Syria: The Start of a Long Night of Sorrow

 On 13 March 2011 in Derra, in the south of Syria, 15 teenage boys were arrested by Syrian security police

for having written hostile graffiti against President Bashar Al-Assad on a school wall. The arrests led to non-violent protests in Derra and by 15 March the protests had spread to other Syrian cities. There were social, economic and ecological conditions in the country which set the stage for such protests. Corruption, unemployment, high population growth, limited resources and a hugh budget for oversized security and military forces were main obstacles for economic reforms. There was also the spirit of the "Arab Spring" which had started earlier with the January 2011 end of the government of Ben Ali in Tunisia.

Unlike earlier protest movements in Syria which were based on religious or ethnic, especially Kurdish, identity, the early 2011 movement stressed the unity of all the people and their demand to have recognized their dignity. Women participated actively. Social media via the INTERNET was widely used.
Fairly quickly the protesters stated to structure themselves in cities and larger towns. Protesters started to form local councils and to take up local administrative tasks. In 2011, Syria was a police state but under administrated concerning services of education, health and other public services. Rural areas were even less administrated.

There was a strong rural to urban migration, especially to larger towns. Social service needs were not met.

The government responded to these demonstrations with police and military violence. By mid-April, a peaceful demonstration in Homs was repressed with a good number of demonstrators killed or wounded. Arrests, often followed by torture, became widespread. There were 12 different branches of the security forces, and prisons were overcrowded. While there were local leaders of protests, there were no nation-wide leaders. With no identifiable leaders to arrest, the security forces arrested anyone who looked like a potential troublemaker. Due to the regime's determination to silence any opposition, Syria's political culture regressed into fear with an end to independent periodicals and intellectual forums.

By the end of 2011, the government increasingly called upon the regular military to replace the specialized security forces which were too few to deal with the spreading protests. Protesters started to carry weapons. Some of the regular military who were of the same background as the protesters started to desert and to take their weapons with them. Thus the Syrian conflict was transformed from a non-violent civil protest to a violent civil war leading to a large number of persons displaced within the country and a large number of refugees, especially to neighboring countries - Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, but also to Western Europe.

As the conflict grew, several regional and international actors involved themselves: Russia and the USA, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, Lebanon with Hezbollah as well as the Jihadist Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS).

Efforts at mediation have been carried out nearly from the start by the Arab League, U.N.-appointed mediators, and broader U.N.-sponsored meetings in Geneva. While the mediators have made detailed proposals, none have been acted upon. There have also been a few non-governmental efforts at mediation or at least efforts to keep avenues of communication open or to widen the persons involved, especially by increasing the role of women. On behalf of the Association of World Citizens, I have been involved in some of these non-governmental efforts, but I have seen few advances. The long night of sorrow continues, but we must watch closely for a possible dawn.

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

Rene Wadlow, President, Association of World Citizens

Yemen: Positive Action Still Needed

25 March is the anniversary date of the start of 28 days on continued bombing of Yemen in 2015 by the Saudi-Arabia-led coalition (Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, Sudan, United Arab Emirates helped by arms and "intelligence" by the U.S.A. and the U.K.). The aggression by the Saudi coalition turned what had been an internal struggle for power going on from the "Arab Spring" of 2011 into a war with regional dimensions which brought Iran into the picture. The role of Iran has been exaggerated both by the Iranian government itself and by those hostile to Iran. Nevertheless, the Iranian role is real.

Since the Association of World Citizens (AWC) had been following possible constitutional developments in Yemen after the 2011 change of government, a couple of days after the 25 March 2015 bombing, the Association of World Citizens sent to government Missions to the United Nations an AWC Appeal for four steps of conflict resolution and negotiations in good faith:

1) An immediate ceasefire ending all foreign military attacks;

2) Humanitarian assistance, especially important for hard-to-reach zones;

3) A broad national dialogue;

4) Through this dialogue, the establishment of an inclusive unity government open to constitutional changes to facilitate better the wide geographic- tribal structure of the State.

While the constitutional form of the State structures depends on the will of the people of Yemen ( if they were able to express themselves freely) the Association of World Citizens proposes consideration of con-federal forms of government which maintain cooperation within a decentralized framework. In 2014, a committee appointed by the then President, Abdu Rabbu Mansur Hadi, had proposed a six-region federation as the political structure for Yemen.

Until 1990, Yemen was two separate States: the People's Democratic of Yemen in the south with Aden as the capital, and the Yemen Arab Republic in the north with Sana'a as capital. In 1990, the two united to become the Republic of Yemen. The people in the south hoped that the union would bring the economic development which had been promised. Since, even before the Saudi-led war began, there had been very little economic and social development in the south, there started to grow strong "separatist" attitudes in the south. People of all political persuasions hoped to develop prosperity by ending unification and creating what some have started calling "South Arabia" Today, these separatist attitudes are very strong, but there is no agreement on what areas are to be included in a new southern state, and the is no unified separatist political leadership.

Very quickly after 25 March 2015, many governments saw the dangers of the conflict and the possible regional destabilization. Thus there were U.N.-sponsored negotiations held in Geneva in June 2015. The Association of World Citizens worked with other NGOs so that women should be directly involved in such negotiations. However women have not been added to any of the negotiations and are largely absent from any leadership role in the many political factions of the country. There have been U.N. mediators active in trying to get ceasefires and then negotiations. There have been some temporary ceasefires, but no progress on real negotiations.

Today, the war continues with the country's fragmentation, continued internal fighting and impoverishment leading to a disastrous humanitarian crisis. There is a glimmer of possible conflict resolution efforts due to the recent mutual recognition of Saudi Arabia and Iran under the sponsorship of the People's Republic of China. However, creating a national society of individuals willing to cooperate will not be easy. Regional divisions will not be easy to bridge. There have already been divisions within the Saudi-led Coalition. Thus, positive action is still needed. Non-governmental organizations should seek to have their voices heard.

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

René Wadlow, President, Association of World Citizens

Conscience: The Inner Voice of the Higher Self by Rene Wadlow

The United Nations General Assembly has designated 5 April as the International Day of Conscience. An awakened conscience is essential to meeting the challenges which face humanity today as we move into the World Society. The great challenge which humanity faces today is to leave behind the culture of violence in which we find ourselves and move rapidly to a culture of peace and solidarity. We can achieve this historic task by casting aside our ancient national, ethnic, and social prejudices and begin to think and act as responsible Citizens of the World.

An awakened conscience makes us sensitive to hearing the inner voice that warns and encourages. We have a conscience so that we may not let ourselves be lulled to sleep by the social environment in which we find ourselves but will remain alert to truth, justice, and reason. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says in Article 1 "All human beings are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

There is a need to build networks and bridges among Companions of Conscience. Companions of Conscience create a ground for common discourse and thus a ground for common, life-affirming action. As Companions of Conscience, we take firm action to formulate effective responses to the challenges facing the emerging world society: armed conflicts, human rights violations, persistent poverty and ecological destruction. We strive to make the world a more humane dwelling place for ourselves and for future generations as we move toward a peaceful, just and ecologically-responsible future. We do not hide from ourselves the complexity of these challenges. However, we believe in the effectiveness of common action and enlightened leadership to build a culture of cooperation and solidarity. The circle of Companions of Conscience is growing world wide. Conscience-based actions are increasingly felt.

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

Rene Wadlow, President, Association of World Citizens

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

Transition difficile au Soudan

Avec la mort le 26 novembre 2020 de Sadeq Al-Mahdi, une figure majeure de la politique soudanaise moderne quitte la scène à une époque de transitions profondes au Soudan. Sadeq était l'arrière-petit-fils de Mohamed Ahmed qui, dans les années 1880, s'est proclamé Mahdi dans la lutte contre les Égyptiens et les Britanniques. Quand l'impiété progresse, Dieu inspire le Mahdi, le Messie, à établir la justice. Ainsi, le Mahdi est à la fois un dirigeant politique et spirituel.

Sadig ne s'est jamais déclaré le Mahdi, mais la famille avait pris Al-Mahdi comme nom de famille. Il était un dirigeant politique ayant été premier ministre deux fois, 1966 -1967 et de nouveau 1986 -1989, les deux fois chassés par les militaires qui ont mis en place des dictatures militaires de longue durée; la première fois par le général Jaafar Nimeiry, et la deuxième fois par le général Omar Al-Bachir.

Sadig était à la tête d'un important ordre soufi, une tariqa comme les ordres soufis sont appelés au Soudan. Sa base politique était l'ordre soufi. Il a fait ses études à l'Université d'Oxford en Angleterre et avait de grands espoirs de moderniser le Soudan. Pourtant, les deux fois où il a été Premier ministre, il s'est enlisé dans des tensions socio-économiques qui mèneraient peu après à la guerre. La première fois, les tensions et la guerre qui ont conduit à la création de l'État séparé du Soudan du Sud, la deuxième fois la scission continue du Nord-Sud du pays et les tensions qui ont conduit au conflit armé dans la province du Darfour. Dans les deux cas, les militaires ont pu se présenter comme plus aptes à gérer les conflits que comme civils.

J'ai invité Sadeq Al-Mahdi en tant que membre de l'équipe de l'Association des citoyens du monde à participer à un séminaire aux Nations Unies à Genève sur les droits de l'homme et l'islam. Nous avions longuement discuté de ses expériences et de la nature des mouvements mahdistes.

L'une des ironies de la politique soudanaise était que son principal opposant, le cerveau idéologique du Front national islamique Al-Bachir, Hassan Al-Turabi était son beau-frère, les hommes ayant épousé deux sœurs de la même famille. Alors que Sadeg était un soufi soulignant une relation personnelle avec Dieu sans insister sur le code juridique islamique ou le Coran, Hassan Al-Turabi, influencé par les Frères musulmans égyptiens, a souligné le code juridique et a promu l'idée d'une fraternité panislamique basée sur une compréhension commune du code juridique.

Aujourd'hui, le Soudan est dans une période de transition. Le Sud est devenu un pays à part avec un bon nombre de difficultés. Un bon nombre de problèmes, y compris les revenus pétroliers, doivent être réglés entre le Soudan et le Soudan du Sud. La guerre au Darfour se poursuit, mais les négociations sont très difficiles car les groupes d'opposition se sont divisés selon des lignes tribales et idéologiques. Le nouveau gouvernement soudanais est une coalition mal à l'aise de membres militaires et civils de syndicats et de sociétés professionnelles. Le rôle que joueront les ordres soufis, qui sont pour la plupart ruraux, n'est pas clair. On ne sait pas non plus dans quelle mesure de nouveaux partis politiques seront formés sur la base des forces de la société civile qui étaient largement extérieures aux partis politiques antérieurs. Le Soudan reste un pays en transition, à surveiller de près.

René Wadlow , président, Association des citoyens du monde

Sri Lanka: Still Fire under the Ashes

René Wadlow – TRANSCEND Media Service

4 Dec 2020 – With the military defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelan (LTTE) in mid May 2009, their proposal of a two-State solution for the island is probably dead forever. The idea of creating a Tamil State from the north and part of the east of Sri Lanka was unrealistic from the start as Tamils live in all parts of the country even if there are concentrations in the north and east.

Sinhalese comprise 74 percent, the Tamils 18 percent and the “Moors” some 4 percent. But reality is always more mixed than the impression given by statistics. There has been a good deal of intermarriage, especially among the educated. Moreover, all population statistics are contested. However, the LTTE was able to become the “voice” of the Tamil population and effectively silenced all serious discussion of other avenues of structuring the State.

The policies of the current President of Sri Lanka Gotabaya Rajapaksa are seen by some as a path to Sinhalese dominance which will reignite Tamil discontent. As live coals under the ashes, the discontent is there but has not taken the violent form that it had taken under LTTE leadership from 1983 to 2009.

Conflict in Sri Lanka results from seeds planted at independence in 1948 if not before. The conflict is centered on the appropriate structures of government. Sinhalese leadership has stressed a unitary State with Sinhalese dominance. The Tamil opposition proposed different forms of con-federal approaches with a devolution of authority to the provinces. The more radical LTTE demanded a two-state structure.

One can date the start of the violence between Tamils and Sinhalese from 1977 when a large number of Tamils gave up believing that their interests would be defended by a parliamentary system in which they were a permanent minority. It was July 1983 when using the pretext of LTTE killing 13 soldiers near Jaffna, Sinhalese directed widespread violence against Tamil men, women and children. The July1983 events led to the departure of many Tamils for India, Western Europe and North America where many became supporters of LTTE.

The Indian government which had many Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka as well as a large Tamil population in south India became increasingly concerned with the violence in Sri Lanka. Thus from mid 1987 to March 1990 the Indian government sent a military peace-keeping force to Sri Lanka. The Indian effort is estimated to have cost the government of India over one billion US dollars and some 1000 soldiers killed – enough to discourage that form of peace keeping. The Indian military presence, exacerbated by socio-economic factors such as unemployment and inflation, led to a violent revolt of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) a largely Sinhalese movement against the Sri Lankan government especially in the south of the country from 1987 to 1990. Both the government forces and the JVP adopted a tactic of “exemplary killings” as a means of instilling terror into the civilian population.

With the failure of the Indian peace-keeping effort, the government of Norway proposed an approach based on a negotiated Cease Fire Agreement with a multi-national Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) which would report to the United Nations. The Cease Fire Agreement lasted officially from 2002 to 2008. The Agreement was repeatedly violated with impunity both by the government forces and the LTTE. The monitors were unable to prevent acts of war or human rights violations. The monitors never had sufficient powers, size, capacity or political backing to play an effective protection or confidence-building role. Finally in 2009, the LTTE was defeated militarily in a series of bloody battles.

The issue of appropriate governmental structures remains. There is a deep heritage of bitterness and fears in the minds of many with individual and family traumas. This heritage makes calm discussion of governmental structures difficult. However, if an earlier effort of reform were put into place, this could be an important contribution to peace. In 1987, there was a 13th amendment to the Constitution which allows for the creation of “provincial councils”. In practice these provincial councils have not been able to function as avenues for popular aspirations. However, the structure exists. The hope is that wise leadership will manifest itself in these provincial councils and thus prevent a new round of violence based on desperation.

International Criminal Court by René Wadlow

Conflicts yet common interests

if the Russian-Turkish cooperation-rivalry in Syria were not enough, we find the same combination of rivalry and some common interests between Russia and Turkey in Libya - with even more oil and pipeline issues thrown in. On the one hand, Russia is backing General Khalifa Haftar who had done part of his military studies in the USSR and has a relatively easy relation with Russians. Since April 2019, General Haftar and his "Libyan National Army" is bogged down in his quest to take over the capital, Tripoli, which would make him master of most of the socio-economic wealth of the country. Haftar is blocked by tribal militias loyal to what is considered the legitimate government led by Fayez al-Saraf.

A large number of people in the Tripoli area have been displaced, seeking relative safety in other areas. Migrants and refugees being held in detention centers are suffering. Food and medical supplies are lacking. While there is a ceasefire agreement, the agreement is often violated and migrant-holding camps are hit.

Both the Russians and the Turks have sent mercenaries to back their interests: the Russian, the "private"security firm Wagner, first founded to back Russian interests in Ukraine. The Turks have sent Syrian militias friendly to Turkey with promisses of money and Turkish citizenship.

The growing Turkish influence in Libya worries both Greek and Cypres who have Law of the Sea exclusive-economic-zone disputes with Turkey in areas that may have important oil and gas reserves.

There is general agreement among the U.N. negotiators as well as diplomats from interested States that the aim is to develop a single, unified, inclusive, and effective Libyan government that is transparent, accountable, fair with equitable distribution of public wealth and resources between different Libyan geographic areas, including through decentralization and support for municipalities, thereby removing a central grievance and cause of recrimination.

The creation of such State structures has been the chief issue since 1945 when the Allies - Britain, the USA and the USSR - agreed that the Italian colonies should not be returned to Italy, although Italian settlers were encouraged to stay. The Allies did not want to create the structures of the new State believing that this task should be done by the Libyans themselves. Also, the three Allies disagreed among themselves as to the nature of the future State.

By 1950-1951 with more crucial geopolitical issues elsewhere, the Allies were ready for the creation of a Libyan State. It seemed that a monarchy was the most appropriate form of government as there were no structured political parties that could have created a parliamentary government. Thus in 1951, Idris was made the King of the State. Idris was the head of the Senussi Sufi Order created by his father. The Senussi Sufi Order had branches in most parts of the country. Idriss ruled the country as if it were a Sufi order and did little to structure non-religious political structures. Idris ruled until September 1969 when he was overthrown by Muammar el- Qaddafi.

Qaddafi was also not interested in creating permanent political parties which, he feared, might be used against him. He called himself "the Guide of the Revolution" not "President" and Libya became the Libyan Jamaihirya, that is, the authority of the people. The closest model to Qaddafi's vision is a Quaker Meeting, where decisions are taken by consensus and compromise at the local level. These decisions are then sent as recommendations to the next higher level where by consensus and compromise again a decision is taken. Ultimately, these decisions reach to the top of Libya, and the "Guide" sees how they can be carried out.

The problem with the governance of Libya was that not everyone was a member of a Sufi order where the search for enlightenment in a spirit of love was the way decisions were to be made. Moreover, there were hardly any Libyan Quakers, and compromise was not the chief model for the tribal and clanic networks which was how the country was structured under Qaddafi.

Since the overthrow and death of Qaddafi in 2011, there has been no agreement on how the country should be structured. The model which is most likely to be followed is that of General Khalifa Haftar, The model is a military-based dictatorship with a small number of civilians as "window dressing". The model is well represented through the world although not always held up as a model form of government. Haftar holds a good bit of the Libyan territory, although his hope of a quick victory over the "national unity" government in the capitol Tripoli has not been successful for the moment.

The National Unity Government of Faiez Sarraj is a civilian-led government but heavily dependent for its survival on tribal militias. The model for the government is that of Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey with a certain ideological coloring from the Islamic Brotherhood, originally from Egypt but whose ideology has spread. What type of structures can be created between these two major models is not known. I would expect to see a Khalifa Haftar-led government with a few civilians brought in from the National Unity Government.

The only geographic area outside of the current Tripoli-centered conflict between Faiez Sarra and Khalifa Haftar is the area known as the Fezzan - the southwestern part of the country on the edge of the Sahara. The area was associated with the rest of the country during the period of King Idrass as there were a number of branches of his Sufi order in the oases where most of the 200,000 people in the area live, mostly date palm farmers. Gaddafi largely left the area alone as there was little possibility of developing organized opposition. However, today, the governmental neglect has opened the door to wide-spread smuggling of people, weapons and drugs. The Italian government in particular has drawn international attention to the lack of administration in the Fezzan as many of the African migrants who end up in Italy have passed through the Fezzan on their way to Europe.

The creation of highly decentralized governmental structures in Libya will not be easy. Nevertheless, such decentralized administration is key to the future, and a challenge to all of us who want to see a peaceful and relatively just Libya;

Rene Wadlow, President, Association of World Citizens

Russian Shadows Darken the Sky Over Libya
by Rene Wadlow
2020-01-30 10:22:16

Libya: The Fairy Godmothers hoping to bless a new State Structure meet in Berlin

The Fairy Godmothers of world politics met in Berlin on 19 January 2020 to assist at the birth of a State structure arising from the currently deeply divided factions of Libya: German Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres were the co-hosts with the Turkish Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Russia's Vladimer Putin, France's Emmanuel Macron, the U.K.'s Bosis Johnson, the USA's Mike Poupeo as well as the less easily recognized officials - Prime Minister of Italy, Giuseppe Corte and the representatives of China, Egypt, Algeria, and the United Arab Emirates. There were also representatives of the major intergovernmental organizations involved in Libya: the United Nations, the European Union, the African Union and the League of Arab States.

The Final Document of the Berlin Conference is an effort to please all participants, but, in fact, on the crucial issue of the creation of a functioning administration for Libya, there was only a broad vision of a desirable future: a single, unified, inclusive, and effective Libyan government that is transparent, accountable, fair with equitable distribution of public wealth and resources between different Libyan geographic areas, including through decentralization and support for municipalities, thereby removing a central grievance and cause of recrimination.

The creation of such State structures has been the chief issue since 1945 when the Allies - Britain, the USA and the USSR - agreed that the Italian colonies should not be returned to Italy, although Italian settlers were encouraged to stay. The Allies did not want to create the structures of the new State believing that this task should be done by the Libyans themselves. Also, the three Allies disagreed among themselves as to the nature of the future State.

By 1950-1951 with more crucial geopolitical issues elsewhere, the Allies were ready for the creation of a Libyan State. It seemed that a monarchy was the most appropriate form of government as there were no structured political parties that could have created a parliamentary government. Thus in 1951, Idris was made the King of the State. Idris was the head of the Senussi Sufi Order created by his father. The Senussi Sufi Order had branches in most parts of the country. Idriss ruled the country as if it were a Sufi order and did little to structure non-religious political structures. Idris ruled until September 1969 when he was overthrown by Muammg Qaddafi.

Qaddafi was also not interested in creating permanent political parties which, he feared, might be used against him. He called himself "the Guide of the Revolution" not "President" and Libya became the Libyan Jamaihirya, that is, the authority of the people. The closest model to Qaddafi's vision is a Quaker Meeting, where decisions are taken by consensus and compromise at the local level. These decisions are then sent as recommendations to the next higher level where by consensus and compromise again a decision is taken. Ultimately, these decisions reach to the top of Libya, and the "Guide" sees how they can be carried out.

The problem with the governance of Libya was that not everyone was a member of a Sufi order where the search for enlightenment in a spirit of love was the way decisions were to be made. Moreover, there were hardly any Libyan Quakers, and compromise was not the chief model for the tribal and clanic networks which was how the country was structured under Qaddafi.

Since the overthrow and death of Qaddafi in 2011, there has been no agreement on how the country should be structured. The model which is most likely to be followed is that of General Khalifa Haftor, who now likes to be addressed as "Field Marshall". The model is a military-based dictatorship with a small number of civilians as "window dressing". The model is well represented through the world although not always held up as a model form of government. Haftor holds a good bit of the Libyan territory, although his hope of a quick victory over the "national unity" government in the capitol Tripoli has not been successful for the moment.

The National Unity Government of Faiez Sarraj is a civilian-led government but heavily dependent for its survival on tribal militias. The model for the government is that of Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey with a certain ideological coloring from the Islamic Brotherhood, originally from Egypt but whose ideology has spread. What type of structures can be created between these two major models is not known. I would expect to see a Khalifa Haftar-led government with a few civilians brought in from the National Unity Government.

The only geographic area outside of the current Tripoli-centered conflict between Faiez Sarra and Khalifa Haftar is the area known as the Fezzan - the southwestern part of the country on the edge of the Sahara. The area was associated with the rest of the country during the period of King Idrass as there were a number of branches of his Sufi order in the oases where most of the 200,000 people in the area live, mostly date palm farmers. Gaddafi largely left the area alone as there was little possibility of developing organized opposition. However, today, the governmental neglect has opened the door to wide-spread smuggling of people, weapons and drugs. The Italian government in particular has drawn international attention to the lack of administration in the Fezzan as many of the African migrants who end up in Italy have passed through the Fezzan on their way to Europe.

The creation of highly decentralized governmental structures in Libya will not be easy. Nevertheless, such decentralized administration is key to the future, and a challenge to all of us who want to see a peaceful and relatively just Libya;

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

Rene Wadlow, President, Association of World Citizens

World Civil Society Société Civile Mondiale

The term "civil society" came into extensive use especially in Europe in the mid -1970s as efforts to bridge the East-West divide and prevent the dangers of war in Europe. As Mary Kalder writes "A group of us launched the European Nuclear Disarmament (END) Appeal for a nuclear-free Europe. The Appeal attracted thousands of signatures from all over Europe and beyond and was one of the mobilizing documents of the new peace movement which sprang up in Western Europe in the early 1980s. The Appeal called for nuclear disarmament through unilateral, bilateral, and multilateral means, but it was also an appeal to end the Cold War. It accorded responsibility in the Cold War to both the United States and the Soviet Union and insisted on the link between disarmament and democracy." (1)

The END Appeal looked to positive action from "civil society" within the Soviet bloc which was starting to be vocal outside of the government-controlled peace organizations which largely reflected Soviet government policy in their interaction with Western peace-disarmament non-governmental organizations. As Ernest Gallner writes "Civil Society is the idea of institutional and ideological pluralism, which prevents the established monopoly of power and truth and counterbalances those central institutions which though necessary, might otherwise acquire such monopoly. The actual practice of Marxism had led, wherever it came to be implemented to what might be called Caesaro-Papism-Mannonism to the near total fusion of the political, ideological, and economic hierarchies. The state, the church-party, and the economic managers were all parts of one single nomenclatura... Civil Society is that set of diverse non-governmental institutions which is strong enough to counterbalance the state and, while not preventing the state from fulfilling its role as keeper of the peace and arbitrator between major interests, can nevertheless prevent it from dominating and atomizing the rest of society." (2)

Vaclav Havel, athough he later became president of a State, was a valuable symbol of the efforts to develop a civil society. "We emphasizd many times that the struggle we had taken on had little in common with what is traditionally understood by the expression 'politics.' We discussed such concepts as non-political politics, and stressed that we were interested in certain values and principles and not in power and position. We emphasized the importance of the spirit, the importance of truth and said that even spirit and truth embody a certain kind of power." (3)

Today, more than in the recent past, we are faced with a revival of the Caesaro-Papism-Mannonism States whose interactions, especially in the wider Middle East, could lead to armed conflicts. In addition to the Caesaro-led States, the world society faces terrorism as movements with goals, gurus, ideologues, myths and martyrs. Thus there is a need to develop and structure a world-wide civil society. The concept of civil society is probably the platform for future progressive action. The global civil society is a 'power shift' of potentially historic dimensions with bonds of trust, shared values and mutual obligations which cross national frontiers. With the war drums starting to beat, creative action is needed now.


Notes
1) Mary Kaldor (Ed.) Europe from Below (London: Verso, 1991)
2) Ernest Gallner. Conditions of Liberty: Civil Society and its Rivals(London: Penguin Books, 1996)
3) Vaclav Havel in Mary Kalder (Ed.) Europe from Below

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

Rene Wadlow, President, Association of World Citizens

Freedom of Conscience and Belief

25 November is the date anniversary of the U.N. General Assembly resolution in 1981 to proclaim the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. The Declaration is a development of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights highlighting freedom or thought, conscience, religion or belief. The 1981 Declaration is now recognized as articulating the fundamental right of freedom of conscience, religion, and belief.

The efforts for such a U.N. declaration began in 1962. Two conventions were proposed by African States, many of whom had joined the U.N. after their 1960 independence. One convention was to deal with racism. Since racism in the minds of many delegates was largely limited to apartheid in South Africa, work on a racism convention progressed quickly and was adopted in 1965. Freedom of religion was more complex. The effort was led by Liberia, but ran into East-West Cold War devisions. Work on a convention was largely completed by 1967 when the Six Day War in the Middle East broke out, making religious issues all the more sensitive at the U.N.



One issue was that there was no agreed upon definition as to what is "religion", thus the longer term used of "thought, conscience, religion or belief".

Work was still slow. Thus, it was decided to change the proposal from a "Convention" which is a treaty which must be ratified by the parliament of the Member State to a "Declaration" which can be voted by the U.N. General Assembly. The second modification was to change the declaration from a positive one - "freedom of religion or belief" to a negative one "elimination of intolerance and discrimination" based on religion or belief.

Work on the Declaration had begun at the U.N. in New York. When the human rights bodies of the U.N. moved in 1977 to Geneva, a working group on the Declaration was set up in which representatives on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the Association of World Citizens, were particularly active. By the summer of 1981, the drafting of the Declaration was complete. The text was sent on to the delegates in New York and was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on 25 November 1981.

After 1981, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights (become since the Human Rights Council) created the post of Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion in 1985. The post continues today. The Declaration has given NGOs an agreed upon standard to which to hold governments. The 1981 Declaration cannot be implemented by U.N. bodies alone. Beginning with the shift of the U.N. human rights secretariat to Geneva and the closer cooperation with NGO representatives, the role of NGOs is more often written into U.N. human rights resolutions, calling on NGO cooperation, education and fact-finding. Thus in the 1981 Declaration there is a paragraph which "requests the Secretary-General in this context to invite interested non-governmental organizations to consider what further role they could envisage playing in the implementation of the Declaration."

Thus, the Association of World Citizens has continued to play an active role in the U.N. human rights bodies when the right of belief and conscience has been under attack in different parts of the world. Our policy has been to take a lead when a community under pressure was not part of an NGO in consultative status with representatives in Geneva who could speak for them. In practice, the World Council of Churches speaks for Protestant and to a lesser degree for the Orthodox Churches. The Vatican, which is considered a State, participates actively in human rights bodies and speaks for Roman Catholic churches. Thus, the Association of World Citizens has, in recent years, raised the issues of the Mandaeans, also known as Sabian Mandaeans, in Iraq, the Yazidi in Iraq and Syria, the Rohingya fleeing Myanmar (Burma), the Baha'i in Yemen after having raised starting in 1980 the persecution of the Baha'i in Iran. Starting in 1985, there being no active Buddhist organization active at the U.N. in Geneva at the time, we raised the condition of religious liberty of the Tibetans in Tibet. This was followed by presentations of the fate of the Falun Gong movement in China. They are basically Taoist but consider themselves as a separate movement or belief. There was no Taoist NGO at the U.N. that I knew of.

There is a worldwide erosion of the freedom of belief and conscience in many parts of the world causing large-scale suffering, grave injustice, and refugee flows. Belief and conscience are efforts on the part of individuals and communities to understand and to seek to live in harmony with the laws of Nature and often to communicate their understanding and devotion to others. The anniversary date of 25 November should be an opportunity to consider how to strengthen freedom of conscience and belief.

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

Rene Wadlow, President, Association of World Citizens

Nicholas Roerich

Nicholas Roerich (1874-1947) The Highest mountains stand as the witnesses of the Great Reality
by Rene Wadlow
2019-10-09 07:03:09

Nicholas Roerich, the Russian painter, explorer, and cultural activist, whose birth anniversary we note on 9 October, stressed throughout his life the role of beauty and culture in bringing humanity together in unity. “True art is the expression of the radiant spirit.” Art is the manifestation of the coming synthesis of the spiritual and the material. The gates of the sacred source must be opened wide for everybody, and the light of art will ignite numerous hearts with a new love. At first this feeling will be unconscious, but after all it will purify human consciousness. Bring art to the people “where it belongs. We should have not only museums, theatres, universities, public libraries, railway stations and hospitals, but even prisons decorated and beautified.” 

His inspiration is still at work today in many efforts to preserve the art of the past and to create an art of the future which speaks to the highest aspiration of the person. 

Roerich gained recognition at a young age in St. Petersburg art circles. His paintings of early Russian life, inspired in part by his archaeological excavations of tumuli “a reminder of the Vikings in Russia” were popular among those who were looking for inspiration in the Russian past. 

There were some among the Slavophiles of the early 1900s who felt that Russia had a unique culture and thus a special role to play in the salvation of humanity. They rejected anything coming from Western Europe. However, Roerich, while close to some of the Slavophiles, especially Princess Maria Tenisheva and her efforts at the experimental village Talashkino, was never hostile to artistic creation from non-Russian cultures. As he said “The chief significance of an artistic education lies in opening up wide horizons to the pupils and in inculcating the conception of art as something infinite.” Roerich believed that one had to preserve and develop what was best in local culture as a contribution to a world culture in which the best of local cultures would be preserved. “Culture is a constant becoming, a dynamic evolution of a living world.” 

Probably the most influential aspect of Roerich’s Russian period was his cooperation with Igor Stravinsky for the theme and the music of the Sacre du Printemps and with Sergei Diaghilev for the ballet, costumes and scenery of the Sacre in Paris in 1913, a music and dance which revolutionized ballet at the time. As Roerich wrote of Le Sacre “The eternal novelty of the Sacre is because spring is eternal, and love is eternal and sacrifice is eternal. Then in this new conception, Stravinsky touches the eternal in music. He was modern because he evoked the future; it is the great serpent ring touching the great past —the sacred tunes that connect the great past and the future.” 

The Sacre is the most Dionysian of Roerich’s inspiration. His painting of 1911 “The Forefathers” at the time of Roerich’s collaboration with Stravinsky might almost be a sketch for the opening of the Sacre, whose early pages quiver with the sound of pipes. Here Dionysus-like, primitive man charms with his piping a circle of wild beasts, in this case, bears, reflecting the Slavic tradition that bears were man’s forefathers. 

Stravinsky was presented to Roerich by Sergei Diaghilev, the Russian with a holistic vision of art: music, painting, dance, and the publisher of The World of Art magazine. Roerich had already designed some of the sets for Borodin’s Prince Igor produced by Diaghilev in Paris in 1909. Roerich produced the outline and the theme for Le Sacre and later designed the sets and the costumes. 

In 1901, Nicholas Roerich had married Elena Ivanovona who shared his interest in art, music and the philosophy of China, Tibet and India. Later, in the West she wrote her name as Helena and also published under the pen name Josephine Saint-Hilaire On Easterm Crossroads (1930). The Russian composer Moussorgsky was her uncle. The young couple cooperated with the Buriat Lama Dorzhiev in building a Tibetan Buddist Temple in St. Petersburg. 

Dorzhiev saw the possibility of an alliance of the Buriats, Kaimyk and other Buddhist tribes living in the eastern part of Russia with the thirteenth Dalai Lama, who was the most politically aware of the Dalai Lamas. The alliance was to be headed by the Tsar Nicholas II and would have been a counter weight to English and Chinese influence in Tibet. 

From Dorzhiev, the Roerichs learned of the Tibetan text and ritual, the Kalachakra (The Wheel of Time) and of the coming of a new historical-astrological cycle “The New Age” to be marked by a new Buddha, Maitreya. (1) Nicholas II, however, was not to become “the Bodhisatva Tsar”. He was soon caught up by the 1917 Russian Revolution. By 1918, the Roerichs left Russia foreseeing the Soviet policy of controlling all art forms for narrow political purposes. 

After a short stay in Western Europe, the Roerichs moved to the United States where his paintings had already been shown. With American friends, he created the Master School of the United Arts in 1922 in New York City, where music, art and philosophy were taught. Students were advised to “Look forward, forget the past, think of the service of the future. Exalt others in spirit and look ahead.” 

In 1924, the Roerichs left for India and travelled especially in the Himalayan areas. For Roerich, mountains represented a path to the spiritual life. “Mountains, what magnetic forces are concealed within you. What a symbol of quietude is revealed in every sparking peak. The highest knowledge, the most inspired songs, the most superb sounds and colors, are created on the mountains. On the highest mountains there is the Supreme.” 

The Roerichs undertook a number of expeditions to Central Asia and the Altai Mountains of Russia (1923-1928 and 1933-1935) along with their son George, who became a specialist of Tibetan culture and language. George Roerich’s Trails to Inmost Asia (Yale University Press, 1931) is a good and unsentimental account of these trips, George being assigned the hard work of running the logistics. Nicholas Roerich always remained convinced of the need to preserve local culture. He put an emphasis on collecting folk tales and traditional practices of medicine, especially the use of herbs. “In every encampment of Asia, I tried to unveil what memories were cherished in the folk memory. Through these guarded and preserved tales, you may recognize the reality of the past. In every spark of folklore, there is a drop of the great Truth adorned or distorted.” 

Roerich’s desire to make known the artistic achievements of the past through archaeology, coupled with the need to preserve the landmarks of the past from destruction, led to his work for the Banner of Peace to preserve art and architecture in time of war. Roerich had seen the destruction brought by the First World War and the civil war which followed the 1917 Russian Revolution. He worked with French international lawyers to draft a treaty by which museums, churches and buildings of value would be preserved in time of war through the use of a symbol — three red circles representing past, present and future— a practice inspired by the red cross used to protect medical personnel in times of conflict. 

Roerich mobilized artists and intellectuals in the 1920s for the establishment of this Banner of Peace. Henry A. Wallace, the US Secretary of Agriculture and later Vice-President, was an admirer of Roerich and helped to have an official treaty introducing the Banner of Peace — the Roerich Peace Pact — signed at the White House on 15 April 1935 by 21 States in a Pan-American Union ceremony. At the signing, Henry Wallace on behalf of the USA said “At no time has such an ideal been more needed. It is high time for the idealists who make the reality of tomorrow, to rally around such a symbol of international cultural unity. It is time that we appeal to that appreciation of beauty, science, education which runs across all national boundaries to strengthen all that we hold dear in our particular governments and customs. Its acceptance signifies the approach of a time when those who truly love their own nation will appreciate in addition the unique contribution of other nations and also do reverence to that common spiritual enterprise which draws together in one fellowship all artists, scientists, educators and truly religious of whatever faith.” 

As Nicholas Roerich said in a presentation of his Pact “The world is striving toward peace in many ways, and everyone realizes in his heart that this constructive work is a true prophesy of the New Era. We deplore the loss of the libraries of Louvain and Oviedo and the irreplaceable beauty of the Cathedral of Rheins. We remember the beautiful treasures of private collections which were lost during world calamities. But we do not want to inscribe on these deeds any words of hatred. Let us simply say: Destroyed by human ignorance —rebuilt by human hope.” 

After the Second World War, UNESCO has continued the effort, and there have been additional conventions on the protection of cultural and educational bodies in times of conflict, in particular The Hague Convention of May 1954 though no universal symbol as proposed by Nicholas Roerich has been developed. 

Today, the need to bring beauty to as many people as possible is the prime task of developing a culture of peace. As Nicholas Roerich wrote “The most gratifying and uplifting way to serve the coming evolution is by spreading the seeds of beauty. If we are to have a beautiful life and some happiness it must be created with joy and enthusiasm for service to art and beauty.” 

********************************** 

See Alan Sponberg and Helen Hardacre Maitreya: The Future Buddha (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, 304pp.) 

********************************** 

Rene Wadlow, President, Association of World Citizens

U.N. General Assembly: Can It Provide the Needed Global Leadership?

27 Sep 2019 – The international relations specialist Stanley Hoffmann once quipped “Goals are easy to describe. What matters more is a strategy for reaching them.” The United Nations through its annual debates in the General Assembly, its special world conferences such as those devoted to the environment, population, food, women, urbanization, and within the Specialized Agencies have created goals for a world public policy in the interests of all humanity. There are three important phases of this world public policy: formulation, implementation and evaluation. Thus, this September the UNGA began with a “Climate Action Summit” to evaluate governmental efforts to meet the challenges of climate change. Government leaders set out what they have done, or plan to do, at the national level but they said relatively little on what they could do together.

The Climate Action Summit was followed by the policy statements of national governments: Jair Bolsonaro, Donald Trump, Recep Tajyip Erdogan, Emmanuel Macron, Hassan Rauhani, Angela Merkel, Boris Johnson, Narendra Modi and Abdel Fatth al Sisi. All except al Sisi came to national power through elections and not military coups. Thus in some way, they represent the degree of awareness of world issues and the priorities of their electors.

The question asked many years ago by the world citizen Norman Cousins,

“Who Speaks for Man”?

To meet the major challenges of world-wide issues, strong leadership is necessary. Yet the avenues for leadership at the world level are difficult to trace. Leadership at the national level is usually clearly structured in a pyramid with the office of President at the top, with Cabinet Ministers, the higher ranks of the military just below. There may be a vast informal network of influential advisors, business leaders, the press – all with leadership roles, but the formal structure of governance is hierarchical and clearly defined. People generally expect the Prime Minister or the President to lead. In fact, he is judged on whether or not he provides such leadership.

At the world level, there is no world government as such, and a strong leader at the national level may play little role on the world level. What the Commission on Global Governance wrote in 1994 remains true today:

“At the moment, political caution, national concerns, short-term problems, and a certain fatigue with international causes have combined to produce a dearth of leadership on major international issues. The very magnitude of global problems such as poverty, population or consumerism seems to have daunted potential international leaders. And yet without courageous, long-term leadership at every level – international and national – it is impossible to create and sustain constituencies powerful and reliable enough to make an impact on problems that will determine, one way or another, the future of the human race on this planet.” (1)

Thus, there is a need for constant leadership and direction at the world level. There is a need to maintain and rebuild enthusiasm, to reset the course when policies do not work out as expected, to keep up a momentum and an enthusiasm. The United Nations is the only universal organization at the world level, and thus it is from within the United Nations that leadership at the world level must come. Leaders within the U.N. system must be able to reach beyond the member governments – at times over the heads of current government office holders – to the people of the world.

There are two positions of authority in the ill-defined pyramid structure of the United Nations. One is the Secretary-General; the other is the President of the General Assembly who is elected for one year at a time. The President of the current, 74th session is Tijjani Muhammed-Bande of Nigeria. There have been times when the head of one of the Specialized Agencies of the U.N. or the financial institutions or U.N. programs have provided leadership but usually on only one or two subjects.

Especially on the resolution of armed conflicts, people look to the Secretary-General for leadership. In some cases, the Secretary-General has been able to play a central role. As the servant of the Security Council, the Secretary-General has been able to play a mobilizing role in times of conflict and political crisis in those cases when the Security Council has been unified behind a decision. Since the chairman of the Security Council is a national diplomat and serves on a rotating basis only for one month, he cannot play a real mobilizing role nor is he perceived as a world leader.

Some hope that the President of the U.N. General Assembly, who is in post for a full year, could play a leadership role. So far such hopes have not been realized in practice. It would be difficult to find many people who can name the last five Presidents of the General Assembly or to cite much of what they have done other than presiding over meetings.

Today, with real challenges to humanity, with a reform-minded Secretary-General who for a decade faced refugee issues, we may see some of the marks of strong world leadership.

NOTE:

1) The Commission on Global Governance. Our Global Neighbourhood (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995)

______________________________________

René Wadlow is a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment. He is President of the Association of World Citizens, an international peace organization with consultative status with ECOSOC, the United Nations organ facilitating international cooperation and problem-solving in economic and social issues, and editor of Transnational Perspectives.

Signs of Hope for Persian Gulf Conflicts: Serious Negotiations Needed

After an extended period of darkening storm clouds, there are signs of hope for tension reduction in two separate but related Persian Guld conflicts: Yemen and Syria. On 20 September 2019, the representatives of the Yemen Ansar Allah Movement (often called al-Houthi) proposed a peace initiative to hold off all their drone and missile attacks on Saudi Arabia in exchange for ending the Saudi-led armed conflict in Yemen. The United Nations envoy for Yemen, Martin Griffits welcomed the al-Houthi offer.

It is possible that Saudi Arabia, in a war that has bogged down and its its original United Arab Emirates allies increasingly reluctant, will call off the war as an unnecessary and expensive operation. There had been positive signs earlier of possible agreements related to negotiations held in Sweden, but the current signs are more telling. There may be some shifts in power relations within the ruling circles in Saudi Arabia, but the Saudi factions have no fears from elections.

If the al-Houthi remain in control of northern Yemen, which is their tribal base, it is likely that south Yemen will return to being a separate State. There had been an earlier 2014 proposal for a six-region federation for Yemen. In any case, decentralization of government and constitutional reform are necessary top priorities. If the creation of a separate southern State happens quickly, the Saudi leadership can say that their military action prevented the Houthis from having control of the full State. Thus the military conflict was not a total loss for Saudi Arabia.

For Yemen, the war has had devestating consequences. There is an immediate need for adequate food and medical supplies and support for the large number of internally-displaced persons. The economics of Yemen was weak in the best of times, and the war has destroyed what little economic and social infrastructure existed. In addition, there are real ecological challenges, especially the lowering of the water supply. The war has led to greater geographic, social, and ethnic divisions. Creating a national society of individuals willling to cooperate will not be easy. Regional divisions will be difficult to bridge.

The current Yemeni offer needs to be encouraged by the U.N. mediators and by those having some influence on decision-making in Saudi Arabia. Thus, at the U.N. General Assembly on 27 September, the Prime Minister of Kuwait Sheikh Jaber al-Hamad al-Sabah said that the Yemeni talks should be held under the auspices of the U.N. and that Kuwait was willing to host such talks. “Once again, Kuwait reaffirms that there is no military solution to this conflict and continues to back U.N. efforts.” At the same time, the Secretary General of the League of Arab States met with Martin Griffiths on the sidelines of the General Assembly in New York. Saudi Arabia, no doubt to “test the waters” has responded with a partial ceasefire in four Yemeni areas. Other States at the U.N. must now play their part.

The second sign of hope was the statement on 13 September 2019 of U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres that a constitutional committee of 150 persons had been agreed to for Syria. The Constitutional Committee will have 50 people chosen by the Government, 50 people from the opposition within the country and 50 persons chosen by the U.N. – all Syrians.

The Foreign Ministers of Iran, Russia and Turkey at the U.N. General Assembly welcomed the agreement. The three States have been promoting the creation of such a committee. The Committee will start to met in Geneva hopefully toward the end of October.

Every constitution is an answer to unstated questions about important challenges which the society faces. Every constitution distributes power, explicitly and implicitly, and every workable constitution will do so in ways which reflect the distribution of power in the society. Constitutions must be seen as desirable. They must have positive merits related to immediate and widely felt needs. It is likely that drafting a constitution with a broader base of public support would have been more possible during the first months of protests prior to the armed conflict. We will watch the work of the Constitutional Committee as closely as possible.

There are signs of positive change in both Yemen and Syria. We do not underestimate the difficulties, but for a just peace, chances must be acted upon.

Rene Wadlow, President, Association of World Citizens

Growing Tensions on the Road to Persian Gulf Security

Growing Tensions on the Road to Persian Gulf Security

by Rene Wadlow

2019-09-17 07:50:03

Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

The 14 September 2019 drone attacks on oil installations in eastern Saudi Arabia have dimmed hope for U.S. - Iranian discussions aimed to reduce tensions and potentially end the armed conflict in Yemen. Tensions have increased, and oil prices have risen. Certain hopes created by the initiatives of the French President during the G7 meeting in Biarritz, France and the forced departure of John Bolton as U.S. National Security Advisor have lessened. In fact, the aim of the attacks may have been to lessen the possibility of Iran - U.S. discussions which might have taken place during the start of the U.N. General Assembly in New York later in September.

There is a good deal of speculation as to who fired the drones and from where. The Ansar Allah Movement (often called the Houthis) has taken credit, but some specialists doubt that they have the technical knowhow to send drones from Yemen to the targets in Saudi Arabia. Some speculate that the drones were sent from southern Iraq, possibly by Iranian-backed militias such as the Popular Mobilization Forces or by units of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards stationed in Iraq. The Revolutionary Guards are nearly "a state within the state" and could take initiatives without orders from the Iranian President or the Foreign Minister. The Revolutionary Guards could have motivations to prevent fruitful U.S. - Iranian talks at the U.N. There is also speculation that the drone attacks could be linked to increased tensions between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates concerning the future of south Yemen where the two countries support different factions.

Whatever the locations from which the drones were launched and whomever pulled the switch, the consequences are clear. At a time when governments were speaking of a possible path to reduce tensions a "No Exit" sign has been put up near the start of the road. The road leads to ever-greater tensions which may slip out of the control of governments. Thus, in addition to the French proposal at the G7, there was an earlier Russian government proposal.

On 23 July 2019, the Russian Government's "Collective Security for the Persian Gulf Region" was presented in Moscow by the Deputy Foreign Minister, Mikhail Bogdanov. The Russian proposal for Collective Security for the Persian Gulf follows closely the procedures which led to the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and the creation of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Bogdanov stressed multilateral ism as a mechanism for all involved in the assessment of situations, the decision-making process, and the implementation of decisions.

It is not clear how the Russian proposal for a Helsinki-type conference will progress. Russia does not play a leading role in the Middle East today as the USSR did in Europe in the 1970s. In the lead up to the Helsinki Accords of 1975, non-governmental organizations had played an active role in informal East-West discussions to see what issues were open to negotiations and on what issues progress might be made. There is a need for such non-governmental efforts today as the Persian Gulf and the wider Middle East are growing ever-more tense.

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

Rene Wadlow, President, Association of World Citizens