Later, the pattern of three-year rotating presidency was developed, but without a permanent secretariat. The country holding the presidency offers its own diplomats and civil servants to carry on Non-Aligned tasks. The outgoing presidency — Egypt — was so taken up with its own political changes that it virtually played no role on behalf of the N.A.M. Will Iran be able to do more than use the prestige of the Movement to defend its own interests?

In time, the Non-Aligned Movement grew up to become a major player in international relations, providing the Third World with a voice of its own on the world stage.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will become the N.A.M. representative for its 118 members. His first presentation will be to the UN General Assembly in September. His talk should be analyzed closely to see if his presentation goes beyond the usual Iranian positions to be more inclusive of the interests of the N.A.M. members. A large conference at the end of August in Tehran will be the formal start of Iran’s presidency. Some Iranian leaders have called for the creation of a permanent secretariat. Thus it will be important to note what structural reforms are made within the N.A.M.

While in 1955, the idea of a “third camp” was a possibility — a wedge of sanity and restraint between the two atomic giants —, now there are real conflicts of interest among the N.A.M. members — the conflict in Syria being a prime example, along with differing territorial claims within the South China Sea among China and its neighbors.

The direct threats issued against the State of Israel by Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, albeit in response to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s own warmongering rhetoric against Iran, raises serious questions as to what Ahmadinejad can be expected to make of his presidency of the Non-Aligned Movement.

Iran itself is at the center of an international storm, and it is not clear if its diplomats and political leaders will have the energy to deal with the host of current conflicts among N.A.M. states as well as making proposition concerning the important economic, financial and ecological issues that the world faces. Moreover, the N.A.M. states are members of regional, intergovernmental organizations and therefore look less to N.A.M. leadership to structure economic and cultural cooperation.

Yet the N.A.M. does provide a structure for states and a large percentage of the people of the world. N.A.M. leadership has had an erratic relation with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) — sometimes encouraging their participation in meetings and programs and at other times ignoring them completely. Without a permanent secretariat, the N.A.M. has not developed the sort of consultative status that the UN has with NGOs. The Indian government at one stage had encouraged NGO-related activities within the N.A.M. Given the challenges facing the Iranian presidency of the N.A.M. it would be useful for NGOs to propose a more structured and formal relation with the N.A.M. especially if a permanent secretariat is created.

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

June 8: The Law of the Seize

In Environmental protection, International Justice, United Nations, World Law on June 8, 2012 at 9:44 PM

JUNE 8: THE LAW OF THE SEIZE

By René Wadlow

 

June 8 of each year has been proclaimed by the UN General Assembly as the Day of the Law of the Sea. However, as my friend John Logue who had participated with me as non-governmental organization representative in the long negotiations — one year in New York, the next in Geneva — said “It should be called the Law of the Seize.”

What had started out in November 1967 with a General Assembly presentation by Ambassador Arivid Pardo of Malta as a call to establish a new political and legal regime for the ocean space ended in August 1980 with a draft convention, a mixed bag of successes and disappointments but which has now been ratified by 162 States.

For world citizens, the quality of the Law of the Sea Convention was of special significance. The greater part of the oceans has been considered res communis, a global common beyond national ownership.  Furthermore, the physical nature of the oceans suggests world rather than national solutions to the increasing need for management of marine resources and the marine environment.

World Citizen Thor Heyerdahl was one of those who called attention to the dangers of ocean pollution coming to Geneva to speak for world citizens during the Law of the Sea negotiations.  The oceans and the seas remind us that the planet and not the State should be our focus.  A holistic view of life arises from our interdependence as a species and our dependence on the life system of nature.  World citizens have stressed that a balanced, sustainable eco-system will only emerge if our political, economic and ethical policies coincide in building a more stable, a more peaceful, in short, a more human planet.

Thus, if there is to be a qualitative jump in the awareness of the earth as our common home, the rules for the management of the oceans was a real possibility. However, the UN Law of the Sea Conference was first and foremost a political conference with over 160 States participating.  From the outset of the Conference, it was agreed that the Convention had to be drafted by consensus in order to create a political and legal system for the oceans accepted to all — to manage what Arivid Pardo had called “the common heritage of mankind.”

During the negotiations, there were groupings that cut across the Cold War divisions of the times, especially within a group called “the landlocked and geographically disadvantaged countries.” There were also informal groups of persons who acted in a private capacity, a mixture of NGO representatives, legal scholars, and diplomats who prepared suggestions on many of the issues of the Conference such as the economic zones, the continental shelf, scientific research, marine pollution and dispute settlement.  These propositions were taken seriously by the government negotiators, in part because few diplomats had the technical knowledge needed for making decisions on technical subjects as well as the creation of a new international organization, the Seabed Authority.

However, in practice, government negotiators are more used to working for the “national interest” and in defending the idea of “territory” both on land and on the sea.  Boundary-making is a primordial activity.  Various theories have been advanced to explain why, many of them derived from our animal ancestors. However ocean boundary problems are more difficult than building a wall on land. Thus as Douglas Johnston and Mark Valencia write “The forces of nationalism were too strong to be swayed by Pardo’s appeals to international cooperation and technocratic rationality.  Instead the coastal states, developed and developing alike, saw in the newly available ocean areas an unexpected windfall, offering the prospect of a previously unimagined extension of their natural resource base. The economic goal of national autonomy had prevailed over the interest in global cooperation, setting in motion the processes of establishing vast national enclosures of offshore areas, especially those enclosures consonant with the new exclusive economic zone (EEZ) regime.  International cooperation had yielded to national autonomy.” (1)

“Ye free man, thou shall always cherish the sea!”
– Charles Baudelaire, French poet (1821-1867)

Conflicts over national sea boundaries are particularly strong in the Pacific Ocean among China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Taiwan and Cambodia with India and Indonesia watching closely.  The disputed arise largely because of the claims of territorial waters around small islands claimed as national territory. Most of these islands are not inhabited, but are claimed as the starting point of “territorial waters”.

Originally, the disputes concerned exclusive fishing rights within national territorial zones.  Now the issues have become stronger as it is believed that there are oil and natural gas reserves in these areas.

As Krista Wiegand writes concerning China’s dispute with Japan but which is also largely true of China’s policy with the other Asian countries “China’s current strategy to negotiate with Japan over joint development of natural gas and oil resources outside the disputed zone seems to be the most rational strategy it can take in the disputes.  Rather than dropping its territorial claim, China continues to maintain its claim for sovereignty, while at the same time benefiting from joint development of natural gas resources.  By maintaining the territorial claim, China also sustains its ability to confront Japan through diplomatic and militarized conflict when other disputed issues arise.” (2)

Territorial sea disputes can be heated up or cooled off at will or when other political issues require attention.  We are currently in a “heating up” stage. Thus for 8 June in honour of the Law of the Sea we can consider how best to resolve territorial disputes by having a wider view of the common heritage of mankind.

Notes

1)         Douglas M. Johnston and Mark J. Valencia, Pacific Ocean Boundary Problems (Dordrecht: Martinus Njihoff Publishers, 1991, 214pp.)

2)      Krista E. Wiegand, Enduring Territorial Disputes (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2011, 340pp.).

 

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

Supporting Young Syrians who Say “Stop the Killing!”

In Conflict Resolution, Current Events, Human Rights, Middle East & North Africa, Solidarity, The Search for Peace, United Nations, World Law on May 26, 2012 at 3:07 PM

SUPPORTING YOUNG SYRIANS WHO SAY “STOP THE KILLING!”

By René Wadlow

 Image

In early May 2012, there were particularly deadly explosions in Damascus, the capital of Syria, an escalation of a conflict which began over a year ago with nonviolent protests but which spilled over into violence, refugee displacements, and ever deeper division among the people of Syria.

For the moment, the efforts of the League of Arab States and the United Nations have not been able to establish good-faith negotiations or even a permanent ceasefire. Therefore a group of young nonviolent Syrians have created a movement “Stop the Killing,” not related to a political party or a confessional religious group, but which wishes to unite those of good will to stop the violence and to develop a society in which all can contribute.

Therefore, we who are outside Syria, send our support and willingness to cooperate.

I believe in you, and I believe in your destiny.

I believe that you have inherited from your forefathers an ancient dream, a song, a prophecy which you can proudly lay as a gift of gratitude to  those working for a just resolution of the current conflicts.

I believe that it is in you to be good citizens.

And what is it to be a good citizen?

It is to acknowledge the other person’s rights before asserting your own, but always to be conscious of your own.

It is to be free in word and deed but it is to know that your freedom is subject to the other person’s freedom.

It is to know that killing will never bring a society of justice and harmony. A just and nonviolent society is the fruit of wisdom and love. Therefore let love, human and frail, command the coming day.

 

 

Rene Wadlow, a member of the Fellowship of Reconciliation and of its Task Force on the Middle East, is President and Chief Representative to the United Nations Office at Geneva of the Association of World Citizens.