|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Ouverture à 15 h 00 Sont présents : Daniel Durand, Peter Davidse, Nathalie Kesler, Roger Winterhalter en visioconférence, Isabelle Peyre, Joseph Kurp (en fin d'après-midi), Saïda Agrebi (un court instant). Se sont excusés : Bruno Chevallier, Laurent Son, Yves Angelloz, Jean-Francis Billion, Claudine Fischer, Pascale Tussing, Souleymane Doucouré, Antoine Grimm, Luc Delcroix, Ursula Grattapaglia, Dominique Simeone, Michel Lablanquie, René Wadlow (4 messages mis en annexe) Approbation du Compte-rendu de la précédente réunion. Suite à la réunion qui s'est tenue à Mulhouse le 18 mai, le compte-rendu en a été diffusé le 1er juin. Il ne s'en est suivi aucune remarque ni demande de rectification. Les personnes présentes le déclarent donc approuvé à l'unanimité. 1. Conseil fédéral du Registre des Citoyens du Monde
2. Conseil des Territoires Citoyens du Monde
3. Comité pour le Congrès des Peuples
4. Citoyens du Monde Paris-13 (association parisienne du Registre des Citoyens du Monde)
5. Assemblée des Citoyens du Monde (ASCOP)
|
||||||||
|
Annexes Pourquoi se former à la citoyenneté mondiale ?
Quels outils existants ?
Quels formateurs ? Quelles personnes-ressources ? Quels lieux de formation ?
Quel cadre de la formation ?
Quelles méthodes ? Quels programmes ? Quels niveaux ? Quels diplômes ?
Annexe 2 : Messages de René Wadlow 1. Chers Amis, Je vous adresse mes meilleurs vœux pour votre réunion. Il est trois sujets sur lesquels l'Association of World Citizens est particulièrement active et qui seraient à même de créer la coopération entre nous. 1. Le résultat le plus important de la réunion du G7 est le rôle que jouerait la France dans l'Accord nucléaire iranien. Je pense qu'il est important que les Gouvernements français et iranien sachent qu'ils ne sont pas les seuls acteurs de la question, mais qu'il existe au contraire de nombreuses autres parties intéressées de par le monde. J'enverrai séparément un article en anglais sur le rôle que le Gouvernement français pourrait jouer de manière utile. 2. Les questions écologiques constituent de plus en plus des préoccupations communes aux gouvernements et aux organisations non-gouvernementales (ONG). Des négociations importantes, mais très spécialisées, ont lieu en ce moment aux Nations Unies à New York au sujet de la protection des océans. C'est là un domaine dans lequel les Citoyens du Monde ont joué un rôle important dans les négociations des années 1970 ayant conduit au Traité du Droit de la Mer. Nous pouvons bâtir sur cette réputation pour formuler des suggestions dans le cadre des négociations actuelles. J'enverrai un article séparé sur les négociations. 3. Le conflit armé qui se poursuit au Yémen et le besoin, là encore, de négociations. En juillet dernier, l'Association of World Citizens a parrainé une rencontre durant la Session du Conseil des Droits de l'Homme de l'ONU à Genève. Cette rencontre s'articulait autour d'une présentation effectuée par trois militants originaires du Yémen, dont une militante. La rencontre s'est tenue dans une pièce proche de la salle du Conseil des Droits de l'Homme et a compté dans son public des fonctionnaires de l'ONU, des diplomates gouvernementaux, des membres d'ONG et des journalistes. Je ne constate pour ma part aucune volonté de négocier venant de qui que ce soit ; cependant, s'agissant du conflit au Yémen, l'Association of World Citizens est l'ONG sans lien avec les gouvernements saoudien ou iranien la plus visible auprès des représentants gouvernementaux. L'effort ainsi entrepris en est un que nous devons amplifier. René Wadlow 2. From 19 to 30 August 2019, an intergovernmental conference to draft a legally-binding agreement to provide future gnerations with a "healthy, resilient and productive Ocean" is being held at the United Nations in New York. This is the third of four planned rounds to achieve the treaty within the framework of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The hope is to reach an agreement at the fourth round to be held in the first half of 2020. The Association of World Citizens had participated actively in the negotiations during the 1970s which led to the UNCLOS treaty. Thus we know that agreements can take more time in practice than in theory. The first two sessions were devoted to an exchange of ideas and aims which have now been drawn together into a written text of the proposed treaty. This draft text has been presented to the delegates by the Conference President Ms Rena Lee of Singapore. The aim now is to work on the language of the treaty which would be finalized at the last of these four sessions. After the second intergovernmental session, the 2019 Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services has been published. The Report presents alarming conclusions which add pressure on the delegates to reach an agreement in 2020. The Assessment Report has stated that, across most of the Planet, humans have significantly altered the ecosystems, and biodiversity has shown a rapid decline. The Assessment Report highlighted that some 66 percent of the ocean is experiencing increased human impact due to climate change, ocean acidification, and polution. The aim of the treaty being negotiated is to conserve and sustainably use marine biological diversity in the ocean areas beyond the 200 nauticle miles. The first 200 nauticle miles are under national jurisdiction and are called the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). A national government may give permission to other States to fish in its EEZ, but the conditions under which it is done is under the control of the coastal State. Beyond the 200 nautical miles is an area which world citizens have called "the common heritage of mankind". Unfortunately the comon heritage concept is left out of the current draft treaty. The major point of contention in these Law of the Seas discussions under way concerns the baseline for measuring the 200 nautical miles. The debate had already come up in the 1970s when the UNCLOS was being negotiated, one year in New York, the next year in Geneva for nearly a decade. The 200 nautical miles do not start from the shore line which might be considered logical but from inhabited islands, rocks and shoals which may be many miles from the national shoreline. Governments are currently enlarging such islands and putting an air landing field and a few people so that they can be considered "inhabited". This policy of increasing the size of islands or building artificial islands around nationally-owned rocks is particularly evident in the South China Sea carried out by both China and Japan. Thus the 200 nautical miles overlap in places with claims of Vietnam, the Philippines and Taiwan. The situation is made even more complex by rival military consideration in the South China Sea. wc00The second topic of contention being raised by developing countries concerns the transfer of technology from more developed to lesser developed States. This issue had also been raised during the 1970s UNCLOS negotiations. More technologically-advanced countries have the technology for fishing and preserving at sea than fishermen from less developed States. This is particularly true for deep-sea mining and oil exploration. The UNCLOS treaty had a provision for the transfer of technology, but in paractice, very little was done. With this negative example in mind, developing countries are now asking for stronger transfer of technology provisions in this new treaty. As Citizens of the World, we still work for the spirit of the common heritage. The current negotiations are worth watching. We will have to see if the current popular emphasis on climate change - a climate energency - will have an impact on inportant but relatively specialized, negotiations. René Wadlow 3. The first act of the Iran Nuclear Accord took eight years. The backdrop kept changing from Geneva to Vienna but the actors were nearly all the same. Except for the representative of the European Union it was an all male, middle-age cast with little comic relief, at least on stage. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, to give the play its formal name was signed in 2015 with polite applause and some anticipation of what the next acts might hold. The second act started with the election of Donald Trump as the US President. He was used to faster-paced TV shows and so left the theater, saying that there were no lines concerning Iranian missiles. The development of Iranian missiles is not a subject directly covered by the Iranian nuclear accord. However, there is the Hague Code of Conduct aganst Ballistic Missile Production (HCOC) which came into force on 25 November 2002 which calls for restraint in their production, testing, and export. The Hague Code could be strengthened although we have seen little leadership on the part of those States which have extensive missile programs. One can understand the boredom of some. The action was very slow. The Iranians kept to the script, and IAEA atomic inspectors came periodically from Vienna but were largely nameless. The Iranian economy did not improve dramatically and so some Iranian "hardliners" started wondering who had written the play. But as the Second Act continued, the drama started heating up. Off stage, one could hear war drums starting to beat. Armed conflicts continued in Syria and Yemen. One could hear the sounds of weapons off stage but rather close. Tankers with oil were menaced. Regional States not part of the Nuclear Accord such as Saudia Arabia and Israel were watching closely and even throwing some oil on the fire. As the Second Act ended, there was serious discussion of the possibility of a regional war. Now the Third Act has started with two signs of hope that the drama will have a "happy end" or at least as "happy" as current world politics will allow. However, both signs of hope may require that we in the non-governmental world, stop being just spectators of the drama and ask to become actors as well and add lines to the script promoting negotiations in good faith. The first sign of hope comes from Moscow. On 23 July 2019, the Russian Government's "Collective Security for the Persian Gulf Region" was presented in Moscow by the Deputy Foreign Minister, Mikhail Bogdanov. Bagdanov stated that " The main principles are incrementalism, multilateralism, and strict observation of international law, primarily the U.N. Charter and Security Council resolution. The looming strategic challenge outlined is creating among all states in the region on an equal basis" a collective security institution. The Russian proposal for Collective Security for the Persian Gulf follows closely the procedures which led to the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and the creation of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Bogdanov stressed multilateralism as a mechanism for all involved in the assessment of situations, the decision-making process, and the implementation of decisions. The second sign of hope comes from the decision within the G7 meeting which ended on 26 August 2019 to mandate the President of France to see what negotiations were possible to continue the Iran Nuclear Accord. This G7 agreement opens a door, at leat a bit, to renewed negotiations between the U.S.A. and Iran. The first step may be to stop beating the war drums off stage. A second step will be to see what issues other than the Nuclear Accord can be discussed as the provisions of the Nuclear Accord are not really open to re-negotiation given the time it took to reach the original agrrement and the States involved. Thus, it is probably around the Russian proposal of a Helsinki-type regional security conference that non-governmental organizations, such as the Association of World Citizens, can play an active role. NGOs were active during the nearly three years that the Helsinki Accord was being negotiated. After a short start in Helsinki, the negotiations moved to Geneva. Although NGO representatives had no direct avenue into the discussions, all the key States in the negotiations had Diplomatic Missions to the U.N. in Geneva. We often knew diplomats at these Missions from our work in U.N. meetings, so ideas could be passed on to the Helsinki Final Act negotiators. It is still too early to know how the Russian proposal will be acted upon. However, the Russian proposals are a positive sign. We need to work to see what issues can be negotiated. The Third Act is not written in advance. René Wadlow 4. It has often been mentioned that the Chinese characters for "crisis" is a combination of the characters for "danger" and for "opportunity". Thus it is today for the Iran Crisis. The dangers are evident and have been around for a while. The Persian Gulf region has long been one of the flashpoints for conflict in the Middle East. The strategic significance of the region has been magnified by the region's oil resources. The current armed conflict in Yemen continues with few signs of negotiations in good faith to bring the fighting to an end. U.S. and British warships have moved toward the Strait of Hormuz, a possible closure of which could lead to major disruptions to commerce, especially oil. An effort to close the Strait of Hormuz could have military consequences and even a threat of closure would result in heightened military insecurity. There are few signs of a lessening of military threats, and the situation could slip out of the control of the governments involved. Nevertheless, there are two positive signs, and non-governmental efforts may help in exploring subject areas where governmental negotiations are possible. Both signs of hope may require that we in the non-governmental world stop being just spectators of the drama and ask to become actors as well and add lines to the script promoting negotiations in good faith. The first sign of hope comes from Moscow. On 23 July 2019, the Russian Government's "Collective Security for the Persian Gulf Region" was presented in Moscow by the Deputy Foreign Minister, Mikhail Bogdanov. Bagdanov stated that, "The main principles are incrementalism, multilateralism, and strict observation of international law, primarily the U.N. Charter and Security Council resolution. The looming strategic challenge outlined is creating among all states in the region on an equal basis" a need for a collective security institution. The Russian proposal for Collective Security for the Persian Gulf follows closely the procedures which led to the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and the creation of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Bogdanov stressed multilateralism as a mechanism for all involved in the assessment of situations, the decision-making process, and the implementation of decisions. The second sign of hope comes from the decision within the G7 meeting which ended on 26 August 2019 to mandate the President of France to see what negotiations were possible to continue the Iran Nuclear Accord. This G7 agreement opens a door, at least a bit, to renewed negotiations between the U.S.A. and Iran. The first step may be to stop beating the war drums. A second step will be to see what issues other than the Nuclear Accord can be discussed as the provisions of the Nuclear Accord are not really open to re-negotiation given the time it took to reach the original agreement and the number of States involved. The French president's office has described the talks on the sidelines of the G7 summit with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif as "positive" and said that discussions which will include Germany and Britain will continue. President Trump at the same G7 summit said that he would agree to meet Iranian President Hassan Rohani "if the circumstances were correct or right." It is probably around the Russian proposal of a Helsinki-type regional security conference that non-governmental organizations, such as the Association of World Citizens, can play an active role. NGOs were active during the nearly three years that the Helsinki Accord was being negotiated. After a short start in Helsinki, the negotiations moved to Geneva. Although NGO representatives had no direct avenue into the discussions, all the key States in the negotiations had Diplomatic Missions to the U.N. in Geneva. We often knew diplomats at these Missions from our work in U.N. meetings, so ideas could be passed on to the Helsinki Final Act negotiators. It is still too early to know how the Russian proposal will be acted upon. However, the Russian proposal is a positive sign. We need to see what issues can be negotiated. The dangers are real. We must make the most of the opportunities. René Wadlow
|
||||||||
|
|
