A “Long Job Finished”

FIFTY years ago, a grandmotherly-looking woman spoke up, and the world listened. It happened in Paris on December 10, 1948. The United Nations General Assembly was gathered in the recently built Palais Chaillot when the chairwoman of the UN Commission on Human Rights rose to give a speech. In a firm voice, Eleanor Roosevelt, the tall widow of former U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, told those assembled: “We stand today at the threshold of a great event both in the life of the United Nations and in the life of mankind, that is the approval by the General Assembly of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

After she read the ringing phrases of the Declaration’s preamble and its 30 articles, the General Assembly adopted the document.a Then, to honor Mrs. Roosevelt’s exceptional leadership, the UN members gave “the First Lady of the World,” as she was affectionately known, a standing ovation. At the end of that day, she jotted down: “Long job finished.”

From Many Opinions to One Declaration

Two years earlier, in January 1947, soon after the UN commission’s work had begun, it became clear that writing a human rights document agreeable to all UN members would be a formidable task. From the start, deep disagreement mired the 18-member commission in endless disputes. The Chinese delegate felt that the document should include the philosophy of Confucius, a Catholic commission member promoted the teachings of Thomas Aquinas, the United States championed the American Bill of Rights, and the Soviets wanted to include the ideas of Karl Marx—and these were just a few of the strong opinions expressed!

The commission members’ ongoing bickering tried Mrs. Roosevelt’s patience. In 1948, during a lecture in Paris at the Sorbonne, she mentioned that she used to think that raising her large family had tested the limits of her patience. However, “presiding over the Commission on Human Rights required even more forbearance,” she reportedly said, to the delight of her audience.

Even so, her experience as a mother evidently proved useful. At the time, one reporter wrote that Mrs. Roosevelt’s handling of the commission members reminded him of a mother “presiding over a large family of often noisy, sometimes unruly but basically good-hearted boys, who now and then need firmly to be put in their places.” (Eleanor Roosevelt—A Personal and Public Life) By adding graciousness to firmness, though, she was able to win points without making enemies of her opponents.

As a result, after two years of meetings, hundreds of amendments, thousands of statements, and 1,400 rounds of voting on practically every word and every clause, the commission did produce a document listing the human rights to which it believed all men and women, everywhere in the world, are entitled. It was named the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Thus was accomplished a mission that, at times, seemed impossible.

High Expectations

Of course, it was not expected that the walls of oppression would crumble at the sound of this first horn. Yet, the adoption of the Universal Declaration did cause high expectations. The UN General Assembly’s president at the time, Dr. Herbert V. Evatt of Australia, predicted that “millions of men, women, and children all over the world, many miles from Paris and New York, will turn for help, guidance, and inspiration to this document.”

Fifty years have elapsed since Dr. Evatt spoke those words. During that time, many have indeed looked to the Declaration as a guide and used it as a yardstick to measure the degree of respect for human rights around the world. As they did so, what did they find? Are the UN member states measuring up to this yardstick? What is the situation of human rights in the world today?

[Footnote]

[Box on page 4]

What Are Human Rights?

The United Nations defines human rights as “those rights which are inherent in our nature and without which we cannot live as human beings.” Human rights have also been described as the “common language of humanity”—and fittingly so. Just as the ability to learn to speak a language is an inborn quality that makes us human, there are other inborn needs and qualities that set us apart from other creatures on earth. For instance, humans have a need for knowledge, artistic expression, and spirituality. A human who is deprived of filling these basic needs is forced to live a subhuman existence. To protect humans against such deprivation, explains a human rights lawyer, “we use the term ‘human rights’ instead of ‘human needs’ because legally speaking the word ‘need’ is not as strong as the word ‘right.’ By calling it a ‘right’ we elevate the satisfying of human needs to something every human being is morally as well as legally entitled to.”

[Box/Picture on page 5]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Writer and Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn called the Universal Declaration the “best document” ever written by the UN. A glance at its contents shows why many agree.

The Declaration’s basic philosophy is laid down in Article 1: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

On this foundation, the framers of the Declaration secured two groups of human rights. The first group is outlined in Article 3: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” This article forms the basis for man’s civil and political rights listed in Articles 4 to 21. The second group is based on Article 22, which states, in part, that everyone is entitled to the realization of the rights “indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.” It supports Articles 23 to 27, which spell out man’s economic, social, and cultural rights. The Universal Declaration was the first international document to recognize this second group of rights as being included in basic human rights. It was also the first international document to use the term “human rights” at all.

Brazilian sociologist Ruth Rocha explains in plain language what the Universal Declaration tells us: “It doesn’t matter what race you are. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a man or a woman. It doesn’t matter what language you speak, what your religion is, what your political opinions are, what country you come from or who your family is. It doesn’t matter whether you’re rich or poor. It doesn’t matter what part of the world you come from; whether your country is a kingdom or a republic. These rights and freedoms are meant to be enjoyed by everyone.”

Since its adoption, the Universal Declaration has been translated into over 200 languages and has become part of the constitutions of many countries. Today, however, some leaders feel that the Declaration needs to be rewritten. But UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan disagrees. One UN official quotes him as saying: “Just as there is no need to rewrite the Bible or the Koran, there is no need to adjust the Declaration. What needs to be adjusted is, not the text of the Universal Declaration, but the behavior of its disciples.”

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan

A View From the 29th Floor

WHEN you step off the elevator onto the 29th floor of the United Nations building in New York City, a small blue sign shows the way to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). This liaison office represents the headquarters of the OHCHR in Geneva, Switzerland—the focal point for UN human rights activities. While Mary Robinson, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, heads the OHCHR in Geneva, Greek-born Elsa Stamatopoulou is chief of the New York office. Earlier this year, Mrs. Stamatopoulou graciously received an Awake! staff writer and looked back on five decades of human rights activities. Here are some excerpts from the interview.

Q. What progress do you feel has been made in promoting human rights?

A. I’ll give you three examples of progress: First, 50 years ago the concept of human rights was absent from the international agenda; today it is omnipresent and operational. Governments that had never heard of human rights some decades ago are now talking about it. Second, we now have an international code of law, or law book, composed of numerous conventions that tells governments in black and white what obligations they have toward their subjects. [See box “The International Bill of Human Rights,” on page 7.] It took many years of hard work to put this code together. We are extremely proud of it. The third example is that today more people than ever before take part in human rights movements and are able to express themselves eloquently about human rights issues.

Q. What are the obstacles?

A. After working for 17 years with UN human rights programs, I realize, of course, that we face frustrating problems. The biggest is that governments often view human rights as a political issue instead of a humanitarian one. They may be unwilling to carry out human rights treaties because they feel threatened politically. In those instances, human rights treaties turn into dead letters. Another setback has been the inability of the UN to prevent gross human rights violations in such places as the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and, more recently, Algeria. The inability of the UN to prevent the massacres that occurred in these countries was a tremendous failure. The human rights mechanisms are in place, but someone has to activate them. Who will be that someone? If the interests of countries that could give protection are not at stake, the political will to go out and stop violations is often lacking.

Q. What do you see ahead?

A. I see a threat and a promise on the road leading to human rights for all. What worries me is the threat posed by the globalization of the economy, which induces large corporations to establish themselves in lands where labor is cheaper. Today, if needed, we can blame governments for human rights violations and put pressure upon them. But who can we blame for violations when multilateral trade agreements shift the power more and more from governments to the global economic forces? Since we do not control these economic forces, it weakens the position of intergovernmental organizations such as the UN. In terms of human rights, this trend is destructive. It is now crucial to get the private sector aboard the human-rights-movement ship.

Q. And the promise?

A. The development of a global human rights culture. What I mean is that through education we should make people more aware of human rights. Of course, that’s a huge challenge because it involves a change of mentality. That’s why, ten years ago, the UN launched a worldwide public information campaign to educate people about their rights and countries about their responsibilities. Additionally, the UN has designated the years 1995 to 2004 as the “Decade for Human Rights Education.” Hopefully, education may change the minds and hearts of people. This may almost sound like the Gospel, but when it comes to human rights education, I’m a true believer. I hope the world will adopt the human rights culture as its ideology in the next century.

[Box on page 7]

The International Bill of Human Rights

Besides the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there also exists an International Bill of Human Rights. How are they related?

Well, if you compare the International Bill of Human Rights to a book with five chapters, then the Universal Declaration can be likened to chapter 1. Chapters 2 and 3 are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. And chapters 4 and 5 each contain an Optional Protocol.

While the Universal Declaration is thought to have moral value, telling nations what they ought to do, these four additional documents are legally binding, telling nations what they have to do. Though work on these documents began in 1949, it took decades before they all entered into force. Today, these four documents together with the Universal Declaration form the International Bill of Human Rights.

Besides this International Bill, the UN has ratified more than 80 other human rights treaties. “So it is a mistake to think that the human rights treaties in the International Bill are the more important ones,” comments one human rights expert. “For example, the 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child is the most widely ratified and universal document of the UN, and yet it is no part of the International Bill. The term ‘International Bill of Human Rights’ was coined more for publicity purposes than as a formal concept. And, you will agree, it is a catchy phrase.”a

[Footnote]

Human Rights and Wrongs Today

PROPONENTS of human rights recently accomplished a feat. First, they united more than 1,000 organizations in 60 countries in a movement called the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL). Then, they pushed through an international treaty banning these weapons. After that, the ICBL and its tireless director, American activist Jody Williams, won the Nobel Peace Prize for 1997.

Such achievements, though, come with a sobering footnote. As the Human Rights Watch World Report 1998 notes, the universality of human rights is still “under sustained attack.” And not only are so-called tin-pot dictatorships to blame. “The major powers,” says the report, “showed a marked tendency to ignore human rights when they proved inconvenient to economic or strategic interests—an affliction common to both Europe and the United States.”

For millions of people around the world, human rights violations are impossible to ignore. Their daily plight is still marred by discrimination, poverty, starvation, persecution, rape, child abuse, slavery, and violent death. For these victims the promising conditions spelled out in the towering stack of human rights treaties are a thousand miles away from the world they know. In fact, for most of mankind, even the basic rights listed in the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights remain an unfulfilled promise. To illustrate, consider briefly how some of the lofty rights mentioned in the Declaration work out in everyday life.

Equality for All?

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.—Article 1.

An earlier draft of the Universal Declaration’s Article 1 stated: “All men are . . . equal.” To ensure, however, that this statement would not be understood to mean that women are excluded, the female members on the drafting commission insisted that the language be changed. They prevailed, and “all men . . . are equal” became “all human beings are . . . equal.” (Italics ours.) But did changing the language of this article change the position of women?

On December 10, 1997, Human Rights Day, First Lady of the United States, Hillary Clinton, told the UN that the world continues to “treat women as less than complete citizens.” She gave some examples: Of the world’s poor, 70 percent are women. Two thirds of the world’s 130 million children unable to attend school are girls. Two thirds of the world’s 96 million illiterates are women. Women also suffer greatly from domestic and sexual violence, which remains, added Mrs. Clinton, “one of the most under-reported and widespread human rights violations in the world.”

Some females fall prey to violence even before they are born. Particularly in some Asian countries, some mothers abort their unborn daughters because they prefer sons to daughters. In certain places the preference for sons has made genetic testing for sex selection a booming business. One gender-detection clinic advertised its services by suggesting that it was better to spend $38 now on terminating a female fetus than to spend $3,800 later on paying for her dowry. Such advertisements work. A study conducted in one large Asian hospital found that 95.5 percent of the fetuses identified as female were aborted. Son preference is present in other parts of the world as well. When a former U.S. boxing champion was asked how many children he had fathered, he answered: “One boy and seven mistakes.” The UN publication Women and Violence notes that “changing people’s attitude and mentality towards women will take a long time—at least a generation, many believe, and perhaps longer.”

Children Without Childhoods

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.—Article 4.

On paper, slavery is dead. Governments have signed numerous treaties that make slavery illegal. However, according to Britain’s Anti-Slavery Society, known as the world’s oldest human rights organization, “there are more slaves today than ever before.” Modern-day slavery includes a variety of human rights violations. Forced child labor is said to be one form of contemporary slavery.

Derivan, a South American boy, is one sad example. ‘His small hands are raw from handling the coarse leaves of sisal, a plant fiber used to make mattresses. His job is to pick up the leaves in a storeroom and carry them to a processing machine some 300 feet [90 m] away. By the end of each 12-hour workday, he has moved a ton of leaves. Derivan began working when he was five. Today he is 11 years old.’—World Press Review.

The International Labour Office estimates that a quarter of a billion children between the ages of 5 and 14 are child laborers today—an army of small workers nearly as big as the combined populations of Brazil and Mexico! Many of these children without childhoods toil in mines, dragging containers filled with coal; trudge through mud to harvest crops; or crouch at looms to make rugs. Even toddlers—three-, four-, and five-year-olds—are yoked together in teams to plow, seed, and glean fields from dawn to dusk. “Children,” says a landowner in an Asian country, “are cheaper to run than tractors and smarter than oxen.”

Choosing and Changing One’s Religion

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion. —Article 18.

On October 16, 1997, the UN General Assembly received an “interim report on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance.” The report, prepared by the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Abdelfattah Amor, lists continuing violations of Article 18. Speaking about a wide array of countries, the report quotes numerous cases of ‘harassment, threats, mistreatment, arrests, detentions, disappearances, and murders.’

Similarly, the 1997 Human Rights Reports, compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, points out that even countries with a long tradition of democracy “have sought to restrict freedoms for a disparate group of minority faiths, lumping them all together as ‘cults.’” Such trends are cause for concern. Willy Fautré, president of the Brussels-based organization Human Rights Without Frontiers, notes: “Religious liberty is one of the best indications of the general state of human freedom in any given society.”

Sore Back but Empty Purse

Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity.—Article 23.

Sugarcane cutters in the Caribbean may earn three dollars a day, but the cost of rent and tools saddles them with an immediate debt to the plantation owners. In addition, they are not paid in cash but in vouchers. And since the plantation’s company store is the only store the cutters can reach, they are forced to buy their cooking oil, rice, and beans there. However, as a service charge for accepting the workers’ vouchers, the store deducts 10 to 20 percent of a voucher’s value. Bill O’Neill, deputy director of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, said in a UN radio broadcast: “At the end of the season, they have nothing to show for weeks, months of back-breaking labour. They don’t have a penny saved up, and they’ve barely been able to get through that season.”

Medical Care for All?

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care.—Article 25.

‘Ricardo and Justina are poor Latin American farmers living some 50 miles [80 km] from the nearest city. When Gemma, their baby girl, fell ill, they took her to a nearby private health clinic, but the staff turned them away because it was obvious that Ricardo could not pay the fees. The next day, Justina borrowed money from neighbors to pay for public transportation and made the long trip to the city. When Justina and the baby finally reached the city’s small government hospital, Justina was told that there were no beds available and that she should come back the next morning. As she had no relatives in the city and no money to rent a room, she spent the night on a table in the public market. Justina held the baby close to give her comfort and some protection, but to no avail. That night little Gemma died.’—Human Rights and Social Work.

Around the world, 1 out of 4 people scrapes by on one dollar (U.S.) a day. They face the same deadly dilemma as Ricardo and Justina: Private health care is available but not affordable, while public health care is affordable but not available. Tragically, although the world’s more than one billion poor have received ‘the right to medical care,’ the benefits of medical care are still beyond their reach.

The dreadful catalog of human rights abuses knows no end. Situations like those reported above can be multiplied hundreds of millions of times. Despite the mammoth efforts of human rights organizations and despite the dedication of thousands of activists who literally risk their lives to improve the lot of men, women, and children worldwide, human rights for all remains just a dream. Will it ever be a reality? It most certainly will, but several changes have to occur first. The following article will consider two of them.

Human Rights for All—A Worldwide Reality!

“WHAT is the root cause of human rights violations?” an experienced human rights lawyer was asked. “Greed,” answered the lawyer. “Greed for political and economic power.” And since greediness springs from man’s mind, human rights violations ultimately reflect a state of mind. Another cause is nationalism. The my-country-first philosophy fuels human rights violations. Human rights, therefore, will be realized only ‘if a world government comes about that is in a position to take enforceable measures,’ says Dutch professor of law and economy Jan Berkouwer.

In other words, for human rights to become a global reality, at least two things have to happen first: a change of mind and a change of government. Is it realistic to expect these to occur?

A Dual Reason for Change

While the UN Decade for Human Rights Education is about to enter its fifth year, for many decades an international, nongovernmental education program has already been succeeding in changing the minds of millions of people. As a result, these individuals now treat their fellowmen with dignity. This program, carried out by Jehovah’s Witnesses, functions in more than 230 lands. Why does it work?

For one thing, this global Bible educational program broadens people’s understanding of the origin of human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that man has rights because he is a rational and moral being.

Man must have received his faculties of reason and conscience from a higher source. (See the box “The Source of Human Rights,” on page 13.) Recognizing this higher, divine source provides a powerful reason for you to respect your fellowman. You then treat others with dignity not only because your conscience prompts you to do so but, more important, because your respect and love for the Creator moves you to treat his creation with dignity. This dual approach is based on Jesus Christ’s words: “You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind” and, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:37-39) A person who deeply respects the Creator would never violate his fellowman’s rights, for they are an inheritance received from God. A violator of human rights is a robber of inheritances.

Education That Makes a Difference

How well does this Bible educational program of Jehovah’s Witnesses work in diminishing human rights violations? The best way to answer that is to look at the program’s results, for as Jesus said, “wisdom is proved righteous by its works.”—Matthew 11:19.

A well-known inscription on a wall of the United Nations Plaza in New York City reads: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares. And their spears into pruning hooks: Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. Neither shall they learn war any more.” With this quotation from the Bible book of Isaiah chapter 2, verse 4, King James Version, the UN points to a major way to decrease massive human rights violations—end warfare. After all, war is ‘the antithesis of human rights,’ as one UN publication expresses it.

The educational program of Jehovah’s Witnesses takes the idea of writing Isaiah’s words on a stone wall a step further. It “writes” Isaiah’s words on human hearts. (Compare Hebrews 8:10.) How? The program clears racial and ethnic barriers and crumbles the walls of nationalism by teaching the Bible’s view of race: There is only one race—the human race. (Acts 17:26) Those enrolled in the program develop a desire to “become imitators of God,” of whom the Bible says: “[He] is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.”—Ephesians 5:1; Acts 10:34, 35.

As a result of this Bible-based education, millions of people today do not “learn war any more.” A change of mind and heart has taken place. And the change lasts. (See the box “Education for Peace,” on page 14.) Presently, more than 1,000 people a day, on an average, complete the basic study courses conducted by Jehovah’s Witnesses and join the ranks of this worldwide force for peace.

How deep-rooted is this change of mind and subsequent decision to respect human rights by refusing to share in war? Very deep. To give an example: The depth of the Witnesses’ respect for human rights was put to a grueling test during World War II, especially in Nazi Germany. Historian Brian Dunn stated: “Jehovah’s Witnesses were incompatible with Nazism. Most important of the Nazi objections to them was their political neutrality. This meant that no believer would bear arms.” (The Churches’ Response to the Holocaust) In A History of Christianity, Paul Johnson said: “Many were sentenced to death for refusing military service . . . , or they ended in Dachau or lunatic asylums.” Even so, they stood firm. Sociologist Anna Pawełczyńska described those Witnesses as “a tiny island of unflagging resistance existing in the bosom of a terrorized nation.”

Just imagine what a direct and dramatic drop in human rights violations there would be around the world if all people took this stand today and ‘learned war no more’!

World Government—‘A Utopia’?

‘Changing minds is a challenge, but forming a world government is a Utopia,’ a UN worker remarked. And indeed, the fact that nations have been unwilling to give up their sovereignty to the UN, or to any other organization, underscores this conclusion. Nonetheless, those who dismiss the idea of a world government, notes Professor Berkouwer, “have the moral duty to point to other means for solving world problems. Alternative solutions are, however, not available.” Human solutions, that is. But there exists a superhuman solution. What is that?

Just as the Bible shows that the Creator is the source of the faculties that underlie human rights, it also informs us that he is the source of a world government that ensures them. This heavenly government is invisible but real. In fact, millions of people, perhaps unwittingly, pray for this world government when saying in what is commonly called the Lord’s Prayer: “Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.” (Matthew 6:10) The God-appointed Head of that Kingdom government is the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ.—Isaiah 9:6.

This world government will succeed in creating a truly global and lasting human rights culture by, among other things, eliminating war forever. The Bible prophesies: “He [the Creator] is making wars to cease to the extremity of the earth. The bow he breaks apart and does cut the spear in pieces; the wagons he burns in the fire.”—Psalm 46:9.

How soon will this happen on a global scale? The Bible study program provided by Jehovah’s Witnesses includes a satisfying answer to this question. We encourage you to get acquainted with this program.a If you care about human rights, you will not be disappointed.

[Footnote]

[Box on page 13]

The Source of Human Rights

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Human rights are thus described as a birthright that flows from parents to children, much as a river carries water to those living along its banks. Where did this river of human rights start?

According to the Universal Declaration, human beings have rights because “they are endowed with reason and conscience.” A UN publication explains: “Because man is a rational and moral being, he is different from other creatures on earth and therefore entitled to certain rights and freedoms which other creatures do not enjoy.” (Italics ours.) Thus, having reason and conscience is said to be the basis for possessing human rights. That being the case, the source of man’s reason and conscience is also the source of his human rights.

For human rights activists who adhere to biological evolution, the statement that human rights are linked to reason and conscience poses a puzzle. The proevolution book Life Ascending admits: “When we ask how a process [evolution] . . . could have generated such qualities as love of beauty and truth, compassion, freedom, and, above all, the expansiveness of the human spirit, we are perplexed.” And rightly so. After all, asserting that man’s faculty of reason and conscience springs from subhuman ancestors lacking reason and conscience themselves is like stating that a river springs from a well lacking water.

Since man’s faculties of reason and conscience cannot spring forth from a subhuman source, these faculties must originate from a superhuman source. Only humans possess the qualities linked to human rights—reason and conscience—because unlike animals, humans were created in God’s “image,” explains the Bible. (Genesis 1:27) Therefore, as the book Human Rights—Essays on Justification and Applications notes, a valid answer to the question of why people have moral rights is that “they have intrinsic worth or dignity or are . . . children of God.”

[Box/Pictures on page 14]

Education for Peace

Some years ago, while war was tearing apart the Balkans, Branko was serving as an armed guard in a clinic in the Croatian part of Bosnia.b A doctor there was studying the Bible with Jehovah’s Witnesses, and one night he related to Branko what he had learned from this study. What Branko heard moved him to lay down his weapons. Some time later, after moving to another European country, Branko attended a meeting of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and there he met Slobodan.

Slobodan also came from Bosnia. He had participated in the same war as Branko—but in the opposite camp. Slobodan had fought for the Serbs against the Croats. By the time the two met, Slobodan had already become a Witness of Jehovah, and he offered to study the Bible with Branko, his former enemy. As the study progressed, Branko’s love for the Creator, Jehovah, grew. Before long he decided to become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.c

Slobodan himself had also become a Witness with the help of a former enemy. How? Well, after leaving the war zone in Bosnia, Slobodan received a visit from Mujo, who also came from Bosnia but who had been brought up in a religion much different from Slobodan’s. Now Mujo was one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Though they used to be enemies, Slobodan accepted the offer from Mujo to study the Bible with him, and he later took the step of becoming one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

What caused these men to overcome deep-rooted ethnic hatred and to change from being enemies to being friends? Through their Bible study, they developed love for Jehovah. After that, they were willing to be “taught by God to love one another.” (1 Thessalonians 4:9) As Professor Wojciech Modzelewski observes about Jehovah’s Witnesses in general, “the key factor for their peaceful attitude is the idea to follow already now the principles revealed in the Bible.”

[Footnotes]