Committee for Conflict Transformation Support |
CCTS
|
People of the World Should Unite for Peace and Human Dignityby Gulnara Shahinian (Armenia) Not so long has passed since the time when we all became one country, one world, shocked by the September 11 tragedy. We all 'became America', united by sorrow and by compassion for the people of America. Many of us were calling friends and colleagues in there and going to American Embassies in our countries to express our sincere wish to help. What happened and why it happened was our concern. Not so long has passed since September 11, and what has been happening since that time is alarming. Recently I came across this:
Can one believe this? Weapons of mass destruction. Is this the linguistic and psychological environment that modern homosapiens has created for himself? There are even more popular words that are washing over us and our children as they pour from the TV and newspapers: 'war on terrorism', 'crusade on terrorism', 'war', 'evil', 'mock war' and 'suicide bombers'. Yes, the vocabulary, beliefs, morality and trust are under pressure. In today's language they are under attack. Is it materialistic consumerism or modern techno-society's psychological framework that drive out our sense of poetry and beauty, love and dignity, continuity and stability? Or are people in one of the countries striving for world dominance feeling themselves endangered by the implications and consequences of that country's policy following the tragic events of September 11th? Is the stability and quiet continuum of life that people dreamt of being replaced by short term, day after day episodes of survival and fear - hoping for one more day in peace? TV and newspapers have been successful in creating the impression that we live in a somewhat virtual life and we are pushed into being participants in a new technological invention - a computer game with moving targets - The Taliban, al-Qaeda, Iraq - with ghost 'enemies', Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein. And, as with other games, there are complex sets of rules to reach and kill the 'ghost' enemies. The games end. But back in real life one really cannot stop wondering how it happened that, knowing the price of wars in the modern world, a 'coalition of Governments for war against terror' has been formed. Why does that coalition see war as the only way to deal with terrorism? Does this war coalition have the absolute right to aggression? Do they sell us the idea of terrorism to have a war for greater dominance? Do the leaders of war coalitions know of the amount of human suffering and loss during wars? I am sure they do. They must know the figures, for example those presented by Olara Otunu, Under-Secretary General of the UN, on children in armed conflicts: during the last decade, two million children have been killed as the result of military conflicts, six million children have been seriously injured, one million orphaned. Twenty million have been displaced and three hundred thousand young children have been exploited as child soldiers and sex slaves in thirty areas of conflict. Do these 'coalition' leaders know that every day one hundred thousand people die because of hunger and diseases and natural disasters? And so on. So many more statistics of human misery could be presented. At the same time, other data have been published. According to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the cost of a new war with Iraq could total as much as $1.9 trillion over a ten year period. Accepted concepts, such as democracy, the rule of law, sovereignty and human rights, have acquired new meanings since September 11. In the name of protecting the human rights of Afghan people against the Taliban and killing the target Osama, it was 'necessary' to bomb Afganistan, killing thousands of innocent people. One can easily make the link with some similar scenarios before and after September 11th: bombing Belgrade to get rid of Milosevic, bombing Kabul to get rid of Osama, planning to bomb Baghdad to get rid of Saddam. Strangely enough, these 'ghost' targets easily escaped, but many innocent people have been killed in the name of saving them from dictators and punishing terrorists. This war against terror does not recognize or respect the sovereignty of other countries. In the rush to punish terrorists, the tried and tested principles of democracy and the rule of law have been forgotten. And, contrary to its principles, international law has been used asymmetrically, to favour only dominant countries. Is it acceptable that the very countries that are identified with the rule of law and democracy lower their standards outside their own borders? Can such concepts as human rights and democracy have different meanings in different countries? Disrespect for international law and human rights standards on the part of such traditional democracies as United States and Great Britain creates a chain of precedents which will lead to the multiplication of such violations by other countries. Many examples have been pointed to in the media by international organizations and journalists. The impact on countries in transition is especially dangerous. Events and policy after September 11th have also introduced another new 'advancement' in human rights - the categorisation of countries according to the new Bush principle, 'who is not with us is against us'. Is this a new concept for a modern world with universal standards? In the same vein, a frame of reference has been created for good and evil: 'suspect' citizens and 'unreliable' countries are seen as a threat and put through humiliating procedures. Another interesting invention is the classification of countries according to the concepts of 'terrorism', 'corruption' and 'trafficking'. Those which are seen to transgress against the norms determined by the USA are to be punished by different material sanctions. It is alarming. We live in a world with well over thirty conflicts-war zones: ' frozen', 'active' or 'burning' conflicts with very different root causes and histories. These are the areas most sensitive to any political change: any violation of international law or human rights standards, any exercise of double standards in policy, immediately finds it's reflection there, giving new energy and the semblance of justification to their own malpractice. I can speak of the conflict over Nagorno Karabach, and the changes in environment there that I can observe daily. Suspicions of terrorism and the search for terrorists have given rise to new accusations against the people of Nagorno Karabach: articles in newspapers alleging that terrorists found refuge in Nagorno Karabach; that the country is involved in terror, in trafficking in humans, in burying nuclear waste in uncontrolled territories, and many more such things. All these speculations put the population of these countries in a very vulnerable situation. The expectation of new geopolitical changes in the event of military action activates nationalist groups and threatens the very fragile cease-fire that has been kept in place with such difficulty. They evoke new waves of hostility in areas of conflict. Many years' work by civil society and peace making organizations is put under threat. We live in a time when governments and intergovernmental organizations at last started to recognize the important role of civil society in building democracy and peace, in preventing conflicts and protecting human rights, and good collaboration has been established between them. But since September 11 the Democratic Powers do not seem willing to co-operate with civic organizations; their opinion and advice is ignored. One can only be surprised that the extremely rich potential which these organizations have built up, through years of work to make peace and reconciliation possible in many areas of the world, is not asked for. Peace is the basic right of human beings and the basis for the development of human community. Coalitions of war must recognize that there are millions and millions of people around the globe who are united by values of peace, equity and human dignity, and feel responsible for it.
Gulnara Shahinian
|