STATEMENTS.
Background
The WCC central committee adopted a major policy statement on uprooted people in 1995, emphasizing the increasingly grave plight of refugees and migrants in a time of escalating conflicts around the world. Over the past five years the situation has become much worse still. The
In every region around the world, racism and xenophobia are on the rise. Refugees and migrants are viewed more as threats than as human beings in need and are used as scapegoats by political leaders under pressure to protect jobs and national economies. Uprooted people often find borders closed when they manage to get to them, and are frequently expelled if they succeed in crossing them. Governments in all regions are increasingly putting asylum-seekers into detention or prison, as a way of deterring others from coming. People who are desperate to leave their countries are victimized by traffickers and migrants are increasingly treated as criminals.
Assistance to refugees
Uprooted people very often turn to the churches for assistance, as they have for centuries. For more than six decades the World Council of Churches has provided a focal point for the churches' response. Even before its formation in 1948 churches related to the WCC (in process of formation) worked together to help refugees escape German-ocupied Europe. Later, they played leadership roles in seeking solutions for those displaced in the aftermath of the second world war and the 1948 war in Palestine. They advocated for the creation of, and cooperated closely with, the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. By the late 1960s, WCC member churches responded to refugee crises throughout Africa as wars for independence and political conflicts generated new refugee flows. The 1970s and 1980s witnessed the globalization of the refugee phenomena, with massive refugee outflows from Afghanistan, Indochina, Sri Lanka, Latin America and the Caribbean. In the 1990s, conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, and later in Chechnya, made it clear that refugee issues in Europe were far from solved. In all of these cases, many churches responded generously and often courageously to the needs of refugees. In these cases, as it did from the beginning, the WCC's service with uprooted people included a strong advocacy component.
Internally displaced people
At the same time, churches began to realize that the problems of displacement went far beyond traditional concerns for refugees. Growing numbers of people were uprooted because of violence but unable to leave their countries. They fled for the same reasons as refugees and often had greater protection and assistance needs, but there was no international institution like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to which they could appeal for help. It was the WCC, in cooperation with the Friends World Committee for Consultation (FWCC), that first placed the issue of internally displaced people on the international agenda by documenting their needs to the UN Human Rights Commission.
Migrants
The needs of migrants, most leaving their countries for "voluntary" economic reasons, were always considered differently from those of refugees fleeing persecution. Yet in a globalizing world of increasing inequality, growing numbers of marginalized people simply can no longer survive in their home countries. While international law draws a clear distinction between refugees, migrants, internally displaced people and returnees, the churches' mandate is to reach out to all those in need. Thus in its 1995 statement the WCC referred to "uprooted people" to encompass everyone forced to leave their communities, regardless of the labels they are given by the international community.
Protection
At the international level, international protection standards are under attack on many fronts:
* Governments seeking to restrict the number of asylum-seekers arriving at their borders apply increasingly narrow interpretations of the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees and its 1967 protocol. Some maintain that asylum can only be granted to individuals who are persecuted by their own states, rejecting those persecuted by non-state actors or who live in a country without a functioning state.
* While some governments have found that women persecuted because of their gender have legitimate asylum claims, others do not acknowledge gender-based persecution as grounds for asylum.
* Under the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees, decisions on the granting of asylum should be made on a case-by-case basis, but many governments now routinely exclude whole classes of individuals from asylum procedures. Some governments have questioned the widely accepted right to family reunification, the right of recognized refugees to be joined by their families.
* More and more governments argue that the Convention itself needs re-examination in light of increasing migration flows, leading to fears that international standards will be further weakened.
* The UNHCR is under mounting financial pressures that threaten its ability to fulfill its mandate, and some governments tend now to turn to other actors to perform lead roles in humanitarian emergencies that result in massive displacement of persons.
* Despite more than 13 years of efforts, emerging international standards for the protection of internally displaced people do not yet have official UN sanction nor are they implemented in practice.
* Ten years after its adoption by the UN General Assembly, the number of ratifications necessary to bring the 1990 International Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and Their Families into force has not been achieved, and not a single country which hosts large numbers of migrants has even signed the Convention.
Other general trends regarding uprooted people are matters of serious concern:
* growing expressions of xenophobic and racial violence against refugees and migrants in many countries;
* increasing tendencies to consider migrants as criminals, rather than as victims of internationally organized traffickers in human beings;
* declining financial assistance from government and church-related agencies to ecumenical and church-related ministries to uprooted people in the most affected regions of the world.
Convinced that the churches can and must support international initiatives underway to arrest these trends and to intensify their own ministries with uprooted people along the lines of the WCC 1995 policy statement:
The executive committee of the World Council of Churches, meeting in Berlin, Germany, 26-27 January 2001,
Recalling and reaffirming the 1995 statement of the central committee, "A Moment to Choose: Risking to Be with Uprooted People";
Recognizing the growing complexity and severity of the situation confronted by uprooted people and by the churches seeking to accompany them;
Mindful of the importance of international legal standards for the protection and assistance for all uprooted people in need;
Aware of the serious and growing unmet protection needs for refugees, internally displaced people and migrants;
Conscious of the growing racist and xenophobic climate in many countries of the world; and
Commending the actions of churches in many countries in solidarity with victims of acts of aggression against foreigners and their efforts to create a climate of hospitality for uprooted people;
Reaffirms ministry to uprooted people as a central biblical mandate for the churches;
Renews its call upon the churches in all regions to offer support, solidarity and accompaniment to those who have been forced to leave their communities, and to strengthen their own churches' and ecumenical ministries with uprooted people;
Welcomes and reaffirms the executive committee's statement of September 2000 on the 50th anniversary of the UNHCR supporting its central mandate of protection;
Urges church and church-related agencies to review and increase their financial support for ecumenical work with uprooted people, especially in the most affected regions;
Encourages the churches to strengthen or to undertake advocacy with their own governments, with relevant regional inter-governmental bodies and with international bodies on behalf of refugees, migrants and internally displaced people, particularly with regard to:
* provision of adequate financial and political support to UNHCR and UNRWA;
* the Global Consultations on Refugee Protection organized by UNHCR, reaffirming the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees and an interpretation of the Convention which includes recognition of non-state actors as agents of persecution, gender-based persecution as grounds for asylum, strictly limited policies of exclusion, and the right of refugees to family reunification;
* international discussions on the protection and assistance of internally displaced people, urging the Inter-agency Standing Committee to develop effective coordinating mechanisms, and supporting the UN's Senior Inter-Agency Network on Internal Displacement;
* the 1990 International Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their Families, urging their governments to sign and ratify this convention as soon as possible and to use it to raise awareness about the particular needs of migrants in their communities;
* the World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, advocating with their governments and in the UN preparatory process that the conference address the particular abuses of migrants.
STATEMENT ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, NATO POLICY AND THE CHURCHES
Background
The global threat posed by the existence of nuclear weapons did not disappear with the end of the cold war. The May 2000 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference ended with an "unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapons states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals". Many other developments of recent years however -- the defeat of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in the US Senate, the nuclearization of South Asia, the retention of cold-war-era nuclear postures by the United States and Russia -- have tended in the opposite direction: towards the indefinite retention and even the spread of nuclear capabilities. The looming prospect of missile defence deployment threatens further damage to nuclear arms control and disarmament efforts. The opportunity that now exists to make dramatic advances towards the elimination of nuclear weapons is at risk of being lost. Partly due to the significant new agreements on nuclear disarmament after 1987, but more particularly as a result of pressing new challenges posed by non-nuclear conflicts since 1991, nuclear arms have been given comparatively low priority on the churches' disarmament priorities in the last decade of the 20th century. It is again important that the voice of the churches be heard on this question at a decisive moment.
The nuclear disarmament agenda. Among the most positive disarmament developments of recent years has been the renewed attention given to the desirability and feasibility of abolishing nuclear weapons. The debate over the future of nuclear weapons is far from resolved, and the nuclear-weapons states are still far from committed to immediate action towards abolition. But the broad outlines of the global nuclear disarmament agenda are now widely accepted.
The Final Document of the recent NPT Review Conference, adopted by consensus, incorporated a substantive set of principles and measures to guide future nuclear disarmament activities. These included "an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapons states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals" (though without specifying when that might be accomplished), and support for a number of interim steps such as "concrete agreed measures to further reduce the operational status of nuclear-weapons systems" (commonly known as "dealerting"), and "a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that these weapons ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination".
The "New Agenda" resolution adopted by an overwhelming majority at the last session of the UN General Assembly (2000) was directly based on the NPT Final Document. Countries that voted in favour of the resolution included China, the United States, the United Kingdom, and every NATO member except France, which abstained. Only three countries, Israel, India, and Pakistan -- the three nuclear-armed countries that are not signatories of the NPT -- voted against the resolution. A handful of others abstained.
These decisions demonstrate that a near-consensus now exists on the outlines of the global nuclear disarmament agenda. It remains to be seen, however, how rapidly and completely that agenda will be translated into action.
NATO nuclear policy. Crucial decisions being taken individually and collectively by the member states of NATO will do much to determine the future success or failure of the nuclear disarmament agenda.
In its new Strategic Concept in 1999 NATO formally restated its position that nuclear weapons are "the supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies", pledging to retain them "for the foreseeable future". The Alliance also agreed, however, to conduct an internal review of its nuclear policies, including "options for confidence and security-building measures, verification, non-proliferation and arms control and disarmament".
The results of this review were presented to the North Atlantic Council in December 2000. The report maintained the status quo with respect to nuclear-weapons policy, reiterating that NATO deems nuclear weapons to be "essential" to Alliance security, and asserting the need to retain them "for the foreseeable future". The report also says that "there is a clear rationale for a continued, though much more limited, presence of substrategic nuclear weapons in Europe". Significantly, however, the report states that "Alliance nations reaffirm their commitment under Article VI of the NPT to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." It also declares NATO's support for the thirteen action items agreed during the 2000 NPT Review Conference and reiterated in the "New Agenda" resolution. These are positive steps.
Unfortunately, however, the report gives no indication of how NATO intends to go about implementing these commitments, or how the decision to retain its present nuclear policies can be reconciled with such steps. There is no specific provision for the review process to continue, yet it is crucial to the future of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation efforts that NATO's nuclear policies be revised to conform to the global nuclear disarmament agenda.
The report takes no position on the US National Missile Defense (NMD) programme, though other NATO members have protested vigorously against it and are known to be consulting now on its implications. President Clinton's decision in September 2000 to delay deployment of the system has been reversed by the new US Administration that has declared its intention to proceed with it. Such an action could inflict serious damage on the existing arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation regime.
Up to now NATO discussions on nuclear policy have been conducted mainly behind closed doors. The recent report now acknowledges that there is a need for greater openness and transparency, promising that "the Alliance will continue to broaden its engagement with interested non-governmental organizations, academic institutions and the general public and will contribute actively to discussion and debate regarding nuclear weapons and nuclear-arms control and disarmament issues".
The voice of the churches. The churches have a long history of addressing nuclear-weapons issues, and in recent years the European and North American churches have worked together on NATO nuclear policy questions. In April 1999 the Canadian Council of Churches, the Conference of European Churches, and the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA sent a joint letter to all NATO members declaring that "contrary to NATO's current strategic concept, nuclear weapons do not, cannot guarantee security. They deliver only insecurity and peril through their promise to annihilate life itself and to ravage the global ecosystem upon which all life depends."
The Councils called on the governments of all NATO members to ensure that NATO policy:
* affirms NATO's support for the rapid global elimination of nuclear weapons and commits the Alliance to take programmatic action to advance this goal;
* commits NATO to reducing the alert status of nuclear weapons possessed by NATO members, and to pursuing effective arrangements for the rapid de-alerting of all nuclear weapons possessed by all states; and
* renounces the first use of nuclear weapons by any NATO members under any circumstances, and commits NATO to the pursuit of equivalent commitments from other states possessing nuclear weapons.
As part of the same initiative, the World Council of Churches sent a similar letter to the governments of all non-NATO nuclear-weapons states.
Brussels consultation. More recently, the WCC helped to organize an international gathering of church representatives to explore effective church responses to the NATO nuclear review. American, Canadian and European church staff with responsibility for public policy issues, individuals from related denominational and ecumenical committees and institutions, and representatives of the Canadian Council of Churches, the Conference of European Churches, the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, and the WCC attended this event, which took place in Brussels on 5-6 October 2000. They were assisted by researchers in security and arms control, and benefited from a session with a senior NATO official. The consultation agreed:
* to recommend to the ecumenical community that it should engage directly with the current NATO review process with a view to encouraging NATO states and NATO itself to conform to the obligations undertaken in the Non-Proliferation Treaty; and
* to impress upon churches the need to re-energize their peace witness and, within the framework of the Decade to Overcome Violence, to undertake education, public awareness activity, and advocacy regarding the continuing threat of nuclear weapons.
Ecumenical action. Renewed debates now on the future of nuclear power plants and on the health effects on civilian populations and military personnel of the use of depleted uranium weapons stir public opinion again, raising new, serious questions. The collective efforts of the churches are needed now, and could make an important contribution to raise public awareness of the crucial nuclear-related decisions facing NATO countries, to encourage greater transparency in NATO's decision-making processes, and to reinforce public demands for real progress towards the elimination of nuclear weapons.
One means for the ecumenical community to engage directly with the NATO review process would be to send a delegation of church leaders from representative WCC churches to meet with government ministers and officials in key non-nuclear NATO states. The purpose of these coordinated visits would be to encourage those states to work to ensure that NATO nuclear policies conform to the nuclear disarmament obligations undertaken in the Non Proliferation Treaty and reaffirmed and elaborated upon in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference and in the recent "New Agenda" resolution in the UN General Assembly. These meetings could also be used to encourage greater transparency and public access to NATO's decisionmaking processes on nuclear issues. In addition, such a tour could help to raise public consciousness of the continuing importance of nuclear disarmament both within the ecumenical community and beyond it.
The executive committee of the World Council of Churches, meeting in Berlin, 26-27 January 2001,
Reiterates its deep and long-standing concern at the continued risk to creation posed by the existence of nuclear weapons,
Welcomes the successful outcome of the Sixth Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in May 2000,
Welcomes the Final Document of the Review Conference, which established a new global agenda for nuclear disarmament,
Expresses its satisfaction at the overwhelming support received by the "New Agenda" resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in its 55th session (Millennium Assembly, 2000), which reaffirmed states' commitment to the pursuit of this disarmament agenda,
Notes the significance of continuing deliberations within and among the member states of NATO on NATO nuclear policy and the future of nuclear disarmament,
Stresses the vital importance of ensuring that the policies of NATO members and NATO itself conform to the obligations undertaken by states in the Non-Proliferation Treaty and are consistent with pursuit of the global nuclear disarmament agenda, and
In the light of the recommendations made at the international gathering of church representatives in Brussels in October 2000,
Calls upon the member states of NATO and NATO itself to ensure that their nuclear-weapons policies conform to the obligations undertaken by states hi the Non-Proliferation Treaty and are consistent with pursuit of the global nuclear disarmament agenda, and in particular:
* to affirm NATO's support for the rapid global elimination of nuclear weapons and to commit the Alliance to take programmatic action to advance this goal;
* to commit NATO to reducing the alert status of nuclear weapons possessed by NATO members, and to pursuing effective arrangements for the rapid de-alerting of all nuclear weapons possessed by all states; and
* to renounce the first use of nuclear weapons by any NATO member under any circumstances, and to commit NATO to the pursuit of equivalent commitments from other states possessing nuclear weapons;
Encourages the member states of NATO and NATO itself to provide greater transparency and public access to NATO's decision-making processes on nuclear-weapons issues;
Asks the WCC, in consultation with the Conference of European Churches, the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA and the Canadian Council of Churches, to organize a delegation of church leaders to meet with government ministers and officials in key non-nuclear NATO states to encourage those states to support these policies;
Asks the WCC further to organize comparable processes on the role of nuclear arms and the ways towards nuclear disarmament in other regions of the world, like North East Asia or the Middle East, and
Calls upon member churches in the context of the Decade to Overcome Violence to renew their witness for peace and disarmament through education, public-awareness building and advocacy to overcome the continuing threat of nuclear weapons.
STATEMENT ON THE SITUATION IN THE SUDAN
Background
The conflict in Sudan has been on the ecumenical agenda for over three decades. The roots of the conflict lie in its history of slavery and colonialism and date back to 1956 when the country gained independence from Great Britain. The situation today, however, has become more complex than when the almost thirty-year long conflict began. The main causes of the conflict are to be found in:
* the divide-and-rule policy of the colonial rulers, manifested in the Closed District Act of 1935 that barred freedom of movement between the Northern and Southern provinces of Sudan;
* unequal development policies between the North and the South that gave rise to present disparities;
* religious rivalry, enforcement of cultural hegemony, tribalism and racism;
* failure of the government of Sudan to implement the spirit of the 1972 Addis Ababa peace accord that gave rise to the present environment of total lack of faith and trust amongst the Southerners against the government in the North;
* the reluctance on the part of the government of Sudan to abide by the Declaration of Principles (DOP) agreed to between the parties in the framework of mediation by IGAD (the East African Intergovernmental Agency for Development); and
* the refusal by the government of Sudan to accept separation of religion and state in the constitution.
From 1971 the WCC, in cooperation with the AACC, engaged actively in a mediation effort with the South Sudan Liberation Movement and the government of Sudan that led to the 1972 Addis Ababa peace agreement. Though this agreement brought a cessation of hostilities and a substantial reform of government of a united Sudan, it eventually collapsed, giving rise to a new civil war.
In view of the new intensification of the fighting, the WCC central committee adopted a Minute on the Sudan in August 1992, expressing concern about the situations in South, East and West Sudan that had displaced thousands of civilians, especially including children. It called on the United Nations to promote a cease-fire in Southern Sudan and a disengagement of troops, together with resumption of the stalemated Abuja negotiations. The central committee reaffirmed the need for the WCC to remain in contact with the parties to the conflict in efforts to promote a just and lasting peace.
Again in September 1997 the central committee adopted a statement on Sudan, where it welcomed the common position taken by the church leaders in North and South Sudan in their paper: "Here We Stand United in Action for Peace". That paper called for a stop to the war and dialogue for peace among the armed factions in the South and between them and the government of Sudan. The central committee urged all parties, their supporters abroad and those seeking to assist in the achievement of a negotiated peace to support the resumption of the IGAD peace process, to cooperate with it, and to place their various initiatives within the framework of the IGAD principles.
The Sudanese churches have been unceasing in their own efforts to promote peace at all levels. The New Sudan Council of Churches has undertaken a significant, innovative new effort in this direction through a series of people-to-people peace conferences in Southern Sudan. These have resolved a series of ethnic and communal conflicts and brought hope and stability to some of the areas most affected by the hostilities. The Khartoum-based Sudan Council of Churches has also developed an active programme in advocacy and grassroots peace-making, especially among women and youth.
At the regional level, the IGAD peace process -- that started with much promise and hope with the acceptance of the Declaration of Principles by the parties to the conflict -- now shows signs of stagnation despite zealous efforts of the IGAD secretariat as well as of Northern States members of the IGAD Partners Forum to keep the negotiations on track. These have not been sufficient to remove the primary obstacle in the way of negotiations, namely the reluctance on the part of the government of Sudan to accept the principles of separation of religion and state and to implement fully the IGAD Declaration of Principles. As a result, impatience with the slow progress of negotiations has led to insistent new calls by the people of the South, and of their churches, for self-determination and independence from the North.
The current situation. In the late 1990s the government's oil exploration efforts in Southern Sudan, in cooperation with Western and Asian petroleum companies, succeeded in producing some 150,000 barrels a day in the Upper Nile. Oil production has contributed to an escalation of the conflict and hardened the determination of the government of Sudan to pursue a military solution to the conflict. The churches in Sudan, together with ecumenical partners abroad, have called for a just sharing of oil resources and have demanded that the oil revenue be spent on improving the situation of the people and not on promotion of the war effort through purchase with oil revenues of more sophisticated arms.
In its war effort the government of Sudan has used air power ever since the war began in Southern Sudan. In recent times, however, aerial bombardment has targeted civilians and taken an increasingly heavy toll through high altitude bombing. Densely populated civilian areas like Kotobi and Lui have been bombed repeatedly, resulting in loss of life and destruction of property. One of these bombings that occurred in the hometown of Bishop Paride shortly after he addressed the WCC's eighth assembly in Harare was vigorously protested immediately by the WCC officers to the government of Sudan through its embassy in Zimbabwe.
The continuing bombing has further increased the suffering of the people already caught in the midst of this seemingly endless conflict. Bombing missions have not spared NGOs involved in humanitarian relief operations, a number of whose aircraft have been destroyed. These air strikes eventually drew international attention. They were suspended for a period in the middle of last year after UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan intervened, but were resumed with a vengeance later. On 29 December 2000 the Sudan air force bombed the Episcopal Church cathedral in Lui, Equatoria Province, completely destroying it. The raids continue unabated, taking a continuing heavy toll of casualties.
The central committee of the World Council of Churches, meeting in Potsdam, 29 January to 6 February 2001, profoundly conscious of the unbearable suffering of the Sudanese peoples, especially those in the South, as a result of more than thirty years of civil war:
calls on the government of Sudan to immediately cease the bombing of civilian targets of Southern Sudan, Nuba Mountains, Southern Blue Nile and other marginalized areas, and to abide by international law;
calls for the establishment of a no-fly zone in these areas, except for protected access of aircraft transporting humanitarian supplies;
urges the government of Sudan, the SPLA and other warring parties to abide by the Geneva Convention and to allow independent observers to monitor the situation;
reminds the government of Sudan of its responsibility to guarantee the safety and security of all its citizens both in the North and in the South;
notes with concern that the oil revenue earned by the government of Sudan is diverted to its war effort and contributes to the escalation of fighting in Southern Sudan rather than being utilized to meet the urgent needs of the people affected by the hostilities;
requests member churches to undertake lobbying and advocacy efforts with governments and oil companies based in their countries for the cessation of further petroleum exploration and development in Southern Sudan until such time as a peace agreement is reached between the parties;
reiterates its conviction that any lasting peace in Sudan must be negotiated with the support of partner states in the region through the IGAD peace process and the Declaration of Principles enunciated thereunder;
reassures the churches of the Sudan of the continuing support and prayers of the World Council of Churches in their peace efforts;
appeals to WCC member churches to intensify their efforts to encourage and support the joint peace initiative of the Sudan Council of Churches and the New Sudan Council of Churches; and
urges churches and church-related agencies to continue to provide necessary humanitarian support to the Sudan for the needs of refugees and displaced persons, those in desperate situations of poverty, and the victims of war, including especially those disabled as a result of wounds inflicted through war, mines and bombing.
MINUTE ON THE SITUATION IN THE HOLY LAND AFTER THE OUTBREAK OF THE SECOND PALESTINIAN UPRISING
In an appeal on 9 November 2000 all thirteen Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant churches of Jerusalem expressed their conviction that:
The church believes that it is the right as much as duty of an occupied people to struggle against injustice in order to gain freedom, although it also believes that non-violent means of struggle remain stronger and far more efficient. In this sense, both parties must show the necessary fortitude, both in their hearts and in their minds, to look at the core of the conflict so that the Palestinian people can gain at long last its full freedom within its own sustainable state. It is imperative now to implement principles of international legitimacy by enforcing the binding UN resolutions. Such fortitude is a wise sign of foresight and an indispensable prerequisite for long-lasting peace. (Excerpt from "A Faithful Appeal")
The WCC central committee expresses its deep sadness and grave concern at the new escalation of violence in the Palestinian autonomous and occupied territories as well as Israel over the last four months that has claimed a terrible toll of human life, especially among Palestinian children and youth. It extends its consolation to all the afflicted and the bereaved and assures the heads of churches and Christian communities of Jerusalem of its constant prayers and solidarity, as they bear in their hearts and minds the pain of their communities and of all those Palestinians and Israelis who are suffering the consequences of this conflict.
We share the frustration and disappointments of our Palestinian sisters and brothers. We are deeply disturbed by and deplore a pattern of discrimination, routine humiliation, segregation and exclusion which restricts Palestinian freedom of movement, including access to the holy sites, and the disproportionate use of military force by Israel, the denial of access to timely medical assistance, the destruction of property, including tens of thousands of olive trees, and which requires special permission for Palestinians to enter areas under Israeli jurisdiction and establishes "cantonization" of the land, so that Palestinian land is separated from one another -- a pattern so very reminiscent of policies that the WCC has condemned in the past.
We therefore urge the member churches of the WCC to increase their efforts to condemn injustice and all forms of discrimination, to end Israeli occupation, to pray for and promote a comprehensive and just peace in the Middle East. To help inform and strengthen those efforts, we commend to the churches the background information presented to this meeting for their study and urgent action.
We call upon the general secretary and staff of the Council to:
* continue their support of efforts towards a negotiated peace in the Middle East based on international law, paying special attention to the future status of Jerusalem, the right of return of Palestinian refugees, the increasing number of settlements and measures to enforce all relevant United Nations resolutions, including those regarding the withdrawal from all occupied territories -- the Palestinian occupied territories, the Golan Heights and Shaba'a;
* continue to analyze and to keep the member churches regularly informed on the evolving situation;
* accompany the churches of the Holy Land and their members, and advocate their rights;
* support local Israeli and Palestinian grassroots peace-building efforts; and
* promote and/or cooperate with church, ecumenical and other initiatives, to strengthen broad international support for a comprehensive peace based on justice and security for all the peoples of the region.
(Adopted by the WCC central committee, meeting in Potsdam, 29 January-6 February 2001)
MINUTE ON COLOMBIA
The United States of America has approved and is implementing its "Plan Colombia". This plan, that includes the provision of additional military equipment and action in Colombian territory, was denounced by the Latin American Council of Churches (CLAI) at its assembly in Barranquilla, Colombia (14-19 January 2001). This plan has also been denounced in the "Letter of the Excluded', prepared by non-governmental organizations in Latin America and sent to the United Nations last year.
The Latin American churches consider that this plan is adding more violence to the already critical situation in Colombia and there is a serious danger of expansion of the conflict into other Latin American countries. In fact, the neighbouring countries are already deploying military forces on their borders with Colombia. As a consequence, the number of refugees and displaced people has grown dramatically. In the year 2000; 38,000 people were killed. Thousands more have disappeared, been maimed or displaced from their homes. The Afro-Colombian communities and Indigenous Peoples have been particularly affected.
The churches in Colombia are in dialogue with sister churches in other parts of the world, including the churches in the USA, in order to inform them about the situation and develop joint actions of advocacy and solidarity. The general secretary of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA recently led a delegation to Colombia to assess the expansion of violence and seek ways to be supportive of the churches in Colombia and the region.
Convinced that military aid does not help the cause of peace, the WCC central committee joins with the CLAI assembly in opposing this Plan. It expresses its solidarity with the Colombian people, especially the families of those killed, maimed, disappeared or displaced, and with the Colombian churches in their work to support peace. It urges the staff of the Council to intensify its efforts in support of a negotiated peace to end the decades-long violence in Colombia.
(Adopted by the WCC central committee, meeting in Potsdam, 29 January-6 February 2001)
MINUTE ON CYPRUS
Meeting in the reunified Germany, the WCC central committee recalls that it was during its meeting in Berlin, in August 1974, that Turkish armed forces invaded Cyprus, causing the exodus of more than 250,000 people from their lands, and occupied thirty-seven per cent of its territory. We renew the World Council of Churches' appeals for justice, peace, reconciliation and the reunification of Cyprus, and reassure the people and the Church of Cyprus of our continuing prayers that this long-standing conflict will soon be settled through negotiation and this last wall of separation in Europe finally be brought down.
(Adopted by the WCC central committee, meeting in Potsdam, 29 January-6 February 2001)
MINUTE ON INDONESIA
The central committee of the World Council of Churches notes with great pain and sorrow that the intercommunal violence in the Malukus region, begun in January 1999, has left over 5000 people dead, some 500,000 displaced, and property worth billions of rupiah destroyed. Trust between the Muslim and Christian communities has seriously eroded. Though cease-fires and moratoriums on killings have periodically been agreed between the two communities, these have all been of short duration and fighting has been renewed with a vengeance. The Indonesian security forces have often been irresponsible and inept in the carrying out of their responsibilities, and have repeatedly failed to stop or control the violence and bring the perpetrators to justice. In fact there is clear evidence that members of the Indonesian army and police forces have participated directly in some of these attacks. National authorities have to date failed to take any disciplinary action against such offenders.
The situation has been further compounded by the organized entry of the Java-based radical Islamic group called Lashkar Jihad, thousands of whose members have indulged in systematic "religious cleansing" of Christians and acts of forced religious conversions. This group has been provided arms and training by a section of the Indonesian armed forces and has also received support and encouragement from Jakarta-based politicians.
The central committee, meeting in Potsdam, 29 January-6 February 2001:
reiterates the WCC's expressions of solidarity and continuing prayers for the people and churches in Indonesia in this trying time;
reiterates the WCC's call upon religious, political and military leaders in Indonesia to spare no effort in pursuing a peaceful resolution of the conflict, the disarming of militias on all sides, and the restoration of law and order;
calls upon the WCC to continue to monitor developments here and to support and encourage the efforts of the Communion of Churches in Indonesia to engage the Islamic community in dialogue to promote a just and lasting peace;
asks the WCC, as matter of priority, to explore further avenues of cooperation amongst the world faith communities to address together the underlying causes of inter-religious violence in the Malukus and Poso, and the situation in Aceh, particularly the victimization of women;
calls to the attention of the member churches and related agencies the large-scale displacement of people, rehabilitation needs of large numbers of persons injured or maimed in the fighting, and other humanitarian needs, and urges them to respond generously through Action by Churches Together (ACT).
(Adopted by the WCC central committee, meeting in Potsdam, 29 January-6 February 2001)
STUDY DOCUMENT ON THE PROTECTION OF ENDANGERED POPULATIONS IN SITUATIONS OF ARMED VIOLENCE: TOWARDS AN ECUMENICAL ETHICAL APPROACH
The central committee of the World Council of Churches, meeting in Potsdam, 29 January-6 February 2001:
Notes and conveys to the churches that on the substance of the concern to protect populations caught in situations of armed violence described in the following background document there was broad agreement, but that some differences remain with respect to the use of armed force for the protection of endangered populations in situations of armed violence;
Receives and commends the document to the churches for further study, reflection and use -- as they may deem appropriate -- in their continuing dialogues with policy-makers, governments, international organizations, research bodies, groups advocating large-scale non-violent civilian intervention and other peace initiatives and with civil society at large;
Requests the churches to share the results of these studies, reflections and dialogues with the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA); and
Requests the CCIA, in consultation with the Decade to Overcome Violence reference group, to report back to the Central committee at a later date.
Introduction
At its last meeting in September 1999, the central committee adopted a Memorandum and Recommendations on International Security and Response to Armed Conflict that called for new approaches to international peace and security in the post-cold-war world and highlighted some of the dilemmas around "humanitarian intervention" raised especially by the Kosovo experience. The central committee called on the WCC general secretary to:.
Facilitate a study, in consultation and cooperation with church-related
and other humanitarian agencies, and with competent research institutes,
to be presented to the central committee on the ethics of so-called
"humanitarian intervention", taking into account the legitimate right of
states to be free of undue interference in their internal affairs and the
moral obligation of the international community to respond when states are
unwilling or incapable of guaranteeing respect for human rights and peace
within their own borders.
The question of so-called "humanitarian intervention" became a topic of serious international concern in the early 1990s when access by humanitarian organizations to populations in dire humanitarian need was blocked for political reasons in several places, notably Southern Sudan and northern Iraq, by ruling political authorities. This gave rise to many scholarly studies and to debate in United Nations circles, where a new post of under-secretary general for humanitarian affairs was created.
The issue was highlighted by later military interventions in places like Somalia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and later in Kosovo that were sometimes justified as necessary for "humanitarian reasons".
Church and ecumenical debates on these questions during the last decade of the 20th century risked being divisive of the fellowship, frequently along the lines of theological perspectives about the degree to which Christians can accept the use of armed force in any circumstance. Yet churches were being sought as partners in dialogue by government and international policymakers seeking accompaniment as they too wrestled with the moral, ethical and even theological questions involved.
These issues are complicated, reflecting the new moral and ethical dilemmas with which the world and the ecumenical movement have increasingly been confronted since the end of the cold war. The Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA), that was charged with carrying out the study requested by the central committee, immersed itself in these complexities and produced a draft of the attached document. This was significantly revised by the central committee at its meeting in Potsdam, Germany (January-February 2001), where the Decade to Overcome Violence was also launched. It understood that efforts to overcome violence are made in a violent world where populations are endangered even as these discussions are going on. The debate on the draft again revealed clearly the different theological perspectives among member churches with respect to violence and non-violence.
Members of the central committee were invited to submit this draft to the responsible policy bodies of their churches for further dialogue and reflection before the meeting and to submit their reactions and those of their churches to the central committee in the hope that a formulation might be found which could be adopted by consensus.
Such a consensus could not be found, however. The differences of perspectives among Christians with respect to the use of armed force -- described in more detail below -- continue. On the substance of the concern to protect populations caught in situations of armed violence described in the following background document there was broad agreement. The central committee reviewed and refined further a set of proposed criteria and guidelines for the protection of endangered populations in situations of armed violence. On these, some differences remain.
Background to the ecumenical concern
1. The moral obligation of the international community to protect the lives of civilian populations that are at risk in situations where their government is unable or unwilling to act, has long been widely accepted in and beyond the ecumenical movement, and questions of Christian responsibility in humanitarian crises have often been the subject of reflection, discussion and prayer among churches. However, since the end of the cold war, the practice of what was called "humanitarian intervention" has given rise to an often-heated international debate. The WCC eighth assembly (Harare 1998) affirmed
the emphasis of the gospel on the value of all human beings in the sight of God, on the atoning and redeeming work of Christ that has given every person true dignity, on love as the motive for action, and on love for one's neighbours as the practical expression of active faith in Christ. We are members one of another, and when one suffers all are hurt. This is the responsibility Christians bear to ensure the human rights of every person.
2. The central committee agreed in 1992 "that active non-violent action be affirmed as a clear emphasis in programmes and projects related to conflict resolution". It called upon the WCC, "through a study and reflection process, (to) clarify to what extent the fellowship (koinonia) of the World Council is called into question when churches fail to categorically condemn any systematic violation of human rights that takes place in their country".
3. A study document entitled "Overcoming the Spirit, Logic and Practice of War", responding to this request, was presented to the central committee at its meeting in Johannesburg in 1994.(1) It noted that the 1992 decision, reached following a central committee debate on the conflict in the former Yugoslavia,
"restated one of the oldest concerns of the ecumenical movement, one
which has been formulated in different ways according to changing
historical contexts".
The most often quoted version is the affirmation by the first assembly
(Amsterdam 1948), which held that "war as a method of settling disputes is
incompatible with the teaching and example of our Lord Jesus Christ. The
part which war plays in our present international life is a sin against God
and a degradation of man."
A decade earlier, the Oxford conference on "Church, Community and State"
(1937) had said, on the eve of the second world war, "If war breaks out,
then pre-eminently the church must manifestly be the church, still united
as the one body of Christ, though the nations wherein it is planted fight
each other, consciously offering the same prayers that God's name be
hallowed, his kingdom come, and his will be done, in both, or all, the
warring nations."
4. The perspectives of Christians on matters of war and the use of armed force differ radically, and have time and again threatened the unity of the church. The document cited above described the dilemma.
In 1948, no agreement was possible on how to answer this question. The most
the assembly could do was to restate the opposing positions as they had
been outlined at Oxford:
1) There are those who hold that, even though entering a war may be a
Christian's duty in articular circumstances, modern warfare, with its mass
destruction, can never be an act of justice.
2) In the absence of impartial supranational institutions, there are those
who hold that military action is the ultimate sanction of the rule of law,
and that citizens must be distinctly taught that it is their duty to defend
the law by force if necessary.
3) Others, again, refuse military service of all kinds, convinced that an
absolute witness against war and for peace is for them the will of God, and
they desire that the church should speak to the same effect.
The (first) assembly went on to describe the dilemma in terms which apply
to the debate as much today as it they did at the founding of the WCC:
"We must frankly acknowledge our deep sense of perplexity in the face of
these conflicting opinions, and urge upon all Christians the duty of
wrestling continuously with the difficulties they raise and of praying
humbly for God's guidance. We believe there is a special call to
theologians to consider the theological problems involved. In the meantime,
the churches must continue to hold within their full fellowship all who
sincerely profess such viewpoints as those set out above and are prepared
to submit themselves to the will of God in the light of such guidance as
may be vouchsafed to them."
5. Against this background, the central committee created the Programme to Overcome Violence in 1994 as a way for Christians and churches with such varied theological views to join together to seek to counter the rising tide of violence at all levels of contemporary society and promote a global culture of peace.
6. During the decade of the 1990s WCC assemblies and the central committee repeatedly debated the appropriate Christian response to violent conflicts, and they condemned both the use of disproportionate armed force intended to control some such conflicts and the failure of the international community in others, like Rwanda, to protect populations in the face of predictable massive violence. It has drawn attention to the need to respond to emerging crisis at the earliest possible stages when non-violent action can be most effective in addressing the root causes of conflict.
7. In response to questions raised at the central committee in 1994 about whether, and under what conditions, the use of coercion is an acceptable tool to enforce human rights and the international rule of law in violent or potentially violent situations, the CCIA prepared for the central committee in 1995 a Memorandum and Recommendations on the Application of Sanctions and it adopted a set of Criteria for Determining the Applicability and Effectiveness of Sanctions.
8. In September 1999 the central committee adopted a Memorandum and Recommendations on International Security and Response to Armed Conflict that called for new approaches to international peace and security in the post-cold-war world and highlighted some of the dilemmas around "humanitarian intervention" raised especially by the Kosovo experience. The central committee called on the WCC general secretary to:
Facilitate a study, in consultation and cooperation with church-related and other humanitarian agencies, and with competent research institutes, to be presented to the central committee on the ethics of so-called "humanitarian intervention", taking into account the legitimate right of states to be free of undue interference in their internal affairs and the moral obligation of the international community to respond when states are unwilling or incapable of guaranteeing respect for human rights and peace within their own borders.
9. A study process was initiated to clarify the issues and to develop guidelines to assist the churches. A background paper was prepared and widely circulated for comment. It was discussed by the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA) in January 2000, and in a revised form it served as the basis for discussions in an ecumenical seminar hosted by the Ecumenical Institute at Bossey in April 2000. Participants in the seminar came from all regions and included specialists in humanitarian response, international law, human rights, ethics and theology, including representatives of churches whose countries have been affected in one way or another by recent interventions. Together with staff of the WCC and the Lutheran World Federation, participants reflected from an ethical perspective on the responsibility of the international community to protect populations at risk within the borders of sovereign states. The extensive report of that consultation was again widely circulated for response and comment to member churches and WCC-related agencies. Finally, the document was refined by a specialized CCIA reference group for presentation to the central committee for consideration as a companion document to the one adopted on sanctions in 1995.
10. Almost simultaneously with the completion of this document, the report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations (popularly known as the Brahimi Report)(2) was presented to the UN Security Council and was considered in the 2000 Millennium General Assembly in New York. This landmark study offered not only a serious critique of UN peace-keeping, but made innovative suggestions for improvements that closely paralleled the conclusions of the WCC document. Subsequently, Canadian minister of foreign affairs Lloyd Axworthy took the initiative to form a high-level panel to study further these issues, and invited the WCC to cooperate with it, providing its particular moral and ethical perspectives.
Reshaping the debate
11. In calling for the present study, the central committee expressed its scepticism about the term by referring to "so-called `humanitarian intervention'". The consultative process showed that others are equally wary of this term. Many participants in the study process were hesitant to discuss the "ethics of `humanitarian intervention'". For them, the most important contribution of the churches was to help reshape and clarify the terms of the debate in a way that would emphasize the fundamental ethical issues at stake.
12. Historically, and especially since 1991, intervening powers have often used the term "humanitarian" to characterize their motivations and to justify their actions. In fact, as repeated WCC central committee documents have argued, the motives for most interventions are at best mixed and often more in the self-interests of the intervening powers than of the endangered populations they purport to rescue.
13. The decision of Gulf coalition forces led by the USA to extend their operations to the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq for "humanitarian reasons" raised doubts about the distinction between military strategic interests and the legitimate needs of the population at risk. This was followed almost immediately by the "humanitarian intervention" in Somalia that cut short UN-sponsored mediation efforts. The debate became more critical still when the UN peace-keeping force in Rwanda was withdrawn in 1994, abandoning the population to the forces of genocide. The often unequal protection offered civilians during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the spectacular NATO intervention in the case of Kosovo, added fuel to the fire.
14. The word "humanitarian" has a special place in international humanitarian law which conveys the attributes of universality, independence, impartiality and humanity. It is important to recall that the evolution of the humanitarian ideal did not happen overnight. In fact, over a hundred years have passed since Henri Dunant saw the need for an impartial humanitarian response on the battlefields of Solferino and subsequently founded the Red Cross that codified basic principles of humanitarian action. Humanitarian assistance is to be extended to people solely on the basis of need, irrespective of religion, ethnicity, class, nationality or political opinion. Especially in today's world of highly politicized actions, the idea that meeting humanitarian needs should be a priority is an ideal which needs to be preserved and protected from casual or self-serving usage.
15. The term "intervention" also has varying connotations. In some contexts when People think of "intervention" they have in mind the actions of international financial institutions, transnational corporations and powerful states that intervene at will in the internal affairs of weaker sovereign nations, often against the interests of the people. Others think of the military "interventions" of dominant foreign powers which overthrow elected governments or interrupt popular democratic processes. In some other contexts, "intervention" has the positive connotation of liberation or national salvation for civilian populations under siege or caught in brutal civil conflicts.
16. Thus for most churches the juxtaposition of the words "humanitarian" and "intervention" rovokes unease, since in practice it too often represents a contradiction between humanitarian principles of compassion and the use of lethal military force.
17. What is the appropriate response of the international community to conflict situations in which whole populations `are at risk and their governments are either unable or unwilling to protect them? For the churches in the ecumenical movement, the international community has a responsibility for conflict-prevention, peace-building, conflict-resolution and reconciliation. The decision to use armed force to respond to situations in which large numbers of people are endangered very often signals a failure of the international community to take necessary preventive actions in response to early warnings of crisis.
18. Rather than using the term "humanitarian intervention", discussions within the World Council of Churches suggest the alternative: "the protection of endangered populations in situations of armed violence".
19. Actions to this end must be planned and carried out as part of a long-range strategy that moves from local conflict transformation efforts to the Use of diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and the deployment of an international protection force. The Brahimi Report represents a significant corrective to much of current peace-keeping practice, highlighting preventive action and peace-building and "a doctrinal shift in the use of civilian police and related rule of law elements in peace operations that emphasizes a team approach to upholding the rule of law and respect for human rights and helping communities coming out of a conflict to achieve national reconciliation; ... disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration programmes". The report identifies the need, however, for a peace-keeping doctrine and well-defined mandates in which the "consent of the local parties, impartiality and the use of force only in self-defence should remain the bedrock principles". The report recommends that forces deployed should "be capable of defending themselves, other mission components and the mission's mandate. Rules of engagement should be sufficiently robust and not force United Nations contingents to cede the initiative to their attackers."(3)
20. The protection of endangered populations in situations of armed violence often requires. "robust" action to stop atrocities and restore the rule of law, but then moves beyond this to rehabilitate the physical, political and civil infrastructures of the country; set up peace-building and conflict-resolution mechanisms; and make provisions for the reconciliation of society. It must also be understood that different organizations and personnel will be required to implement the different phases of the process.
The responsibility of the international community for prevention of violent conflict
21. First and foremost, the international community (governments, intergovernmental organizations, international financial institutions, transnational corporations, the mass media and civil society) has a responsibility to address the causes which lead to Violent conflict. It must take timely, effective action when conflicts do emerge in order to prevent their escalation. Churches are often particularly well placed to read the danger signals in their communities and to call for appropriate action before conflicts become violent. In some cases, these early warnings lead to effective preventive action by the churches or the broader international community. Too often, however, the international community -- and the churches -- fail to take effective action during the period in which conflicts are most susceptible to transformation through nonviolent means. Churches often speak therefore of kairos -- the recognition that a particular historical moment has come when faith compels Christians to action.
22. Through the World Council of Churches' Programme to Overcome Violence, churches have developed a greater awareness that conflict-prevention goes hand in hand with building cultures of peace in which metanoia -- a change of heart -- and reconciliation efforts contribute to conflict transformation, the Christian's preferred alternative to the lex talionis -- an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. This approach involves long-term commitments to things like community-building, peace education, civic education, election monitoring, interfaith dialogue and human rights awareness-raising where the churches can and must play a particularly active role.
Impunity, truth and reconciliation
23. Post-conflict responsibilities of the international community include efforts to prevent the resurgence of conflicts and to ensure peace and stability in countries which have experienced the trauma of war. Again here, churches are often well placed to monitor the implementation of peace accords and to alert the wider international community when problems arise.
24. In the post-conflict period, the challenge remains of overcoming impunity by bringing perpetrators of violence to justice. Not only is there a need to hold individual leaders accountable, but also to develop structures, such as the International Criminal Court, to uphold the principle and practice of accountability. The churches, together with other members of civil society, can play major roles in this complex and often painful process, as shown by the pioneering work of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission and efforts to hold Chilean General Augusto Pinochet accountable for the crimes committed under his leadership. The churches have a pastoral responsibility to help the healing processes in their communities by encouraging people to share their memories, by working to build a collective history of a conflict and by preaching forgiveness and reconciliation. WCC studies in recent years have shown how essential this work is to the process leading to reconciliation. This is reflected in the priority the central committee has given to the role of the churches in reconciliation, in making it one of the major emphases of the Decade to Overcome Violence.
25. Once a peace agreement has been signed and once the television cameras have moved on to other crises, there is a tendency for the international community -- and the churches -- to pay less attention to post-conflict situations. Yet, peace is a fragile process which requires sustained attention and nurturing to flourish and grow. When there are inequities in the implementation of peace accords and when genuine reconciliation does not take place, the seeds of future conflicts are sown. Reconciliation is thus both a means of preventing further violence and the basis for the construction of societies in which only non-violent means are used to resolve the inevitable conflicts which arise between social groups.
When prevention fails
26. However, in a sinful world with a propensity to violence, even the best efforts of the churches and the international community are likely to be inadequate to prevent some violent crises. In such cases, a range of non-violent responses to armed conflict are available and need to be tried:
* fact-finding missions, diplomacy and offering their good offices; provision of humanitarian assistance in a way that can build confidence between parties; protection of human rights through a variety of mechanisms including the appointment of special reporters and the provision of technical services;
* pastoral delegations, information sharing from the affected regions, public statements to clarify the nature of the conflict, maintaining an international presence to help protect populations at risk, advocating at various levels for peaceful resolution, and bringing churches and other religious communities from different sides of a conflict together to provide a common witness for peace.
27. When a government rejects all efforts of help to assist in the resolution of a conflict or refuses to comply with decisions of the competent international bodies like the UN Security Council, sanctions may be appropriately applied under Article 41 of the United Nations Charter that "may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations". In its 1995 document on sanctions to which reference was made above, the central committee said:
Sanctions are a valuable tool available to enforce international law and
to bring about the peaceful resolution of disputes ...
(D)iplomatic sanctions (have) a long tradition in the history of
international relations. They include the recognition or non-recognition of
another sovereign state, or the suspension of such diplomatic relations as
a means of expressing displeasure with the behaviour of the other.
Diplomatic measures may include a strong inducement for a state to correct
its behaviour through the offer of recognition or the extension of greater
privileges ...
Economic sanctions are generally taken to include such things as
restrictions on international travel and communication; trade, commerce,
foreign investment, and other areas of finance; restrictions on access to
certain goods, like arms and strategic materials; and Cultural exchange.
Diplomatic sanctions themselves also frequently have an economic effect.
28. Consistently applied, this range of non-violent actions moving from the least intrusive to the most coercive should be sufficient to deal with most situations which threaten the lives or well-being of the civilian population. In practice, however, the international community has seldom been capable of such consistency. Early warning indicators sometimes fail to convey the urgency of the situation, but more often early warning signs are either ignored or unheeded by an international community already over-burdened by an unprecedented number of complex internal conflicts. Many governments refuse to engage in negotiations to end a conflict and are unwilling to allow the international community to assist populations at risk within their borders. In a growing number of cases, states have collapsed and are no longer capable of offering protection. Too often, a failure to reconcile differences in post-conflict situations leads to renewed outbreaks of violence. In such cases, the international community has a right -- or even a duty -- to take decided steps to protect and assist people at risk.
Sovereignty and international law
29. This may require intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. Basic principles of international law and human rights strictly limit this.
30. The principle of national sovereignty has been the cornerstone of the international system since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Nevertheless, there is a long history of military powers justifying their military intervention in the internal affairs of other countries on the grounds of "humanitarian" concern. Conscious of this and against the background of two devastating world wars, the framers of the United Nations Charter sought to protect weaker states from aggression by including the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Newly independent states jealously guarded this principle as a safeguard to reduce the possibilities of further interventions by former colonial or neo-colonial powers.
31. Article 2 (7) of the Charter precludes any intervention by the United Nations "in matters which are essentially within the jurisdiction of any state". The only exceptions are the one included in Article 51 which allows for the use of force in individual or collective self-defence, and those listed under Chapter VII that allow the use of force under strictly limited conditions to maintain or restore international peace and security.
32. The ecumenical movement has consistently defended these principles over the years, believing that the integrity of states and their territory is essential to peace and security. The fundamental right of states to preserve their integrity and defend themselves is an essential bedrock of the international legal system which must be preserved. This right is being challenged today by one of the negative impacts of globalization, namely the weakening of the capacity of many states to resist undue external intervention in the internal affairs of their peoples.
33. There have been several cases in the past decade where the UN Security Council has justified intervention based on the argument that serious breaches of human rights committed by a state against its own citizens constituted a threat to peace (Res. 688/91). Resolution 794 of 3 December 1992 held that "the magnitude of the human tragedy caused by the conflict" in Somalia constituted a threat to peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter. Again in Resolution 841 of 16 June 1993 the Security Council ruled in the case of Haiti that a form of government irreconcilable with democratic principles represented a threat to peace under Article 39.
34. Though the Security Council twice found that the situation in Kosovo constituted a threat to peace, it did not authorize military action. Nevertheless, NATO used military force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999 and justified its use on "humanitarian" grounds as necessary to protect the rights of threatened minorities in the province of Kosovo. The WCC and many of its member churches and related Christian world communion bodies vigorously protested these actions that they regarded to be in violation of the intention of the UN Charter.
35. Recent responses to humanitarian crises -- both action and inaction -- raise many questions, both for international law and for the broader moral imperative. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan underlined this central dilemma, using concrete examples, in his address to the UN General Assembly in September 1999:
To those for whom the greatest threat to the future of international order
is the use of force in the absence of a Security Council mandate, one might
ask -- not in the context of Kosovo, but in the context of Rwanda: If, in
those dark days and hours leading up to the genocide, a coalition of states
had been prepared to act in defence of the Tutsi population, but did not
receive prompt Council authorization, should such a coalition have stood
aside and allowed the horror to unfold?
To those for whom the Kosovo action heralded a new era when states and
groups of states can take military action outside the established
mechanisms for enforcing international law, one might ask: Is there not a
danger of such interventions undermining the imperfect, yet resilient,
security system created after the second world war, and of setting
dangerous precedents for future interventions without a clear criterion to
decide who might invoke these precedents, and in what circumstances?(4)
36. While the UN Charter severely limits the ability of the organization to intervene unless there is a breach of international peace and security, the Charter also affirms the universality of human rights. Legal scholars point out that international law is not static, but in a constant process of evolution. Some of these developments could shed new light on the absolute character of the principle of non-intervention. Indeed, the evolution of human-rights law and thinking over the past century has been marked by development and acceptance of universal standards of human rights, even if procedures to hold governments accountable for such violations have not yet been universally accepted. In its 2000 Human Development Report, the United Nations Development Programme says that, "Human rights -- in an integrated world -- requires global justice. The state-centred model of accountability must, be extended to the obligations of nonstate actors and to the state obligations beyond national borders."(5)
37. The churches have a long history of engagement in the development of these international human rights standards. As the Statement on Human Rights, adopted by the WCC's eighth assembly in Harare, Zimbabwe, in December 1998, says:
We reaffirm the universality of human rights as enunciated in the International Bill of Human Rights, and the duty of all states, irrespective of national culture or economic and political system, to promote and defend them. These fights are rooted in the histories of cultures, religions, and traditions, not just those whose role in the UN was dominant when the Universal Declaration was adopted. We recognize that this Declaration was accepted as a "standard of achievement", and the application of its principles needs to take into account different historical, cultural, and economic interests. At the same time we reject any attempt by states, national or ethnic groups, to justify the abrogation of, or derogation from, the full range of human rights on the basis of culture, religion, tradition, special socio-economic or security interests.
38. Even here, however, there are no absolute principles. Governments in some regions, notably Asia; have questioned the concept of the universality of human rights, arguing that they are based on Western concepts of individual rights rather than on peoples' rights. Some within the Orthodox tradition of Christianity question the exclusive concern for earthly life as the supreme value, emphasizing the primacy of salvation. While all life is sacred, they argue, holy places, objects of adoration and even land are also considered by the community of faith to be sacred, and their protection may take precedence in some situations. There are also questions about what kinds of human-rights violations are so grave as to justify intervention. Is action by the international community to be used only in response to violations of civil and political rights? Or do violations of economic, social and cultural rights also call for an international response?
39. The Convention on Genocide is a specific case where the international community has recognized that there are limits on national sovereignty and that the international community has a responsibility to act to prevent genocide. The question of intervention thus stands at the nexus between national sovereignty and evolving understandings of the global nature of human rights. It is important to underline that these are not only questions of international law; they are also moral issues in which the churches' theological perspectives have much to contribute.
Just peace-making: a Christian approach
40. Before considering some of the ethical dimensions of actions to protect endangered populations in situations of armed violence, it is worth recalling the biblical imperatives of just peace-making, along the lines expressed in the central committee Memorandum and Recommendations on the Application of Sanctions.
41. Christian imperatives of justice and peace are especially grounded in the prophetic heritage Of the scriptures and the ministry of reconciliation in Jesus Christ.
42. The vision of a world of justice and peace is central to the gospel of Jesus Christ. While the perfecting of a just peace is beyond the possibility of human achievement, it is within the power of the Sovereign God of Love who has created one whole, indivisible human family in a covenant of peace. Before our Sovereign God, the nations rise and fall; but the promise of shalom, of love binding peace with justice, is eternal.
43. Every member of God's family bears God's sacred image and is entitled to an abundant life of freedom, security and well being. To be so endowed is to enjoy God-given dignity from which flow principles of human rights which it is the responsibility of all persons and governments to respect and protect. The ultimate justification for intervention must be such a concept of justice for the sake of authentic peace and security.
44. God has set our common life in human communities which have in turn established institutions necessary to govern them. Governments are responsible not only for justice and peace within their borders, and for security against aggression and other threats to their people. They are rightly called to policies of initiative and cooperation in the quest for a just peace among all nations. The indivisibility of political liberty, common security, civil equity, economic welfare and ecological integrity requires effective instruments of global governance and transnational action. Such instruments must promote the development of peoples, the resolution of conflicts, and the overcoming of violence.
45. The policies and actions of all human institutions, including government, must guarantee the protection of the innocent, the poor, the weak, the minorities and the oppressed; not only within domestic societies, but within any other society affected by these policies and actions.
46. Under the sovereignty of God, no nation or group of nations is entitled to prosecute vengeance against another. Nor is any nation entitled to make unilateral judgments and take unilateral actions that lead to the devastation of another nation and the massive suffering of its people. Whenever aggression or massive and flagrant abuses of human rights by one nation call for preventive or punitive action under international law, a concerted multilateral response authorized by the United Nations or other competent international body is most likely to meet the requirements of just peace-making.
47. Recent international military engagements undertaken in some situations in the name of "humanitarian intervention" and the failure to intervene in others have raised serious moral and ethical questions: How can the international community come to the aid of people in crisis in a proportionate and consistent manner which gives equal value to all human life?
48. That it is ever necessary to consider the use of armed force in international relations is a reflection of the failure of the international community to have responded in a timely and appropriate fashion to prevent a conflict or to resolve a conflict during its early stages. An inadequate or inconsistent response to human suffering compounds the moral failure. Recent decisions to intervene with massive armed force have often been influenced by globalized public media that tend to report crises in a selective way, exaggerating some and ignoring others where equal or greater numbers of people were at imminent risk. For example, while the crisis in Kosovo was reported to be escalating to dangerous proportions, simultaneous crises in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East that continued to claim far higher numbers of lives received comparatively little media coverage in the North. Media have also often exaggerated the losses and suffering of some ethnic groups and almost ignored those of other groups. Some critics have charged that such media selectivity is rooted in racial, ethnic or political bias and that this has contributed to the situation in which the international community responds with disproportionate armed force in situations where some Europeans suffer, while refusing to intervene to save others, and ignores altogether many crises in the South where much larger populations are in clear danger.
49. For Christians, just peace-making must always be shaped by our commitment to the ministry and message of reconciliation. The gospel's promise of reconciliation is based on our faith in the triune God, incarnate in Jesus Christ who is our peace, breaking down the dividing walls of hostility, making us one new humanity. Such a faith obliges us to love even our enemies. Just peace-making requires that Christians not endorse any coercive policy, whether economic or military, before seeking positive incentives to promote peace among aggrieved adversaries. For Christians, the aim must always be the building or restoration of just, peaceful and humane relationships.
50. Just peace-making also calls Christians to consider fundamental moral, ethical and theological questions in a world full of ambiguities. The question arises whether, from an ecumenical Christian perspective, the international community should refrain from taking up arms even to protect endangered populations in situations of armed violence or to defend those deployed by competent international authority for this purpose. Here competing moral and ethical values must be considered. Some Christians say yes, believing that the teachings of Jesus require us to oppose any use of armed force. Others say no, considering that the protection of human life may require it to do so in extreme situations, and recognizing that any such decision should be approached with great humility. In either case, responsibility for unintended consequences must be accepted both by those who choose to use armed force and by those who do not.
51. Against this background, and conscious of the fact that Christians must cooperate with peoples of other faiths and convictions in pursuit of answers to these complex questions, the central committee believes that in the context of the Decade to Overcome Violence the following considerations and criteria deserve further study and dialogue in and among the churches and with those currently engaged in efforts to establish clear and effective international frameworks within which masses of peoples in today's conflictive world can be provided with timely and essential protection to save lives and enable them to contribute to the building of truly just and peaceful societies.
Considerations and criteria for discussion related to the protection of endanggered populations in situations of armed violence
1. Considerations
1.1. Intervention to protect endangered populations in situations of armed violence risks provoking additional violence that could inflict additional suffering on affected populations.
1.2. The failure to take prompt and timely action, however, including the use of arms in self-defence in certain serious crises, may also result in the further massive loss of human life and irreparable injury.
1.3. Even for the protection of endangered populations in situations of armed violence, over-riding the principles of sovereignty is a very serious action that should be undertaken only in the most grave and extraordinary circumstances. It is not a practice to be used in cases where human rights are routinely violated. There, the international community has a wide range of human-rights instruments available under which to act, short of physical intervention that should be used only in the most grave and extraordinary circumstances when it is necessary to rescue and protect people in grave peril.
1.4. Actions to protect endangered populations must be applied within the framework of international law. The World Council of Churches has repeatedly reaffirmed its support for the principle of the international rule of law and for the United Nations Charter as the essential framework for its defence and further development.
1.5. According to the Charter, "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or independence of any state" (Art. 2.4); however, the Security Council may decide to ask member states to take actions involving the use of armed force to obtain compliance with its decisions. Intervention needs to be clearly restricted in order to protect nations and peoples from undue interference, and decisions to intervene must be consistent with need wherever it occurs without distinction and consistent with the Charter.
1.6. The Charter also holds, however, that "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all" is essential for international peace (Art. 55.c).
1.7. In practice, the Security Council -- given its present structure that gives veto power to its permanent members -- has only rarely authorized a state, group of states or "regional agencies" to intervene, and this has given rise to intervention by regional bodies or groups of states in violation or on the margins of the requirements of the Charter.
1.8. While some of these armed interventions have brought effective relief to endangered populations, others have led to disproportionate destruction and questionable results.
1.9. Various proposals have been made for Security Council reform to make it more responsive to the changing character of threats to international peace and security, and taking into account the evolution of international law. It is clearly necessary today to develop a more effective basis for Security Council action, and/or to create additional mechanisms within the framework of the Charter that would have the agreement of the General Assembly and, in so far as possible, remove decisions on the protection of endangered populations in situations of armed violence from partisan political debate, and provide for timely and rapid intervention in the interest of populations at risk of massive loss of human life.
1.10. Given the present limitations of the international system and the reality of intervention, and in anticipation of the creation of new, more effective mechanisms, the following criteria could guide this aspect of UN reform and be respected in the interim whenever armed intervention for humanitarian purposes is undertaken.
2. Criteria
2.1. When may action to protect endangered populations in situations of armed violence be authorized?
The protection of endangered populations that involves intervention in the territory of a sovereign state should be limited to situations in which:
2.1.1. There are well-attested immediate or long-standing threats to life to a level amounting to crimes against humanity, carried out by governmental authorities or other organized forces, or with their connivance and support, or because of the inability or unwillingness of authorities to impede such atrocities.
2.1.2. Crimes against humanity result from anarchy in a sovereign state whose government or authorities are incapable of putting an end to such crimes and refuse to call upon or refuse offers by the international community to assist in doing so.
2.1.3. The more urgent and massive the threat or open atrocities, the more intensive and immediate may be the need for intervention. Conversely, intervention would not be warranted in the case of a slowly unfolding crisis in which non-violent resolution methods can be effective.
2.2. Even when there is a well-founded and massive threat to human life, the decision to use arms in self-defence requires careful deliberation and balanced reflection. In particular, the following essential questions must be carefully considered by decision-makers:
2.2.1. Who decides that their use is needed?
2.2.2. Who provides the forces?
2.2.3. Who oversees compliance?
2.2.4. What are the appropriate means, type, and conduct of forces?
2.2.5. What are the foreseeable side effects?
2.3. Who may intervene?
2.3.1. Actions to protect endangered populations in situations of armed violence should in principle be taken by an appropriate UN body or by a group of states authorized to act on its behalf and all such actions should be under the strict oversight of the Security Council or other multilateral international instance agreed to by the UN General Assembly.
2.3.2. Intervening protection forces should be clearly neutral with respect to the state in which intervention occurs and a decision to intervene should in no event serve as the pretext for the pursuit of narrow self-interests of foreign powers.
2.4. What forms of intervention are justified?
2.4.1. The specific aims and limits of intervention should be mutually agreed and clearly stated by the competent authorizing body before action is taken, and clear indications given of what is required for these aims to be met and forces withdrawn.
2.4.2. Actions to protect endangered populations in situations of armed violence must be viewed as part of a multi-faceted approach and of a continuum of actions related to a given crisis situation including: the restoration of the rule of law and respect for basic human rights, rehabilitation and reconstruction, and post-conflict peace-building and reconciliation to be carried out by civilian organizations. Thus planning and monitoring should be not just for an immediate emergency, but should have longer-range goals and contemplate the mobilization of resources needed to meet them.
2.4.3. Since action to protect endangered populations in situations of armed violence is distinct from war, specific training in new concepts and techniques related to the concept of "human security" should be undertaken for police and military forces at both national and international levels. This should include training in non-violent intervention techniques that take full advantage of the organizational, logistical and command skills of the military.
2.4.4. While intervention is by definition coercive, only that defensive force may be applied that is proportionate to the aims and is required to protect endangered populations and to equip and/or oblige the state concerned to fulfill its own responsibilities in their regard.
2.4.5. The deployment of armed police forces is often sufficient to offer the required protection. If the use of the military is deemed necessary to accomplish the aims, its role should be restricted to only that absolutely required to restore order or to provide safe humanitarian space.
2.4.6. The rules of engagement of forces to protect endangered populations must be consistent with international humanitarian law, respecting the immunity of non-combatants and the obligation to protect them.
2.4.7. When protection is required to guarantee the security of recognized intergovernmental and non-governmental humanitarian agencies' personnel engaged in the delivery of essential supplies to endangered populations, clear distinctions need to be made between the roles of civilians in delivering humanitarian aid and the support roles of police or the military. Each must have clearly defined and agreed functions and command and management roles, and the police or military component should be removed as soon as conditions are established for the effective functioning of the strictly humanitarian component. Humanitarian agencies, including those related to the churches, should adhere strictly to established international codes of conduct.
2.5. Who oversees compliance?
Action to protect endangered populations should in principle be under UN auspices and overseen by the Security Council with the support of the Secretary-General. This oversight involves the conduct of operations, evaluation of progress towards stated goals, and the determination of the duration of phases and when operations should either be terminated or moved into longer-term programmatic involvement. The International Court of Justice (World Court) and other mechanisms of international jurisprudence could consider and rule upon the legitimacy of intervention and its compliance with international law.
3. The role of the churches
3.1. In the continuum of actions related to actions to protect endangered populations in situations of armed violence, the churches have essential roles to play in all phases from early warning of potential danger to civilian populations, as agents of peace and reconciliation in efforts to avoid crises through mediation, as bodies to be consulted in decisions related to the niles of engagement in pastoral accompaniment of endangered women, men and children, in the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and in the post-conflict tasks of rehabilitation, reconstruction, peace-building and continuing reassessment of these criteria with all parties involved.
3.2. Churches within the situation are the key partners and should be consulted by churches and church-related agencies abroad at all stages in determining what ecumenical advocacy actions are necessary and as principal agents in the delivery of humanitarian assistance and post-conflict efforts.
3.3. Broad international ecumenical solidarity actions are essential to efforts to limit the use of force and to monitor it when it is necessary.
3.4. In all these efforts every opportunity should be pursued to maintain contact among the churches, both nationally, regionally and globally, and to ensure wherever appropriate and possible cooperation with other communities of faith and civil society actors caught up with Christian communities in situations of crisis with respect to actions to be taken.
NOTES
(1) Doc. C-11, Unit III Committee, WCC central committee, Johannesburg, 1994
(2) Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations (Brahimi Report), United Nations, Doc. A/55/305 or S/2000/809
(3) Brahimi report, p.x
(4) UN Press Release SG/SM/7136 GA/9596, 20 September 1999.
(5) Human Development Report 2000, United Nations Development Program, New York, Oxford Press, p.9.
Email this Article
Digg It
del.icio.usRelated Articles
- Public issues.
- WCC urges Korea sanctions be lifted.
- Sudanese lawyer raises human rights concerns.
- Churches divided on just war (Decade to overcome violence).
- Finances forces program cuts by WCC.
- Suffering servants: the persecuted peacemakers of the Columbian churches.
- Send in the peacekeepers: sovereignty isn't sacred.
- Sudan war criticized: group seeks Canadian action.
- WCC central committee falls short on youth.
- The quarterly of the World Council of Churches. (Editorial).
- Action of the central committee in adopting the final report of the Special Commission on Orthodox participation in the World Council of Churches.
- Violence against women: a challenge to the churches' solidarity.
- Ecumenical diakonia.