Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: Rene Wadlow

Robert M. Hutchins: Building on Earlier Foundations

Much of our current work for a more just and peaceful world builds on the thinking and efforts of earlier foundations. An important foundation is the leading role of Robert M. Hutchins, long-time President of the University of Chicago (l929 -1951) whose birth anniversary we mark on 17 January.

Hutchins’ father, William,was President of Berea, a small but important liberal arts college, so Robert Hutchins (1899-1977) was set to follow the family pattern. He went to Yale Law School and stayed on to teach. He quickly became the Dean of the Law School and was spotted as a rising star of US education. When he was 30 years old, he was asked to become President of the University of Chicago, a leading institution. Hutchins was then the youngest president of a US university.

In the first decade of his tenure, the 1930s, his ideas concerning undergraduate education − compulsory survey courses, early admission after two years of secondary school for bright and motivated students, a concentration on “Great Books” – an examination of seminal works of philosophy in particular Plato and Aristotle − divided the University of Chicago faculty. There were strong and outspoken pro and anti Hutchins faculty groups. Moreover Hutchins’ abolition of varsity football and ending the University’s participation in the “Big Ten” university football league distressed some alumni whose link to the university was largely limited to attending football games. For Hutchins, a university was for learning and discussion, not for playing sports. As he famously said “ When I feel like excercizing, I sit down until the feeling goes away.”

It is Hutchins’ creation and leadership of the Committee to Frame a World Constitution in 1945 which makes him one of the intellectual founders of the movement for world federation and world citizenship. After the coming to power of Hitler in Germany in 1933 and his quick decision to ban Jewish professors from teaching in German universities, many Jewish scientists and professors left Germany and came to the USA. Some of the leading natural scientists joined the University of Chicago. Thus began the “Metallurgy Project” as the work on atomic research was officially called.

The University of Chicago team did much of the theoretical research which led to the Atom Bomb. While Hutchins was not directly involved in the atomic project, he understood quickly the nature of atomic energy and its military uses. He saw that the world would never return to a “pre-atomic” condition and that new forms of world organization were needed.

On 12 August 1945, a few days after the use of the atom bombs, Hutchins made a radio address “Atomic Force: Its Meaning for Mankind” in which he outlined the need for strong world institutions, stronger than the UN Charter, whose drafters earlier in the year did not know of the destructive power of atomic energy.

Several professors of the University of Chicago were already active in peace work such as Mortimer Adler, G.A. Borgese, and Richard McKeon, Dean of the undergraduate college. The three approached Hutchins saying that as the University of Chicago had taken a lead in the development of atomic research, so likewise, the university should take the lead in research on adequate world institutions. By November 1945, a 12-person Committee to Frame a World Constitution was created under Hutchins’ chairmanship. The Committee drew largely on existing faculty of the University of Chicago − Wilber Katz, Dean of the Law School and Rexford Tugwell who taught political science but who had been a leading administrator of the Roosevelt New Deal and Governor of Puerto Rico. Two retired professors from outside Chicago were added − Charles McIlwain of Harvard, a specialist on constitutions, and Albert Guerard of Stanford, a French refugee who was concerned about the structure of post-war Europe.

From 1947 to 1951, the Committee published a monthly journal Common Cause many of whose articles still merit reading today as fundamental questions concerning the philosophical basis of government, human rights, distribution of power, and the role of regions are discussed. The Preliminary Draft of a World Constitution was published in 1948 and reprinted in the Saturday Review of Literature edited by Norman Cousins and in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists some of whom were in the original “Metallurgy Project”. The Preliminary Draft raised a good deal of discussion, reflected in the issues of Common Cause. There was no second draft. The Preliminary Draft was as G.A. Borgese said, quoting Dante “…of the True City at least the Tower.”

In 1951, Hutchins retired from the presidency of the University of Chicago for the Ford Foundation and then created the Ford Foundation-funded Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions where he gathered together some of his co-workers from the University of Chicago.

Two ideas from The Preliminary Draft are still part of intellectual and political life for those concerned with a stronger UN. The first is the strong role of regional organizations. When The Preliminary Draft was written the European Union was still just an idea and most of the States now part of the African Union were European colonies. The Preliminary Draft saw that regional groups were institutions of the future and should be integrated as such in the world institution. Today, the representatives of States belonging to regional groupings meet together at the UN to try to reach a common position, but regional groups are not part of the official UN structure. However, they may be in the future.

The other lasting aspect of The Preliminary Draft is the crucial role that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) should play. The then recently drafted UN Charter had created a “consultative status” for NGOs, but few of the UN Charter drafters foresaw the important role that NGOs would play as the UN developed. The Preliminary Draft had envisaged a Syndical Senate to represent occupational associations on the lines of the International Labour Organization where trade unions and employer associations have equal standing with government delegates. In 1946, few people saw the important role that the NGOs would later play in UN activities. While there is no “Syndical Senate”, today NGOs represent an important part of the UN process.

Hutchins, however, was also a reflection of his time. There were no women as members of the Committee to Frame a World Constitution, and when he created the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions with a large number of “fellows”, consultants, and staff, women are also largely absent.

The effort to envisage the structures and processes among the different structures was an innovative contribution to global institution building at the time, and many of the debates and reflections are still crucial for today.
************************************************
Notes

For an understanding of the thinking of those involved in writing The Preliminary Draft see:

Mortimor Adler. How to think about War and Peace (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944)
Rexford Tugwell. Chronicle of Jeopardy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955)
G.A. Borgese. Foundations of the World Republic (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1953)
Scott Buchanan. Essay in Politics (New York: Philosophical Library, 1953)
For a life of Hutchins written by a co-worker in the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions:
Harry Ashmore. Unreasonable Truths: the Life of Robert Maynard Hutchins (Boston: Little, Brown and Co, 1989)
*********************************************
Rene Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.

January 21, 2016
Book Review- At the Nuclear Precipice: Catastrophe or Transformation?

This book review appeared in the March 2009 edition of the Peace Magazine

At the Nuclear Precipice: Catastrophe or Transformation? Richard Falk and David Krieger (Eds) Palgrave Macmillan, 2008, 291pp.

There has always been an ebb and flow of popular interest in eliminating nuclear weapons from the world, and currently, there seems to be a rising tide of activity. Men who did little to curb nuclear weapons when they were in power are now saying that something should be done: ‘The only sure way to prevent nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism and nuclear war is to rid the world of nuclear weapons.’ Since peace-making depends on coalition building we cannot belittle these new-found friends.

David Krieger and Richard Falk, long-time activists for the abolition of nuclear weapons within the framework of world law, have edited a book which will be useful in the new debates and strategy making, although many of the issues have been discussed before. There have always been at least two major aspects of nuclear issues — the one is to prevent the proliferation to new states, the other is to reduce the number of warheads among the existing nuclear-weapon states. The long chapter on Iran by Asli Bali is the most action oriented and will be useful as policy toward Iran is debated. The reduction of the number of warheads seems to be on the table of new US-Russia negotiations.

A second theme which has colored popular action on nuclear weapons has been whether to place an emphasis on the goal of total abolition or on partial steps such as the ratification of the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Those working for partial measures have always said that abolition was the ultimate aim, but in practice, the partial measures always became the focus of action. I recall that when I was in college, I used to walk to relax and would meet from time to time Albert Einstein walking from his office to his home. I would say ‘Good Evening, Prof Einstein, and he would reply ‘Good Evening, Young Man’. Although I had no idea then or now what his theories were about, I knew that they had something to do with atoms, and he had come out early for nuclear control. ‘One World or None’ was the slogan of the late 1940s. Einstein’s final appeal shortly before his death, the Russell-Einstein Manifesto (1955) with its call to think “not as members of this or that nation, continent or creed, but as human beings” is reprinted in the book.

When I used to see Einstein, I was already active on the partial measures of the time — an end to testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. I had followed the lead of Senator Estes Kefauver who was the first US political leader to attack actively nuclear testing. As Kefauver had taken on the link between politics and organized crime, he could take on also the US Atomic Energy Commission which was deaf to all calls to prevent nuclear fallout from entering the food chain. It took till 1963 to get the tests to move below ground, but the mid-1950s nuclear testing campaign was the entry point of my generation into nuclear issues.

I tend still to stress limited steps within the framework of regional settlements of disputes. There seems to me to be three opportunities to press ahead, and there are ideas throughout the book which will be helpful in developing position papers.

1) The first and easiest because it involves two states without major conflict issues is a reduction in the number of nuclear warheads of the USA and Russia — the number of 1000 each seems to be on the table. It is still too many and strategic thinking in the two countries is not very clear what they are for, but this is a case where ‘fewer is better’, so let us push for this sharp reduction while we try to see what role the USA and Russia can usefully play in the world society.

2) The second opportunity is for a nuclear-weapon free zone in the Middle East. The elimination of Israeli nuclear weapons and no nuclear-weapon development in Iran would help reduce Middle East tensions. Mohammed ElBaradei of the IAEA has been calling for this Middle East nuclear weapon free zone for some time and has a useful chapter in the book. However, there will have to be strong popular pressure for such a zone as neither the Israeli nor the Iranian government seems to be moving fast in the direction.

3) The third opportunity for non-governmental suggestions is the 2010 review conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Review conferences every five years have been the most NGO-friendly of the arms control negotiations. I had chaired the NGOs attending the 1975 and 1980 reviews and with the help of Ambassador Garcia Robbles of Mexico, the NGOs had the ability to distribute proposals and to interact fully, though not to address the conference. Our proposals were widely discussed and even presented by one government as its own. At the 1980 review when no government text could be agreed upon, the NGO draft was seriously discussed at a midnight meeting of the Conference Bureau, but wording was not the real issue. After the 1985 Review I gave up, having repeated Article VI even in my sleep. However 2010 could be the time to pull together NGO new thinking on the issues and make a real effort during the preparatory phase.

Falk and Krieger have produced a good background document to help in drafting a comprehensive set of proposals.

René Wadlow is the representative of the World Association of Citizens to the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland.

March 5, 2009
Speedy Ratification of the Treaty Banning Cluster Weapons

In a remarkable combination of civil society pressure and leadership from a small number of progressive States, a strong ban on the use, manufacture, and stocking of cluster bombs was signed in Oslo, Norway on 3 December 2008. However, all bright sunlight casts a dark shadow, and in this case the shadow is the fact that the major makers and users of cluster munitions were deliberately not there: Brazil, China, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, USA.

Yet as arms negotiations go, the cluster bomb ban has been swift. They began in Oslo, Norway in February 2007 and were thus often called the “Oslo Process.” The negotiations were a justified reaction to their wide use by Israel in Lebanon during the July-August 2006 conflict. The UN Mine Action Coordination Centre (UNMACC) working in southern Lebanon reported that their density there is higher than in Kosovo and Iraq, especially in built up areas, posing a constant threat to hundreds of thousands of people, as well as to UN peacemakers. It is estimated that one million cluster bombs were fired on south Lebanon during the 34 days of war, many during the last two days of war when a ceasefire was a real possibility. The Hezbollah militia also shot off rockets with cluster bombs into northern Israel.

Cluster munitions are warheads that scatter scores of smaller bombs. Many of these sub-munitions fail to detonate on impact, leaving them scattered on the ground, ready to kill and maim when disturbed or handled. Reports from humanitarian organizations and mine-clearing groups have shown that civilians make up the vast majority of the victims of cluster bombs, especially children attracted by their small size and often bright colors.

The failure rate of cluster munitions is high, ranging from 30 to 80 per cent. But “failure” may be the wrong word. They may, in fact, be designed to kill later. The large number of unexploded cluster bombs means that farm lands and forests cannot be used or used with great danger. Most people killed and wounded by cluster bombs in the 21 conflicts where they have been used are civilians, often young. Such persons often suffer severe injuries such as loss of limbs and loss of sight. It is difficult to resume work or schooling.

Discussions of a ban on cluster weapons had begun in 1979 during the negotiations in Geneva leading to the Convention on Prohibition on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects — the “1980 Inhumane Weapons Convention” to its friends.

The indiscriminate impact of cluster bombs was raised with the support of the Swedish government by the representative of the Quaker United Nations Office in Geneva and myself. My NGO text of August 1979 for the citizens of the world on “Anti-Personnel Fragmentation Weapons” called for a ban based on the 1868 St Petersburg Declaration and recommended that “permanent verification and dispute-settlement procedures be established which may investigate all charges of the use of prohibited weapons whether in inter-State or internal conflicts, and that such a permanent body include a consultative committee of experts who could begin their work without a prior resolution of the UN Security Council.”

I was thanked for my efforts but left to understand that world citizens are not in the field of real politics and that I would do better to stick to pushing for a ban on napalm — photos of its use in Vietnam being still in the memory of many delegates. Governments always have difficulty focusing on more than one weapon at a time. Likewise for public pressure to build, there needs to be some stark visual reminders to draw attention and to evoke compassion.

Although cluster munitions were widely used in the Vietnam-Indochina war, they never received the media and thus the public attention of napalm. (1) The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research recently published a study on the continued destructive impact of cluster bombs in Laos noting that “The Lao People’s Democratic Republic has the dubious distinction of being the most heavily bombed country in the world” (2). Cluster-bomb land clearance is still going on while the 1963-1973 war in Laos has largely faded from broader public memory.

The wide use by NATO forces in the Kosovo conflict again drew attention to the use of cluster bombs and unexploded ordnance. The ironic gap between the humanitarian aims given for the war and the continued killing by cluster bombs after the war was too wide not to be noticed. However, the difficulties of UN administration of Kosovo and of negotiating a “final status” soon overshadowed all other concerns. Likewise the use of cluster bombs in Iraq is overshadowed by the continuing conflict, sectarian violence, the role of the USA and Iran, and what shape Iraq will take after the withdrawal of US troops.

Thus, it was the indiscriminate use of cluster bombs against Lebanon in a particularly senseless and inconclusive war that has finally led to sustained efforts for a ban. Cluster weapons were again used by both Georgia and Russia in the 5 days of the August 2008 conflict— a use which was totally unnecessary from a strategic point of view. This use in the Georgia-Russia- South Ossetia conflict proves that as long as such weapons are available to the military, they will be used with little thought of their consequence.

The ban on cluster bombs follows closely the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction which came into force in March 1999 and has been now ratified by 152 States. Many of the same NGOs active on anti-personnel mines were also the motors of the efforts on cluster bombs — a combination of disarmament, humanitarian, and human rights groups.

States signed the treaty on 3 December in Oslo where the negotiations began. If the momentum can be kept up, parliaments should ratify the treaty quickly, and it could come into force by mid-2009. It is important for supporters to contact members of parliament indicating approval of the ban and asking for swift ratification. A more difficult task will be to convince those States addicted to cluster bombs— the Outlaw Seven: Brazil, China, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, USA. The ban may discourage their use by these States and the USA has a recent export ban on the sale of most cluster weapons, but a signature by them would be an important sign of respect for international agreements and world law. Pressure must be kept up for speedy ratification and for signature on those States outside the law.

René Wadlow is Representative to the United Nations in Geneva for the Association of World Citizens.

December 3, 2008
The United Nations: Challenges and Leadership

To dream of vast horizons of the Soul Through dreams made whole, Unfettered, free — help me! Help me make our world anew. – Langston Hughes

The United Nations remains the only universally representative body the world has to deal with threats to international peace and security. However, the nature of the threats to international security has changed, and the United Nations, just as the national governments which make it up, have difficulty meeting these new challenges. The United Nations was born with the start of the Cold War. In the early months of 1945, it was obvious that Nazi Germany would be defeated and that the Soviet Union would be facing the three Western allies: the USA, the UK and France in that order. The war with Japan, while important militarily, never had the same intellectual impact on the drafters of the UN Charter as had the war on Germany. At the creation of the United Nations, there was a two-pronged view of security. One prong looked to disputes which can lead to aggression and which must be met by cooperative military action through the Security Council. The second prong focused upon the need for social and economic advancement of all peoples. This two-pronged approach arose from an analysis of the events leading to the Second World War: territorial disputes which led to armed aggression and a world-wide economic crisis which led to political dictatorships and nationalistic economic policies which prevented cooperative action . William Rappard, Swiss historian and participant-observer of the League of Nations wrote early in 1946 “The UN was born of and during a great war. The founders of the organization were both the initial, pacific victims of, and the final, complete victors over, the bellicose foes whose wanton aggression had obliged them to fight in self-defense. The consequence of the belligerent origin of the UN is, in my eyes, its hierarchic structure, its authoritarian spirit, and the unpacified and militant character of the most significant provisions of the Charter. In war there is and there can be no equality of nations. The powerful command and the weak obey…that is why the San Francisco Charter, drafted as it was by the belligerent allies before the end of the hostilities, much as it speaks of the sovereign equality of states violates that principle to a degree unknown in all previous annals of international law. It not only distributes influence according to importance as did the Covenant of the League of Nations by recognizing the privileged position of the permanent members of the Council. But, what is much more debatable, the Charter further creates two distinct sets of rights and duties. It, in fact, places the five great powers above the law laid down for the others, a procedure for which there is, to my knowledge, neither precedent in the law of nations, nor analogy in any liberal national constitution. Not only is the international aristocracy of the powerful recognized as such in the Charter and endowed with almost unlimited authority over the underprivileged masses, but its individual members are assured of almost unlimited impunity in case of violation of their pacific covenants. It is therefore not cynicism but only clearsightedness to note that the freedom of the underprivileged members of the UN is conditioned by the disunity of their privileged masters.” The disunity among the privileged masters — the five permanent members of the Security Council — has far exceeded what was predicted in 1946, although some analysts foresaw difficulties from the start. Stefan Possony writing in the Yale Law Journal also in 1946 noted that “While the Charter may offer protection against small dangers, it offers none against the chief danger — war between the big powers. The UN will possibly be able to prevent some wars, especially those which break out without being willed by anybody. That the UN will be able to master the great crises of history and prevent those major wars which are provoked deliberately by powerful nations is doubtful; in fact, it is highly improbable… We have seen that attempts to outlaw war must, in some way or other, be based upon the sanctity of the status quo,, at least as long as there are no effective methods of peaceful change.” Although the Soviet Union was widely considered as a “revolutionary” government, its main aim, as that of the Western states, was to maintain the status quo and the current division of power. The Cold War structured international relations, and although there were dangerous moments and an expensive arms build up, the period 1945 -1990 was one of little change and, with the exception of the 1950-1953 Korean War, few cases of cross-frontier aggression where the Security Council could act. The end of formal colonialism brought a multitude of new states into the UN. There was little change in UN structures. The aim stressed by the states of the Third World of “social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom” were part of the UN’s goals from the start. While much of the UN system is devoted to helping the developing world, there were few changes in the dominant socio-economic system during the Cold War period. As Gwynne Dyer noted “The United Nations was not founded by popular demand. It was created by governments who were terrified by where the existing system was leading them, and could not afford to ignore the grim realities of the situation by taking refuge in the comforting myths about independence and national security that pass for truth in domestic political discourse. The people who actually have the responsibility for running foreign policy in most countries, and especially in the great powers, know that the present international system is in potentially terminal trouble, and many of them have drawn the necessary conclusion.” It was the break up of the Soviet Union along with the disintegration of Yugoslavia that put an end to Cold War structures and their ideological justifications. Since the end of the Cold War, the UN has had difficulty in finding its role in the intra-state conflicts which have followed such as those in former Yugoslavia, Chechenya, and in several African states. The UN’s current difficulties are a reflection of the tests and trials of humanity moving toward a world civilization where the forces of world unity play a more dominant role than the forces of separation and of limited solidarities. Since its establishment, the crucial role of the United Nations has been to lay the foundations of such a world civilization based on world law and justice. Due to the awareness-building efforts of the UN, an ever larger number of people see their lives in a cooperative focus rather than a confrontational one. There are four closely related challenges which must be met by the UN system: The first is the globalization of the world economy. The world economy is becoming more globalized than ever, though its working is hardly understood, and it is without direction or control. Thus, there must be better policy coherence and cooperation between the United Nations, its Specialized Agencies, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, multilateral bodies, and the private sector which is the motor of globalization. The second challenge, closely related to the first, is the need for ecologically-sound development with a particular emphasis on the need to reduce the number of people living in poverty and without access to basic services: shelter, water and food, education, health, and employment. The third challenge is to deal effectively with new forms of violence, in particular intra-state conflict. Such conflicts and the resultant refugee flows are not merely a separation from the old home and community but also from the customary restraints and humane values that hold people together in settled circumstances. The fourth challenge, closely related to the third, is increased respect for the rule of law and human rights. To meet these four challenges, we need leadership. As D. Rudhyar noted “We must summon from within us the courage to meet, with open eyes and minds free of archaic allegiances, the present-day release of unparalleled and utterly transforming potentialities for planet-wide rebirth.” Enlightened leadership with clear vision and with political courage in articulating the way the world has changed and the directional flow of the next cycle is needed. Such leadership within the UN Secretariat, within national governments and within non-governmental organizations will improve the quality of the United Nations so that it will be a transformed instrument for the benefit of all the world’s people.

René Wadlow is Representative to the UN, Geneva, Association of World Citizens.

October 24, 2008
Ten Years of the International Criminal Court

“For nearly a half a century — almost as long as the United Nations has been in existence — the General Assembly has recognized the need to establish such a court to prosecute and punish persons responsible for crimes such as genocide. Many thought that the horrors of the Second World War — the camps, the cruelty, the exterminations, the Holocaust — could never happen again. And yet they have. In Cambodia, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in Rwanda. Our time — this decade even— has shown us that man’s capacity for evil knows no limits. Genocide is now a word of our time too, a heinous reality that calls for a historic response.” — Koffi Annan, then UN Secretary-General

July 17 marks the 10th anniversary of the Diplomatic Conference in Rome that established the International Criminal Court — a major step in the creation of world law. Citizens of the world have usually made a distinction between international law as commonly understood and world law. International law has come to mean laws that regulate relations between States, with the International Court of Justice — the World Court in The Hague — as the supreme body of the international law system. The Internatiional Court of Justice is the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice that was established at the time of the League of Nations following the First World War. When the United Nations was formed in 1945, the World Court was re-established as the principal judicial organ of the UN. It is composed of 15 judges who are elected by the UN General Assembly and the Security Council.

Only States may be parties in cases before the World Court. An individual cannot bring a case before the Court, nor can a company although many transnational companies are active at the world level. International agencies that are part of the UN system may request advisory opinions from the Court on legal questions arising from their activities but advisory opinions are advisory rather than binding.

Citizens of the world have tended to use the term “world law” in the sense that Wilfred Jenks, for many years the legal spirit of the International Labour Organization, used the term the common law of mankind: “By the common law of mankind is meant the law of an organized world community, contributed on the basis of States but discharging its community functions increasingly through a complex of international and regional institutions, guaranteeing rights to, and placing obligations upon, the individual citizen, and confronted with a wide range of economic, social and technological problems calling for uniform regulation on an international basis which represents a growing proportion of the subject-matter of the law.” It is especially the ‘rights and obligations’ of the individual person which is the common theme of world citizens.

The growth of world law has been closely related to the development of humanitarian law and to the violations of humanitarian law. It was Gustave Moynier, one of the founders of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and a longtime president of the ICRC who presented in 1872 the first draft convention for the establishment of an international criminal court to punish violations of the first Red Cross standards on the humane treatment of the sick and injured in periods of war, the 1864 Geneva Convention. The Red Cross conventions are basically self-enforcing. “If you treat my prisoners of war well, I will treat yours the same way.” Governments were not willing to act on Moynier’s proposition, but Red Cross standards were often written into national laws.

The Red Cross Geneva conventions deal with the way individuals should be treated in time of war. They have been expanded to cover civil wars and prisoners of civil unrest. The second tradition of humanitarian law arises from the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and deals with the weapons of war and the way war is carried on. Most of the Hague rules, such as the prohibition against bombarding undefended towns or villages, have fallen by the side, but the Hague spirit of banning certain weapons continues in the ban on chemical weapons, land mines and soon, cluster weapons. However, although The Hague meetings made a codification of war crimes, no monitoring mechanisms or court for violations was set up.

After the First World War, Great Britain, France and Belgium accused the Central Powers, in particular Germany and Turkey of war atrocities such as the deportation of Belgian civilians to Germany for forced labor, executing civilians, the sinking of the Lusitaniaand the killing of Armenians by the Ottoman forces. The Treaty of Versailles, signed in June 1919 provided in articles 227-229 the legal right for the Allies to establish an international criminal court. The jurisdiction of the court would extend from common soldiers to military and government leaders. Article 227 deals specifically with Kaiser Wilhelm II, underlining the principle that all individuals to the highest level can be held accountable for their wartime actions. However, the USA opposed the creation of an international criminal court both on the basis of State sovereignty and on the basis that the German government had changed and that one must look to the future rather than the past.

The same issues arose after the Second World War with the creation of two military courts — the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. Some have said that these tribunals were imposing ‘victors’ justice on their defeated enemies, Germany and Japan. There was no international trial for Italians as Italy had changed sides at an opportune time, and there were no prosecutions of Allied soldiers or commanders.

In the first years of the United Nations, there was a discussion of the creation of an international court. A Special Committee was set up to look into the issue. The Special Committee mad a report in 1950 just as the Korean War had broken out, marking a Cold War that would continue until 1990, basically preventing any modifications in the structure of the UN.

Thus, during the Cold War, while there were any number of candidates for a war crime tribunal, none was created. For the most part national courts rarely acted even after changes in government. From Stalin to Uganda’s Idi Amin to Cambodia’s Pol Pot, war criminals have lived out their lives in relative calm..

It was only at the end of the Cold War that advances were made. Ad hoc international criminal courts have been set up to try war crimes from former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone. Just as the Cold War was coming to an end, certain countries became concerned with international drug trafficking. Thus in 1989, Trinidad and Tobago proposed the establishment of an international court to deal with the drug trade. The proposal was passed on by the UN General Assembly to the International Law Commission, the UN’s expert body on international law. By 1993, the International Law Commission made a comprehensive report calling for a court able to deal with a wider range of issues than just drugs — basically what was called the three ‘core crimes’ of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

By the mid-1990s, a good number of governments started to worry about world trends and the breakdown of the international legal order. The break up of the federations of the USSR and Yugoslavia, the genocide in Rwanda, the breakdown of all government functions in Somalia, the continuing north-south civil war in Sudan — all pointed to the need for legal restraints on individuals. This was particularly true with the rise of non-State insurgencies. International law as law for relations among States was no longer adequate to deal with the large number on non-State actors.

By the mid-1990s, the door was open to the new concept of world law dealing with individuals, and the drafting of the statues of the International Criminal Court went quickly. There is still much to be done to develop the intellectual basis of world law and to create the institutions to structure it, but the International Criminal Court is an important milestone.

René Wadlow is the Representative to the United Nations, Geneva, Association of World Citizens and the editor of the online journal of world politics and culture www.transnational-perspectives.org

July 9, 2008
Burma: The Military Boots Keep Marching in Place

Aung San Suu Kyi The Burmese military have held power in the country since 1958 and show no signs of yielding it to civilian political leaders. They have prevented discussion of the most burning political issues which have divided Burma since independence: the nationalities question, the insurgencies, the balance of power between central and regional governments, the nature of the state, and the role of democracy. The military, by means of poor policies and incompetent administration took a relatively prosperous country and turned it into a state of economic chaos.

There was a brief 1960-1962 period when Prime Minister U Nu was restored to power while General Ne Win waited in the wings. Ne Win came to center stage again in 1962 and ruled the country with a small group of fellow officers calling themselves the Burma Socialist Program Party (BSPP). However, unlike the Chinese Communist Party – Ne Win’s inspiration – the BSPP had no local members, no cells, no party structures and no conferences. The BSPP resembled many one-party states of Africa where the single party is only a reminder of an earlier administrative style. Real power is administered through the military hierarchy. Under Ne Win’s direction, Burma closed in on itself. It was not active in the Non-Aligned Movement and was part of no regional grouping. The one civilian Burmese leader of value, U Thant, was pushed outside and became Secretary General of the United Nations.

The military leadership has been both corrupt and incompetent. They weakened administrative services, schools, health care and the state infrastructure despite a bloated public sector of underpaid and inefficient civil servants. Many educated Burmese left the country for jobs in Britain, Canada and Australia; other Burmese joined the merchant marine in order to be able to feed their families.

Burmese diplomats at the United Nations made strenuous and finally successful efforts to have Burma designated one of the “least developed countries”. Burma joined ‘the Club’, made up of mostly African states in 1987. However, other than attending a conference every five years, there is little advantage in ‘Club’ membership.

The military prevented discussion of the most burning political issues which have divided Burma since independence: the nationalities question, the insurgencies, the balance of power between central and regional governments, the nature of the state, and the role of democracy.

By 1988, economic failure, lack of social services, and an oppressive atmosphere preventing discussion led to student protests. University students have always been the leaders of reform movements in part in memory of the 1936 student strike in Rangoon which was the most visible cry for independence. In March 1988 during “seven days that shook Rangoon”, there was a remarkable series of non-violent protests, led by students, younger Buddhist monks, and young professionals. The demonstrations received a good deal of sympathy from the wider public whose economic conditions were worsening due to ever-rising prices.

The military hit back with large-scale arrests of students and shootings of demonstrators. Unrest continued and on 8 August there was a general strike and massive street demonstrations in Rangoon. Tens of thousands demanded democracy, human rights, an end to the socialist economic system, and the resignation of the BSPP government. The movement began to spread beyond Rangoon. The army intensified its crackdown, and many student leaders left the country for Thailand or the border areas. The military, however, recognized the seriousness of the crisis. General Ne Win resigned and some of the military in his cabinet were also ‘allowed’ to resign.

A slightly modified group of military officers retained power but to indicate that a change had taken place they called themselves the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) and dropped all mention of the “‘Burmese road to socialism’. They changed the name of the capitol from Rangoon to Yangon and Burma to Myanmar. Since there had been wide international criticism, especially at the UN, of the brutal crackdown upon students, the SLORC decided that there should be elections in order to confirm their legitimacy.

SLORC had hoped to continue the military’s monopoly of power following the holding of the promised elections, through a classic policy of ‘divide and rule’. The idea was to create a multitude of political parties built around personalities from each section of the country. In all, 93 parties with no previous legal existence were created for the election. The anticipated result would be a divided parliament through which SLORC would continue in power by the building of fragile coalition governments.

In order to facilitate this plan, the election procedure was weighted against the creation of a mass party. No election meetings of more than five people were allowed. Party publications were limited; no access to radio was given. Leaders of the potentially stronger political parties were put in jail or under house arrest.

Confounding the military’s plans, one party – the National League for Democracy (NLD) with Aung San Suu Kyi as its secretary general – won 392 of the 485 seats in parliament. A set of ethnic parties, collectively called the Union Nationalities League for Democracy and allied to the NLD won 47 seats, while the political party most allied to the SLORC gained only 10 seats. The SLORC was so out of touch with popular sentiment that they were surprised by the results. Had they had reliable opinion polls on which to base their decisions, chances are they would not have permitted the elections to go ahead at all. Since the elections, for over 16 years the SLORC has had to invent reasons why the Parliament cannot meet.

As a result, Aung San Suu Kyi has become increasingly the symbol of democracy and of a Parliament unable to come into being. Auug San Suu Kyi represents a new spirit – partly because, unlike many of her contemporaries, she has lived most of her life outside Burma and is, in consequence, not linked to existing political compromises. Her father, Aung San, who died when Aung San Suu Kyi was two years old, was one of the original ‘Thirty Comrades’ – student nationalists, also including Ne Win, who were inspired by Second World War Japanese propaganda which appealed for a common Asian struggle against Western imperialism. Aung San went to Tokyo to assist the Japanese conquest of Burma. By 1944, however, the Thirty had decided that the Japanese were not liberators, that the occupation of Burma was being carried out for Japanese rather than Burmese aims, and that the Japanese might also lose the war. In the last year of the Second World War, the Thirty co-operated with Lord Mountbatten.

Thus, on 27 January 1947, Clement Attlee and Aung San signed an agreement for full independence of Burma within a year. On 19 July 1947, Aung San was assassinated by a political rival. He became a legend of Burmese independence.

Aung San Suu Kyi was educated in India (where her mother served as ambassador) and at Oxford University. She married an English academic, Michael Aris, a specialist on Tibet, in 1972 and only returned to Burma in 1988 in order to care for her dying mother. Her dynamism, combined with the legend of her father, led her to being named secretary of the National League for Democracy. She toured the country and was welcomed enthusiastically. She always stressed the importance of non-violence in pressing for democracy against the military.

The SLORC does not care for symbols it does not control. Since July 1989, Aung San Suu Kyi has been most of the time under house arrest, cut off from most communication, including with her own family. The government refused an entry visa to her husband Michael Aris, who was dying of cancer. He died without being able to see her. It is impossible to know from outside how strong and how structured the democratic forces in Burma remain. Many democratic Burmese have left the country and are often active in pro-democracy activities.

The major change from the 1962-1988 period is that now Burma is open to the world and the winds of trade. Burma has become a major opium exporting country. Opium is the main export of the country, sent over land through China, Bangladesh, and Northeast India, leaving a trail of ruined lives and conflicts among middlemen along the way. The other major export, largely undocumented, is tropical wood to Thailand. The Thais have limited their forest cutting, having already destroyed much of their forest lands. The Thais buy their wood from the Burmese military – a trade under the control of higher officers on both sides.

China is the chief beneficiary of the new Burmese openness. The Chinese government sells Burma arms of all sorts but especially cheaply-made land mines which are planted in frontier areas where the ethnic minorities live. Chinese merchants, probably not pushed by the government but following an age-old pattern of Chinese migrating to do business, are taking over the hotels, restaurants and shops of Burma, selling Chinese goods. As hardly anything is made in Burma, it is natural for the Chinese to sell Chinese goods. As a result China is one of the only open defenders of Burma at the UN.

The military keep marching in place, without vision, without policy, taking what they can while power lasts, but their footprints make ever deeper ruts all the time.

Rene Wadlow is editor of the online journal of world politics www.transnational-perspectives.org and an NGO representative to the UN, Geneva. Formerly, he was professor and Director of Research of the Graduate Institute of Development Studies, University of Geneva. Photo from indymedia.org

For more resources:

For a moving account of the 1988 protests and crackdown, including many interviews with participants see: Bertil Lintner Outrange: Burma’s Struggle for Democracy ( London: White Lotus, 1990, 208pp.)

For an effort to understand why the military continue in power despite economic and administrative incompetence and why so few Burmese democrats criticize the military as such, see the useful analysis by an anthropologist interested in the psychological effects of military rule: Christina Fink. Living Silence: Burma under Military Rule ( London: Zed Books, 2001, 286pp.).

November 10, 2005