Churches in Europe have long been concerned with questions of peace and security. The origin of the Conference of European Churches was found in the desire of churches in Europe to bridge the ideological divide which divided Europe for nearly fifty years and provoked continuing tension between the two parts expressed in competing security systems. As circumstances changed from the late 1980s through to the turn of the century and millennium, there were reflections on the consequences of the new situation.

Questions of peace and security came to the forefront, with other questions, in the European Ecumenical Assemblies in Basel in 1989 and Graz in 1997. In the former, churches of all Christian traditions reflected together on the theological meaning and practical implications of the theme A Peace with Justice. In the Final Document of the Assembly is the following statement :

In many respects, the Cold War seems to be over. But with the exception of only a few neutral states, Europe remains organised in two antagonistic military blocks, with huge standing armies. The consumption of resources that supports these structures continues to impoverish millions of people both inside and outside Europe. As churches, we must contribute to finding new structures in Europe which reflect the problems of today and tomorrow, not of yesterday. Living together in Europe will require a common security system. We look with hope at the talks which have started this year on conventional forces and confidence building. (European Ecumenical Assembly 1989 Final Statement, part of paragraph 57)

The following Assembly in 1997, reflecting on the theme, "Reconciliation - Gift of God and Source of New Life" also took up the issue and its Basic Text made the following observation:

The realm of politics is an important area for reconciliation. We stand for the development of concepts of security which embrace all of Europe, and which avoid making Europe a threat to other parts of the world. The development of common democratic institutions, and of the political and economic cooperation of the whole European region, will strengthen its stability and diminish the danger of conflict. On the other hand, if parts of Europe are left in a security vacuum, opportunities for the political manipulation of old tensions could increase. The European institutions should serve as instruments of reconciliation, towards the creation of a Europe without dividing lines, where security is sought in cooperation and not through deterrence. We reaffirm the statement of the Basel Assembly that there are no situations in our countries or our continent in which violence is required or justified (cf. N^o. 61). We will not be shaken in our conviction that reconciliation is possible between peoples, even though this term has been wrongly used. Therefore, we are in favour of promoting the development and furthering of voluntary service for justice, peace and the integrity of creation. (European Ecumenical Assembly 1997 Basic Text, paragraph A29)

Since 1989, and even since 1997, the situation in Europe has changed. This is the reason why the Working Group on Peacebuilding in Security of the Church and Society Commission of the Conference of European Churches has produced this paper which examines what issues are relevant today in order to build a common security system which will enable the European institutions to serve as instruments of peace and reconciliation. After looking at the global and European situations, the paper identifies eleven important and outstanding issues in the work to achieve a pan-European security community. It goes on to make some general comments about the role of various institutions and concludes by setting out three major peace building factors: deepening of democracy, growing economic interdependence and transnational structures of co-opeartion. It concludes that these three pillars can be the basis of a Europe beyond war.

On 24 April 2002, the Executive Committee of the Church and Society Commission of the Conference of European Churches accepted this paper as the basis of the Commission’s work on security questions.

* * *

Peace is not just the opposite of war or absence of direct violence. Genuine peace means that we must overcome the underlying or structural violence, which manifests itself in social injustices, oppression, lack of freedom, violated human rights and other factors, which prevent people from living a life in dignity.

Indirect violence reaps far more victims than direct. In three to four days, roughly the same number of children dies of starvation or hunger-related diseases as the total number of people killed when the atom bomb fell on Hiroshima - the single most powerful act of direct violence committed so far.

But whereas direct violence - war - is easy to identify, the underlying, structural causes which bring it about, are subtle and complex. They are difficult to describe with any urgency through the media. It is normally easier to formulate political countermeasures during the later phases of the long and complex sequence of events leading up to a conflict, when it may be too late.

This is a great dilemma in security policy. The only way to create a peaceful world in the long-term is through preventive measures, by redressing the underlying, fundamental causes of conflict, and through developing non-violent ways of dealing with conflicts. The international community will never be able to muster the resources necessary to deal with all the conflicts that will flare up if it chooses to wait until the genie of violence is let out of the bottle. Events in the former Yugoslavia represent just one example of a situation encountered when we were unable to act constructively in time.

Therefore, the most important road forward lies in strengthening the political will for the prevention and non-violent resolution of resolution, and for developing, sharpening and refining the tools for this. It lies in the ability to focus on the preconditions needed to achieve peace, not only to avoid war.

* * *

Today, we - the people of Europe - are at a point in our history when we are able to focus on new priorities and the preconditions needed for peace building. A point when it is possible to build common and sustainable security. The creation of a pan-European security community – a new order that could make war on the whole European continent as inconceivable as between the members of the European Union - is within reach.

For too many years, the focus in European Security Policy has been on military balance, nuclear weapons and power politics. Although we cannot disregard these factors, the great difference today is that security can be discussed and sought within a much broader spectrum of measures.

This change is not only about the end of the Cold War. It is also about profound and long-term changes in the international environment. The pattern might be more evident in other parts of the world, but it is obvious in Europe as well. These changes mean that we will have to alter our approach to security.

The internationalisation of economy, culture, information systems and technology is rapidly changing the role of the nation-state and increasing mutual dependence. In the wake of globalisation, we are seeing increased social divides within, as well as between, countries. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the nation-state alone to provide the things that people expect for a good life.

In consequence, people look for supplementary communities with which they can identify. These are sometimes smaller than the nation-state, such as the region, the village, or even the family; and sometimes larger such as the European Union, or race, or religious community.

People also turn inwards, and sometimes turn on each other. Social and cultural factors - such as ethnicity and religion - will assume increasing significance in people's search for a structure on which to build their hopes for the future. This may bring underlying tensions to the surface. In the perspective of globalisation, security is about cohesion within nations as well as between them.

More and more countries are becoming democratic, a factor which will greatly reduce the risk of war, as it is in itself a method for non-violent conflict resolution. However, in particular in new democracies the need to educate and develop a culture of democracy must be given priority. Security in a democratic context is sought in co-operation rather than through deterrence. But democracy must also be developed as a living force in society and be capable of satisfying people's need for safety and faith in the future. The causes of internal conflicts might then be better prevented. Poverty and social misery are breeding grounds for political extremism and terrorism.

The development of information technology has given us a new openness, which naturally contributes to greater trust between countries and peoples. Today, security is sought in openness rather than in secrecy. At the same time, globalisation of media tends to over emphasise dramatic events and developments and has created something of a monopoly on information and how to interpret the information given.

The attack on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon is a confirmation of a new conflict pattern - a focus on the security of people rather than security of states - with strong cultural and religious implications. The way in which the global community will respond to this challenge, will profoundly affect the new world order of global governance. So far, the focus- at least in Western countries- has been on meeting the immediate threat of the al-Qaida network with a military response and on streng

Several conclusions can be drawn from the changes in the international environment. One of them is that future security challenges will not primarily concern territorial defence. The need for nation-states to manage their territorial defence will of course remain, and for the Central and Eastern European states it is a crucial issue in their search for a new security identity.

In a longer perspective, however, there are other challenges in the field of security policy that will require more attention than has been the case so far. The report "Our Global Neighbourhood", from the Commission on Global Governance emphasises that it is not enough to talk about the security of states. The security of the individual and the security of the planet are equally important.

One expression of this shift in perspective is the changing pattern of conflict. According to the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University, there were 111 armed conflicts in the world between 1989-2000. Of these, only seven were between states. The rest took place within states.

This does not tally with the ingrained approach to conflicts and security policy by nation-states. It does not tally with the emphasis of many states on the principle of "sovereignty" and "non-interference in internal affairs" as opposed to preventive mediation and intervention efforts by legitimised bodies of the international community in the case of gross human rights violations and emerging conflict situations. It does not tally with the way in which the UN system, conventions on humanitarian rights and international law are constructed. The traditional way has been to view security primarily as a game in which nations are the pieces on a geopolitical chessboard, and which over-emphasises the sovereignty of the nation-state.

The challenge we now face, within countries as well as within different structures of international co-operation, is to further develop our thinking as well as our instruments to enable us to deal with the new situation. This goes also for the Churches in Europe.

It is necessary to keep the image of change in mind, as the churches reflect upon a pan-European security community. It cannot be built on the old premises.

The churches should avoid using existing structures and organisations as a departure point when addressing the European security architecture in dialogue with the European Institutions. Irrespective of their names, they are instruments and should not be regarded as an end in themselves.

Instead, the way forward could be based on a combination of two methods: by making the ultimate goal explicit, and by identifying solutions to the outstanding issues that must be resolved in order to attain that goal.

There is no clear and self-evident cultural, political or geographic definition of Europe. But in formulating a European perspective, our approach needs to be inclusive rather than exclusive. It must be multi-cultural rather than mono-cultural. It must be open rather than closed. And we should be aware that all our every day decisions in business, politics, media etc, step by step, define the future Europe. This goes for the churches, too.

A definition of a pan-European security community, from the perspective of the CEC working group on peace and security, is a Europe - from Lisbon to Vladivostok - without dividing lines, where security is sought in co-operation rather than through deterrence. This Europe is composed of secular states, where different cultural and religious identities - Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox as well as Jewish and Muslim - are recognised, as well as minority-faith cultures. In this perspective, the concept of security is not limited to traditional military issues and positions in power politics, but rather encompasses democracy, conflict prevention, minority rights, reconciliation, cultural identity, religious freedom, just distribution of resources, ecologically sustainable development and acceptance of global responsibility.

It is a demanding and comprehensive goal, which covers the complete human rights agenda. However, that is the point of visions.

Having set course towards this goal, eleven important and out-standing issues facing the pan-European security community have been identified. The different European structures have, together with the UN institutions, different relevance when it comes to developing a constructive response to these challenges. However, in all eleven areas there is a need for the churches, religious communities, and also the NGOs in civil society to play a more active role in advocacy, dialogue and practical work.

l. The need for a broader view of the content of the security concept.

A broad view should be based on people's concrete perception of threats and insecurity - in the field of human rights, minority rights, the environment, democracy, social issues, ethnic, cultural and religious identity, organised crime, terrorism, an influx of refugees or threats to health. Nor can the dimension arising from misunderstanding or misuse of religion be overlooked.

The consensus which exists in identifying these as threats, does not yet exist on the subject of how to confront and prevent those threats. The narrow focus of the response, so far, to September 11 is an example of the political difficulties in implementing a more enlightened approach to security.

This is primarily a task for: the EU, Council of Europe, OSCE and sub-regional structures like the Council of the Baltic Sea States. Religions should also play a pro-active role in conflict prevention, and in acting to prevent false perceptions of religion being made a factor in conflicts.

Globalisation means that Europe's security must be sought in harmony with the rest of the world. Europe's overexploitation of natural resources does not assist that process. The rest of the world must be allowed to utilise its comparative advantages in trade.

The social gap in the Mediterranean Basin can be expressed as the ratio one to twelve. On average, the people living to the North of the Sea are 12 times better off than their southern counterparts. And if the present policy of the EU will continue to be carried out, the gap might widen still more. This is a situation which will increase the risk of conflict, fan social tension and increase the number of refugees.

Therefore, free and fair trade, development assistance, and the UN`s work for social justice, sustainable development, human rights, public health and disarmament should not only be regarded as expressions of solidarity and humanism. They are also part of a forward-looking security policy, in Europe's own interest. Every member state of the European Union should feel obliged to fulfil the UN aid target of 0,7 per cent of GDP.

There is also need to be on our guard against European cultural arrogance in relation to other parts of the world, particularly areas in which Islam predominates.

This is primarily a task for: the UN, WTO, and EU.

It is a well-recognised fact, that conflict prevention is a much more humane and cost-effective alternative than reconstruction after a military intervention. Democratisation, the implementation of human rights and the rule of law, meeting the economic needs of people as well as the development of effective means for non-violent conflict management are important elements in the aftermath of violent conflict. But generally speaking, too little attention is paid to the prevention of conflicts. Governments still invest more resources in military operations and post-conflict reconstruction - as recent history in South Eastern Europe shows.

The political will of the international community to respond in time with just and peaceful means to emerging conflicts needs to be strengthened, in order to save the lives of innocent people and to avoid escalation of conflicts. Crises must be dealt with as early as possible in the causal chain. Root causes must be addressed and appropriate instruments need to be developed to handle conflict situations in a coherent way. Improved interplay between military and civil instruments is called for. The role of NGO:s and civil society in conflict prevention and rehabilitation must be better recognised and better resourced

This is a primary task for all inter-governmental organisations as well as for the European Institutions.

As the number of violent conflicts increases also in Europe, more rapid and effective instruments for crisis intervention and peacekeeping missions are called for. Until now the implementation of military interventions for crisis intervention and peacekeeping initiatives was mainly assumed by the United Nation's Security Council and NATO. According to present international law, the mandate for military interventions in violent conflicts rests with the Security Council of the UN.

The establishment of a Rapid Reaction Force as part of the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union and the OSCE civilian rapid response unit (REACT) is meant to provide another instrument for a more rapid and effective military and police responses to certain conflict situations. But it raises also additional questions, which still need to be solved: can an EU Rapid Reaction Force really be developed into a more rapid and effective tool? What will be its operational relation to NATO?

Alongside these operational questions there are other issues which need to be taken into account in designing the rapid reaction force. In asking the institutions of the European Union to take greater responsibility for European security, it is also important to be aware of the risk of fragmentation within the continent and between Europe and other regions of the world. What will be the role of non-EU member states in crisis interventions and peacekeeping in Europe? The NATO initiative Partnership for Peace was welcomed as a possibility of co-operation between NATO and non-NATO members. What possibilities will the EU Rapid Reaction Force provide for a co-operation with non-EU member states? The assumption that each region of the world should take responsibility for conflict intervention and peacekeeping operations on its own territory, might also put poorer countries and regions at a disadvantage.

It remains vital that any action, which has a component of military force in it, may only be implemented under the provisions of the UN Charter dealing with threats to the peace, breach of the peace and acts of aggression or under the OSCE commitments (as a regional organisation of the UN under Chapter 8 of the UN Charter).

This is primarily a task for: the UN, OSCE, NATO/PfP, EU/WEU.

It is important to support the processes of democratic reform - the strengthening of human rights, free and independent media, the principle of states governed by law, social welfare (including public health), popular movements, political parties, democratisation of armed forces, etc.

This is primarily a task for: the EU (enlarged), the Council of Europe, and the OSCE, and the Commonwealth of Independent States (plus also the Council of the Baltic Sea States, the Barents Euro-Arctic Council).

There are major social and economic injustices between European countries and also within them. This is probably the most significant cause of violent conflicts today.

Looking at the overall pattern ten years after the end of the Cold War, there is an economic integration process going on in and with certain Central European countries. This is particularly true of countries to the West of the old cultural border which separates Orthodox Europe from the Catholic/Protestant parts. There, the macro-economic indicators show positive movement: trade is developing; overall gross domestic product is increasing. Alongside this, democracy is getting stronger and people-to-people contacts are flourishing. The countries concerned are strong candidates for early membership of the European Union.

Even within those countries, however, there are growing inequalities. This was most recently demonstrated by the United Nations Development Programme Human Development report on Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS published in 1999. The requirement to tackle these questions of human development extends, therefore, across the whole region covered by the report but is especially marked to the East of the old cultural division. It is important, however, that the processes of European integration and economic and human development are managed in a way that the cultural border does not become a new economic and political barrier.

There must be more emphasis in political and economic processes on the issue of religion and culture. In a secular society, it is assumed that economics and politics are separate from culture and religion. Yet cultural factors are always in the background influencing our political and economic actions. To take one example: twinning of communities works well between Scandanavia and the Baltic states, but not between the same states and Russia; and trade develops more easily between Sweden and Poland than between Sweden and Ukraine. Experiences of the ecumenical movement need to be translated from church relations to politics for European integration to take place successfully, without conflicts developing.

This is a task for the EU (enlarged), the Council of Europe, the OSCE, the Council of Baltic Sea States, the Barents Euro-Arctic Council and the Commonwealth of Independent States.

The best response to those who doubt whether Western Europe can afford to integrate Russia into their co-operation structures is to make them aware that they cannot afford not to. There is a need to develop instruments for both constructive dialogue and close co-operation. The exchanges in all forms and at all levels need to be strengthened.

In terms of religious history, creating a united Europe means integrating a Protestant Northern Europe, a Catholic Southern Europe and an Orthodox Eastern Europe. However, there are now a growing number of Muslims in Europe. In the past, a border between Eastern/Orthodox and Western/Catholic-Protestant Europe acted as a cultural dividing line. There is a risk that the enlargement of European Union and Nato - with the economic and political co-operation which will follow those processes - will have difficulties in crossing that old cultural line. If we are going to create a united Europe, a considerable greater degree of ecumenical endeavour will be required, focusing in particular on the need for meetings of cultures.

This is primarily a task for: the EU, OSCE, PfP, the Council of Europe, the Council of the Baltic Sea States, the Barents Euro-Arctic Council.

In particular through Nato, but also through the OSCE, there has been a long commitment from the USA to European security. This was at first defined during the Cold War but needs to be looked upon differently in the present context. The major security tasks today are the need for European-US co-operation to meet challenges in conflict management and, since 11/9, to deal with the second task of responding to threat of terrorism. In the wake of the terrorist attacks on America, the American people

However, in the European-American dialogue about security in the twenty first century, the inward looking tendencies in US politics and the lack of a more multifaceted American reaction to the threat of terrorism, makes Europeans feel estranged. Any growing distance between Europeans and Americans must be feared, as this would be highly detrimental for conflict prevention and solution in the world The European contribution must be to stress the need for a frontal attack by Europe and America on the root causes of terrorism in the world.

This is also a task for: the EU, OSCE and Nato.

This is a most important question in both the short- and medium-term for almost all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. They want to solve this question by becoming members of Nato. Three of them have recently become full members.

It is important that the process of Nato-enlargement is part of a broad, comprehensive development of European security. New dividing lines are unacceptable at the same time as there is a need to bridge over old ones. Increased security for some must not be achieved at the expense of others.

This is primarily a task for: Nato, PfP, (in part), OSCE (in part), the EU (in part)

In spite of considerable reductions since the end of the Cold War, many military resources and many ways of thinking about security from that era have survived. The road to a pan-European security order calls for a programme for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and a clear ambition in individual countries, alliances and Europe as a whole to seek to achieve their own military security in ways that do not imply insecurity for others.

This would call for a more restrictive arms export policy and it also means consciously seeking to avoid weapons systems, particularly weapons of mass destruction, that could be perceived as provocative.

It is also essential to keep agreements once made, in order to avoid returning into old patterns of accumulation of armaments or entering into new ones.

This is primarily a task for: the UN, OSCE, Nato, and WEU.

The development within international law, from the previous focus on state sovereignty to an increased focus on the human rights and the rights of minorities, holds great promise. This opens up the potential for early action and reaction and the possibility of stopping a conflict before it becomes violent. The capacity for such action needs to be built up within the proper institutions.

The priorities adopted by the international community after September 11, focused as they are on the immediate threats posed by terrorism, have shown the risks for a setback in the development of international law. The task of the Ecumenical movement and the CEC in this context is to contribute to moving the political focus from the narrow to the broader perspective.

This is primarily a task for: the UN, the OSCE and the EU

* * *

Looking at the different organisations involved in creating a pan-European security community, the following comments might be relevant:

1. The EU, not least in its Eastwards enlargement, is of crucial importance in the context of all the questions considered here. The EU should, therefore, be regarded as the engine for the creation of a pan-European security community.

There are similarities between the challenges which confront us today and those which faced Europe fifty years ago. The basic objective of Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman when they presented the Schuman Plan - the seed of the European Union - was to make sure that there would be no more wars between Germany and France. That same vision of peace and stability needs to be extended to the whole of Europe.

Placing the present situation in the same moral context makes it clear that the European Union as a peace project cannot be limited to the wealthy democracies in the West. It must be for the whole of Europe and a Europe that exists in harmony with its global neighbourhood.

It is in the light of this that the decisions taken by the European Council in Göteborg in June 2001 about the role of the European Union in conflict prevention and resolution must be viewed. There remain political and military problems about the implementation of the decision to create a rapid reaction force to give the European Union the capacity to deploy military and police forces in areas of conflict. This too has to be designed to further these same ends and to be an instrument which will reinforce peace and reconciliation rather than provoke new divisions.

2. The United Nations must continue to play an important role in the creation of a pan-European security community. Regional co-operation should be seen as a building block for global multilateral co-operation. The United Nations or, within UN Charter provisions, the OSCE should provide the legal framework for any military action. In their relationship with the United Nations, the member states of the European Union need to reach a common accord on their representation in the UN Security Council.

3. NATO, and its enlargement, is a decisive factor for promoting a security identity for most of the new democracies. A changing NATO could be crucial to the development of better capacity for crisis management and the quest for lower levels of military armament. On the other hand, NATO is not relevant to most of the other outstanding issues, and its enlargement, depending on how it is made, may complicate the incorporation of Russia.

The agreement between NATO and Russia is an important achievement in the efforts to create a sustainable European security structure. This agreement must be implemented in a constructive way, with the intention of broadening the regular consultation between Russia and NATO on the latter’s decision-making. This would be a sound basis for a relaxed and fruitful relationship between Russia and NATO which would benefit the whole of Europe and the neighbouring regions.

4. The OSCE has a role to play in most of the outstanding matters. Although it seldom has a leading role, it has a central one. The OSCE lacks political support (compared with the EU and NATO) and financial resources. The decision-making mechanism should also be further developed and, in co-operation and harmony with the Council of Europe, its role in relation to human rights and minorities should be enhanced.

5. As well as its role in the human rights, especially the base for judicial protection of individual rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights, the Council of Europe has a significant role to play in promoting the rule of law and the development of civil society. This is particularly true now that the vast majority of European countries are members.

6. The Council of the Baltic Sea States, the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, the Commonwealth of Independent States and other sub-regional structures can make specific complementary contributions in certain central issues and specific regions.

* * *

The priorities set by policy-makers, researchers, the media and others who influence discussions on how best to achieve peace and security may differ from time to time. However, taking a long-term perspective one can identify three major peace-building factors:

Deepening of democracy, including human rights and the rights of minorities. Democracies seek security in co-operation rather than through deterrence and a developed democracy is the only effective method for dealing with internal conflicts and preventing them from becoming violent.

Growing economic interdependence that is environmentally and socially sustainable brings peoples and countries closer together. You do not fight the sources of your own well-being.

Transnational structures of co-operation prevent violent conflicts by providing a framework for dealing with different interests, supplying information and shaping common norms.

The creation of these three pillars for peace constitutes the basis on which the European Union was founded in order to prevent another great war in Europe.

By adhering to those ideas and ensuring that all sectors of our societies - especially those responsible for creating the preconditions for a life in dignity for a country's people - work towards that goal, a Europe beyond war can be made a reality.

April 2002