Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the sixth Secretary-General of the United Nations, speaks at the unveiling of his official portrait as Secretary-General Kofi Annan, his successor, listens. Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe.

By Federico Mayor Zaragoza
Apr 20 2018 (IPS)

“If we don’t do everything possible to democratize globalization, globalization will pervert national democracies”, said the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, as President of the “International Panel on Democracy and Development” set up by UNESCO and chaired by the man who had worked so hard, at a global scale, in favour of giving voice to the peoples -as required in the first sentence of the Charter of the United Nations- to allow constant participation from citizenship as should be the rule in a genuine democracy.

He also mentioned how risky it was to exchange “trade for aid” because it led to put an end to foreign aid for the sake of integral, sustainable and human development, leaving initiative in the hands of major trade corporations.

“Globalization is not governed by democratic principles, and decisions taken are neither the result of a process of free expression of opinion… I think the essential philosophy for the proper operation of global democracy is the same as for national democracy: promoting a countervailing power, listening to everyone’s opinion, in particular the opinion of the members of the opposition and of the weakest, in order to reach agreements that make everyone feel duly represented”.

“Globalization is not governed by democratic principles, and decisions taken are neither the result of a process of free expression of opinion... I think the essential philosophy for the proper operation of global democracy is the same as for national democracy: promoting a countervailing power, listening to everyone’s opinion, in particular the opinion of the members of the opposition and of the weakest, in order to reach agreements that make everyone feel duly represented”
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, UN Secretary-General, 1992-1996

This was Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s (1922 – 2016) way of thinking, those were the ideas he clearly expressed in his Agendas for Peace, Development and Democracy, the ideas that led many rich countries -in particular United States Republican Party- to feel prejudiced against a second mandate from a Secretary-General that had so openly and convincingly expressed his opinion against globalizing neoliberalism.

His book “En Attendant la Prochaine Lune…” (1997-2002) starts with the reflections he made on 1 January 1997 about the reasons that prevented him from being nominated for a second term in such a high-level position, as was normally the case.  The relevance of this book lies in the memories that the former Secretary-General recalls about this painful period. In the first place, he mentions the moment when he was replaced by the new Secretary-General, Kofi Annan.

I had the opportunity to personally attend this event. The Secretary-General that had made the greatest contributions to the democratization of United Nations was forced to quit his job because President Clinton was a weak president, confronted to the influential Republican Party that dominated the power scenario in the United States, under the leadership of Senator Jesse Helms.

And that is why, disregarding the support of a vast majority, Boutros Boutros-Ghali gave yet another lesson of common sense and sense of timing when he accepted to be replaced by a civil servant from the United Nations who met all terms and conditions due to his recognized undertaking of the tasks that he was trusted with and to his personal and family background. He wrote: “I don’t really regret leaving behind a job, a way of living, a house, friends… but rather to have to start from scratch at 74, under a new sky, new responsibilities, in an environment that is still completely odd to me”…

On 1 January 1997 he flew to Paris on board of a Concorde with his wife Lea, a woman with an unusual personality, very much up to the standard of his well-known husband.  When they arrived to the Hotel Meurice, “as if everything was the same… the scenery that had remained unchanged was a great relief and it helped me start a new life after having left the UN behind”…

On 10 January he was greeted by President Chirac at the Élysée “with the cordiality, simplicity and true friendship that were one of his best kept secrets”.  We had both lost a battle… because he had been in the last period my strongest pillar, my floating log, when other Nations had decided to abandon me pressed by the American hurricane…

In another one of his “diaries” he had written: “I knew that he republicans and the Zionists would oppose my re-election”.  During this meeting he was “introduced” by Chirac to the position of General Secretary of “La Francophonie, an organisation whose aim was “to protect multilingualism and cultural diversity…”, and which had to be elected for the first time during the Summit Meeting of Heads of State and Government to be held in Hanoi in November 1997.  The French President suggested that starting from May he should travel around Africa and Asia to ensure the success of his candidacy.

He describes the occasion when on 4 March -during the presentation of the “Amicorum Liber” from Héctor Gros Espiell-  Karel Vassak invited him, with my persistent support, to prepare his own. Lea was very pleased with this project. Boutros seemed somehow reluctant to accept the proposal, but he finally did.  On 12 May he recalls we had lunch together and I asked him to chair the International Commission on “democracy and development”.

He explains: “Federico Mayor had previously created a Commission chaired by Javier Pérez de Cuéllar on “culture and development”, and he had entrusted Jacques Delors with the responsibility of yet another Commission on “education and development”…

On 18 May he told me who were the 22 members of the Panel, amongst them well-known international personalities such as Nadine Gardiner, from South Africa, Basma Bint Talal from Jordan, Mohammed Charfi, Tunisia, Abid Hussain, India, Attiya Inayatullah, Pakistan, Robert Badinter, France, Bruce Russet, U.S.A., Juan Antonio Carrillo Salcedo, Spain, Rosario Green, Mexico”… “This will be -he says- a new and wide-scope academic adventure .  I am fully aware of the challenge I will be faced with”.

But there is no doubt that he had a great experience in this particular area.  In fact, in December 1986, when the 51st session of the General Assembly of the United Nations was about to end, as was his term as Secretary-General, Boutros-Ghali submitted his third Agenda within one of the issues for discussion entitled “Support by the United Nations system to efforts made by Governments to promote and consolidate new or restored democracies” .

Amongst the six sections it includes, the most important and timely is certainly the one devoted to “Democratization at an international scale”. Once again Boutros Boutros-Ghali was running ahead of events, because he was familiar with the ins and outs of oligarchic groups supported by neoliberalism. He names the “new actors” in the international scenario that shall thereafter be taken into account: “regional organizations, NGOs, members of the Parliament, local authorities, academic and scientific circles, companies… and, in particular, mass media”.

According to him: “A culture for democracy leads to the promotion and reinforcement of a culture for peace and to development by means of an adequate governance”.

Despite being fair and universal, the United Nations cannot promote democratization movements.  But it can, however, help every country to find its own way towards democracy. Boutros was the first Secretary-General who, despite reaffirming United Nations neutrality, overtly declared himself in favour of the democratic system, a declaration that reflected a change in what had been up to then the traditional position.

“Democracy contributes to preserve peace and security, to protect justice and human rights and to promote economic and social development”.  As a matter of fact Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s perspective and action duly completes the 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The different “Summits” that were held since 1992 also highlight the need to finally give a voice to “We the peoples…”: they were allowed to speak about environment in Rio de Janeiro, 1992; about population in Cairo, 1992; about human rights in Vienna, 1993; about women in Pekin, 1995; about the habitat in Istanbul, 1995 about social development in Copenhagen, 1995…

The next meeting was the Millennium Forum that gathered together, in May 2000 at the United Nations headquarters in New York, 1350 representatives of NGOs, civil society organisations, associations representing new actors… It was, therefore, urgent to make an assessment of the meetings held during the first part of the nineties so that attention was finally paid to the specific directives that were required to allow implementation -at a national, regional and international scale- of suitable actions for the 21st century and the third millennium.

The Forum concluded with the Final Declaration from the Civil Society -”We the peoples”-and the Agenda for Action (“Strengthening the United Nations for the Twenty-First Century”) that included specific proposals such as: transforming the Security Council; reshaping the International Court of Justice… all of which have been ignored up to now, although they remain at the disposal of mankind, once we will no longer be distracted and subjugated by the gigantic media power, and we will realize that there are essential changes that must be made without delay.

Boutros Boutros-Ghali was appointed by acclamation by the General Assembly as the sixth Secretary-General of the United Nations, for a five-year term beginning 1 January 1992. Credit: UN Photo/John Isaac.

The titles of the extensive work written by Boutros Boutros-Ghali are an unusual and extraordinary reflect of his life as a politician and as a human being: “The Problem of the Suez Channel”, 1957; “General Theory of Alliances”, 1963; “The African Union Organization”, 1969; “The Egyptian Path to Jerusalem”, 1997; “My Life in the Glass House”, 1999; “Peace, Development, Democracy: Agendas for the Management of our Planet”, 2001; “Democratizing Globalization”, 2002…

19 November 1997 was the 20th anniversary of the wise and courageous visit of President Anwar el-Sadat to Jerusalem, “the most important event in my political and diplomatic career… 20 years have elapsed: history will recall this exceptional visit as one of the greatest moments of the 20th century.

In my contribution to his “Amicorum Disipulorumque Liber” on “The Human Right to Peace” I wrote in the prologue “Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s term occurred at the same time as a series of radical changes in international affairs”.  The “post-Cold War” had indeed nothing to do with “previous post-wars”. And yet Boutros Boutros-Ghali knew which the priorities were. And which were the main references and recommendations raised during the most relevant meetings of the United Nations.

We had the raw materials… but we lacked the ability to use them in a hostile environment headed by United States Republican Party. In my paper I told the following story: “My granddaughter asked me recently why we hadn’t kept the promises we made during the Earth Summit.  I told her that to take action one needs to feel involved, responsible, one needs to recall, to compare… She is still waiting for that to happen. Everyone, men and women are still waiting. I hope we will not deceive them. I hope the United Nations will have the support they need to put into practice the Plans to promote tolerance, dialogue, cultural exchange, peace”.

Boutros-Ghali’s friends and pupils unveiled -in his book Amicorum– an extraordinary man in extraordinary circumstances, I felt satisfied that the UNESCO, a “thinking” organisation within the United Nations family, had been at the root of this book. Some of the contributors worthwhile mentioning were the following: Jacques Delors, Mikhail Gorbachev, Juan Antonio Carrillo, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Enrique Iglesias, Robert Badinter, Shimon Peres, Ismail Serageldin…

Finally I would like to mention how vividly I still recall the proposal made by Karel Vasak, Bernard Kouchner and myself to the Secretary-General of The United Nations concerning the “humanitarian interference”, a concept that should prevent atrocities such as those committed in Cambodia and Rwanda from ever happening again with no reaction from the international community.

The UN blue helmets should only intervene in two specific cases: general violation of human rights and genocide. But the “duty to intervene” due to humanitarian reasons was overtly at odds with the sacred sovereignty of Nations -despite massacre? How many victims are hiding behind the term “sovereignty”? Could Pol Pot really claim that he had legal powers that justified his atrocious insanities?

If the United Nations were “re-democratized”, they would be in the position to rely on article 42 of the Charter that allows an armed intervention in case of massive violations of human rights or in case of “clear menace against peace and international security”.

Boutros Boutros-Ghali was overthrown… but he reappeared as leader of La Fancophonie, as President of the Council of the European Centre for Peace and Development; he, therefore, made his re-entry into the international scene, and he shall remain there forever as a beacon thanks to the audacious and truthful messages he conveyed about peace, justice, development and democracy, all of which demand the implementation of multilateralism he so much yearned for.

This story was originally published on 28 July 2017, reminiscing Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Roberto Savio, Founder of IPS retrieved this story and we are republishing.

Excerpt:

Now that the war in Iraq is considered ‘over’, another major goal of Israel has come into view: attacking Iran on the pretext that it may possibly be working on a nuclear weapon – though Pakistan, China, and India definitely already have them.

For years now, the major producers of weapons and oil, both essential to the world’s “great powers”, have been seeking a confrontation with Iran, just as they did years before with Iraq, resorting to falsehoods and bogus arguments. It is no coincidence that Iran’s oil reserves are as large as and possibly even larger than those of Saudi Arabia.

Given that Israel does not need to speak with the Pentagon to convince the military leadership  – because it is already inside the Pentagon­ – there is reason to worry that something might happen the way it happened in 2003: an inundation of news about the malevolent intentions of Iran today, ­as with Iraq then,­ followed by a decision to take military action without obtaining permission from the United Nations Security Council.

But things will not unfold in 2012 the way they did in 2003, when the entire world looked on passively in fear and silence. Today millions of people, in person or virtually, will react against it.

Working together we can promptly put an end to these intolerable abuses, the effects of which are not even tallied afterwards, including the number of dead, maimed, and displaced.

The G8 and the G20 (the richest nations on the planet) have amply demonstrated their incompetence at global governance, including economic governance. What is urgently needed is a refoundation of the United Nations. Only multilateralism will make it possible to avoid armed conflict and immediately regulate ­and then abolish­ atomic weapons through recourse to words and mediation.

Humanity should not live another day under the nuclear threat, which is an invitation to death by inaction and a collective disgrace. This, and not the fluctuations of the stock market, is the true problem we face. It affects all of humanity and is a concrete and urgent challenge.

A systematic crisis requires a change of the system: transferring power and initiative to society and aligning political action with the principles of democracy, ­which were so well expressed in the preamble to the UNESCO Constitution­ and not to the exigencies of the markets, whether local or global.

In this way we can bring about the urgently-needed refoundation of a strong U.N. with the moral authority enjoyed only by those institutions that are able to bring together all of the countries of the world without exception or exclusion.

The hegemonic impulses to govern the world through a plutocratic group of seven, eight or 20 countries must give way to multilateral cooperation in response to the global outcry that is about to make itself heard.

I have written before how both the new General Assembly and the Security Councils (a Council for Socioeconomic Security and a Council for Environmental Security would be added to the current Security Council) could be restructured in order to provide adequate international structures, especially when global governance requires it.

After the intolerable and immoral intervention in Iraq, global civil power should now firmly oppose such adventurism, particularly that which would have Iran as its target, both for geostrategic reasons (spurred on by Israel) and for its fabulous oil reserves.

The only solution to the problems potentially posed by Iran, or Yemen or Syria – and this would have been true with Libya as well­ – is mediation by the United Nations as the only interlocutor that has the backing of the entire world.

Have we considered the horrific number of casualties caused by the intervention in Iraq? Have we considered the five million displaced and the thousands and thousands killed or maimed? Have we examined who is exploiting Iraq’s oil fields today? The people of the world will no longer tolerate atrocities of this nature.

It is apparent that the Republicans in the U.S., who continue to profoundly influence the country’s political direction, are redoubling their efforts, which began in the 1980s, to demolish the U.N. They abandoned UNESCO in 1984, then they reconciled in order to invade Iraq.

Now they are trying to paralyse it again by not paying their dues because the organisation decided to allow the admission of the Palestinian State  acting on the autonomy conferred upon it by the General Conference.

They are stubbornly trying to activate the G20, the G8 and the G2 at the same time as they are turning their backs on multilateral cooperation. But these will be the death throes of a system that is in complete collapse.

(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Federico Mayor Zaragoza, ex-director general of UNESCO, is president of the Foundation for a Culture of Peace.

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org

“Carrying development”. Credit: Claudius/IPS

By Federico Mayor Zaragoza and Mario Soares
BARCELONA, Jun 1 2012 (IPS)

We are all going through a period of great confusion and uncertainty.

On the one hand, part of the world is dramatically affected by the consequences of governments’ total submission to the financial markets. These markets, supposedly anonymous, are not subject to any kind of control, due to the deregulating policies of the last decades. They have even overthrown democratically elected governments and substituted them with “technocratic” ones.

On the other hand, the speculative nature of a great part of these markets is harshly affecting the price of commodities, including food, thus pushing millions more people to hunger and malnutrition. This fact, in addition to chronic failure in the fulfillment of international agreements related to development cooperation, is aggravated even more by the current financial and economic crisis.

Parallel to this, the world is immersed in yet another crisis that is threatening its own survival. The challenges of climate change and environmental degradation, together with unsustainable production and consumption models, are growing alarmingly, something that the present structures of global governance are not able to face, as shown by the repeated failures of the last COP meetings.

In this framework, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, also known as Rio+20, will take place in Rio de Janeiro from Jun. 20-22, twenty years after the celebration of the first “Earth Summit” in the very same city. This will be a key moment in the international agenda to which everybody – including citizens, of course – must pay special attention.

There are several topics on the agenda resulting from intense negotiations that are still underway. In this context, the World Forum of Civil Society Networks – UBUNTU wishes to underline the following regarding the two main themes: a green economy and an institutional framework.

The green economy concept must refer to a model of sustainable development that includes a holistic approach, with deep social roots and a strong commitment to the environment. We shall reject the promotion of any other model that conceals an option for an increased commodification of nature.

Secondly, the need for reforming the institutional framework is obvious and more urgent than ever. We shall move beyond the organisational details of the new framework, though they too are important; now, the priority is to ensure that the resulting structure has the resources, independence and powers necessary to guarantee the implementation and fulfillment of environmental agreements, including the capacity to impose sanctions.

This must go hand in hand with a process of promoting a system of democratic multilateralism. This is the only possible option for those who truly believe in the transition towards a model of real, global democratic governance that is both participatory and fair.

Another key issue to be raised at the Summit is the idea of basing progress in all aspects related to the concept of climate justice on the principle of “common but differentiated responsibility”.

In this sense, the issue of financing is essential, highlighting once more the need to move forward with respect to innovative mechanisms of financing for development, particularly the proposal of a Financial Transaction Tax.

In the framework of a comprehensive proposal regarding the concept of sustainable human development, it is imperative to establish a legal framework that prevents speculation affecting food prices.

Moreover, the debate regarding new ways of measuring development and sustainability must help us, in line with the Human Development Index, to overcome the current model based on gross domestic product (GDP). This model shuns basic criteria such as equity, sustainability or respect for human rights. In this sense, the proposal of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) may be a positive one, but only if the Goals go in the abovementioned direction, and if they complement the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), with which in any case they must never compete.

It is also extremely important that the Summit renews and re-launches agreements as essential as the Agenda 21, which includes topics of utmost significance, such as commitments regarding greenhouse gases; or the conventions on climate change, biological diversity or desertification.

Therefore, we call for the mobilisation of all involved actors, and especially citizens and civil society – at all levels: local, regional and global – in order to ensure that this new “Earth Summit” measures up to the severity of the crisis we are going through.

The world cannot afford another fiasco in Rio. It is time for responsibility. And, above all, it is time for action.

(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Federico Mayor Zaragoza is ex director-general of UNESCO, president of the Culture of Peace Foundation and former president of IPS. Mario Soares is ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal. Read full text and list of adhesions to the appeal at UBUNTU – World Forum of Civil Society Networks.

By Federico Mayor Zaragoza
BARCELONA, Nov 25 2011 (IPS)

Danielle Mitterrand, one of the world’s most prominent and extraordinary women, has died after a fearless lifelong fight for the poor and marginalised.

Exemplary in her ability to fulfil her commitment to the emancipation of all human beings, she was shaped by the liberal family she was born in to. Her life was one of commitment and resistance, first in Cluny, where she spent her youth, and then in whatever part of the world her presence was necessary

She was always in the line of fire when it came to defending people’s freedoms, even when her own life was at risk, as it was in Suleymaniye, Turkey, on July 6, 1992, when seven people she was working with were killed and mere chance saved her from sharing that fate. Shortly before the car bomb went off, she had changed vehicle for logistical reasons. She could never forget the tragedy in which, she said, “I should have died with my comrades.”

She was a serene woman with expressive eyes full of affection. She kept within her memories that would never be brought to light. Her 14 years as first lady of France as wife of President Francois Mitterand were marked by impressive dignity.

She dedicated her life to the France Freedoms Foundation, which celebrated its 25th year last October. Her work in Education for Peace was in later years focused on insuring that all human beings on the planet have access to water.

For over fifteen years she spoke of the need for a radical change to counter “the economic and financial dictatorship”.

She did everything in her power not only to help but also to bring about a future more in keeping with the essential qualities of all human beings. “I hope that all people understand and are a part of the urgent and necessary transformation of human society into a new civilisation.”

Obstinate and rebellious, she ceaselessly defended her principles. She never failed to call on others, whether one-on-one or in a group, to pay attention and to help those excluded from the society of the materially wealthy, that 20 percent of the earth’s inhabitants who frequently do not know how to (or don’t want to) consider the more then 5 billion people, all of equal dignity, who live in increasingly precarious situation outside of the restricted comfortable enclave of the global village.

Danielle Mitterand was a beacon of her time, lighting the dark skies of a world that is not as we would like it to be. We will continue her struggle for all humanity and its many peoples. Her example gives us strength and courage. We will never forget her. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Federico Mayor Zaragoza is president of the Culture of Peace Foundation and ex-director general of UNESCO.

Excerpt:

By Federico Mayor Zaragoza and - -
MADRID, Jun 28 2011 (IPS)

The world can be fixed:

1) If democracy is consolidated and politicians take charge and, rather than cave in to pressure from financial institutions, replace the current speculation-based economy with one based on knowledge.

2) If investments in weapons and the military are reduced and shifted to funds for sustainable global development such that the number of people benefitting from progress increases.

3) If tax havens are rigorously eliminated and alternative financial mechanisms, like a tax on electronic transactions, are finally put into practice.

4) If the plutocratic clubs of the G-7, G-8, and G-20 imposed by “globalisers” are dissolved once and for all and the United Nations is strengthened and given the means necessary to fulfil its missions to bring territorial security worldwide, to enforce respect for international law, to incorporate the World Trade Organisation into the UN and insure that the World Bank and International Monetary Fund achieve the goals they were founded to achieve, to rapidly deploy UN peacekeepers helmets rather than merely provide impassive witnesses to genocide and human rights abuses, and to coordinate the actions of peacekeepers especially to reduce the impact of natural and man-made disasters.

5) If the decision is made overnight that drugs are worthless and made available everywhere at a modest cost, as happened with alcohol and tobacco. This “legalisation” would be accompanied by a campaign to discourage drug use through advertising and school programmes and by the introduction of treatment programmes for addiction.

6) If citizens around the world recognise the power they have through their virtual presence via the internet and social networking and decide to stop being passive subjects and begin to take action.

Those who sought to replace multilateralism -guided by human rights and democratic principles- with pro-market government by the few brought the world a catastrophic failure. And yet they are moving ahead as if nothing happened, imposing a economy based on speculation and war through the use of the media and financial ratings agencies that were incapable of detecting “bubbles” and yet are now moving aggressively to advance the interests of the major market presences.

It is the same old recipe, with no consideration for human suffering, social disruption, or the plague of fear afflicting so many people on the planet: foreign policy, defence policy, and a pro-market stance intended to insure the rule by the few and the obedience of the many.

After the major wars, there were always ideals, utopias, and hopes to light the path toward a peaceful tomorrow with human dignity and equality and harmonious co-existence, such that certain indisputable values -justice, liberty, and fraternity- could mobilise people and give meaning to their lives.

The major difference in the current situation is the spiritual, intellectual, and mental emptiness which effects and paralyses so many people because they tried -and in many cases succeeded- to fill their lives with entertainment, material objects, and the activities of docile and resigned people who allow life to guided by supranational processes that appear to be inexorable.

How long will the majority of people remain passive and allow things to continue as usual? I don’t think for very long. The new communications technologies allow the people, who are now spectators, to actively participate in the formation of a worldwide network that at the global and local level will strengthen global democracy and the transition from a culture of imposition, violence, and war to a culture of dialogue, reconciliation, and peace; from a security strategy that is exclusively territorial to a strategy for security in food, healthcare, and protection from catastrophe; from a market economy to a global sustainable economy.

There is a way to fix the world, but it is not the G-20 of the “Bush solution” that will do it, or the “rescue” of irresponsible bankers with public funds, or the shifting of production in a greed-driven race to the bottom, or investing billions in defence and security equipment for the confrontations of the past, or allowing disgraceful tax havens to continue, or leaving people blinded and distracted by the new real and virtual circuses of the 21st century.

The formulas of yesterday will not meet the challenge of today and tomorrow.

The solution must be the imagination, and the invention of the future.

The solution is applying the solutions backed by trustworthy people: “In times of crisis, only the imagination is more important than knowledge.” (Albert Einstein). “All change is possible. There is no challenge that if beyond the reach of human creativity.” (John F Kennedy). Jose Monleon in his excellent essay on “Crisis, Culture, and Democracy” quotes Amin Maalouf, who writes, “Humanity is facing unprecedented dangers that require unprecedented solutions.”

The future, I like to say, is ours to make. A new world of human dignity might finally be created in the dawn of the 21st century. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Federico Mayor Zaragoza, ex-Director General of UNESCO, President of the Foundation for a Culture of Peace and President of IPS News Agency. This article is excerpted from his last essay, The Crime of Silence (Editorial Comanegra).

Excerpt:

By Federico Mayor Zaragoza and - -
MADRID, Jun 6 2011 (IPS)

The time has come to take a stand, to say calmly and firmly that humanity cannot continue to subject itself to the interminable throes of a system that has resulted in the current grave and multi-faceted (social, financial, food, environmental, political, democratic, ethical) crisis.

The fact that modern information technology now allows for remote participation also makes possible the transition from an economy of speculation and war to an economy of sustainable global development.

The time for silence is over. From now on, keeping silent is a crime.

The powerful, who have always scared off the more daring citizens from speaking out, have never had to deal with “virtual revolution”. Remote participation (whether by mobile phone, Internet, or SMS) will change the current rules and guidelines for elections and for receiving feedback from voters -in other words, for democracy.

The time has come for a citizens’ mobilisation against the giant system of domination -economic, military, and media- in order to immediately begin the process of moving away from the war-and-speculation economy (4 billion dollars a day spent on weapons and military expenses at the same time, I never tire of pointing out, 70,000 people die from hunger) towards a globally-sustainable economy that rapidly shrinks the enormous social asymmetries and ills and the progressive deterioration of the environment, which might become irreversible.

The time has come to prohibit and punish the abuses that the “market”, through the famous “ratings” agencies, rains on politicians, impoverished “rescuers” who, at the risk of financial ruin, must seek to cut their budgets. Those who chanted “less government and more market” while assuring the world that the market will regulate itself and that tax shelters would be eliminated, must publicly rectify the grave errors that have occurred.

The moment has come to replace the plutocratic cliques that were given power by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and have demonstrated their complete ineffectiveness with a strong United Nations provided with the personnel and the financial and technical resources it needs to carry out its mission of providing international security, defending democratic principles, the freedom of expression, and access to quality information, taking coordinated action to reduce the impact of natural and man-made disasters, monitoring the environment, and promptly implementing social and economic goals.

We should all read and reread the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to feel the comfort it should provide and awaken in ourselves the conviction that it is still worth fighting for these great ethical values that should guide our everyday behaviour. Thus we can recognise that reason is on our side in resisting the temptation to use force.

Such an “active reading” is necessary because we are not correcting our course. There is no clear movement from plutocracy to multilateralism. No action is being taken to once and for all eliminate tax shelters, which are making possible every kind of trafficking, in drugs, arms, and people. Nothing is being done to regulate speculation or other irresponsible economic practices, or to fight the excessive concentration of the media. There is no movement towards a new model of production based on globally sustainable practices. As was the case before the crisis, all that is important today is dealing, selling, and producing for the lowest possible price by shifting production eastward without any understanding of how the “producers” live in these countries or what their human rights situation is. It’s more of the same, in short, as society remains silent, looking the other way.

“Public” institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank as well as private institutions of dubious impartiality, though they were incapable of either predicting or preventing the crisis, are acting in the interests of those who caused it.

And what about the artists, scientists, and academics? They too just look on. In general, they are distracted spectators who pay too little attention to the big problems and so fail to act in response. They still don’t see the immense power of civil society.

Then one day, after years and years of fragile, manipulative democracy, modern communications technology ushers in the possibility of building in cyberspace that which had previously existed only in “real life”. Today with the mobile phone or the Internet it is possible to change the stubbornly reality, to mobilise millions of people who can finally unite their voices and desires and carry out an uprising peacefully yet firmly, which the keepers of privilege and the ways of the past didn’t let us even imagine.

The future is about to be made by overcoming the inertia of those who continue to want to resolve the problems of tomorrow with the solutions of yesterday. Many things must be conserved, yet many other things must change. And we will have to be daring.

This civil society’s moment, for bringing about the great transition from force to words, to meetings, reconciliation, from being subjects to being citizens. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Federico Mayor Zaragoza, ex director-general of UNESCO, president of the Culture of Peace Foundation and president of IPS. This column is an excerpt from his most recent essay “The Crime of Silence” (Editorial Comanegra).

Excerpt:

By Tito Drago and Federico Mayor Zaragoza
MADRID, Feb 4 2011 (IPS)

Civil society is more coordinated and stronger at an international level today thanks to the Internet, and cyberspace can play an important role in efforts to eradicate the death penalty, says Federico Mayor Zaragoza.

"The death penalty is the cruellest, most degrading and inhumane punishment," Federico Mayor Zaragoza told IPS. Credit: Wikicommons

Mayor Zaragoza is also chair of the IPS Board of Directors.

The International Commission Against the Death Penalty, originally the initiative of Spain’s socialist Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, was officially established on Oct. 7, and its first two-day global meeting ended Thursday in Madrid.

Q: Is capital punishment a human rights violation even if it is carried out as part of a judicial decision?

A: It is not simply a violation of human rights, but is the ultimate denial of human rights, because it violates the most important of the universal rights: the right to life.

Q: But what if there is a judicial ruling?

A: First of all, it’s important to remember that on more than one occasion, after death row convicts have been executed, it turned out that they were innocent.

The death penalty is the cruellest, most degrading and inhumane punishment, which at times is applied unfairly and is generally used in a disproportionate, discriminatory and arbitrary manner. We must also keep in mind that even the most abject criminals can repent and be reformed.

Q: If the United Nations approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaims the right of every individual to protection from deprivation of life, in 1948, why hasn’t it enforced a ban on the death penalty?

A: The U.N. can recommend, but it cannot enforce its resolutions.

Q: What explanation is there for the continued application of capital punishment in not only one of the industrialised nations, but the most industrialised nation, the United States?

A: There is no explanation, although we should not overlook the positives steps that are being taken, like President (Barack) Obama’s attempt to persuade the 36 states that maintain the death penalty to at least adopt a moratorium.

And in that country, the most important thing now is to take action in order to raise public awareness on the problem, to keep them from voting again in favour of keeping the death penalty on the books.

Q: And what about China?

A: With respect to that country…we should not look the other way, but should issue a loud international call for it to at least apply a moratorium and stop the killing.

It would be difficult to get China to change its laws immediately, but we should try to get it to suspend executions. Although all executions are worthy of condemnation, in this case we must stress that there are “assembly line executions”: killings of dozens of people who are deprived of a fair trial and the right to a defence.

Q: Can killings of civilian populations by the armed forces be considered a kind of capital punishment, given that many bombings, for instance, are carried out in compliance with orders given by democratically elected governments?

A: No, that isn’t the death penalty; these are murders, state terrorism, and those responsible for them should be tried under both national and international laws.

Q: Until capital punishment is revoked in the countries that still apply it, can steps forward be taken?

A: One thing that should immediately happen is a stop to executions of persons under 18, pregnant women or people with mental disabilities.

In the U.S. state of Virginia, a mentally retarded woman was recently executed. It is inconceivable that this is still happening in a country that claims to defend human rights. Human rights are indivisible; it is not possible to try to uphold some while violating others.

Q: But are there international norms that make it possible to apply the death penalty?

A: It has been clear that this isn’t possible since 1948, when the U.N. approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaims the right of every individual to protection from deprivation of life and states that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

It is clear that the death penalty not only violates the right to life but is also cruel, inhuman and degrading.

Furthermore, studies carried out by the U.N. in 1988, 1996 and 2002 state that no scientific study has shown that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life sentences.

Q: What immediate objective is sought by the International Commission that you chair?

A: To raise citizen awareness of the issue and get them involved in fighting the death penalty, and to get the 58 countries where it is still applied to abolish it by reforming their laws, with a view to its complete eradication.

Q: What responsibility do reporters and the media have with regard to this issue?

A: As with so many other issues, their responsibility is to broadly inform, in a veracious, accurate and objective manner. But we also have to understand that citizen participation in communication, through cyberspace, is growing day by day. It is very likely that the traditional media will become irrelevant.

Q: And what future do you see for a news agency like IPS (Inter Press Service)?

A: We have to keep in mind that unlike other agencies, IPS does not have a party, a multinational corporation or a state behind it, but is a truly international agency, a non-governmental organisation recognised as such by the U.N., with correspondents of all nationalities, that puts an emphasis on providing veracious, accurate, objective, verifiable information focused on major issues that affect the present and future of society, not trivialities.

Excerpt:

By Federico Mayor Zaragoza
BARCELONA, Jan 17 2011 (IPS)

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the UN in December 1948 recognises the right of all people to life (Article 3) and categorically states: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.”(Article 5)

In effect, capital punishment is the most extreme negation of human rights: it violates the right to life, the supreme right on which all other rights are based. It is the most cruel, degrading, and inhuman punishment. Moreover, it is frequently discriminatory, disproportionate, and arbitrary, and, worse, can be both unjust and mistaken.

The UN has established in various international pacts and conventions, strict conditions for the application of the death penalty in countries that have still not decided to abolish it.

As noted in last August’s Report of the UN Secretary-General, there has been steadily growing movement towards a worldwide abolition of the death penalty. At present over two-thirds of the countries of the world have abolished the sanction in either legislation or practice. The international community has approved four abolition treaties, one global, the other three regional.

The Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted in 1998 bars capital punishment despite the fact that it has jurisdiction over extremely severe crimes, including crimes against humanity like genocide and war crimes. The special tribunals for ex-Yugoslavia, Rwanda, East Timor and the Khmer Rouge Tribunal also barred the death penalty.

There has never been convincing scientific evidence that executions are a more effective deterrent than other punishments. A 1988 UN study, updated in 1996 and 2002 concluded: “Research has not shown scientifically that executions are superior to life imprisonment in terms of deterrence, and it is improbable that it will in the future. Overall, there is no scientific support for the deterrence hypothesis.”

The death penalty is irreversible and no juridical system can avoid the condemnation of innocent people. As long as it is accepted as a legitimate form of punishment, there is a risk that it will by abused for political ends. Only abolition will guarantee that this will not occur.

In December 2007 and 2008, the UN General Assembly approved Resolutions 62/149 and 63/168, which called for a global moratorium against capital punishment. In the latter, all states that still had the death penalty were called upon to:

“Respect international norms establishing safeguards to guarantee the protection of the rights of those condemned to death, in particular minimum norms;

“Progressively limit the application of the death penalty and reduce the number of crimes for which it can be applied; and

“Establish a moratorium on executions with a view to the eventual abolition of the death penalty.”

In late 2010 the UN General Assembly adopted a third resolution on the moratorium and the use of the death penalty, which won the support of a few new converts to the idea of abolition.

In order to speed up this process, in coordination with NGOs and with existing institutions of the UN at both the international and regional level, the International Commission Against the Death Penalty was founded recently with the special backing of the Spanish government. I have the honour of presiding over this commission, which is comprised of prominent individuals and has the backing of an important group of countries in favour of passing a general moratorium on the death penalty in 2015.

Human rights are indivisible and no state or individual can try to uphold some while violating others. It is especially important that the 36 states of the US that still have the death penalty (some of which still execute prisoners, after years and even decades spent on death row) reconsider the punishment. This would set an important example for other death-penalty countries.

One particular concern is China, because there is evidence, including documents, of serial executions, though, as is the case with other practices, the state furnishes no information whatsoever. It is unacceptable that a country that has become the “factory for the world” and exerts massive financial influence as a result, does not respect the most elemental principles of transparency required by the “global village”. When certain dictators allege that the death penalty has “popular support” it is because they have broadcast biased and unreliable information through the media.

We must all work together -governments, parliaments, the media, the intellectual community, artists, of whatever belief or ideology- so that the horror of the death penalty soon disappear from the face of the earth. The day it does will be a brighter day for all people. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Federico Mayor Zaragoza, ex-Director-General of UNECO, is president of the Foundation for a Culture of Peace and of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty.

Excerpt:

By Federico Mayor Zaragoza
BARCELONA, Oct 12 2009 (IPS)

The time has come. The culture of war, the economy of war, and the hegemony of the “globalisers” have been a catastrophic failure and the cause of incalculable levels of suffering, hunger, extreme poverty, and social affliction. A “new beginning” is needed urgently here at the dawn of a new century and a new millennium.

Force, violence, and war have always predominated, to the point that history seems to be little more than an endless succession of battles and conflicts in which peace is a momentary break. So it has been century after century, with fleeting periodic attempts at emancipation.

Educated to use force, accustomed to heeding the law of the most powerful, trained in the use of the muscles more than of the mind, humanity has watched itself be dragged into the bloodiest possible conflicts. Enmity instead of friendship is the rule. Neighbours are not seen as brothers with whom we share a common destiny but as adversaries, enemies to be annihilated. And so our past is marked out by an endless chain of conflicts, attacks and reprisals, vanquished and victors, rancour and ill-will, physical and spiritual violence.

Fortunately there is a parallel, invisible history whose links were forged day by day out of the unselfishness, the generosity, and the creativity that distinguish the human species. It is a dense fabric, incomparable and permanent, because it is the product of many lives tenaciously dedicated daily to building the bastions of peace.

“There are no roads to peace; peace is the road,” Mahatma Gandhi reminded us. A road oriented to principles and values. By justice, before all else. Peace is both a condition and a result, both seed and fruit. It is necessary to identify the causes of conflict to be able to prevent it. Avoiding conflict is the greatest victory.

UNESCO, the United Nations organisation charged explicitly with building peace through education, science, culture, and communication, recalls in the preamble of its constitution that it is the “democratic principles” of justice, liberty, equality, and solidarity that must illuminate this great transition from a culture of violence and war to a culture of dialogue and reconciliation. The great programme “Towards a Culture of Peace”, of the 1990s, was a UNESCO initiative.

The Declaration and Plan of Action for a Culture of Peace, approved in September 1999, establishes that the culture of peace is an interweaving of values, attitudes, and behaviour that reflect a respect for life, the human being, and human dignity.

The Plan of Action contains measures based on education, race, development, and freedom of expression that must be put into practice to bring about the great transition from force to the word: to foster education in peace, human rights, democracy, mutual tolerance, and comprehension, national and international; to fight every form of discrimination; to promote democratic principles and practices in every area of society; to fight poverty and bring about a form of development that is endogenous and sustainable and that benefits everyone and grants all people a decent life; to mobilise society in order to ignite in the young a burning desire to find new ways of living based on reconciliation, tolerance, and generosity, and to reject all forms of oppression and violence, the just distribution of wealth, the free flow of information and shared learning.

The 2000 Manifesto of the International Year for a Culture of Peace, signed by more than 110 million people around the world, establishes “the commitment in my daily life, in my family, my community, and my region, to respect all lives, reject violence, free my generosity, safeguard the planet, reinvent solidarity, and listen to others in order to understand them”. This should serve to involve us and implicate us personally in this process that can lead in a few years to a brightening of the horizons that are so dark today and make possible a peaceful coexistence of all inhabitants of the earth.

There have already been many regions, countries, and municipalities that have incorporated the culture of peace into their constitutions and statutes. It is very important that this trend spread, though even more important is the awareness among people that the moment has come to stop accepting the imposition of and blind obedience to power. Citizens are ceasing to be spectators and becoming actors. They are abandoning silence and fear and becoming agents of peace instead of vassals.

Today long-distance participation via mobile phone, SMS, and the Internet has made possible a radical change in the fundamental component of all democracies -the expression of the will of the people.

Much has been accomplished in these ten years. But the inertia of the vested interests and the resistance of the most prosperous to share more are an obstacle to the emergence of a culture of peace, the word, understanding, and the formation of alliances.

But soon this will change. The hour has come. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Federico Mayor is president of the Culture of Peace Foundation and former Director General of UNESCO.

Excerpt:

By Federico Mayor Zaragoza and - -
MADRID, May 19 2008 (IPS)

\”If you want peace, prepare for war.\” This perverse maxim, a golden goose for the arms dealers, has been used from the beginning of time by the powerful, who had at their disposal the lives of their vassals. So it was, up until the turbulent but hopeful dawn of the new century and millennium, but no longer, because global awareness has grown and the understanding of reality has deepened, writes Federico Mayor Zaragoza, President of the Foundation for a Culture of Peace and ex-Director-General of UNESCO. There is no wartime economy without war, the preparation for war, or pretexts for arming to the teeth. The only force capable of opposing the colossal inertia of this machine is \”the people\”, citizen power, a civil society that does not allow itself to be fooled, that only supports leaders who boldly decide to put in action the universal principles so lucidly expressed in the UN Charter\’s Declaration of Human Rights. Politics must be based on generally-accepted ethical principles. Incorporating certain religious values is insufficient and dangerous, as is basing political action on strictly economic criteria, which is evident today. It is thus extremely important that the excuse of a \”clash of civilisations\” be definitively barred from political logic and replaced with citizen involvement and general acceptance of responsibility by all members of society. If we unite our hands and our voices, we can correct the current disastrous course.

Yes, it will be “the people”, civil society, that constitute true progressive democracies where voters count not only on election day but every day of the year. The major change will be the transition from subjects to citizens, from a culture of imposition and violence to a culture of conversation and conciliation, from force to words. Preparing for peace and not for war. If we want peace, we all must help to build it with our own day-to-day actions, as actors and not merely passive and fearful spectators. The time for silence has passed, both on the personal and the institutional level. As I like to repeat, the silence of the silent is more disgraceful than the silence of the silenced. People must dare to know and know to dare in order to counteract the omnipresent power of the media that infects us with worry and homogenises us to the point that we come to accept the unacceptable – wasting 3 billion dollars on weapons each day, not to mention the cost of anti-missile shields, while 60,000 people die of hunger each day.

Distracted, we do not see the “invisible”, the ordinary. We see only the visible, information deemed “extraordinary”, the unusual, the atypical. We must enable ourselves to use our own power of thought to guide and control our own lives. We must restore to their rightful places the many things that have been overturned:

-the democratic values that according to the Constitution of the UNESCO of 1945 are justice, liberty, freedom, and solidarity – as opposed to the laws of the market which, as was easily predictable, have widened gaps and tears in society rather than closing them; -a strong United Nations in which “the people” are represented and which is provided with the human, financial, and technological resources that will give it the “democratic” authority that the G7 and G8 can never have;

-and a global development economy that makes major investments in sources of renewable low-cost energy that allow general access to goods, production, housing, and the transport and recycling of water for everyone – as opposed to the current economy of war and speculation that concentrates wealth and power in the hands of a few.

There is no wartime economy without war, the preparation for war, or pretexts for arming to the teeth. The only force capable of opposing the colossal inertia of this machine is “the people”, citizen power, a civil society that does not allow itself to be fooled, that only supports leaders who boldly decide to put in action the universal principles so lucidly expressed in the UN Charter’s Declaration of Human Rights.

Politics must be based on generally-accepted ethical principles. Incorporating certain religious values is insufficient and dangerous, as is basing political action on strictly economic criteria, which is evident today. In the words of Spanish poet Antonio Machado, ”It is foolish to mistake value for price.”

Therefore it is extremely important that the excuse of a “clash of civilisations” be definitively barred from political logic and replaced with citizen involvement and general acceptance of responsibility by all members of society. If we unite our hands and our voices, we can correct the current disastrous course.

Last April 10, in the Montserrat Monastery near Barcelona, a range of figures from different religious faiths convened by the Cultural Foundation for Peace issued a declaration on the causes of conflict and pushed in a very concrete manner for the urgent introduction of a political solution to the dramatic and unending situation in the Middle East, as well as in other parts of the world. Believers or not, human beings must be respected as equals and come together in actions of solidarity with the neediest. The only condition for a dialogue that is open to all opinions is non-violence, non-imposition. “We are all in the same boat, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed. We all share the same destiny,” commented ex-President of Iran Mohammed Khatemi. In the same boat, on the same course. Is it that difficult to provoke the “spiritual explosion” spoken of by poet Federico Garcia Lorca, which involves exchanging force for words?

Religions must make use of the efficient mechanisms for contact and interaction among people that were called for in the Montserrat declaration in order to avoid prejudice and stereotypes and be capable of contributing in this way to building a common future where the desire for peace ceases to be a greeting and becomes instead a joyful reality.(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: