Young
Persons’ Study Tour 2002: A Participant’s View
The
QCEA Young Persons’ Study Tour (26th June to 6th July) had two
goals: to teach our group of 18 and 25 year-olds about the European
Union and Council of Europe, and to inform us about the work of QCEA.
There were fourteen attendees, not counting the two organisers, David
and Bronwen. Since the average age of the group was 20, we also had
our own unofficial goals: to meet other people of similar age and
interests, explore Brussels at night with them, and hopefully not
get up too early! The majority of the group was British, with two
Irish girls, a Russian, a Hungarian, an Australian (living in Switzerland
at the time of the tour) and a Dutch girl providing representation
from other parts of the world. Many, though not all, of us were Quakers.
I heard of the study tour through my membership of People and Planet,
the UK national student network campaigning on human rights, trade
justice and environmental issues. The
first stage of the tour was concerned with the institutions of the
European Union and what they do. On our day off, most of us travelled
to Ypres to see the WWI trenches and cemeteries, and the War Museum
in Ypres itself. Few things could have been more effective in impressing
upon us the desire for peace that led to the creation of the Council
of Europe and the European Union. On Sunday a Quaker Meeting was
held, and on Monday we did a role-playing exercise in which we played
the part of people from different cultures within an imaginary country
debating whether or not to allow economic migration. This certainly
illuminated the difficulties faced by the European Parliament -
useful preparation for our trip to Strasbourg.
In
Strasbourg we visited the Council of Europe, the European Court
of Human Rights and the European Parliament in session. We also
had a discussion with MEPs Glenys Kinnock and Michael Cashman about
EU development and human rights policy. Our final days in Brussels
were spent listening to talks on different subjects, such as human
rights, trade and development, and the Future of Europe in particular.
We held many discussion groups on these topics, and came up with
some interesting ideas, which QCEA has promised to pass on when
it makes its submission to the Convention. Finally, we held an evaluation
of the Study Tour. It was universally agreed that it had been fantastic.
We closed the tour with a party on the Friday evening at Quaker
House. A good time was had by all, and I think it was worth every
penny!
Louise
Reeve, YPST Participant
Return
to contents
The
Future of EU External Policy
Are
the objectives and underlying values of European foreign policy sufficiently
defined? Is
development policy becoming subordinate to power-political aims?
What
should the envisaged balance between civilian crisis management
and military intervention be?
Such
questions, despite their importance, did not feature prominently
in the seventh plenary session of the Convention on the Future of
Europe (see AE March 2002), held on 10 and 11 July 2002. This session,
the last one before the ‘summer break’, was dedicated
to external affairs and security policy. The debate marked the end
of the Convention’s so-called ‘listening phase’:
after four months of plenary sessions and discussion papers drawn
up by the Convention’s Praesidium, ten working groups will
now attempt to develop precise proposals on Europe’s future.
Groups dedicated to external action and defence were established
at the July session. In the autumn, their conclusions will be presented
to the Convention and feed into the drafting of a possible constitutional
treaty.
The
plenary debate on external affairs was mainly concerned with institutional
issues. To some extent, this is attributable to the unsatisfactory
nature of the current set-up: whilst the introduction of a High
Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)
in 1999 has created an ‘EU face’ to represent the European
Council in foreign affairs, European foreign policy is still primarily
characterised by an assertion of national sovereignty and national
interest. Only in the case of external trade and development policy
can one speak of a genuine ‘European’ policy, since
decision-making and policy implementation in these areas use the
‘Community’ method. The CFSP, on the other hand, is
subject to the Council’s decisions and requires unanimity
of the member states in order for ‘joint action’ to
be undertaken.
In
the light of these shortcomings, the most ‘federalist’
position in the Convention’s July debate was the demand for
a full ‘communitisation’ of the CFSP. This would mean
the establishment of CFSP procedures similar to those existing in
the first pillar of the European Union, hence increasing the role
of both the European Parliament and the Commission in the shaping
of European foreign policy. However, a few prominent Convention
members, especially the British government representative Peter
Hain, called for a more ‘realistic’ approach, leaving
CFSP firmly in the hands of governments. A compromise between these
two positions would be a gradual move towards ‘communitisation’,
for instance by having the tasks of the Commissioner for External
Relations (Chris Patten) and the High Representative (Javier Solana)
carried out by only one person. Whether this would happen as a formal
merger of the two jobs or, as the German government representative
Peter Glotz suggests, one person ‘wearing two hats’,
remains open to debate.
Even
though the need to discuss institutional reform is undeniable, the
narrowness of the debate’s focus is somewhat frustrating.
An initial discussion paper on EU external policy, sent out prior
to the plenary session by the Convention’s Praesidium, covered
considerably broader ground than the actual debate. Many of the
questions posed by the Praesidium would have been worth exploring,
for example the attempt to reach better co-ordination between the
external policies of the Community (in the field of trade and development
aid) and of the Council. EC measures such as the Cotonou Agreement
with 77 African, Caribbean and Pacific states, or the recently extended
Barcelona Process for Mediterranean countries (see AE May/June 2002)
should not stand alone, but be strengthened by a similar CFSP approach.
Many
groups fear that in the context of discussions on future European
foreign policy, development aid may become marginalised or subordinated
to political interest. One example of this is that, as part of the
European Council’s restructuring at the recent Seville Summit,
the Development Council (the body of development ministers from
all EU member states) was disbanded. Its brief has now become part
of the new General Affairs and External Relations Council.
Another
issue remarked upon in the Praesidium’s paper is the question
of how external trade as a form of foreign policy can become more
central in a globalising society. Significantly, the WTO is one
of the international organisations of which the European Community
is a full member, whereas it only has observer status in the United
Nations. More generally, it would have been worth focusing much
more on what role the EU should play in international organisations.
The
European Peacebuilding Liaison Office (EPLO), of which QCEA is a
member, is currently discussing suggestions for an alternative Convention
approach to European external policy. Proposals may for example
call for:
-
The stating of ‘conflict prevention’ as an official
objective of CFSP
-
A shift in focus from crisis management to structural conflict
prevention activities
-
The elimination of poverty to be adopted as an aim in foreign
policy
-
The promotion of adherence to international law
-
The further development of the civilian dimension of the European
Security and Defence Policy (ESDP)
The latter
point is particularly significant, as the creation of a 60,000-strong
Rapid Reaction Force (RRF) suggests the militarisation of the European
Union. As a counterpart, it is important to note that the ESDP also
possesses a civilian crisis management branch. This – unlike
the Rapid Reaction Force – is already in operation in the form
of the Rapid Reaction Mechanism. Established in Feb 2001, it enables
the EU to restore civilian infrastructure in a quick and relatively
un-bureaucratic way. It is, however, important to strengthen this
mechanism and to ensurethat, once the RRF is in operation, military
invention by a European proto-army does not overtake civilian crisis
management. The
current discussions of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) draw
attention to the role of voices from civil society in the Convention’s
work. At least in cosmetic terms, attempts have been made to involve
independent groups in the Convention’s work, for instance
by means of an online ‘Forum’ and through eight civil
society ‘contact groups’, in which about 400 organisations
and over 600 people participated prior to a civil society hearing
at the Convention’s plenary session of 24/25 June. Each group
covered one particular area of policy (e.g. environment, development,
human rights), and it is somewhat surprising that none of these
meetings was dedicated to foreign policy. The exclusion of foreign
policy as an independent topic for NGO consultation can be regarded
as a striking confirmation of the will to retain control of such
matters at the less transparent national and intergovernmental levels.
This observation, as well as the initial Convention debate on external
policy, suggests that a lot more pressure will be necessary to influence
the debate’s depth and range of issues.
Daniel
Laqua
Use
these links to see the Convention
website and the website of the Forum
for civil society
QCEA
has produced briefing papers on all the issues involved in The Future
of Europe project (including one on external policy). Go
to the section of the website dedicated to this project, or
go directly to the section with the
briefing papers. There are also contributions from Quakers,
a calendar of events and many links to useful related websites.
Return
to contents
The
Catchpool Fund
Funding
for study at Woodbrooke
The
Corder and Gwen Catchpool Fund offers mainland European Friends,
especially Young Friends, financial help to enable them to study
at Woodbrooke Quaker Study Centre in Birmingham, UK. The trustees
of the fund wish to investigate:
-
What European Friends (Young Friends and others) consider to be
their learning needs in relation to their spiritual growth and
development;
-
How these needs can most appropriately be met;
-
How the Corder and Gwen Catchpool Fund can be involved in meeting
these needs, using Woodbrooke resources.
They
have appointed Susan Seymour to research these questions and to
report back to them early in 2003. Susan is a British Friend, based
in London. She will be visiting Quakers throughout Europe during
the rest of the year and invites anyone who has relevant experience,
ideas or suggested contacts to get in touch with her to arrange
a meeting or to be included in the consultation by telephone or
correspondence (contact details below).
The
trustees and Woodbrooke have open minds about how the fund could
be used: perhaps to enable attendance at Woodbrooke events, involve
Woodbrooke tutors at other locations, or provide distance learning.
Following the wishes of the donor, Rudi Schmidt of German Yearly
Meeting, there is a particular interest in reaching people in Central
and Eastern Europe, who may not be in formal membership but are
in sympathy with Quaker concerns. Innovative thinking is welcomed.
In
the meantime, the Fund is already available to fund attendance at
Woodbrooke for short courses, study for a longer period, the Equipping
for Ministry programme or some aspects of the M.Phil/PhD programme.
It is also available to Friends interested in attending
the QCEA Conference on the Future of Europe (see p4).
For
a brochure of Woodbrooke courses and events, or to apply for assistance
from the Catchpool Fund, contact:
Woodbrooke
Quaker Study Centre, 1046 Bristol Road, Birmingham, B29 6LJ, UK,
Tel: +44 (0) 121 472 5171, e-mail: enquries@woodbrooke.org.uk
Woodbrooke
website
Susan
Seymour can be contacted at: 52 Dartmouth Park Road, LONDON, NW5
1SN,UK, e-mail: susanseymour@lineone.net
Return
to contents
The
Future of Europe project on the road!
With
several successful seminars already completed, The
Future of Europe: Spiritual Values and Citizenship project is
already well under way. In addition to the seminars, briefing papers
have been written, the website has been updated and more is to come.
The
following seminars and the conference at Woodbrooke are planned
between now and the end of October; come along to one to find out
more about the issues facing Europe and tell us what you think.
We need your input to create a ‘Quaker View of Europe’.
For Friends elsewhere in Britain, a second ‘tour’ is
planned for early November: more details in the autumn. There will
also be a special interest group (in French) at France Yearly Meeting
(21 - 25 August, Clermont Ferrand) and we are contributing to the
theme of a Switzerland Yearly Meeting retreat in December.
Dates
for your diary:
Stockholm:
Saturday 24 August 2002 9am – 3pm, Kväkargården,
Kristinehovsgatan 2, Stockholm. Contact Ingmar Hollsing
Border
Meeting: Fri 13 – Sun 15 Sept 2002 Monastere de l’Alliance,
Rixensart, Belgium. Annual gathering of Friends from Belgium, France,
Germany and the Netherlands. Theme: “How do we let our lives
speak of God in public life?” Contact Edward Haasl
British
Monthly Meetings: 21 – 28 September
Sat
21: Leigh-on-Sea (Ratcliff & Barking MM). 2 –
4.30pm.
Sun
22: Colchester (Colchester & Coggleshall MM). 2 –
4.30pm. Contact Richard Seebohm
Mon
23: Cambridge Jesus Lane (Cambridge and Peterborough MM).
7 - 9.30pm. Contact Tim Brown
Tues
24: Welwyn Garden City (Hertford & Hitchin MM). 7.30
pm.
Weds
25: Nottingham (Notts & Derby MM). 7 – 9 pm.
Thurs
26: Birmingham Bull St. (Warwickshire MM). 6 – 9pm
(starting with tea/sandwiches) Contact Michael Youett
Fri
27: Winchester (PM). 7 – 9pm. Contact Michael Stevens,
tel: +44 1962 861285
Sat
28: Dorchester (Shaftsbury & Sherborne MM). Afternoon.
Conference:
Fri 18 - Sun 20 October 2002 The Future of Europe: Enlargement and
its implications Towards a Quaker view of good governance
To
be held at Woodbrooke Quaker Study Centre, Birmingham, UK.
Professional
interpretation may be provided if there is sufficient demand. Contact
QCEA as soon as possible if you will need interpretation.
More
information about the conference.
Germany:
Sun 27 –Weds 30 October
Residential
seminar, Bad Pyrmont, Germany. Contact Helge Moog
For
more details of these events or about the project in general, approach
the contact person listed above, or contact Bronwen Thomas at QCEA.
Return
to contents
Back
to the main Around Europe page |
