Hope
is not a strategy
The
Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC) held
the first of 15 regional conferences from 30 March to 2 April 2004
in Dublin at the invitation of the Irish Presidency of the EU.
GPPAC
is a network of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) set up in
response to Kofi Annan’s call in his June 2001 report on the
Prevention of Armed Conflict: ‘I urge NGOs with an interest
in conflict prevention to organize an international conference of
local, national and international NGOs on their role in conflict
prevention and future interaction with the United Nations in this
field’.
GPPAC
is preparing both a global conference to take place in 2005 in New
York and a series of regional networks to hold preparatory regional
conferences in the run-up to New York. Dublin was the first of these.
The
two focal points of the conference can be identified as (a) the
role of Civil Society and (b) the current state of security in the
world. The task of the conference was to link those two points and
make proposals for action.
Civil
Society
What
is Civil Society or what are Civil Society Organisations (CSOs)?
Sometimes it is used instead of ‘NGO’ but it is in fact
much wider and in the view of some also includes Trade Unions, the
scientific community, local authorities and the media; an interesting,
if not entirely comfortable set of bedfellows.
We
discussed the accountability and responsibility of CSOs, the relationship
between CSOs and governments, intergovernmental bodies, or the EU,
and the relationship between CSOs in the northern and southern hemisphere.
We were challenged to think more strategically, to engage more effectively
with governments and with those in power. Some CSOs have power if
power is money, as some northern NGOs have budgets that well exceed
those of some countries.
Should
funding be directed to CSOs or to nation building? How should the
EU, the UN and other such bodies relate to CSOs? Who do they represent?
Are they, at a time of political apathy, the outlet for political
and community interest which political parties can no longer attract?
Security
in Today’s World
What
do we mean by security? Is it human security or state security?
Is it security for all or security for the rich?
We
agreed that civil society does, can and should make a contribution
to security; often, NGOs can act where states can’t and they
can therefore bring creativity and added value to a conflict situation.
We
took on board Kofi Annan’s challenge and we took on board
the UN’s definition of ‘Culture of Peace’ as ‘a
set of values, attitudes, modes of behaviour and ways of life that
reject violence and prevent conflicts by tackling their root causes
to solve problems through dialogue and negotiation among individuals,
groups and nations’ (UN Resolution A/RES/52/13).
The
security agenda has changed in the aftermath of the attacks on the
World Trade Centre and the post 9/11 agenda diverts resources from
other issues, distracts attention from the real issues and focuses
on false solutions.
Action
Agenda
We
discussed how Civil Society, national governments, the EU and the
UN could all make contributions to furthering an agenda for peace.
My
own concern in this discussion was how the civilian capacity of
the EU can be strengthened and enhanced and how civilian intervention
in conflict situations can be made more effective. QCEA has been
doing considerable work on this issue and more information on this
can be found on our website at www.quaker.org/qcea.
We
did, in the end, agree the Action Agenda and we did present this
to the Irish Presidency. Brian Cowen, T.D., Minister for Foreign
Affairs acknowledged ‘that upon close inspection, there is
much common ground between us (NGOs and the EU)’ and concluded
by saying ‘We are all members of the "international community".
Those of us here today, whether from Government or NGOs, share a
particular commitment to the pursuit of peace and the building of
a safer and fairer world. Let us combine our efforts in pursuit
of these aims.’
The
Action Agenda can be accessed on http://www.euconflict.org/
where more information about the conference is also available.
Martina
Weitsch
Return
to contents
Asylum
Seekers and Refugees
Friends
have for many years had a concern about issues relating to Asylum
Seekers and Refugees. In Continental Europe they were during the last
century-besides the Peace Testimony-probably mainly known for the
work done during the World War II period for refugees: Before the
war and until 1940 helping racially and politically persecuted persons
emigrate from Nazi Germany and occupied countries; and after the war
for their leading role in supporting the millions of refugees wandering
about Europe as a result of the unprecedented upheaval. My own first
contact with Friends was as a young refugee from the East with a group
of American and British relief workers in Berlin who had been conscientious
objectors, and with whom we formed a German group assisting mainly
in refugee camps. Still
now, when mentioning “the Quakers” to members of the
older generation, not a few have heard the term and associate it
mainly with the relief work after WW II.
For
many years afterwards, the words refugee and asylum did not appear
very much in the media and in public discussion in Europe. But we
have all noticed how since about ten years theyappear increasingly
and are more and more regarded as linked to key societal problems
and therefore as major problems themselves. There is a combination
of reasons for this. The Iron Curtain kept the lid on ethnic and
other disputes, barred the flow of information, and prevented people
from moving. This has changed. Old disputes have resurfaced, external
I heard
the term Quaker for the first time in 1935 as an elementary school
boy when we received during the 10 o’clock break a bun and
cocoa, still called “Quakerspeisung”. It had been introduced
by a Friends relief program for German school children in 1920,
but was since many years paid from the school budget.
media
can be received and present an alluring picture of life in the richer
countries, and modern means of transport make the attempt to escape
from conflict, suppression and poverty easier. Within the migration
flows the proportion of refugees from poverty (economic refugees)
has grown. But if one looks more closely at the underlying causes,
ethnic and political factors are often the basis for poverty.
While
the flows of refugees have increased, other events in the recent
past have led to a deterioration of the climate of acceptance in
the target countries. The persistence of high levels of unemployment
created fear that refugees would take away employment opportunities
(although there is often no competition for the kind of jobs refugees
are willing to take and at the wages they are prepared to accept).
Budget constraints have led to severe limitations in access to social
services for refugees. And the increasing mobility in the European
Union, facilitated particularly through the Schengen Agreement (in
itself a great progress), has led to the need to establish common
rules for entrance into the Union and for dealing with illegal immigrants.
As is often the case when rules are redefined in a period of difficulties,
the result is a tightening and lowering of standards. The fear of
terrorist action and the perceived need for “security”
have accentuated this trend further.
The
just and human treatment of asylum seekers and refugees has thus
again become a matter of concern for Friends. That governments try
to regulate flows particularly in periods of economic tensions and
“security” problems, which many people - rightly or
wrongly – perceive at least partly as a consequence of “too
many strangers in our midst”, is their responsibility although
we would wish for a more liberal policy and a better sharing. However,
the ways in which this is done become more and more restrictive,
even repressive and risk to infringe the basic tenets of human dignity.
This is a situation against which Friends and all other concerned
groups must protest and act.
What
can we do?
Responsibilities
in this enormously complex field are shared by everybody: The European
Union, our national governments, and by local authorities and civil
society. The European Union, under a mandate given by the European
Council in 1999, elaborated just before the May 1st 2004 deadline,
a number of directives which define common approaches to asylum
and migration. The most important concerns the procedures through
which decisions on demands for asylum are taken (e.g. periods for
submitting demands, access to social benefits and work). The concrete
details are left to the national governments to fix. Observers fear
that there may be a drift towards the more restrictive standards.
Another directive concerns the controversial question of “safe
countries” to which refused asylum applicants (or illegal
immigrants) can be returned. The United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees has expressed his preoccupation that the application
of these directives may not sufficiently respect the 1951 Geneva
Convention on Refugees or the Charter on Human Rights.
The
direct contacts with migrants are at local level and the spirit
in which they are handled is largely determined there. Civil Society
can play a very important positive role. There are many examples
for how Friends have actively participated in this.
To
be effective, the different bodies of the Society of Friends should
address the issues at their respective levels. An important difference
to earlier periods is that there exist now a large number of organizations
(mostly NGOs) working in this field, some of them initiated by Friends.
Networking and coalition building in order to achieve a critical
mass of influence is therefore a main task.
What
can QCEA do in this context?
QCEA
has worked on asylum seeker and refugee questions for many years.
It has also through its projects on economic justice and peace building
tried to help tackle issues of poverty and political and ethnic
conflict which are root causes of migration. I look here only at
the first aspects because of the immediate need for action.
QCEA
is active in various networks of NGOs on asylum and refugees and
has thus followed developments and taken jointly position. Among
its own publications over almost twenty years are several dealing
with important aspects of asylum and refugee issues, e.g. on reception
conditions, women trafficking and education for refugee children.
Anity Wuyts, who has been QCEA’s key resource person in this
field over many years, has recently completed what she calls a brief
overview on “Human Rights in the European Union” and
which has now come out as a QCEA publication. A main topic is the
EU policy on migration and asylum.
The
QCEA Associate Members’ Conference in 2000 focused on this
subject under the heading “Strangers in a Foreign Land”.
It led to a Statement which was distributed and made also suggestions
on what Individuals and Meetings could do. It would be interesting
to see what effect these actions had.
Finally,
the 2002/2003 QCEA Project on “The Future of Europe”
which was discussed in many workshops and produced the publication
“Values Matter: Quakers Reflect on Europe”, dealt also
with migration issues. In response to a question “In which
areas of public policy do you think Quakers have a particular message
to bring to European Institutions?”, asylum and immigration
came out on top.
QCEA’s
activities in this area are therefore already quite impressive.
And there is evidence that together with the other NGO’s and
networks, it has been able to introduce some moderation in terms
of human rights in the recent process of policy formulation. Nevertheless,
there is no doubt that the recent developments have become more
and more restrictive and risk to endanger the respect of human rights
and dignity. Together with all like-minded groups, we have therefore
to continue and if possible step-up our activities. But I should
immediately add that this raises the question of whether QCEA, which
after all is a small organization, has the resources to do this.
Our
focus should be twofold: We should
- firstly,
inform Friends about developments at European level which move fast
and should suggest action at national and local level. As a practical
matter, our web-site and other forms of communication should provide
more comprehensive information on this field and be kept up-to-date.
The QCEA Council meeting in March began already to look at this
and suggested that briefing papers be prepared on specific areas
of Anita’s publication. Some form of exchange about best practices
or particularly preoccupying events at national (policy) or local
(immigrant treatment) level could be very useful although here,
QCEA could only lend a helping hand and depends on inputs from Meetings
- secondly,
continue to work closely with the relevant networks to have an impact
at EU level and through them, encourage coalition building at national
and local level. We might also reflect on whether within these networks
we should be willing to take a higher profile, given the fact that
our history of concern for refugees is older than that of most other
groups. Do we have a particular message to give?
This
concentration on the most immediate issues should not let us forget
that through work on economic justice and peace building we can
contribute in the long run to alieviating the causes of migration.
There
is so much to do. QCEA can help Friends to act. To make this possible,
we should try to give QCEA the necessary resources.
Dieter
Hartwich, QCEA Council Member
Return
to contents
Book
Review: How Just is the Market Economy
Edward
Dommen’s book defines the term market, its abilities and limitations
and how it discords with Biblical concepts of justice. For someone
interested in the subject, but who fears economic jargon, or who lacks
previous knowledge about economics or the Bible there is little need
to worry. Thorough explanations and examples are provided throughout
the book, so that the only thing you need to bring along is keen interest.
The
author explains the intricate workings of the market, and the principles,
or lack thereof, which lie behind it. Although it is clear from
the start that he is not entirely in favour of the current neo-liberal
market economy, and that he intends to question its ability to provide
global justice, he does not ignore the virtues of the market, thus
providing a balanced view. However he does find that the free market
economy, without interference by political processes, is a force
that favours the fighter or the winner. There is little room for
giving the weak or poor the preferential treatment that the Bible
advises they be given. Another weakness in market economy is that
it is only the today’s ‘winners’ who will be favoured
and that there is no room for the concerns of future generations
or for prioritizing the spirit of community.
The
book does not provide us with a step by step plan on how to make
the economy just, but provides us with plenty of alternative principles
on which to base the structure of the world economy. To find these
alternatives the author turns to the work of 16th century theologian
John Calvin and the teachings of the Bible, the most focused upon
principle being ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’.
This
book can serve as a reminder that although aspects of society have
changed since biblical times, the basic principles are still valid
today. Those less familiar with the teachings of the Bible may even
feel compelled to take a closer look at them. For those sceptical
about mixing economics and theology, this idea may seem impractical
and unrealistic. However, the book’s strength lies not in
being a manual for creating a just world, but in inspiring the reader
to think in innovative ways of how to organise the global economy,
perhaps by merging market theory and Biblical principles.
Kshama
K. Pandey
Return
to contents
Back
to the main Around Europe page |
