QCEA: Short Report - 99/1 - Conscientious Objection to Military Service : Developments during 1998

99/1 - Conscientious Objection to Military Service : Developments during 1998

Introduction
Conscientious objection to compulsory military service has been a component of the Quaker peace testimony wherever and whenever governments have resorted to conscription. The Quaker Council for European Affairs (QCEA) since its foundation in 1979 has upheld this concern and was a founder organisation of the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection (EBCO) in 1982. There are national organisations promoting this cause in many countries. Among international bodies, War Resisters International (WRI) and Amnesty International are probably the most deeply involved. The Quaker United Nations Office in Geneva supports parallel work at the United nations level, particularly in the context of the UN Commission on Human Rights.

In the early part of 1998 QCEA monitored developments in conscientious objection but was not able to take initiatives. Tim Brown, who retired as Representative at the end of 1997, remains a personal member of the board of EBCO and has attended events on QCEA's behalf, notably the Peace Congress in Osnabrück at the end of May. This report reflects a renewed gathering of momentum.

European Union
No present member state of the European Union denies its citizens the right of conscientious objection though Greece legislated to permit alternative service only in 1997. The European Parliament has repeatedly addressed the issue, and its Resolution on respect for human rights in the European Union (1997), adopted on 17 December 1998, highlights the punitive nature of the Greek law. We gather that the law has now been amended. Problems still exist with candidate countries, notably Cyprus.

Council of Europe
Conscientious objection is one of the human rights that the Council of Europe in Strasbourg upholds. The Parliamentary Assembly passed a Resolution affirming it in 1967, and maintained the concern, supported by QCEA and others over a number of years. In 1987 it was formally adopted as a policy of the Committee of Ministers (the legislative component of the Council of Europe) in a Recommendation - R(87)8 - addressed to member states. The full text is at Annex 1.

In 1996, Tim Brown proposed a Resolution to the conference of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with consultative status at the Council of Europe asking the Committee of Ministers to have its secretariat evaluate the results of the Recommendation. The Resolution was adopted and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, and the review was set in hand. The text of the Resolution is at Annex 2.

The review is taking place in a 'Group of Specialists' reporting to the Steering Committee on Human Rights (normally known by its French initials, CDDH). The Group contains (unusually) three NGO representatives as observers as well as nine representatives of member state governments. The European Commission also has a place as an observer.

Again unusually, the Group held a hearing on 29 September to seek the views of further NGOs, including QCEA and EBCO. A Swiss member of the Parliamentary Assembly (Mr Andreas Gross) also came. A full account, which identifies a number of specific concerns expressed by those present, is at Annex 3. At the hearing a research group from Lausanne University presented a study of the relevant laws of the 31 (out of 40) member states still having conscription. Of these, only Turkey gives no recognition to conscientious objection. Russia provides for it in her constitution, but there is no legislation to implement it. Several countries, in particular the Baltic states, fail to call up a considerable proportion of those who are liable, so that conscientious objectors normally avoid service without confrontation. Several countries (such as France, Spain, Portugal and Italy) are moving towards the replacement of conscription by professional armies. Mr Gross undertook to extend the exercise by seeking data on the practical application of the law in each member state, an offer which was gratefully accepted.

The main outcomes of this meeting (and the subsequent closed discussion) were that publicity leaflets were to be prepared for distribution to future conscripts - we were shown a striking example used in Portugal - and a more academic document was to be prepared for use within Ministries of Defence. Arrangements were proposed for helping governments to introduce or improve legislation, and it was hoped to hold seminars in eastern Europe. The Council of Europe had its own youth centre in Budapest which would be one suitable location. It seemed unlikely that the 1987 Recommendation would be updated, for example to cover serving soldiers, but Ministers might endorse it afresh, in which case an updated explanatory memorandum could be added.

Current provision for objectors in countries with conscription
As well as the Lausanne study mentioned already, a more detailed study of law and practice in central and Eastern Europe has been prepared by Dr Christof Tannert (a German member of the European Parliament) and his assistants. This is now in its third edition and is available on the internet: (http://www.spd.bln.de/home/christof.tannert/welcome.html). Its main focus is on candidate countries for EU enlargement. A supplement on former Yugoslavia and Albania has just been commissioned.

WRI has an ongoing project entitled CONCODOC to report on law and practice over nearly all countries of the world. The full version has just been completed. It costs £40 (£25 for non-profit bodies) and ordering details are shown on http://www.gn.org/warresisters

EBCO's programme
EBCO is a consortium of national and international bodies which organises seminars and other events. It will shortly report on rights to conscientious objection in the Balkan countries. For the longer term, it is exploring roles for its members in the context of the gradual disappearance from Europe of compulsory military service.

EBCO held a seminar in Brussels in December on the right of asylum for conscientious objectors and deserters, with particular reference to Kosovo. With the help of Dr Tannert, it took place in the European Parliament. It led to the campaign mentioned below to induce Serbs to desert from the Kosovo conflict.

An EBCO seminar from 21 to 28 February 1999 will be held in the European Youth Centre, Strasbourg entitled "Conscientious objection, peace education and conflict prevention".

A meeting will take place at Buchenwald on 14 to 15 May to unveil a plaque to conscientious objectors and deserters executed by the Third Reich, and to consider further rights of asylum for deserters.

Opportunities for Quaker action
The work of NGOs and others supporting conscientious objection is not just a matter of influencing legislation. It comes alive in facing up to the personal plight of objectors in countries where there is no automatic understanding of their rights. A new EBCO campaign goes further than this and seeks to persuade the Serbian military and police in Kosovo to desert and the European Union member states to grant such deserters asylum.

Within the EU, Greece legislated for conscientious objection with effect from January 1998, but implementation is capricious, the conditions for alternative service until very recently were penal, and objectors called up before the starting date have been given no consideration. Most of the individuals caught up in this situation are Jehovah's Witnesses. The situation can be followed on an e-mail newsgroup Greek Helsinki Monitor helsinki@compulink.gr

The situation in Turkey is exemplified by the situation of Osman Murat Ülke. Called up in 1992, he has been imprisoned more or less continuously since October 1996 for refusing to wear uniform; each time his sentences end he refuses to serve and is re-arrested. His case and many others are listed in the 'Prisoners for Peace Honours Roll' on the WRI web site www.gn.apc.org/warresisters/index This includes addresses for encouraging prisoners and for challenging the regimes that hold them.

However, it is not QCEA's role at present to lobby on behalf of individuals. It increases our peace of mind if others can undertake such campaigning. We intend to play as active a part in the Council of Europe as we are allowed, to monitor and report on developments in the institutions of the European Union (and in particular the Parliament), and to help EBCO and other NGOs with accommodation and personal support.

The peace movement has related concerns which we support and intend to monitor. These include in particular the position of those already serving in armed forces who wish to resign for reasons of conscience, the right of objection in countries establishing 'citizens' armies' in which all adults are expected to take part in periodic weapons training, and the right to asylum for conscientious objectors. The Quaker United Nations Office in Geneva is campaigning to make 18 the minimum age at which young people can serve in armed forces and includes conscientious objection in its work programme - see its web site http://www.quaker.org/quno. We welcome enquiries from Friends and others, and we shall report progress in our monthly newsletter Around Europe.

Anyone in Britain wishing to support EBCO is invited to send donations to Tim Brown, 33 Windsor Road, Cambridge CB4 3JJ. Cheques should be made payable to EBCO. CAF vouchers cannot be accepted, as EBCO is not a British charity.

Richard Seebohm

13.1.99

ANNEX 1:

COUNCIL OF EUROPE - COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

RECOMMENDATION No. R (87) 8 OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS TO MEMBER STATES REGARDING CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE¹

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 April 1987 at the 406th meeting of Ministers' Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe,

Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members;

Recalling that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is the common heritage of member states of the Council of Europe, as is borne out, in particular, by the European Convention on Human Rights;

Considering that it is desirable to take common action for the further realisation of human right sand fundamental freedoms;

Noting that in the majority of member states of the Council of Europe military service is a basic obligation of citizens;

Considering the problems raised by conscientious objection to compulsory military service;

Wishing that conscientious objection to compulsory military service be recognised in all the member states of the Council of Europe and governed by common principles;

Noting that, in some member states where conscientious objection to compulsory military service is not yet recognised, specific measures have been taken with a view to improving the situation of the individuals concerned,

Recommends that the governments of member states, insofar as they have not already done so, bring their national law and practice into line with the following principles and rules:

A. Basic principle
1. Anyone liable to conscription for military service who, for compelling reasons of conscience, refuses to be involved in the use of arms, shall have the right to be released from the obligation to perform such service, on the conditions set out hereafter. Such persons may be liable to perform alternative service;

B. Procedure
2. States may lay down a suitable procedure for the examination of applications for conscientious objector status or accept a declaration giving reasons by the person concerned;

3. With a view to the effective application of the principles and rules of this recommendation, persons liable to conscription shall be informed in advance of their rights. For this purpose, the state shall provide them with all relevant information directly or allow private organisations concerned to furnish that information;

4. Applications for conscientious objector status shall be made in ways and within time-limits to be determined having due regard to the requirement that the procedure for the examination of an application should, as a rule, be completed before the individual concerned is actually enlisted in the forces;

5. The examination of applications shall include all the necessary guarantees of a fair procedure;

6. An applicant shall have the right to appeal against the decision at first instance;

7. The appeal authority shall be separate from the military administration and composed so as to ensure its independence;

8. The law may also provide for the possibility of applying for and obtaining conscientious objector status in cases where the requisite conditions for conscientious objection appear during military service or periods of military training after military service;

C. Alternative service
9. Alternative service, if any, shall be in principle civilian and in the public interest. Nevertheless, in addition to civilian service, the state may also provide for unarmed military service, assigning it only to those conscientious objectors whose objections are restricted to the personal use of arms;

10. Alternative service shall not be of a punitive nature. Its duration shall, in comparison to that of military service, remain within reasonable limits;

11. Conscientious objectors performing alternative service shall not have less social and financial rights than persons performing military service. Legislative provisions or regulations which relate to the taking into account of military service for employment, career or pension purposes shall apply to alternative service.

When this Recommendation was adopted:-

- in application of Article 10.2.c of the Rules of Procedure for the meetings f Ministers' Deputies, the Representative of Greece reserved the right of his Government to comply or not with paragraph 9 of the text;

- in application of Article 10.2.d of the Rules of Procedure for the meetings of Ministers' Deputies, the Representative of Italy reported his abstention and in an explanatory statement said that his Government was of the opinion that the text as adopted fell short of the suggestions made by the Assembly, and therefore appeared to be deficient;

- in application of Article 10.2.d of the Rules of Procedure for the meetings of Ministers' Deputies, the Representatives of Switzerland and Turkey recorded their abstentions and in explanatory statements said that their Governments would be unable to comply with the text.

on the recognition of the right of conscientious objection to military service adopted by the NGOs present at the 85th meeting of NGOs in consultative status with the Council of Europe and interested in human rights

We, the NGOs holding consultative status with the Council of Europe and interested in Human Rights,

stressing the importance of the right of conscientious objection to military service as a basic human right,

concerned at the fact that although the principles set out in Recommendation R(87)8 of the Committee of Ministers represent only minimum standards, the situation in several Member States falls short of those principles,

1. to ask the Committee of Ministers to instruct the Steering Committee on Human Rights (CDDH) to evaluate the results of Recommendation R(87)8 by asking each Member State to report on action taken in the light of that Recommendation;

2. to ask the Parliamentary Assembly to seek the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights on changes in the situation since 1987 and on the attached (1984 Draft) Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights;

to ask the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly to send us responses and reactions to this resolution in time for them to be considered at our 88th meeting in September 1997.

[Proposed by the Quaker Council for European Affairs, supported by the European Ecumenical Commission for Church and Society and the Conference of European Churches.]

Note of a hearing on 29 September 1998 during the second meeting of the Council of Europe Group of Specialists on Conscientious Objection to Military Service

The appointed members present were from Bulgaria, Finland (in the Chair), Moldova, Netherlands, Portugal, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic and "Macedonia" (all officials) and Greece (an academic). None expressed antagonism to the concept of conscientious objection. Of the permanent observers, only Brian Phillips (Amnesty International) was there.

Represented by invitation were EBCO (Friedhelm Schneider, also representing the Conference of European Churches), QCEA (Richard Seebohm), United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (Ida Huussen) and WRI (Bart Horeman). There was also Andreas Gross (Parliamentary Assembly, Rapporteur of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee) and Allard Plate of the Assembly secretariat. As consultants there were Bertil Cottier and Gregor Schneider from the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law (Lausanne) and Professor Soetemer from Amsterdam. The CDDH secretariat was led by Alfonso de Salas.

The Lausanne team introduced their study of the legal position in each of the 31 member states still having compulsory military service. Of these, only Turkey refused all recognition of conscientious objection, and Russia had no implementing legislation. In some cases (such as the Baltic states) conscription was not fully enforced, so that no one had to exercise the specific right to be an objector. Some states (notably Greece) made alternative service particularly onerous whilst granting full or partial exemption to other categories of young people such as only sons of a family. Most but not all countries suspended enlistment while a case was considered, but few made provision for a decision of conscience once service had begun.

Mr Gross as rapporteur had just received endorsement in plenary session of the Assembly for a resolution on the human rights of conscripts, which referred to the existing recognition of conscientious objection. He undertook to have his committee send a questionnaire to member states asking how their provisions for objectors were applied in practice and in case law. The rest of those present were relieved to have this responsibility assumed at no cost to them.

It as made clear that the Committee of Ministers resolution of 1987 was to remain the governing text. It had been adopted by the 20 or so member states at the time (with reservations on the part of Greece, Italy and Turkey) and formed part of the acquis for those joining later - a new concept for some of them. There was no will to replace it, but it was conceivable that a new resolution endorsing it could have as an attachment an updated explanatory memorandum. This could mention such issues as serving soldiers wishing to become conscientious objectors. There was also the possibility that case law would helpfully extend the interpretation of other human rights legislation.

Amnesty International (AI) did not question the right of governments to conscript individuals into the armed forces, but conscientious objection was a vital freedom. It was not a marginal matter even where objectors were few in number. Information on it should be available to all conscripts, and they should be able to apply during as well as before service. Alternative service should not have the character of a punishment. AI adopted those imprisoned as a result of their objections as prisoners of conscience, and its members in 160 countries campaigned for their release. It urged the Council of Europe to continue with public education and its aid to member states in legislating for conscientious objection. The work of the 1997 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) gave hope that a Europe-wide campaign would achieve results.

The representative of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees spoke of the need for refugee status for would-be conscientious objectors.

The QCEA statement began with a short description of Quakerism, its tenet of non-violence and its status as one of the historic peace churches. Quakers had continuing traditions of humanitarian witness and peace work. QCEA had been set up to present Quaker views to the European institutions; the 1996 NGO resolution on conscientious objection had been an example of this. The concept of conscientious objection was upheld by Quakers; another touchstone of its validity was Amnesty International's treatment of imprisoned conscientious objectors as prisoners of conscience. We should be moving away from a world in which nations needed to kill to defend themselves against external enemies. Religious faith was one motive for conscientious objection but it was not a necessary one. Objectors were likely to be strong members of society and not weak ones - not opters-out. As for immediate needs, all public authorities had to be persuaded to accept the concept. Conscripts had to be aware of their rights. Alternative service should not be so penal as to give an unfair disadvantage to the life-chances of young people in these economically insecure times. QCEA supported other NGOs in seeking the following outcomes:

- action on specific hard cases where the human rights of named individuals were not respected;

- provision for conscientious objection in 'citizens' armies' in which all adults might be required to undergo periodic weapons training during their working lives;

- protection for conscientious objection during times of war or 'national emergency' as well as in times of peace time conscription; and

WRI was founded by pacifists after the first world war. The initial introduction of a legal right to conscientious objection in various countries was a result of its campaigning. A current outcome of its work was the recently published world survey of legal and actual provision for conscientious objection. Its major concerns at present, which the Council of Europe should take up, were:

- the absence of a right to conscientious objection in certain European countries;

- the lack of recognition of a right to asylum on account of conscientious objection;

- the absence in most countries of a right of objection and discharge for professional serving members of armed forces; and

- the fact that objectors were treated worse than those exempted from service on other grounds.

EBCO had 20 member organisations in 14 European countries. It was recognised by the European Commission and had the endorsement of the European Parliament. Mr Schneider, speaking also for the Conference of European Churches as a pastor, said that he had had occasion to employ some of the 123,000 young people doing alternative service in Germany. They made an important contribution to social cohesion, and this was now widely recognised. He thought that the 1987 resolution should be revised, as it was too flexible.

In discussion, the Netherlands representative acknowledged the issues raised by NGOs as matters to be taken forward. It was the NGOs who would be aware of individual cases and the issues they raised. She referred also to the Ombudsman system. AI mentioned the risk that state churches would be able to intervene in setting criteria for the appraisal of applications, with mixed motives.

It was agreed that publicity for potential conscripts and publicity followed by technical help for national legislation should be among the objectives of the group, though financial resources to pursue these could not be assured by the Council of Europe. Professor Soetemer had drafted a document intended to serve the second purpose. Italy had legislated in July 1998 to inform students, and Portugal had produced powerfully designed leaflets, one on conscientious objection and the other on alternative service. These were seen as good models. EBCO mentioned the need to monitor the impression given when text was translated. It was agreed that seminars in Eastern Europe were desirable, the Council of Europe Youth Centre in Budapest being one suitable location. Contacts with national youth organisations would be important. It would be helpful for the Group to make formal links with OSCE; none existed at present.

There was a lengthy discussion of alternative service. There were sometimes problems with those such as Jehovah's Witnesses whose objection to service was total. A longer period than military service was acceptable to compensate for danger, physical intensity and the loss of home life. It could also be a test of genuine concern. Exchanges with other countries and service in ex-colonies were possible options. The military in Russia were worried that too many would opt for alternative service. [QCEA comment: is not this exactly what Russia needs?]