If
we do not want war, we must prepare for peace
The
following is an edited version of the introduction given by Martina
Weitsch, QCEA, at the launch of the proposal for a European Peacebuilding
Agency at the European Parliament on 2 March 2004. More information
about the proposal and our ongoing work on promoting it will appear
on our website in the next two months. The launch event provided us
with much useful feedback and work on the proposal continues in the
light of that feedback. It will be part of one of the workshops at
a Conference in Dublin on the Role of Civil Society in Conflict Prevention
at the end of this month. The
European Union is one of the most successful, if not the most successful
peacebuilding projects of the 20th century. After centuries of war
between European nations and in the wake of one of the bloodiest
wars in the history of European warfare, the founders of the European
Union saw the potential in co-operation for building a lasting peace.
For
over 50 years there has been no war between the members of the European
Union. This was not something anyone would have guaranteed, or even
foreseen in the 1950s when the European project began.
In
other words: Peace works. But peace works only if there is a will
to make it work and if there is a will to look beyond the short
term answers which military interventions seem to offer in crisis
situations.
The
European Security Strategy, agreed at the European Council in December
2003, acknowledges this when it says: ‘In contrast to
the massive visible threat of the Cold War, none of the new threats
is purely military; nor can any be tackled by purely military means.’1
We
know that for hundreds of years nations the world over have focused
much of their energy and resources on preparing for war. The world’s
armed forces and their arsenals, the industries supplying them and
the research supporting their activities are clear evidence of this.
Even
the European Union has decided to create a European Agency in the
field of Defence Capabilities Development, Research, Acquisition
and Armaments. Resources to make the military machinery more effective,
more efficient and better able to intervene where deemed necessary.
Even
if there were a valid argument to suggest that the ability of European
military forces to work together effectively is not as good as it
might be, the ability of groups of civilians from different parts
of Europe to do so, must be much more limited. There are a whole
range of issues which need to be addressed in order to make such
interventions possible, effective, and safe for those who participate.
There
are issues of common understanding of approach, of logistics, of
physical resources, of availability of personnel, of training and
a joint approach to training. There are language issues and there
are issues of different systems adopted in each Member State, not
to speak of questions of communication systems compatibility.
Such
issues need to be addressed at a European level in order for the
European Union to be able to engage effectively in conflict situations
with civilian measures. The European Security Strategy suggests
that where civilian interventions have followed military ones, there
ensued chaos. Such chaos is not inherent in civilian intervention;
it is the result of a lack of planning.
But
peacebuilding is much more than crisis intervention. Peacebuilding
is a long term process which involves capacity building at local
level, which engages in the transformation of conflict before it
erupts, which works on reconciliation to help to avoid future conflict
and which engages in the long term post conflict reconstruction
of communities, of infrastructure, of political and social systems
which lead countries and communities to joint commitment to and
joint investment in their common sustainable future.
Civil
Society has much to contribute to this process and does so; but
it is not integrated enough into a strategic approach to peacebuilding,
simply because the approach to peacebuilding is not strategic enough.
Crisis
management and peacebuilding instruments are structurally divorced
from each other at European Union level and therefore the overview
of what is necessary and what is possible, the big picture, cannot
be fully realised.
This
is the reason why the European Peacebuilding Liaison Office (EPLO)
is proposing the establishment of a European Peacebuilding Agency.
What
we are suggesting can be stated quite simply: an agency which has
as its focus the peacebuilding potential of the European Union;
an agency which will develop and plan the systems necessary to make
peacebuilding initiatives work well, and at short notice; an agency
which will take on board and learn from its experience; an agency
which is able to identify the resources and the gaps in resources;
an agency which can develop common standards of training for joint
action; an agency which can commission research into peacebuilding;
an agency, in short, which plans for peace.
The
European Union would be short-changing its history, its potential
and the world at large were it to do anything less.
Martina
Weitsch
[1]
A Secure Europe in a Better World, European Security Strategy, Brussels,
12 December 2003
Return
to contents
Review
of two weeks at QCEA
The opportunity
was given me to spend my two-weeks working experience at QCEA. Which
I am very thankful for. I am at secondary school in The Netherlands
and we had to do a working experience at an idealistic organisation.
I think I was at the right place. At QCEA they definitely work with
ideals.
Two
weeks is only a short time to help at QCEA. I started to catalogue
the huge amount of books. It isn’t finished in a long time
so if there are any volunteers to follow up my job... Sometimes
I had to say to myself to keep on working because the books were
so interesting that I started reading. I tried also to work on the
project of conscientious objection. That made clear that there are
still a lot of things in Europe that need attention.
I hope
that QCEA can continue their work until we have this peaceful, open,
just and compassionate Europe which they are trying to achieve.
Bouke
Grijseels
Return
to contents
Europe
– Union of Diversity?
The European
Commission, the European Jewish Congress and the Conference of European
Rabbis called a conference on ‘Europe against Anti-Semitism,
for a Union of Diversity. QCEA was invited to attend the conference,
in part at least because we had raised our profile through hosting
the visit by the Ecumenical Accompaniers in January (see AE Jan
and Feb 2004). As
with many of such conferences, there were too many speakers, too
little time for reflection and too little time for discussion. But
that was not the reason why it was a difficult day.
The
overwhelming message of the day was simple and immensely hard: anti-Semitism
in Europe is on the rise and dramatically so. There are Jewish people
in Europe who live in fear. Synagogues, cemeteries and schools are
being vandalised, people are being attacked and they have abuse
shouted at them. A picture was being drawn of a Europe at the beginning
of the 21st century which, in the words of some speakers was reminiscent
of the Germany of the 1930s.
Can
this be true? And what are the reasons for this? And what can be
done about it? And does it need to be seen in a wider context to
understand it and to make action against it effective?
Having
spent a lot of time in the last few weeks since the conference looking
for information about anti-Semitic activity in Europe two facts
have emerged:
•
The collection of information and data about anti-Semitism across
Europe is unsystematic and not easily comparable from one country
to another. This makes a critical assessment of what is happening
difficult.
•
The information which is available indicates that there is an increase
of anti-Semitic incidents.
There
must be credible systems for monitoring anti-Semitism at national
and at European Union level.
But
is the anti-Semitism of today the same as the anti-Semitism of the
past? And does it matter whether it is?
Several
speakers highlighted that there are, in today’s version of
anti-Semitism, a number of different strands. There is the ‘traditional’
hatred of Jews, there is the hatred of the ‘other’ of
the New Right, there is a left wing tendency to see Jews as holding
international power and Israel as a colonial state, and there is
the impact of the Middle East conflict. It is important to understand
these different strands in order to identify the most effective
means of combating anti-Semitism.
There
was much discussion about whether or not it was legitimate to criticise
Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians and whether such
criticism in itself constituted or disguised anti-Semitism. There
was rather less discussion about how, in Europe, in communities
across European countries, mutual respect and understanding of diversity
could be promoted in such a way that makes anti-Semitism unthinkable
in the future. There was even less discussion about the question
of Islamophobia which has also escalated but for different reasons.
There
was a call from one of the speakers, Yonathan Abraham of the Conference
of European Rabbis to ‘unite religious leaders and
communities in condemning the taking and threatening of human life
unequivocally’. We can only applaud such a call and
take on that challenge in our own communities. We can only hope
that political leaders around the world, wherever they are and in
whatever circumstances they find themselves will take heed of this
call.
So
where does that leave us?
We
must say yes, unequivocally,
•
to effective and comparable monitoring of all racist, xenophobic,
islamophobic and anti-Semitic incidents;
•
to challenging such acts in whatever way is appropriate; we must
say yes, unequivocally, to educational programmes in our schools,
our religious communities and wherever else possible, that challenge
racism, xenophobia, islamophobia and anti-Semitism.
We
must not forget that because of its history, Europe has and should
have a special sensitivity to anti-Semitism and Jewish citizens
of Europe have a right to have their history and their reality recognised.
But
we must be clear that hatred of others, attacks of others, the desecration
of places of worship and cemeteries of all kinds are all part of
a social order which we cannot condone under any circumstances,
whoever happens to be the target today. A Union of Diversity is
based on mutual respect and understanding, is based on our ability
to live with the ‘other’ in our midst in the recognition
that we are all different, that we are all strangers. We must, most
importantly, remember that we are all equal in the eyes of God.
Return
to contents
Democracy
in Action or another Damp Squib
The
European Parliament Elections (9 to 13 June 2004) are important.
Why? Because
the European Parliament has a number of important responsibilities
and powers. The most important ones are: to approve the
budget of the European Commission, to appoint (on the basis
of nominations from Member States) the Commissioners
who make up the senior decision makers in the European Commission,
to dismiss the European Commission, to approve
(jointly with the Council of the European Union) any European legislation
which relates to an issue where the EU has the right to
make legislation which is binding on the Member States (i.e. where
the EU has competence), to comment on any EU initiative of the Council
of the European Union where the EU does not have competence but
where the Member States agree to act jointly, to receive
reports from the Commission and the Council on a wide range
of policy issues, to ask questions of the Commission
which must be responded to and to pass own initiative resolutions
on subjects which MEPs are concerned about; often, such resolutions
can help to get an issue debated and onto the starting blocks.
The
European Parliament Elections are also important because the European
Parliament will only carry weight if it is elected by a sizeable
proportion of the electorate. If the European Parliament is to carry
the weight of being the most democratic of the European Institutions
(because it is elected by the citizens of Europe), then the citizens
of Europe will have to vote.
The
turnout in EP elections is generally extremely low, but
particularly so in the UK. Turnout in the UK in EP elections since
1979 averages at 32.2% but dropped to 24% in the last elections
in 1999. In the 5 elections since 1979 there has only been one (1994)
when the UK did not have the lowest turnout. The average turnout
across all Member States ranges from 67.2% in 1979 to 50% in 1999.
The
election campaign is important, because it provides
an opportunity for citizens to discuss issues of concern with candidates.
You can find out who the candidates are through the EU Parliament
Office in your country or through the official bodies responsible
for conducting elections in your country or from the political parties
who are putting forward candidates. Hopefully, candidates and parties
will supply citizens with information about their candidacy and
that material will have contact details.
QCEA
does not have a remit to support any particular candidates or political
groups in terms of their campaigning. But what we will do is:
•
to
provide a questionnaire (available on our website – www.quaker.org/qcea
- from the end of March 2004) which Friends and others can use to
raise issues relating to the Common Foreign Security Policy of the
EU (if you use this and get interesting feedback/answers, please
let us know about it);
•
We will provide briefing material on our website relating to the
elections
•
We will publish at least one more article relating to the elections
prior to June in Around Europe
Please
send us any campaigning literature/manifestos you receive from your
candidates. We would also be delighted to hear from Friends and
Attenders who are standing for the European Parliament.
Please
send any information to Martina Weitsch at mweitsch@qcea.org
or to Quaker House by post.
Return
to contents
Back
to the main Around Europe page |
