| Associate
Members’ Conference
THE
FUTURE OF EUROPE: ENLARGEMENT AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
Towards a Quaker view of Good Governance
Friday 18 – Sunday 20 October 2002
Report
of working group 3:
Foreign
and Security Policy: focus on Conflict Prevention and US/Europe
relations.
Heike
Schneider [Director, European Peace-Building Liaison Office (EPLO)]
presented a paper: ‘How can we enhance the conflict prevention
capacity of the European Union?’ Published by EPLO, it
arose from a discussion between different organisations including
‘Saferworld’.
Our
working group noted that whilst the views of the Quaker Council
for European Affairs had been taken into account in the writing
of the report, Quakers could not agree with all of it. This short
report therefore attempts to record the issues and questions which
were most significant and important to those present in our working
group. In doing so, there was some crossover with the report as
it was presented, but many of the points raised we felt were more
far-reaching.
There
were two parts to our discussion:
1.US
/ EU Foreign Policy and Security
2.Conflict Prevention
Our
goal was to create a consensus and raise future questions which
would would find itself represented in the report ‘A Quaker
View of Europe’ which is due to appear in January. Our questions
and points of discussion included the following:
1.
US / EU Foreign Policy and Security
Q
Do we need/want a unified or joint ‘security’
policy for all EU Nations?
A
The feeling was that in the long-term, we think this would be
a good idea, but of course, only if it were based on the principle
of conflict prevention and avoids the use of force and military
strikes.
In
the short-term, and especially as far as the current situation with
Iraq is concerned, we noted that as things stand, it seems to be
dissension amongst European States which is holding us back from
the brink of war. France’s position we thought, was preventing
a ‘yes’ to military action. We acknowledged at the same
time that its position, like that of the United States, was based
on a ‘vested interest’ – namely access to oil.
We
concluded therefore that the need for transparency in the activities
of member states of the EU was more important than ever.
Q
Do we need/want a single seat on the security council [of
the United Nations]?
A
This is a suggestion which has been proposed, and a difficult
one to answer. It points to a larger debate about why Britain
for example should have so much power on the security council.
We reached no ultimate conclusions on this.
Three
remaining questions which the group raised, but ultimately felt
unable to answer within the confines of this work group were the
following:
Q
US/Foreign Policies: How could we ensure that US policies
are made more accountable, given that only 1/3 of the United States
population is in favour of war?
Q
Could the European Parliament endorse/support war?
Q
With the enlargement of Europe, can we expect a helpful, economic,
military or political balance to the United States?
2.
Conflict Prevention
We
felt that as an overriding principle, ‘Conflict Prevention’
ought to be embedded in all EU policies. (We drew a parallel with
the Precautionary Principle, which appears in the International
North Sea agreements).
It
should be embedded in all types of agreement including human rights
agreements, co-operative agreements and the pre-amble to the EU
Treaty.
We
found national and international examples of what this might look
like.
1.
The Lome agreement Article 11
2. On a local level, Councils such as Southampton, now have a ‘rapid
response conflict prevention team’ whereby when a dispute
between neighbours arises; a mediation team is sent in to assist
within five working days with the necessary resources and expertise.
In
summary, Conflict Prevention should be BEST PRACTICE in the EU instead
of ‘re-inventing’ the wheel; the EU should seek and
follow BEST PRACTICE conflict resolution wherever it occurs in Europe.
Conflict
Prevention as a whole should be:
- Better Funded
- Better publicised
- There should be more education on the issues for Europe’s
population and the world.
The
workgroup noted that throughout the conference, we had acknowledged
the ‘dynamic’ and constantly changing nature of the
European Union, particularly with regard to policy making and utilisation
of research material and consultation as a basis for policy making.
We
felt that for all the issues dealt with in the Working Group, the
role of research to develop and back up forward looking policies
should be promoted, especially when it came to developing a Europe
with alternatives to armed conflict.
We
also needed:
Accurate media and news reporting
A propaganda watch for Quakers
Transparency about sources of information and independent research.
On
the whole, we should note that rewards are better than punishment
and that we should ‘isolate the regime’ but ‘talk
to the people’ particular as far as the current situation
and the US is concerned. The need and urgency to sustain a dialogue
and exchange about peace-making initiatives with US Quakers was
stressed.
We
acknowledged that a structured approach to short, medium and long-term
issues was needed, and attempted to group our remaining suggestions
like this:
Short-term:
- We
proposed a strengthening of the EU arms register (as far as we were
aware, the British one covers arms brokering but not licensing for
oversees manufacturing).
- Tightened
regulations for small arms control (Kofi Annan has said that these,
because of their widespread nature and number are ‘the real
weapons of mass destruction’.
We
need to recognise in our policy proposals and statements that trade
in atomic, biological and chemical weapons, as well as small arms,
like the drugs trade, is currently carried out legally and illegally,
and in fact is out of control.
Medium
Term:
Following
the Decommissioning of Nuclear Plants the EU needs to develop plans
to:
- Decommission
unexploded ordnances (on land and in the sea)
- Sign
up to landmines treaties
Ensure
the swift and safe decommissioning of chemical and other types of
weapons (see Spiegel this week)
Similarly,
we need a plan to prepare ourselves to get rid of compulsory military
service, (the German greens are calling for this as they consider
it wasteful and a drain on resources which could be better used
elsewhere).
Long
Term:
To
balance out the US concern about ‘crisis’ management,
we would like to recall the following as a solution.
- The
Movement for the Abolition of War in Britain, founded by many peace
activists, including Bruce Kent, has a web-site and is holding many
lectures and initiatives.
- We
need to refocus attention on the Hague Peace Agreements and link
these to the development of European policies.
As
an overriding principle we need respect for human rights.
We
need the complete demilitarisation of the economy, maintaining of
alternative ways of making a living, ultimately building on the
research and activities in the field of conversion, and taking these
into the future with research, action and policy changes.
We
also mentioned that Quakers should raise awareness of the environmental
damage caused by Star Wars and Cluster Bombs.
Rapporteur:
Frances Laing
Conference
materials also available:
Conference
Report and Conclusions
Keynote
speech by Michael Lake
Reports
of working groups:
Democratic
and spiritual values: the governance of an enlarged Europe
External
relations: focus on development and trade
Supporting
the citizen: rights, responsibilities and social policy
Return
to top of page
Further
Information on The Future of Europe
|
