Civilian
Aspects of the European Security and Defence Policy
'We
need greater capacity to bring all necessary civilian resources to
bear in crisis and post-crisis situations…’ This is what
the European Security Strategy, agreed in 2003 by the Council of the
European Union says. In principle, there is commitment to civilian
intervention and this has been agreed by the Member States.
For
the Council of the European Union summit which took place in June
2004, towards the end of the Irish Presidency, the Committee for
Civilian Crisis Management presented a report and action plan. This
was agreed by the Council and the adoption of this action plan is
recorded at paragraph 60 of the Presidency Conclusions, which can
be found at http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/81035.pdf.
The
fact that the same paragraph also refers extensively to military
intervention and capability shows, however, that there is still
a long way to go.
But
this is about the better news. The action plan sets out a new approach
to civilian crisis management operations where any given intervention
will be more integrated in terms of its specific functions. The
emphasis is still on the four specific areas of civilian intervention
of police, rule of law, civilian administration and civil protection.
However, in the future, there will be an emphasis on finding the
right combination of these four aspects of civilian intervention
for any given situation. This will make interventions more flexible
and more appropriate and is a very positive development.
The
ability of the EU to utilise civilian capabilities in any given
situation depends on a number of factors: commitment to provide
a certain number of people, their availability at the time they
are needed, and the overall resources available to Member States.
The action plan envisages a conference in November 2004 at which
these issues will be re-examined in order to ensure that there is
greater clarity about the level of capability actually available
to EU civilian missions.
Making
civilian missions work also depends on whether the people available
are actually operational at the time they are needed. Planning and
mission support, the availability of the right and compatible equipment,
equipment storage, joint training and exercises to ensure that personnel
from different Member States can work together effectively, recruitment,
accreditation and accessible databases with compatible information
(whether held and managed at national or EU level) are all needed.
The action plan acknowledges this and points to areas in which this
is being developed. However, the heartening factor is that there
is recognition of the necessity of all these elements and that there
is agreement that they need to be addressed.
Finally,
further good news is contained in the action plan in the acknowledgement
of the need to develop further the linkages between crisis management
and conflict prevention work of the European Union. At present,
the two are addressed in different institutions and with different
instruments. This is not likely to change in the very near future,
but the acknowledgement of the interconnection is an important point.
Equally, the action plan recognises the important contribution that
can be and is made by NGOs in this field and there is an encouragement
of, if not a total commitment to, ongoing dialogue with NGOs. De
facto, this dialogue is developing.
So
what is the bad news? In short, all this costs money. There is,
of course, money for civilian crisis management operations. But
it is not enough. It is certainly not enough for the enhanced capabilities
and operational readiness that is sought through this action plan.
And whilst the Council of the European Union agreed the action plan
it did not make any commitment to funding it with any new money.
There
is a general acceptance among politicians and, it has to be accepted,
the general public, that military capabilities have to be funded,
and funded generously if the budgets of all the Member States are
anything to go by. We may or may not agree with that. But what is
certain either way is that there needs to be a similar acceptance
that civilian capabilities need to be funded appropriately for the
tasks they are set up to do. If the European Union is serious about
civilian crisis intervention, and we welcome this, then there must
be the political will on the part of the Member States to provide
adequate funding to make this a reality.
Martina
Weitsch
Return
to contents
Peace
Tax Conference 8-11 June
The
10th International Conference on War Tax Resistance and Peace Tax
Campaigns was held in Brussels from 8 to 11 June. The
Conference brought together like-minded people from around the world
working on War Resistance and Peace Tax issues. Participants came
mainly from Europe and North America, but also from Ghana, India
and Columbia.
The
keynote speech was given by John Van Daele who focussed on the anti-globalist
movement. It placed the peace tax issue within the wider context
of global injustice and the globalisation of violence. His talk
evoked many questions and remarks, and an American Friend challenged
us all to give some thought as to how the issue of Peace Tax fits
in with the general struggle against global injustice.
Workshops
The
Conference programme offered an opportunity to participate in 3
out of 13 workshops offered by different participants. These workshops
gave us the opportunity to learn about and discuss more specific
aspects of peace work in small groups.
The
workshops covered topics such as lobbying and government dialogue;
participants shared information about their different tactics and
approaches to influence those who make laws in their countries.
There were workshops about the future of peace work, through education,
building global alliances, strategies and tactics, and alternative
forms of security. In her workshop, Nanna Randall gave a very moving
presentation of her work within the United Nations, and within the
NGO she has helped to set up: Voices of African Mothers. Her stories
were a clear reminder that ultimately we are working for the victims
of violence and war.
On
Friday afternoon QCEA, and QUNO Geneva, represented by Derek Brett,
offered a workshop on “Peace Tax as a Human Right: What can
the United Nations and other international organizations do to help?”
Derek Brett spoke about the work he is doing with conscientious
objection and peace tax and the UN. QCEA’s contribution was
based on our work on preparing a resolution to the Council of Europe
recognising Peace Tax as a form of Conscientious Objection.
We
offered some background information about the different European
Institutions QCEA works with, and moved on to explaining the possibilities
and limitations for Peace Tax work within an EU context.
We
then set out why we have chosen the Council of Europe as the most
appropriate forum for our Peace Tax work. The Council of Europe
has a significant Human Rights remit. One of its main achievements
is to have adopted the European Convention on Human Rights and to
have set up the Court of Human Rights to regulate the Convention.
The
Convention’s Article 9 recognises the right to ‘Freedom
of Thought, Conscience and Religion. The Council of Europe adopted
a resolution in 1967, which recognises the right of conscientious
objection to military service as a right under Article 9 of the
ECHR. Such a resolution gives this right legal status and legal
enforceability.
The
highly developed structure within the Council of Europe for NGO
participation and interaction allows us to take forward proposals
for new resolutions. QCEA is working on a proposal for a new resolution
that recognises the right to conscientious objection to military
taxation.
We
argue that the principle of conscientious objection already exists
(in the resolution referred to above), it just needs to be extended
to also include taxation. The nature of modern warfare means that
all our contributions to the military and to war through taxation
is much more significant than doing military service for what can
now be as little as six months in some countries. In more and more
countries, where conscription has been abolished, it is the only
form of contribution to the military. Adopting a resolution that
extends the right to conscientious objection to taxation will therefore
provide conscientious objectors with a tool for expressing that
objection which has wider applicability than the right to conscientious
objection to military service.
We
explained the detailed text of the proposed Peace Tax Resolution.
We have based our draft proposal on the existing resolution on conscientious
objection to military service. We consider it useful to use the
same or similar mechanisms and language and structure as the existing
accepted ones for conscientious objection to military service. This
reinforces the parallel nature of the issues and we therefore hope
to increase the likelihood of the proposal being accepted at the
various stages of the process and ultimately by the Committee of
Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly.
For
us, one of the most important aims of this workshop was to share
our work with the other participants, and to get their comments
and feedback. We had many enthusiastic and constructive responses,
and also a number of useful proposals on how to improve our text.
Martina
Weitsch
Return
to contents
Rethinking
War and Peace
'Promoting
peace and security in the 21st century requires a fundamental shift
in how we respond to the challenge of violent conflict’. Thus
the introductory sentence of the first of the guiding principles which
were agreed as part of the Dublin Action Agenda of the European Regional
Conference of the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict
in April 2004. Diana
Francis, in her book: Rethinking War and Peace (Pluto Press, May
2004, ISBN 0 7453 2188 7, £ 11.99 in paperback) meets the
challenge of that guiding principle by setting out clearly, concisely
and accessibly the shift in thinking we need to make. This book
has come just at the right time. It describes the shift in thinking
we need to make ourselves and in our dialogue with others.
Diana
Francis sets the scene of the world we find ourselves in, goes on
to set out the justifications given for war and the reasons why
those justifications don’t work. She then examines the question
of whether violence and war are inevitable parts of human nature
and finds that they are not. She also looks at the questions around
ethics and war and in particular addresses the ‘Just War’
debate. Importantly, she also addresses the questions around responses
to tyranny – the ‘What about Hitler?’ question.
The
final chapter of the book is a call to action and a clear statement
of what needs to be done and why. She acknowledges the size of the
task – the action points specifically listed number 38 and
she is clear that this list is not exhaustive.
Importantly,
she is clear about the need for significant commitment to alternative
methods of dealing with conflict to be taken seriously. ‘We
must take nonviolent methods as seriously – and if necessary
fund them as generously – as we currently do our military
methods’, she says and a little later: ‘We need to start
preparing – on a realistic scale, with proper resources –
for constructive solidarity and intervention, so that we are not
left as bystanders while atrocities happen.’
This
is the book you must read this year. This is the book you must give
to your friends, colleagues, families and acquaintances. This is
the book you must make the subject of your study groups. This is
the book that will help you to answer the question: ‘If not
war then what?’ It will answer them convincingly.
Martina
Weitsch
Return
to contents
Back
to the main Around Europe page |
