Alfred-Maurice de Zayas Quotes

Representative democracy deserves the predicate “democratic” only if and when parliamentarians genuinely represent their constituents.

Edward Snowden is a true hero of our time. He does not seek fame — only justice. The entire interview with Rafael Correa is full of ideas that challenge all of us –whether American, Swiss or world citizens. I cannot summarize it here, but one idea runs through the interview as a humanistic, philosophical red thread: Ethics comes before legality. The rule of law must be the rule of justice, not the fetishism of law.

As an American citizen, I vote every two years, but I know that our two-party system has proven to be undemocratic. Indeed, whether I vote Republican or Democrat, I get more of the same, because both parties are committed to exceptionalism, imperialism, interventionism, Wall Street over Main Street. It is like having to choose between two beverages that almost taste the same, like Pepsi and Coca-Cola. Both parties approve of killing tens of thousands of civilians with drones. Both approve the use of radioactive depleted-uranium weapons. Both persecute journalists and whistleblowers who dare disclose the crimes committed in our name. Both parties are strongly pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian. Both impose illegal unilateral coercive measures on countries that do not obey Uncle Sam's political orders.

In my reports to the United Nations General Assembly and Human Rights Council, I said that democracy means the correlation of the will of the people and the governmental policies that affect them. Democratic governance is much more than ritual periodic elections, but entails genuine policy choices, people's power to propose legislation, challenge laws and regulations by referendum, demand transparency and accountability from government.

Most worrisome are the ISDS arbitrations, which constitute an attempt to escape the jurisdiction of national courts and bypass the obligation of all states to ensure that all legal cases are tried before independent tribunals that are public, transparent, accountable and appealable.

As far as domestic democracy, all here present know that democracy means government of the people by the people. While we agree that consultation and participation are essential to every democracy, this is seldom achieved in practice.

The issue of corporate criminal responsibility for ecocide and other offences deserves in-depth analysis in a future report

Provocation is not an innocent act. It can amount to a tort or even a crime. In the UK the Public Order Act prohibits "abusive or threatening words or behaviour", specifically "to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence”. Provocation means conduct that induces another to a violent response – out of fear, anger or outrage. Whereas in international law there is an absolute prohibition of the use of force stipulated in article 2(4) of the UN Charter, some powerful countries concoct exceptions, e.g. by postulating a non-existent right of “pre-emptive” self-defence or the so-called doctrine of “responsibility to protect”, both scams intended to circumvent Art. 2(4). Recent armed conflicts in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine document a tendency to water down the prohibition of the use of force. This is facilitated by the compliant media and "quality press" that manage facts and narrative in an attempt to “legitimize” the use of force, e.g. by the US in Iraq, or to absolve the provocateur, e.g. by downplaying NATO's egregious provocations in Ukraine and elsewhere. It is surrealistic to claim that the use of force in Iraq was legitimate: It was naked aggression and a crime against humanity. Equally extravagant is to pretend that the invasion of Ukraine was “unprovoked”, although every Western politician does not miss the opportunity to refer to the Ukraine war as "unprovoked". Admittedly, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine constituted a grave breach of the UN Charter. But the provocations also violated article 2(4), which prohibits not only the use of force but also the threat thereof. As Professors John Mearsheimer, Richard Falk, Jeffrey Sachs and others have pointed out, NATO expansion was perceived by Russia as a hostile attempt at encirclement, hence an existential threat. Every attempt by Russia to defuse this menace by peaceful negotiation as required by article 2(3) UN Charter was rebuffed by the US and NATO. NATO's on-going provocations in Georgia, Ukraine and elsewhere amount to geopolitical harassment in contravention of the letter and spirit of the UN Charter. It can be argued that provoking someone is more offensive that reacting aggressively to the provocation, because the provocation is deliberate, not accidental; the reaction thereof is ad hoc, lacking malice aforethought. Provoking means intentionally making someone angry, throwing down the gauntlet, inviting to a fight. Of course, retaliation should be proportional to the provocation. But we humans have this awesome tendency to overreact. Bottom line: Both the provocation and the retaliation are reprehensible. But the one who provokes bears greater moral responsibility. Provocation should be recognized as an attribute of the act of aggression and as such deemed in violation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Universal human rights constitute a holistic system of interdependent entitlements and freedoms. Yet, "universal" does not mean homologated or insensitive to cultural specificities. The ubiquitous slogan that “all rights are equal” is but a platitude that manifests an absence of a sense for proportions and discernment. Indeed, human dignity, the source of all human rights, necessarily dictates priorities -- a hierarchy based on common sense and mutual respect: First and foremost, the right to live in dignity, a commitment to promote and protect the sanctity of life, which encompasses physical integrity, the right to food, water, housing, healthcare, freedom from war, a human right to peace. Secondly, the right to freely develop one’s personality i.e. the right to be who we are, the right to our identity, the right to set the priorities of our lives – that essential right of self-determination, free from artificial constraints imposed by government or society -- and as a corollary the duty to respect the rights of others. Codification of human rights has not been concluded, since continuing standard-setting remains necessary to better protect the practical expression and exercise of our human dignity. All human rights can be subsumed under the two categories above, with the caveat that the letter of the law must not be politicized to subvert the spirit of the law -- the primacy of the dignitas humana.

The Independent Expert is persuaded that recognition of peace as a human right will promote a democratic and equitable international order and that national and international democratization will reduce conflict, since peoples want peace. It is Governments that stumble into war.

Democracy is not exercised only once in a while, but entails a continuing dialogue between representatives and constituents

Many observers have exposed the democracy deficits of the international and domestic order; identified threats to international peace; warned against the military-industrial and military-financial complexes; and denounced the retrogression in social justice associated with so-called “austerity measures”. The diagnoses of think tanks universities and researchers are fairly clear, their recommendations sensible and implementable, but changing the status quo has proven difficult, primarily because of lack of transparency and accountability in political processes, and because of powerful vested interests. Not without irony it has been noted that often those who are elected do not govern, and those who do govern are not elected.

The CELAC Declaration is a positive sign towards the advancement of an international order which can and should be more democratic and equitable, based on the principles of the sovereignty of States and peoples and on international solidarity.

The weaponization of human rights has transformed the individual and collective entitlement to assistance, protection, respect and solidarity – based on our common human dignity and equality – into a hostile arsenal to target competitors and political adversaries. In the stockpile of weaponized human rights, the technique of “naming and shaming” has become a sort of ubiquitous Kalashnikov.

There is nothing more undemocratic and corrosive to the rule of law than a coup d’état.