Intervention by Peter Weiderud, president of the Swedish Christian Social Democrats, at the seminar on Civil Courage, Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, Uppsala, 10 June 2011
When Rudolf Höss, the Commander in Auschwitz, in his memoirs is looking back at time as Director for the concentration camp, he is reaching the conclusion that he was not happy during these years.
He was lacking competent staff and hence he was not able to reach the goals which was put for the work he was asked to lead. He felt that the prisoners were acting without dignity, and in a way that created major obstacles for him. He felt disgrace towards them.
Nevertheless he did his duty. He performed his best. And looking back at his four years as Managing Director for the worst mass murder in history, he has only one regret. He let that work absorbed him so much, that he neglected his family.
The conscious of Rudolf Höss was calibrated within the framework of Nazi German ideology. There was obviously nothing that could break loyalty and obedience. No principles of humanity. Not even his Christian faith could break the shield of obedience. Rudolf Höss was a committed Roman Catholic and had earlier the ambitions and wish to become a priest.
Rudolf Höss was one with the system and saw no alternative to obedience.
And to obey your government, your employer or your parents is of course the normal behavior. If we stop obeying, we would face anarchy and chaos.
Still obedience has killed many more people than disobedience.
I know, we cannot compare the dictatorship of Nazi Germany with decent democracies of today. And democracy is an absolute necessity for human rights to be respected.
Still, human rights are putting boundaries and limits on the fundament of democracy – the majority vote. This is a reason why big political parties, also in this country, have been enthusiastic about promoting human rights in the world, but more reluctant to implement some of the conventions and principles at home.
Human Rights and international law is hence an invitation to civil disobedience. Some principles are higher than the wisdom of government decisions, even if they are made in interest of the majority of its people.
The Arab spring of 2011 has again proven that civil courage and civil disobedience, even under dictatorship, is powerful enough to change history in an irreversible way.
Still, we have also learned that those who are brave enough to take such action under dictatorship are risking their lives and future. In Syria alone, we are probably counting more than 1.000 causalities.
But civil courage can involve serious risks also with democracies.
My organization is one of the Swedish partners in the Flotilla Ship to Gaza. A year ago, one of my staff was one of the Swedish participants on one of the boats. For more than 24 hours, when Israel blocked all communication and decided to take military action on international waters, neither I, nor his wife and children knew what had happened to him.
Unlike some of his Turkish friends he was lucky. He experienced a few hours brutality on the boat. He had a few days of humiliation in custody. All his belongings were taken from him and he will never be able to return to Israel - a country in which he has lived several years and needs to visit regularly for work. Some psychological wounds are of course left, both in him and his family, despite long and deep processes.
Nevertheless he was lucky. Nine of his friends lost their lives.
In a few weeks’ time there will be a second flotilla. This time with more boats and double the number of activists on board. Many of those who went last year, are going again. There will be two or three of our members, among them one of my predecessor, a now 86 year old former parliamentarian.
Despite the risk, cost and inconvenience, more people are committing themselves to stand up for international law, human rights and the humanitarian needs for the people of Gaza.
Based on the experience from last year, we started a few weeks ago a process to ask the UN to serve as an independent inspector of the cargo, and by that limit the risk of a repetition of last year’s tragedy.
But before we even were able to get into a proper dialogue, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon used the authority of his office to urge governments to prevent ships from joining the so called Freedom Flotilla 2. He said it bluntly, and did not even balance his statement with a call to Israel to end the unlawful blockade of Gaza.
As we are meeting at the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, having our discussion partly inspired by the civil courage of the former Secretary General it might be worth reflecting on the implication of this statement from Ban Ki-Moon, in his function of being the main upholder of human rights and international law. The function who is asked, on our behalf, to protect the principle of the UN Charter, which begins “We the peoples…” not “We the governments.”
This difference has a special meaning to me and my background in international ecumenical work and my time as Director for International Affairs of the World Council of Churches. At the Dumberton Oaks Conference and the founding conference of the UN in San Francisco, it was primarily the church delegation who strongly argued that the UN must be seen not just as an instrument of states, but also give expression to the aspirations of the world’s peoples.
The lack of this, they argued, was a major reason why the League of Nations had failed. Therefore they urged for a preamble stating that and the inclusion of an article which would provide the peoples direct access to its deliberations.
Looking back at the formation of the UN, the US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, gave a clear recognition to the role of civil society and the churches for this achievement:
As originally projected at Dumbarton Oaks, the organization was primarily a political device whereby the so-called great powers were to rule the world … It was the religious people who took the lead in seeking that the organization should be dedicated not merely to a peaceful but to a just order.
What the founding governments of the UN saw, in light of the experience from the Second World War, including the terrible crimes committed by Rudolf Höss and others who had obeyed in political perverted contexts, dictatorship and blind power politics, was the need for moral correctives – manifested by CSO/NGOs and religions - to remind politicians of what really matters beyond power politics.
Governments, leaders, and people with a lot of power, need to be able to hold once in a while, and look for the moral bearings and directions. Human Rights and International law are instruments we have developed together to provide tools for such process. But they depend on civil courage to be used.
Therefore I see the statement of Ban Ki-Moon as a major tragedy. He is looking at a situation when Israel in violation of international law is holding a blockade against Gaza. A blockade that has gone on for a long time, succeeding or combined with occupation and military attacks, which also after independent investigations have been found as violation of international law. The humanitarian situation in Gaza horrible, as result of these violations.
When the international community has failed to uphold international law and human rights for Gaza, a broad civil society initiative has decided to make an effort to end the blockade, with non-violent methods and in full compliance with international law.
Last year the flotilla was militarily attacked by Israel, who used excessive force against the boats on international waters.
Of course, this is politically difficult and sensitive. I would have understood if the UN SG would have found a way to stay silent.
But putting the office of the Secretary General so bluntly on the side of power politics, taking stands against international law and civil courage, the statement of Ban Ki-Moon is a disgrace.
The UN system should be committed not just to the state’s perspectives, but to what really matters, beyond power politics.