8th April 2024; 0600 PM Copenhagen, Denmark
Statement:
”To all world leaders, including leaders of warring nation-states and leaders from peaceful nation-states:
We are deeply saddened and devastated by the loss of human lives during the ongoing armed conflicts on the planet Earth.
- We condemn the actions of ALL world leaders for failing to provide global security and leadership to innocent people at this hour.
- We appeal to the international society of states that follow the same rule of law as these warring parties, to practice peaceful coexistence and cooperate to reign in these armed conflicts.
- If the existing conventions do not support this, new conventions must be created to include the representation for all.
- Leaders should be held accountable.”
Summary:
The armed conflicts discussed in the public statement are often driven by failures in governance and intelligence coordination, resulting in severe consequences for innocent civilians. Trusting state governments with aid interventions becomes challenging when further war crimes are witnessed.
The assertion of war under the guise of achieving long-term peace disregards fundamental principles and international law.
At the same time, sovereignty should be seen as a mutual agreement among states and entities seeking self-governance. The statement emphasises the need to resolve conflicts through dialogue and create frameworks for communication instead of resorting to needless violence or perpetuating ignorance based on belief systems or societal challenges.
The statement discusses issues with international representation in current conventions and criticises participant nation-states and state governments for hindering ceasefire resolutions due to technicalities.
It questions diplomats’ ability to envision timelines for resolving armed conflicts and calls for more diverse representation in the Security Council to reflect the realities of the 21st century.
The public statement also raises concerns about maintaining outdated organs that do not lead to tangible actions when violence occurs, highlighting the necessity for reforms. Despite these challenges, there is still hope for human rights to be upheld amidst conflicts.
Assessment Background:
The irony in these armed conflicts is that the perpetrators and aggressors continuously and blindly commit crimes in the name of the right to defence and protection of heritage.
Assessment of Contradictions:
“Prevention is better than cure.”
First, an armed conflict is created through an existing failure of intelligence.
Failure in human-made governance constructs, aided by the negligence of closed-grouped intelligence agencies serving national interests, instead of directing global peace and security, hinders any international organ’s ability to thwart attacks led by political extremists and terrorists on peaceful and innocent populations.
Then, during such conflicts, when human beings affiliated with international organisations enter Ground Zero to feed the needy and displaced, they are maimed on the streets like animals, due to a lack of intelligent coordination. (cite 2)
How can any human rights organisation trust these state governments to coordinate an aid intervention in these conflict zones?
The absence of human rights aid almost always adds to any perpetrator’s aggravated war crimes.
“Needless war-mongering by leaders serving political will during election periods in democratic republics.”
The logical constructs the warring leaders use to ‘continue’ to wage these wars result in contradictions because they violate fundamental principles of legal practice.
The leaders assert that the continuance of war relies on the prediction that the conclusions of armed conflicts might result in long-term peace for their state’s populations. By eliminating opposing humans, one does not eliminate the opponent’s philosophy. The only mechanism for eliminating opposing philosophy is through counterarguments with logical truth statements.
A state( a legal construct) and its sovereignty are not entitlements but only provided for, as a consensus between states in an international society of states.
Any natural person, a group of humans, or any organisation of humans with self-governance and a permanent populace, also follows the same international rule of law as others to respect a state’s sovereignty construct and be entitled to their own sovereignty. The logical constructs fail to explain this underlying hypothesis behind respecting each other’s sovereignty, creating a rule of disorder.
There is no need to fight over sovereignty on the same planet, when fundamental differences of existential philosophies exist. Only time and patience, a careful review of documented history and peaceful dialogue between warring parties can result in respecting the so-called sovereignty – the volity of which flows from a natural person to a construct like ‘state’, not something assigned at ‘birth’ of a natural person.
A natural person’s exercise of human rights also depends on other constructs such as faith, corporeality, human’s acquired knowledge about different cultures, scientific curiosity and outcomes of prevailing research and development of the space that humans inherit in order to establish their legal personhood across the planet’s natural resources.
“Dialogue between extremists and warring factions”
A leader can fool once, can fool twice, but a state leader, holding one(1) singular, existential conduct in their mind, cannot fool billions of minds, who also possess human existential cognitive awareness.
”No, sorry, war is not the answer!”
Let’s not normalise lingering ignorance at any level, whether it is on the basis of existential belief systems or challenges related to sharing governance burden for acute notions of nation, biological sex, faith, and skin colour.
Adversity on humankind and global challenges of the planet.
‘’Leave the innocent alone.’’
How long do the innocent need to continue bearing the burden of lingering ignorance in the neurological processing of humans who have taken a sworn duty to represent the affairs and conduct of a state in an international rule of law?
When citizens of a state entrust leaders with representation, steering them to needless violence breaches that trust, if dialogue is open.
Conflicts are meant to be resolved through dialogue. In cases where dialogue seems impossible, efforts should be made to create frameworks and new conventions for communication.
Issues with international representation in current conventions:
We strongly condemn all parties – the nation-states and state governments that hinder ceasefire resolutions due to technicalities, disregarding the urgent need for peace. It’s disheartening to witness diplomats treating human lives as mere statistics.
It’s truly disheartening and selfish that such performative actions are taking place at the highest levels of representation.
Do the diplomats return home and sleep peacefully, carrying the burden that innocent people suffer in burning cities purely because of a lack of bureaucratic consensus?
We also question those responsible for formulating conflict resolutions about their ability to envision time-bound charters for resolving armed conflicts.
The Security Council must have more diverse representation to reflect the realities of the 21st century and ensure the security of billions of people on this planet, including those living in peaceful countries.
A Security Council cannot function well and be a custodian of global security when it is run with the incomplete representation of only a handful of the world’s population, when populous states like India and several member states of the European Union, Africa, Brazil and their citizens have been left out from the decision-making frameworks. (cite 8) (Cite 9)
What is the purpose of maintaining such an outdated organ? Are we maintaining these organs for the national interests of a few states and their economies?
Why should taxpayers in different states fund a representation that doesn’t lead to tangible actions when violence spills over streets and human conflict turns into a disgusting display of bloodshed?
Very few human beings(who have aged 80 years or more) are alive from that era, who contributed to tbe UN organ’s establishment or were citizens of the planet when UN organs were instituted in their existing form. Their good intentions have been marred by non-accelerated reforms for policy and legal interventions for current times.
The planet’s population affected today by the slower functioning of such organs rely on outdated legal instruments, highlighting the necessity for revision.
‘’There is no scope for the persistence of such an aggressive and violent environment on this planet. It has drawn billions of human minds into an appalling divisive and polarised state of mind.’’
‘’An era of normalising conflicts.’’
The impact of armed conflicts on billions of human lives and the global mental health of humanity is truly apalling.
A whole new generation of human beings is growing under the influence of older generations of leaders, are struggling to resolve their self into directing an appropriate resource governance issues at the highest level.
“All sorts of performative stunts must come to an end.”
The right to defence does not justify freedom of expression of ‘hate’ and ‘enmity’.
Freedom of expression should always take precedence over limiting independent thinking. But freedom of expression does not translate into the freedom of expression of ‘hate’ and ‘hostility’, disguised in the right to defend an existential philosophy—whether it is based on acute notions of faith, religion, reading of documented history, or theological basis. Freedom of expression of ‘hate’ should also not be disguised with a right to defend, when the cost of human lives and the scale of violence in the conflict turns to the appalling reality.
Holding Leaders and their existential ideologies responsible for crimes against humanity
For the public discourse to arrive at the state of redressal and recovery of human rights on the planet Earth, the leaders must be held accountable for their actions, whether the leaders have participated in these armed conflicts through direct administration, commandeering negligence in control of violence or transferring weapons into Ground Zero.
In the age of the Internet, transparency of public actions is paramount for serving humanity’s interests; it is, therefore, vital in the public interest that leaders be held responsible and their actions measured and accounted for, in order to reestablish the rule of law.
‘’There is still hope for human rights to be upheld, amidst a storm of conflicts shaking the eclipsed ground on planet Earth.’’
Citation and References:
- Read Network’s Guiding Principles; Section: Statement on Nonviolence and Terrorism.
- Security Council Demands Immediate Ceasefire in Gaza for Month of Ramadan, Adopting Resolution 2728 (2024) with 14 Members Voting in Favour, United States Abstaining Security Council Demands Immediate Ceasefire in Gaza for Month of Ramadan, Adopting Resolution 2728 (2024) with 14 Members Voting in Favour, United States Abstaining | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
- Speakers in Security Council Condemn Deadly Israeli Airstrikes on Aid Workers in Gaza, Urge Immediate Action to End Violations of International Humanitarian Law Speakers in Security Council Condemn Deadly Israeli Airstrikes on Aid Workers in Gaza, Urge Immediate Action to End Violations of International Humanitarian Law | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
- As Crisis in Myanmar Worsens, Security Council Must Take Resolute Action to End Violence by Country’s Military, Address Humanitarian Situation, Speakers Urge As Crisis in Myanmar Worsens, Security Council Must Take Resolute Action to End Violence by Country’s Military, Address Humanitarian Situation, Speakers Urge | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
- Two Years after Russian Federation’s Invasion, UN Remains Committed to Ukraine’s Sovereignty, Independence, Assistant Secretary-General Tells Security Council
- Security Council Fails to Adopt Resolution Condemning Moscow’s Referenda in Ukraine’s Occupied Territories, as Permanent Member Employs Veto
- Global Population
- Reform of the United Nations Security Council Reform of the United Nations Security Council – questions and answers