Nonviolent
Peaceforce Open a New Office in Brussels!
Nonviolent
Peaceforce, an international NGO working to create a trained, international
civilian nonviolent peaceforce, has a new European Co-ordinator and
an office in Brussels. This visionary project, to establish a large
scale standing peace force, is fast gathering momentum. Started at
the Hague Appeal for Peace in 1999 by David Hartsough and Mel Duncan,
there is now widespread international support. A huge research project
into how the theory and practice of nonviolent intervention has been
developed provides solid ground for the building of well organised
and effective peace teams. There is a rich history in the experiences
of many organisations over the last decades. The Peaceforce will consist
of hundreds and eventually thousands of trained observers, monitors
and accompaniers from all over the world who will act as the eyes,
ears and conscience of the international community in situations of
conflict where local peacemakers and human rights workers are asking
for support to build the conditions for peace and to protect human
life. In
Brussels the office will be the contact point for interested individuals
and organisations and we will be working to establish strong relationships
with civil peace services, research and training institutions and
other peace-building groups. The European Union is keen on conflict
prevention and improving international co-operation and we are going
to be working to build practical and political support for this
large scale non-violent conflict prevention.
Nonviolent
Peaceforce is aiming to start the first pilot project to deploy
a peace team of 100 or more field workers in 2003. This first deployment
is expected to cost US$3 million, the same as global expenditure
on weapons every two minutes. Many organisations are already doing
this work in various parts of the world and in Europe there are
many civil peace services training volunteers to join peace teams
and Peace Brigades International projects. Although there are many
projects already working, the need vastly exceeds what the small
NGOs can provide. What is needed now is a much larger peaceforce
which can help to move this very important work onto a new level
where it can begin to make a significant difference in the world.
We
have the capacity to make the Nonviolent Peaceforce happen in our
lifetimes. The ingredients abound: there are many veterans of nonviolent
movements; strategic lessons have been learned; our organisational
abilities have increased; highly qualified trainers are available;
funders are expressing an interest; and, most importantly, people
are demanding an alternative to highly militarised interventions.
Rachel
Julian
Contact
Rachel Julian, European Coordinator, at Rue Van Elewyck 35, 1050
Brussels, Belgium. Tel +32 2 648 0076, rachel.julian@tiscali.be
More
information is available; ideas and offers of help are welcome and
expressions of support are always needed. The research study, list
of endorsers, copies of the proposal and further information are
available on the international website: http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org
Return
to contents
A
Multicultural Model of Citizenship for the EU
The European
Network Against Racism (ENAR) held a conference at the end of May
to prepare for both an ENAR contribution to the European Council (summit)
in Seville at the end of June and an ENAR submission to the European
Convention on the Future of Europe. Over 60 participants reconsidered
social, civil, political and cultural constructs of citizenship, at
national and European level. The objective was to work towards new
definitions of citizenship based on residence in the EU, and no longer
on nationality of one of the Member States. Thus European Citizenship
could become an important instrument in the fight against racism.
In
February 1992, the Maastricht Treaty introduced the concept of “European
Citizenship”, including the rights attached to the idea (freedom
of movement within EU borders, the transference of social protection
and pension rights, the right to vote and to stand as a candidate
at municipal and European elections, entitlement to diplomatic protection
and the right to petition). These rights, however, were confined
to people holding the nationality of a EU member state, thus excluding
tens of millions of people from the construction of the future of
the EU, and reinforcing inequality of rights and treatment between
EU nationals and third country nationals.
At
the ENAR conference in Madrid academics and activists introduced
different national regimes of citizenship like the German, the British
and the French. Germany does not allow double nationality. This
means that many third country nationals residing in Germany, particularly
the Turkish nationals, hold on to their original nationality. In
Britain dual nationality and citizenship is possible under condition
of a language test, knowledge of British society, loyalty to British
society, rights and duties. In France citizenship is a child of
the French revolution. French citizenship aims at assimilation rather
than integration. Hassan Bousetta of the University of Leuven, Belgium,
presented research into “Political participation and representation
of ethnic minorities in Europe”. He made the surprising observation
that “although in many European Union Member States acquiring
citizenship based on nationality has been made very easy, 13 million
EU residents are not struggling to get any kind of European Union
citizenship”.
In
view of recent political developments in Europe and in the world,
the question was posed whether non-governmental organisations are
looking critically at the models they present to European institutions
and societies. 9/11 had generated a wave of anti-Islamic sentiments
which should not be excused. How can a Muslim pledge loyalty to
a particular State in the West if the church is closely tied with
that state? Participants felt that separation of church and state
was a basic priciple for integration.
Two
workshops produced guidance for ENAR policy development. One workshop,
facilitated by Nabil Azouz and Paul Oriol and reported by Maria
Miguel Sierra, Deputy Director of ENAR, looked at a possible political
identity of a future Europe and the contribution the ENAR campaign
on citizenship of residence could make. The second workshop, facilitated
by Anita Wuyts of QCEA and reported by Vera Egenberger, Director
of ENAR, looked at what ENAR could contribute as a submission to
the European Convention on the Future of Europe. The focus was on
the impact of identity, culture and religion on the integration
process and the necessary safeguarding of core values in public
as well as private space.
Anita
Wuyts
Check
the ENAR website (http://www.enar-eu.org)
for the ENAR brochure ‘For a real European citizenship’
and for the submission to the Commission on the Future of Europe
or contact QCEA for these and
the Federal Trust brochure ‘Immigrants, Migrants and Citizenship
in Europe’
Return
to contents
Russia’s
Rapprochement
Faced
with tensions between India and Pakistan and the potential threat
of nuclear war in South Asia, the agreement signed in May by the US
and Russia on a dramatic reduction of long-range nuclear warheads,
pales into insignificance. After all what does it matter if as two
nuclear powers put two-thirds of their arms into storage, another
two position theirs on specific targets? Putting the South Asian nuclear
threat aside - as if one is able to do that – the rapprochement
between former Cold War archenemies, Russia and the USA, must at the
very least be welcomed for its historical significance. Not only is
Putin making fresh alliances with Bush, but so too with the EU and
NATO. A
new chapter in Euro-Atlantic relations was opened at a summit in
Rome on 28th May as the NATO-Russia Council was established. This
was to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the Founding Act which
formed the basis of post-Cold War NATO-Russia relations. The Rome
declaration states ‘the NATO-Russia Council will intensify
efforts in the struggle against terrorism, crisis management, non-proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction, theatre missile defence, search
and rescue at sea, military-to-military cooperation and defence
reform, civil emergencies, as well as in other areas.’ As
NATO expands eastwards formal cooperation with Russia was becoming
inevitable. Although cooperation is always preferable to conflict,
we have to ask at what expense this has been achieved. The establishment
of the NATO-Russia Council coincides with the USA’s scrapping
of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, and with the first
stages of Missile Defence construction in Alaska.
It
may not come as a surprise that Russia’s official acceptance
by the NATO club has been accompanied by developments in EU-Russia
relations. On May 29th the conclusions of the EU-Russia summit in
Moscow announced increased diplomatic and economic cooperation.
Crisis management and security was high on the agenda with the prospect
of future Russian participation in EU-led crisis management missions.
The Seville Summit at the end of June will make proposals for Russia’s
role in the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). Let us
hope that non-military intervention is at the forefront of such
cooperation. Most favourable to Russia’s political elite was
perhaps the fact that the EU has granted it market economy status.
This legitimises Russia’s case for eventual WTO accession,
whilst encouraging outside investment. Putin’s political survival
depends on building the home economy, which can only be done with
a stable foreign policy fostering the confidence of foreign investors.
At the moment Russia attracts very low private investment –
in fact $20 billion leaves the country each year. The Russian people
suffered greatly during the transition from communism to capitalism
and the country has been blighted by corruption and a growing gap
between rich and poor. Unless the wealth created through market
liberalisation reaches ordinary people, WTO accession will be a
hollow success.
Progress
has been made towards the creation of a Common European Economic
Space. Russia has yet to carry out a number of reforms including
gradual elimination of trade barriers and liberalisation of energy
markets before it can come into effect. This will not bring about
a free trade area, but rather a common economic space based on more
economic integration, more alignment of legislation and an acceleration
of the abolition of obstacles to trade. Exports to the EU are significant
for Russia and after the various rounds of EU enlargement, starting
in 2004, the EU will attract 50% of all Russian exports. For the
EU, Russian oil and natural gas make up 21% and 41% of their respective
oil/gas imports. This is crucial for the diversification of EU energy.
The two partners are working on a legislative framework for new
infrastructures to be built to secure this energy supply. Once again
reservations concerning such projects must be made. Where are these
pipelines to run? Who is to profit from them? Will wars be fought
to secure them?
In
the final version of the joint statement arising from the Moscow
summit not a single reference was made to Chechnya. Since September
11th both partners have spoken the same language in the ‘war
on terrorism’. If Russia agrees to a US/EU presence in Central
Asia, then she must be given carte blanche in Chechnya. This region
has now seen three years of war accompanied by wide-spread human
rights violations carried out by both the Russian army and Chechen
rebels. Shocking accounts of brutality committed by Russian soldiers
have been recorded and it is no secret that there is profiteering
from oil and drugs in the area. The EU, which claims to link human
rights obligations in bilateral relations with partner countries,
ought to make its agreements with Russia dependent on the respect
of democracy, human rights, freedom of the press, the treatment
of religious minorities and access to humanitarian aid in Chechnya.
David
Ferrard
Return
to contents
Participation,
Social Policy and Rights
The
Social Platform meets with the European Commission
As
part of the on-going debate on the Future of Europe, the European
Commission has indicated its intention to engage in dialogue with
civil society organisations. The first such dialogue was held between
members of the European Platform of Social NGOs (including QCEA)
and three Commissioners: Anna Diamantopoulou, Commissioner for Employment
and Social Affairs, Michel Barnier and Antonio Vitorino. Barnier
and Vitorino are members of the Convention on the Future of Europe.
The
meeting provided a rare opportunity for members of the Social Platform
to raise important issues with the Commissioners themselves. The
three themes of the meeting: democracy, participation and civil
dialogue; social and economic policies; fundamental rights and fighting
discrimination, were all addressed in the context of how the Convention
should revise the Treaties.
The
Social Platform proposed the creation of a Treaty article to give
a permanent, legal footing for civil dialogue. Such an article would
recognise NGOs as relevant partners and enhance democracy through
the participation of ordinary people. In response Barnier was open
about the fact that the Commission is unlikely to recommend that
such a Treaty article be created by the Convention. However, all
three Commissioners stressed the importance of dialogue with civil
society organisations and the need for practical suggestions on
how to have a more formal, transparent and effective dialogue.
When
it came to social and economic policies, one of the key issues raised
was relevant to the QCEA project Spiritual Values and Citizenship.
At the moment the first principle of the EU is the market mechanism.
The EU is also committed to social and environmental objectives,
but these are not included in the Treaty as fundamental objectives
of the EU. In the work that QCEA is doing with Quakers all over
Europe, it is becoming clear that many Quakers find the current
European commitment to competition and economic growth to be a potential
obstacle to a more just and sustainable economic order. The new
Treaty should include social and environmental goals as fundamental
objectives of the EU to balance the current bias towards the market.
The
final theme of the meeting was human rights and attention inevitably
focused on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The existing Charter
is not perfect, especially when it comes to social rights. However,
Vitorino made it clear that there is little prospect of re-opening
the Charter to changes at the moment. He stressed that this could
lead to the dilution of certain rights, particularly with the current
rise of the right across Europe. However, inclusion of the Charter
in the new Treaty seemed likely. The question to ask now is how
it should be included and with what mechanism for amending it in
the future?
Bronwen
Thomas
Links:
See
the Social Platform website (http://www.socialplatform.org)
for more on their contribution to the Convention (with links to
the contributions of all Social Platform member organisations including
QCEA)
The
QCEA contribution
to the Convention on the Future of Europe and for more on the
QCEA project on the Future of Europe, Spiritual
Values and Citizenship.
Return
to contents
Who
A.M. I?
A.
M. stands for Associate Member. If you subscribe to Around Europe
but are not an Associate Member of QCEA, we’d like to invite
you to think of becoming one. AMs
pay at least twice the amount of a subscription to Around Europe,
the extra money being a regular donation to support QCEA. They get
Around Europe and all QCEA’s other publications. Because more
significant decisions, involving peace, human rights and economic
justice, are now taken at European level, QCEA’s presence
as a Quaker voice in Europe is becoming increasingly important.
We are working on projects that can attract outside funding, but
grant-makers on the whole don’t give core funding, for which
we rely on our Associate Members. Please think of becoming one of
them!
More
information on how to become an Associate Member of QCEA.
Return
to contents
Back
to the main Around Europe page |
