It has been deeply discouraging for citizens around the world to see the unfolding human carnage in the Middle East, which continues to intensify in horrific ways. It is with great concern and profound sadness that I write this column as I know, care about, and respect several Palestinian, Israeli, Arab-Israeli, Lebanese and Iraqi colleagues and friends working for a broad range of civil society organisations. All of them value peace, justice and democracy, and all of them are committed to working energetically for these goals. It is that commitment which binds the individuals and organizations that comprise global civil society, and what must fuel the collective contribution that global civil society can make in these difficult times for the people of the Middle East as a whole.
It was only three months ago that the Global Call to Action against Poverty - (www.whiteband.org), which CIVICUS has played a key role in supporting, held its last meeting in Beirut, Lebanon, to plan ongoing advocacy and mobilisation around the global fight against poverty and inequality. One hundred and seventy delegates from 80 countries around the world attended the historic meeting that generated The Beirut Declaration - (www.whiteband.org/Lib/docs/en_beirut_platform.doc), which pertinently states in its preamble that “armed conflicts, wars and their consequences destroy livelihoods, undermine democratic process, human rights including the right to self determination…” The most recent outbreak of violent conflict in the Middle East has killed at least 335 Lebanese and 34 Israeli’s. This does not count the lives lost as a result of Israel military actions in Palestinian Gaza. Catastrophic level destruction has caused the displacement of at least a half million people in Lebanon - (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060720/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel_255;_ylt=AgC83QVgEXDXv6Y_P8ZwfmQUewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw).
Over the last couple of days, I had tried unsuccessfully to reach one of the people I respect most in the world, Ziad Abdel Samad, a CIVICUS Board member and executive director of the Arab NGO Network on Development (ANND). It was his organization that had just hosted us in Beirut and now just one phone call was a luxury that a hampered telecommunications system could not accommodate since the military attacks by Israeli armed forces had been "degraded." I was relieved to receive a text message by cell phone late last night from Ziad, saying that he is alive and that regular information from a civil society perspective is available on ANND’s website.
If you want to get a perspective on the events in Lebanon, in particular, and the Middle East more broadly, please feel encouraged to track these developments on this website.
Just beyond the scope of very real individual trauma, grief and doubt is the broader consideration of what all of this means for civil society. First, the lives of unarmed civilians threatened in such large numbers and the destruction of infrastructure that has made life intolerable for people in Gaza, Iraq and Lebanon call on us to do whatever is in our power to provide humanitarian assistance. Several CIVICUS members and partners are already engaged in various relief efforts under incredibly intolerable circumstances. At times like this, our common global humanity must surface visibly and forcefully so that those who hold political power, put peace, democracy and justice before narrow political interests. Secondly, civil society is called upon to offer different policy perspectives and solutions, that have the potential to build peace, justice and democracy. Politics is far too important to be left to politicians alone, and the democratic forces of civil society in the Middle East, who survive under tremendous odds, must be supported more, so that they can bring alternative perspectives on how we might resolve the multiple levels of conflict in the Middle East.
This calling also requires that civil society offer some policy observations about the inconsistency in the role that certain dominant governments play, who are often incorrectly and opportunistically referred to as "the international community."
Some of the perspectives that I have heard over the last several months exemplify the sorts of inconsistencies that civil society must not only base policy alternatives on, but call global attention to as well. On Iraq, many civil society activists and ordinary people around the world have expressed deep concern for the "war of choice," that violated international law, according to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. The fact that the false justification for war predicated on a false threat of "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD) does not call into question legal sanctions, or even a proper International Enquiry, creates consternation. Ordinary people ask why it is that when certain countries wage illegal wars and perpetrate war crimes, which have been plentiful in Iraq, there are no substantive repercussions – for example no UN War Crime Tribunals and no economic sanctions. Some dominant countries of the world not only brazenly possess weapons of mass destruction, often against public opinion in their own countries, but are discussing proposals to spend billions of dollars upgrading various forms of weapons of mass destruction, including mini-nukes. This duplicitous application of international law ultimately serves only to compromise the credibility of international protocols and agreements, sever international relationships, effect further proliferation of WMD, and marginalise the critical role of diplomacy. Those nations who have claimed the mantle of world policemen (I deliberately use the male gender here, since the history of war and destruction, has largely been led by men) insist that they have god-given rights to possess and upgrade weapons of mass destruction, as well as the apparent right to decide which nations can and cannot develop those same weapons.
Last year, many civil society activists noted that the new aid money the G8 promised for Africa and other developing nations was miniscule when considering the amounts of money spent and mobilised virtually over-night for war. As far back as 1989, when the Berlin wall came down, there was a talk of a peace dividend. It was believed that the huge amounts of money spent during the cold war on military and intelligence investments could go towards addressing the challenges that humanity faced, such as environmental degradation and global poverty; however, the peace dividend never materialised and in fact military expenditure has increased.
This duplicity and inconsistency challenge civil society to act in a more collective and resonant way to hold governments and leaders accountable to international law as well as global standards of humanity, democracy and peace. Humanitarian assistance and policy alternatives are the short term answers to civil society’s call to address the violence and devastation occurring in the Middle East. We can begin by joining the Lebanese Civic Society Associations in support of the following declaration adopted on 15 July 2006:
1. Call for an immediate ceasefire and call upon the UN to assume its responsibilities for protecting peace and stability.
2. Stop all military actions, particularly those which are affecting civilians.
3. Immediately cease and desist the policy of collective punishment including the siege of Lebanon, the bombardment of transportation links, and the resulting displacement of citizens which has already resulted in a grave humanitarian crisis in Lebanon.
4. Immediately stop and refute the policy of attacks against civilian infrastructures.
5. Invite all private, civic and public organizations as well as concerned individuals to assist people from the south of Lebanon and/or other Lebanese regions.
The rapidly growing trend toward heightened anti-americanism is likely to be irreversible if the US government, as the only remaining superpower, acts without respect to its own stated values or informed consent of its own citizenry. The disproportionate use of force by Israeli armed forces, with full US backing, raises a more troubling question about how we value human life. It is entirely appropriate and correct for the government of Israel to be concerned about its soldiers being kidnapped. However, by responding to this situation with force, it sends an assiduous message to the rest of the world that Israeli lives are of greater value than the lives of Palestinian, Iraqi or other citizens in the broader Middle East. Irrespective of which side of the conflict one supports or defends, it is critical that we value human life equally. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is supposed to help guarantee this for all citizens of the world: whether they be black or white, whether they be Palestinian or Israeli, or whether they be from the global south or north. The current tragedy we are witnessing suggests that we have some ways to go before we get to this point.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (32nd U.S. President 1932-1945) once remarked of Nicaragua's dictator, "Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch." Sadly, this logic that was so prevalent during the cold war period is still very much alive. No nation, however powerful militarily or economically, should be allowed to behave in a manner that violates international law and operates on cold war logics that overlook the aggression and tyrannical actions of its offending ally nations, while taking a more militaristic approach to those that are not allies.
In the long term, it is imperative that we talk about these contradictions and inconsistencies more openly and honestly. The achievement of peace, justice, and democracy as a global reality depend on all of civil society leading the global chorus of humanity, especially at a time when the human suffering of innocent civilians on all sides of this conflict continues.
