Cessez le feu en Libye

Ceasefire in Libya: A Gift for U.N. Day? by Rene Wadlow 2020-10-28 09:34:43 Geneva On Friday 23 October 2020, Stephanie Williams, the U.N. acting Special Envoy for Libya said that the representatives of the parties in Geneva had agreed to a ceasefire starting 24 October, U.N. Day. All military units and armed groups on the front lines are to return to their camps. All mercenaries and foreign fighters in Libya are to depart within a maximum period of three months from 24 October. Both the Russians and the Turks have sent mercenaries to back their interests. The Russians have used the "private" security firm Wagner, first founded to back Russian interests in Ukraine. The Turks have sent Syrian militias friendly to Turkey with promises of money and Turkish citizenship. Since the outbreak of armed conflict on the outskirts of Tripoli on 3 April 2019, many persons have been killed and wounded. Migrants and refugees being held in detention centers have suffered. The humanitarian situation has degraded dramatically. In the recent past, all the armed factions have violated the laws of war and have a sad record of abuses against civilians. General Khalifa Hifter hoped his attack would be a blitzkrieg (a lightning war). He badly underestimated he degree of military response that he would meet from the militias loyal to the Government of National Accord led by Prime Minister Fayez al-Sariaj. Libyan society faces large and complex issues in order to create a stable administrative structure of government that takes into consideration the geographic and ethnic diversity of the country. There are three distinct regions which must have some degree of autonomy: Tripolitania and Cyrenaica both bordering the Mediterranean and Fezzan in the southern Sahara. Within each of the three regions, there are differing and often rival tribal societies which are, in practice, more kinship lines than organized tribes. (1) There are differing economic interests and different ideologies ranging from "Arab Socialism" to the Islamist ideology of the Islamic State (ISIS) which has spread from its Syrian-Iraqi base. The Association of World Citizens has proposed the possibility of con-federal constitutional structures. However, the first priority in the U.N.-led negotiations was to reach a ceasefire. Taken Al-Sonni, Libya's permanent representative to the U. N. commenting on the signing of the ceasefire agreement said that the success of any political solution to the Libyan crisis must include confidence-building measures and comprehensive national reconciliation. A "Libyan Dialogue Forum" under the auspicies of the U.N. is to start in Tunis on 9 November with persons not holding government or administrative positions. Meanwhile, talks among the official representatives of the factions which led to the ceasefire who had been meeting in Geneva have moved to Montreux , a city also on Lake Geneva. We must hope that the ceasefire will hold and that discussions on constitutional structures will follow. ******************** Note: 1) See J. Davis Libyan Politics Tribes and Revolution (London: L.R. Turis, 1987) ******************** Rene Wadlow, President, Association of World Citizens RépondreTransférer

UN Day, journée de l'ONU

24 October is U.N. Day, marking the day when there were enough ratifications including those of the five permanent members of the proposed Security Council for the U.N. Charter to come into force. It is a day not only of celebration, but also a day for looking at how the U.N. system can be strengthened, and when necessary, reformed.

There have been a number of periods when proposals for new or different United Nations structures were proposed and discussed. The first was in the 1944-1945 period when the Charter was being drafted. Some who had lived through the decline and then death of the League of Nations wanted a stronger world institution, able to move more quickly and effectively in times of crisis or at the start of armed conflict.

In practice, the League of Nations was reincarnated in 1945 in the U.N. Charter but the names of some of the bodies were changed and new Specialized Agencies such as UNESCO were added. There was some dissatisfaction during the San Francisco negotiations, and an article was added indicating that 10 years after the coming into force of the Charter a proposal to hold a U.N. Charter Review Conference would be placed on the Agenda - thus for 1955.

The possibility of a U.N. Charter Review Conference led in the 1953-1954 period to a host of proposals for changes in the U.N. structures, for a greater role for international law, for a standing U.N. "peace force". Nearly all these proposals would require modifications in the U.N. Charter.

When 1955 arrived, the United States and the Soviet Union, who did not want a Charter Review Conference which might have questioned their policies, were able to sweep the Charter Review agenda item under the rug from where it has never emerged. In place of a Charter Review Conference, a U.N. Committee on "Strengthening the U.N. Charter" was set up which made a number of useful suggestions, none of which were put into practice as such. The Committee on Strengthening the Charter was the first of a series of expert committees, "High-Level Panels" set up within the U.N. to review its functioning and its ability to respond to new challenges. There have also been a number of committees set up outside of the U.N. to look at world challenges and U.N. responses, such as the Commission on Global Governance.

While in practice there have been modifications in the ways the U.N. works, few of these changes have recognized an expert group's recommendations as the source of the changes. Some of the proposals made would have strengthened some factions of the U.N. system over the then current status quo - most usually to strength the role of developing countries (the South) over the industrialized States (the North). While the vocabulary of "win-win" modifications is often used, in practice few States want to take a chance, and the status quo continues.

Now, the Secretary General knows well how the U.N. works from his decade as High Commissioner for Refugees, U.N. reform is again "in the air". There are an increasing number of proposals presented by governments and by non-governmental organizations associated with the U.N. The emphasis today is on what can be done without a revision of the Charter. Most of the proposals turn on what the Secretary General can do on his own authority. The Secretary General cannot go against the will of States - especially the most powerful States - , but he does have a certain power of of initiative.

There are two aspects of the current U.N. system that were not foreseen in 1945 and which are important today. One is the extensive role of U.N. Peacekeeping Forces: the Blue Helmets. The other is the growing impact of non-governmental organizations. There is growing interest in the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) within the United Nations system in the making and the implementation of policies at the international level. NGOs are more involved than ever before in global policy making and project implementation in such areas as conflict resolution, human rights, humanitarian relief, and environmental protection.(1)

NGOs at the UN have a variety of roles — they bring citizens’concerns to governments, advocate particular policies, present alternative avenues for political participation, provide analysis, serve as an early warning mechanism of potential violence and help implement peace agreements.

The role of consultative-status NGOs was written into the UN Charter at its founding in San Francisco in June, 1945. As one of the failings of the League of Nations had been the lack of public support and understanding of the functioning of the League, some of the UN Charter drafters felt that a role should be given to NGOs. At the start, both governments and UN Secretariat saw NGOs as an information avenue — telling NGO members what the governments and the UN was doing and building support for their actions. However, once NGOs had a foot in the door, the NGOs worked to have a two-way avenue — also telling governments and the Secretariat what NGO members thought and what policies should be carried out at the UN. Governments were none too happy with this two-way avenue idea and tried to limit the UN bodies with which NGOs could ‘consult’. There was no direct relationship with the General Assembly or the Security Council. The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in Article 71 of the Charter was the body to which “consultative-status NGOs” were related.

What in practice gives NGOs their influence is not what an individual NGO can do alone but what they can do collectively. ‘Networking’ and especially trans-national networking is the key method of progress. NGOs make networks which facilitate the trans-national movement of norms, resources, political responsibility, and information. NGO networks tend to be informal, non-binding, temporary, and highly personalized. NGOs are diverse, heterogeneous and independent. They are diverse in mission, level of resources, methods of operating and effectiveness. However, at the UN they are bound together in a common desire to protect the planet and advance the welfare of humanity.

The role of NGO representatives is to influence policies through participation in the entire policy-making process. What distinguishes the NGO representative’s role at the UN from lobbying at the national level is that the representative may appeal to and discuss with the diplomats of many different governments. While some diplomats may be unwilling to consider ideas from anyone other than the mandate they receive from their Foreign Ministry, others are more open to ideas coming from NGO representatives. Out of the 193 Member States, the NGO representative will always find some diplomats who are ‘on the same wave length’ or who are looking for additional information on which to take a decision, especially on issues on which a government position is not yet set. Therefore, an NGO representative must be trusted by government diplomats and the UN Secretariat. As with all diplomacy in multilateral forums such as the UN, much depends upon the skill and knowledge of the NGO representative and on the close working relations which they are able to develop with some government representatives and some members of the UN Secretariat. Many Secretariat members share the values of the NGO representatives but can not try to influence government delegates directly. The Secretariat members can, however, give to the NGO representatives some information, indicate countries that may be open to acting on an issue and help with the style of presentation of a document.

It is probably in the environmental field — sustainable development — that there has been the most impact. Each environmental convention or treaty such as those on biological diversity or drought was negotiated separately, but with many of the same NGO representatives present. It is more difficult to measure the NGO role in disarmament and security questions. It is certain that NGO mobilization for an end to nuclear testing and for a ban on land mines and cluster weapons played a role in the conventions which were steps forward for humanity. However, on other arms issues, NGO input is more difficult to analyse.

‘Trans-national advocacy networks’ which work across frontiers are of increasing importance as seen in the efforts against land mines, for the International Criminal Court and for increased protection from violence toward women and children. The groups working on these issues are found in many different countries but have learned to work trans-nationally both through face-to-face meetings and through the internet web. The groups in any particular campaign share certain values and ideas in common but may differ on other issues. Thus, they come together on an ad hoc basis around a project or a small number of related issues. Yet their effectiveness is based on their being able to function over a relatively long period of time in rather complex networks even when direct success is limited.

These campaigns are based on networks which combine different actors at various levels of government: local, regional, national, and UN (or European Parliament, OSCE etc.). The campaigns are waged by alliances among different types of organizations — membership groups, academic institutions, religious bodies, and ad hoc local groupings. Some groups may be well known, though most are not.

There is a need to work at the local, the national, and the UN levels at the same time. Advocacy movements need to be able to contact key decision-makers in national parliaments, government administrations and intergovernmental secretariats. Such mobilization is difficult, and for each ‘success story’ there are many failed efforts. The rise of UN consultative-status NGOs has been continual since the early 1970s. NGOs and government diplomats at the UN are working ever more closely together to deal with the world challenges which face us all.

****************************

Note

(1) This interest is reflected in a number of path-making studies such as P. Willets(Ed.) The Consciences of the World: The Influence of Non-Governmental Organizations in the UN System (London: Hurst, 1996), T. Princen and M. Finger (Eds) Environmental NGOs in World Politics: Linking the Global and the Local (London: Routledge, 1994), M.Rech and K. Sikkink Activists Without Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998), Bas Arts, Math Noortmann and Rob Reinalda (Eds) Non-State Actors in International Relations (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001) and William De Mars NGOs and Transnational Networks (London: Pluto Press, 2005).

****************************

Rene Wadlow, President, Association of World Citizens

Nagorno-Karabakh: Are Con-federal Structures Possible?

 

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 5 Oct 2020
René Wadlow – TRANSCEND Media Service

1 Oct 2020 – On 27 Sep, military forces from Azerbaijan moved into six villages held by Armenian forces in the Nagorno-Karabakh area. The Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pachinian in a television broadcast warned that the two countries were “on the edge of war with unforeseeable consequences”. The President of Azerbaijan, Elham Aliev, declared martial law and called up reserve military. There have been calls for a cease-fire from Russia; however Russia is generally thought to favor Armenia. The President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan has repeated his support for Azerbaijan.

On 30 September 2020, the United Nations Security Council passed a unanimous resolution calling on Armenia and Azerbaijan to halt fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh and urgently to resume talks without preconditions. There have been previous talks held under the leadership of the “Minsk Group” (Russia, France, USA), founded in 1994, of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). However these talks have not modified the ever-tense situation. On 29 September, the Association of World Citizens had sent an Appeal to the authorities of Armenia and Azerbaijan for a ceasefire and the start of negotiations in good faith.

The Nagorno-Karabakh issue arises from the post-Revolution-post Civil War period of Soviet history when Joseph Stalin was Commissioner for Nationalities. Stalin came from neighboring Georgia and knew the Caucasus well. His policy was a classic ‘divide and rule’ carried out with method so that national/ethnic groups would need to depend on the central government in Moscow for protection. Thus in 1922, the frontiers of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia were hammered out of what was then the Transcaucasia Federative Republic. (1)

Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian majority area, was given certain autonomy within Azerbaijan but was geographically cut off from Armenia. Likewise an Azeri majority area, Nakkicheran, was created as an autonomous republic within Armenia but cut off geographically from Azerbaijan. Thus both enclaves had to look to Moscow for protection. This was especially true for the Armenians. Many Armenians living in what had been historic Armenia but which had become part of the Ottoman Empire had been killed during the First World War by the Turks. Armenians living in “Soviet Armenia” had relatives and friends among those killed by the Turks, creating a permanent sense of vulnerability and insecurity. Russia was considered a historically of Armenia.

These mixed administrative units worked well enough or, one should say, there were few public criticisms allowed until 1988 when the whole Soviet model of nationalities and republics started to come apart. In both Armenia and Azerbaijan nationalistic voices were raised. A strong “Karabakh Committee” began demanding that Nagorno-Karabakh be attached to Armenia. In Azerbaijan, anti-Armenian sentiment was set aflame. Many Armenians who were working in the oil-related economy of Baku were under tension and started leaving. This was followed somewhat later by real anti-Armenian pogroms. Some 160,000 Armenians left Azerbaijan for Armenia and others went to live in Russia.

With the breakup of the Soviet Union and the independence of Armenia and Azerbaijan, tensions focused on Nagorno-Karabakh. In 1992, full scale armed conflict started in and around Nagorno-Karabakh and went on for two years. During the two years of fighting, 1992-1994, at least 20,000 persons were killed and more than one million persons displaced. In 1994, there was a cease-fire largely negotiated by Russia. Nagorno-Karabakh has declared its independence as a separate State. No other State – including Armenia – has recognized this independent status, but in practice, Nagorno-Karabakh is a de facto State with control over its population and its own military forces. Some in Nagorno-Karabakh hope that the country might become the “Liechtenstein of the Caucasus”.

Armed violence has broken out before, especially in 2016. Many in Nagorno-Karabakh do not want to be at the mercy of decisions made in distant centers of power but to decide their own course of action. However, the recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent State raises the issue of the status of other de facto mini-states of the area such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia and Transnistria in Moldova.

Finding appropriate administrative structures which will permit real trans-frontier cooperation between Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan and Armenia will not be easy, but it is a crucial step if peace is to be established. The Association of World Citizens has a long-standing aim of developing appropriate constitutional structures for States facing the possibilities of prolonged or intensified armed conflict. An emphasis is placed on the possibilities of con-federalism, autonomy, and trans-frontier cooperation. In the recent past, the Association has proposed con-federal structures for Mali, Ukraine, Myanmar, Libya and Cyprus as well as Kurdistan which involves the constitutional structures of Iraq and Syria as well as positive cooperation among Kurds living in Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran. The Azerbaijan-Armenia-Karabakh conflict has been considered as “frozen”, but there are real dangers of “melting” and other States getting involved. New attitudes and new constitutional structures are needed.

x