Around EuropeQuaker Counc i l fo r European Af fa i r s

No. 350 April ‐ May 2013The Militarisation of the European Union

Brigadier General Lecointre of the EU Training Mission to Mali, launched in December 2012 to support the training of the Malian Armed Forces.

In December of this year, the European Council will sitdown to discuss how the Member States of theEuropean Union (EU) could work more closely togetheron defence issues. In the build‐up to this meeting,many politicians and commentators are advocatingthat the heads of government, when they gather herein Brussels, should strive to mould the EU into aninstrument for joint military action. Shrinking defencebudgets, the rise of new global powers, and the ‘USpivot’ to the Asia Pacific region, are often used tojustify the proposed development of permanent,structured military cooperation under the EU’sCommon Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).Commentators believe that Europe can only maintainits global influence in the future if states createshared military capabilities. EU‐led military missions,such as the recent training mission to Mali, couldbecome more common as Member States wrought ashared defence policy.The idea of a common defence policy is as old as thatof economic union, but, since the early 1990s, therehave been significant steps taken to strengthen EUcompetence in foreign and defence policy. In thecoming decades, it is likely that groups of MemberStates will work together to implement an integratedforeign policy with shared military resources.

Militarisation has been defeined as the ‘embeddednessof militaries, and war making and preparation, insociety'. The push for ever greater integration ofmilitary structures in the run‐up to the EuropeanCouncil this December is yet another indication of themilitarisation of the EU. The expansion of CSDP needsto be closely monitored by those who wish to realise aQuaker vision for Europe: a continent working forglobal peace and prosperity.

We can hardly go a week without a senior military orpolitical figure warning of the dire consequences ofthe current spending cuts on European security . Theimpact of austerity measures on military capabilitiesacross Europe is an issue that receives anextraordinary amount of media coverage. Recent

The idea of a common defencepolicy is as old as economic union.

In this issue:Torture and Terror in Europe (p.3)The EU and the Middle East Peace Process (p.4)Then and Now: Energy Policy (p.5)Play Review: Refugee Boy (p.7)

2"There is no way to peace, peace is the way." ‐ A. J. Muste

prophets of European vulnerability include UKDefence Minister Phillip Hammond, NATO chief AndersFogh Rasmussen, and (the now former) US Secretary ofDefence Leon Panetta. In addition, some in theinfluential "think‐tank" community are also busywarning of the dangers of cutting defence spending.Austerity in this sector has been described both as"grave mistake" and riskingEuropean global "irrelevance".It is "irresponsible" becauseEurope faces a multitude ofdangers, the so‐called "keythreats" or "emerging securitychallenges": terrorism,weapons of mass destruction,energy security, organisedcrime, climate change, andcyber‐crime. Instability in theMiddle East and North Africa(MENA) region as well as therise of new military andeconomic powers, bothcontribute to the "us versusthem" approach to foreignpolicy that is being developed.The nature of the threatsrequires a common response, according to thoseadvocating an EU military capability. Therefore, notonly do we need to reverse the "freefall" in Europeandefence spending, but we need a new European globalstrategy.The call in some Member State governments – andtheir defence communities – for more meaningfulcollaboration through the structures of the EU, issupported by the EU treaties. National sovereignty isclearly protected, but Member States could, if theydecided, cede competency in this policy area to theEU. The Weimar Triangle (Poland, Germany andFrance) and the Visegrad Group (Poland, CzechRepublic, Slovakia and Hungary) have both signalledtheir desire to pool and share military resources.Others, such as the UK and Denmark are lessenthusiastic, although economic necessity may forcecooperation in the coming years.

The European Commission continues to increase itssupport for the arms trade. Commissioner for theInternal Market, Michael Barnier, heads up the‘Defence Industries Task Force’. This inter‐servicegroup consists of the Directors of the EuropeanDefence Agency, the European External Action Service,and many of the Directorate‐Generals of theCommission, including DG Enterprise, DG Competition,DG Trade, and DG Research. Their recommendations

are currently confidential but are expected to includemeasures aimed at ending national defencemonopolies, opening up EU research funding fordefence, promoting new technologies such as dronesand space imaging, and, in the long term, trying toprotect a defence industrial base at the Europeanlevel. Although the Commission’s focus on the defence

industry is part of its ‘Europe 2020’programme for ‘employment,productivity and social cohesion’, itexplicitly uses the language ofgeopolitics and danger‐at‐our‐borders to justify its involvement inthis sector. The Commission needsto be clear about what is trying toachieve here: jobs and growth, orEuropean military capability? If theformer, is this industry congruentwith the values of the EuropeanUnion?The EU is certainly becomingmilitarised, though it is a long‐termtrend, not a sudden policy shift. Infact, there is no sign thatsignificant transfers of competency

from Member States to Brussels will occur in theforeseeable future. The failure of the EU as amechanism for common military action in both Libyaand Mali highlights the many challenges a European‐level defence faces. Inaction stems from the many as‐yet‐unanswered questions about how European statescould work together. Not least amongst these is whythe EU should replicate structures that already exist inNATO. Another issue is funding. Why should the majormilitary spenders (UK, France and Germany) foot thebill for a common European defence? There is littleincentive for these countries to subsidise the smaller,less well‐equipped armed forces of their Europeanneighbours. A mechanism does exist for sharing thecosts of EU joint military operations, ‘Athena’. But, itis limited to CSDP missions, and has so far only beenused in nine operations. In theory, it could beexpanded if more permanent, structured cooperationwere to become reality.Our response to the militarisation of the EuropeanUnion should be one of alarm and concern. We need toshine a light on the moves of the Commission, theEuropean Defence Agency, and even the MemberStates. Whilst spending on healthcare, education andsocial support is being reduced across many Europeancountries, there is still a disproportionate focus onprotecting our armed forces and military capabilities.We must ask ourselves what sort of Europe we reallywant: a continent looking to arm itself against thethreats it doesn’t yet understand ‐ or a community ofpeoples working together to promote mutualunderstanding both within and outside of its borders.

Chris Venables

A German solider wearing the badge of EUNaval Force ATALANTA, the anti‐piracy mission

off the coast of Somalia.Pho

tocre

dit:E

UNAVF

ORATA

LANTA

The EU is becoming militarised,though it is a long‐term trend,

not a sudden policy shift.

Lurking in the Shadows of Europe: Torture and Terrorism3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhumane or degrading treatment”

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Guantanamo Bay, a US detainment and interrogationcamp in a US‐controlled part of Cuba, has become asymbol of the US ‘war on terror’. It is famous for itsill‐treatment of prisoners and appalling detentionconditions which now represent, for many around theglobe, the ‘land of the free’. In March this year, NaviPillay, United Nations High Commissioner for HumanRights urged the US to close Guantanamo Bay due to‘the continuing indefinite incarceration of many of thedetainees’, violating international law. Largeproportions of these prisoners have never beencharged of a crime yet aredetained without trial dueto US allegations ofconnections with ‘globalterrorism’. Now conditionshave worsened in theprison and inmates havebegun a hunger strikeprotesting their ill‐treatment. An ongoing UKpublic inquiry is alsoexamining claims thatBritish soldiers torturedand killed Iraqi prisonersat a British detentioncentre in Shaibah nearBasra, Iraq. It seemstorture is viewed as‘normal’ in war.A report issued this year by the Open Society JusticeInitiative (OSJI), Globalizing Torture: CIA detentionand secret rendition, is the first comprehensiveaccount of the human rights abuses of the CIA secretdetention and extraordinary rendition operations.According to the report, the CIA held and transportedalleged terrorists between CIA prisons or “black sites”outside the United States, where they were held for upto five years. In this report, some European UnionMember States are recognised as complicit in thetransfer of prisoners from and to such detentioncentres as Guantanamo Bay, during the Bushadministration.In these “black sites” many detainees were subjectedto “enhanced interrogation techniques” before beingtransferred to Guantanamo (or released from prison).“Enhanced interrogation techniques” included stresspositions and waterboarding, which fall under theUnited Nations (1984) definition of torture:“Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whetherphysical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on aperson for such purposes as obtaining from him or athird person information or a confession, punishinghim for an act he or a third person has committed oris suspected of having committed, or intimidating orcoercing him or a third person, or for any reason

based on discrimination of any kind, when such painor suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of orwith the consent or acquiescence of a public officialor other person acting in an official capacity”.According to Human Rights Watch, AmnestyInternational, and the OSJI report, during the Bushadministration many of these “black sites” werelocated within EU countries. And some EU MemberStates may still be involved in the CIA’s secretdetention of suspected terrorists, as short‐term

transitory detentionfacilities may stillexist.In total, 54governments world‐wide assisted in thecapture andtransport ofdetainees; many alsoallowed access todomestic airspace.One example isIreland. According toa 2007 EuropeanParliament report,147 stopovers weremade in Ireland byCIA aircraft coming

from or going to countries linked with extraordinaryrendition circuits and the transfer of detainees.Unsurprisingly, some of the same EU Member Statescomplicit in CIA practices have still not ratified theOptional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture(OPCAT). This convention is an additional protocol tothe UN Convention on Torture. It requires countries toput in place preventative mechanisms and controls, toensure torture is not taking place in that country’sprisons. National Preventative Mechanisms (NPMs),operating at the country level, and the Subcommitteeon Prevention of Torture (SPT), overseeing the runningof the OPCAT, document detention conditions in thosestates that have signed and ratified the OPCAT. The EUrequires that foreign countries sign and ratify theOPCAT to gain ‘European Neighbourhood’ status butnot all EU Member States have signed it themselves.The EU needs to get its act together, to require of itsown Member States the same standards as it demandsof ‘Neighbourhood’ countries.

Documenting and Preventing TortureTorture can be mental or physical. Unsatisfactorydetention conditions, overcrowding, and solitaryconfinement all have a physiological impact on aprisoner. In England and Wales, for example, prisonshold around 7,300 more inmates than they weredesigned for.

Photo

credit

: US D

epartm

entof

Defens

e

A US solider stands guard over an exercise area of Joint Task ForceGuantanamo detention centre at US Naval Base Guantanamo Bay.

4

Then and Now: Energy Policy

Join us at our November conference! See the back page for details.

1978 19782013The basement of Quaker House in Brussels contains a

large amount of archived material, including all theoriginal issues of our newsletter Around Europe. It canbe surprising at times to read how little has changed incertain policy areas over the last four decades; manyof the issues of the 1970s and 1980s are still beingdiscussed more than thirty years later in the 2010s.

'Bridging the energy gap'Then: Energy policy features prominently in the firstedition of Around Europe in January 1978. Back then,the European Economic Community (EEC) was as busyas it is now searching for ways to meet Europe’senergy needs. Demand was set to increase because ofeconomic and population growth, but supply wasfragile, due to dependency on oil from the Middle Eastand public safety concerns over nuclear power. The oilcrisis of 1973 illuminated the threat to economicgrowth of unstable energy supply and was no doubt asignificant factor in pushing the EEC to search forenergy alternatives, such as solar power.

Now: The disparity between supply and demand,commonly referred to as the ‘energy gap’, still shapesdiscourse in the European Union today. WhilstEuropean‐level institutions continue to search foralternatives in supply, the focus of QCEA is on reducingdemand through improving energy efficiency. In theAround Europe of March 2012, we read that“unfamiliarity and the protection of the status quo”are powerful obstacles to the implementation ofenergy efficiency policies. For example, the EU iscurrently facing difficulties in agreeing energyefficiency targets.

'Lack of consensus'Then: The EEC’s energy policy in 1978 was describedby QCEA as being “ill‐defined because a common frontis prevented by the clash of interests among the Nine[Member States]”. Around Europe detailed the lack ofconsensus and highlights points of tension: the hugecoal industries of the UK and West Germany; theinsecurity of oil supplies from the Middle East; andpublic concern over the nuclear question.

At the Council of Europe level, the EuropeanCommittee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhumanor Degrading Treatment (CPT) conducts preventativevisits to detention centres in Council of EuropeMember States, documenting and monitoringdetention and prisoner conditions. The most recentvisit was to Montenegro in February 2013. This was thethird visit to the country and was used to assess theextent to which recommendations from previous visitshad been implemented. The 2008 CPT report,published in 2010, observed that conditions of somedetention centres in Montenegro were unsatisfactory.The Berane Police Station and the Komanski MostInstitution for people with special needs werehighlighted in the report as places where detentionconditions were inhumane and degrading. It will beinteresting to see what has changed in Montenegrosince the CPT’s 2008 visit.

The Istanbul Protocol (1999) is a set of internationalguidelines for the assessment of persons who allegetorture and ill‐treatment which can be used tounderpin instruments such as the OPCAT and CPT. TheProtocol supports practitioners – both legal andmedical ‐ in their field‐work to assess victims of

torture are most probably suffering extremepsychological as well as physical trauma. Evidence oftorture is crucial for a stronger case during courtproceedings, leading to a fairer trial. It also enhancesthe likelihood that victims of torture will be grantedasylum. It can be life‐saving in cases where, ifdeported, there is a possibility that an asylum‐seekerwill be tortured in his or her country of origin.For Quakers, there is that of the Holy Spirit ineveryone. If a person commits a crime, punishment isnot the solution. Even a terrorist has human rights,and these must be upheld. These human rights areviolated through torture, whether a person is‘innocent’ or ‘guilty’. Early Quakers were imprisonedfor their beliefs and today many Quakers are active inthe abolition of torture, bearing witness to ourtestimonies of peace and equality. States andInstitutions still deny that torture takes place on theirsoil. This is apparent even when there is evidence toshow that torture is taking place. For example,Belgian intelligence services were unwilling tocooperate, and provided inaccurate information, for a2006 Belgian Senate report on the use of Belgianairports for CIA extraordinary rendition. It is one ofthe most serious human rights violations and mustend.This article has highlighted examples of EU MemberState complicity in CIA extraordinary rendition and thelack of OPCAT ratification by all European Unionmember states. If hidden detention facilities remain inthe shadows of the EU, there is still so much thatneeds to be done to eradicate torture in Europe.

Imogen Parker

“The absence of physical evidenceshould not be construed to suggest thattorture did not occur, since such acts ofviolence against persons frequentlyleave no marks or permanent scars.”

From the Istanbul Protocol (1999)

5

Can the EU help to Revive the Middle East Peace Process?

"We seem to be at a turning point in human history. We can choose life or watch theplanet become uninhabitable for our species." ‐ Pat Saunders, 1987, QF&P 29.03

The Middle East Peace Process has been stalled since2010, when the Palestinian Authority broke off directnegotiations because of Israel’s continuingconstruction of settlements in the OccupiedPalestinian Territories (OPT).QCEA recognises the suffering experienced by bothPalestinians and Israelis. We believe that all peoplehave a right to live in peace and security. In dividedterritories, where walls snake through communities,the level of tension is a threat to security. Ill‐treatment fuels anger, hatred, and further violence inresponse. Checkpoints make it difficult for Palestiniansto travel within the West Bank. And the separationbarrier, or “Wall”, which has been constructed withinthe West Bank makes access to Israel or even EastJerusalem difficult. In January 2013, 178 Palestinianswere being held in administrative detention. Thisdetention may be indefinite, may be based on secretinformation, and does not include charging thedetainee or permitting them to stand trial. The Israelioccupying forces also do not do enough to protectPalestinians in the West Bank from settler violence.The EU has repeatedly stated in publicpronouncements that the Israeli settlements in theOPT are “illegal under international law and constitutean obstacle to peace”. The International Court ofJustice has determined that the settlements areillegal, and the UN considers them to be a violation ofthe Fourth Geneva Convention. Settlementconstruction has been described as the single biggestthreat to the two‐state solution by the consuls general

of European Union (EU) Member States based inJerusalem and Ramallah, as well as by Israeli groupssuch as Peace Now.Despite this, following the decision in the UnitedNations (UN) General Assembly on 29 November 2012to give Palestine non‐member observer status at theUN, Israel announced plans to build more than 11,000new houses for Israelis in the West Bank and EastJerusalem. Another project, plans for 3,000 newhomes in the E1 area east of Jerusalem, is especiallyproblematic because it will separate East Jerusalemfrom the rest of the West Bank, making it difficult forEast Jerusalem to function as the capital of a futurePalestinian state. Israel’s new housing minister, UriAriel, is a settler himself and a member of the pro‐settler Jewish Home party.

Not only land, but resourcesIn the OPT, not only is the construction of homes forIsraelis on the illegal settlements problematic, butIsrael is also exploiting the water and mineralresources which, according to international law,belong to the local Palestinian population. Israel’snational water company controls the supply of waterthroughout the West Bank as well as Israel. Water–mostly groundwater‐ is plentiful in the Israelisettlements, and enough is available for irrigatedagriculture, which consumes a great deal of water. Inper capita terms, much less water is supplied to thePalestinians in the West Bank. In the interests of peace

19782013 2013Now: Today, national interests still represent a keystumbling block to the development of a sustainableEU energy policy, especially regarding renewables. Forexample, in the November 2011 issue of AroundEurope, QCEA Policy Officer Paul Parrish highlightsPoland’s interest in continuing to exploit non‐renewable energy sources such as coal and shale gas.In 2013, the Eastern European country continues tocreate serious problems in the Council of Ministers byrepeatedly blocking attempts to put in place bindingtargets on reducing carbon emissions. However, Polandis not alone in putting narrow economic interests overfinding common ground on tackling climate change:other Member States are currently exploring the useof induced hydraulic fracturing (fracking).

Developing renewable energyThen: In the first issue of Around Europe, we read thatthe European Commission planned to fund theconstruction of a ‘high‐power solar energy plantcapable of generating electricity’ in Italy. This was thevery first contract issued for a solar energy plant inthe world.Now: With solar energy already well developed in1978, readers of Around Europe may question why it isdescribed today as a ‘new’ energy source and oftennot considered to be a viable alternative to fossilfuels. In the March 2012 edition of Around Europe,Paul Parrish explained that “continued investment infossil fuels removes incentives to invest in sustainablealternatives”. The challenge we face in policydiscussions today is to speak out against the assumedinevitable dominance of economic growth and theneed for traditional fossil fuels to create it. We mustpersuade policy makers and stakeholders that energyefficiency and renewable energy sources are not justviable, but essential.

Bethany Squire and Chris Venables

This is a new series on policy issues we work on todaywhich were reported in the first issues of AroundEurope.Are you curious about a topic in the early 1980s? Getin touch at office@qcea.org!

Find us on Facebook, search for 'QCEA'! Follow us on Twitter @QCEA.6

for all those living in both Palestine and Israel, the EUshould be applying whatever leverage it can topersuade Israel to end settlement construction, sothat the Middle East Peace Process can be revived.

The EU’s roleTrue peace – peace with justice – must seem like animpossible dream. But a just and lasting peace wouldbenefit Israelis as well as Palestinians, as many peopleinside and outside Israel recognise. The EU ForeignAffairs Council meeting in December concluded:“There will be no sustainable peace until thePalestinians' aspirations for statehood and sovereigntyand those of Israelis for security are fulfilled through acomprehensivenegotiated peace basedon the two‐statesolution.” So, what canthe EU do – or refrainfrom doing – to facilitatea revival of the MiddleEast Peace Process? Well,firstly, the EU shouldincrease diplomaticpressure on Israel torespect the human rightsof Palestinians and fulfilits obligations underinternational law.There are two otherpaths of action (or non‐action) which the EUshould take. One relatesto EU trade with the illegal West Bank settlements.The other relates to access to EU research funding forprivate companies and public bodies which areresponsible for settlement construction, exploitationof water and other resources in the OccupiedPalestinian Territories, or the construction of theseparation barrier.Catherine Ashton, the High Representative of theUnion for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice‐President of the European Commission (HR/VP), hascalled on Member States to apply existing EUlegislation which excludes goods produced in theOccupied Territories from the preferential tariffsaccorded to goods produced within Israel. The

Netherlands is following the UK’s example in requiringaccurate labelling of goods from West Banksettlements, so that consumers can exercise their rightto choose not to buy produce grown on stolen landusing stolen water for irrigation. Given that the IsraeliWest Bank settlements are illegal under internationallaw, a ban on trade with the settlements is justified.Private companies and public bodies which areinvolved in settlement construction shareresponsibility for a serious breach of international law.They should not have access to EU funding.Towards the end of last year, the European Parliamentpassed an amendment to the regulations which willgovern Horizon 2020, the EU’s new Framework

Programme for Research andInnovation which will runfrom 2014 to 2020. Thisamendment would excludefrom participation in Horizon2020 any legal entity which isimplicated in a seriousbreach of international law.The Parliament considers theexclusion of such bodies tobe necessary to ensure thatthe EU does not implicitlyrecognise or render aid andassistance in maintaining asituation which is contrary tointernational law. TheEuropean Commissionconsiders the Parliament’samendment to be toorestrictive and would prefer

weaker guidelines which are being drawn up by theEuropean External Action Service (EEAS). There needsto be strong support for the amendment within theCouncil of the European Union which represents thegovernments of the Member States. Otherwise theamendment will be lost in the current trialoguenegotiations between the Parliament, the Commission,and the Council.If you would like to take action on this issue by writingto those ministers in your national government whoare responsible for either research or European affairs,please let us know by sending an e‐mail tooffice@qcea.org

Gordon Matthews

EU Foreign Policy chief Catherine Ashton and PalestinianPrime Minister Salam Fayyad meet in Brussels.

4th February: Alexandra represented QCEA at a meeting ofthe Board of Directors of the European Investment Bank.22‐24th February: Imogen attended the Quakers inCriminal Justice Conference in Swanick, UK. There was aspecific focus on restorative justice.27th February: Gordon and Chris took part in an event inLeuven, Belgium, at which Ben Hayes, Fellow at theTransnational Institute, spoke on EU research funding forIsraeli arms companies.

8th March: A member of Brussels Meeting, Karen King,organised a fundraising dinner for QCEA held in QuakerHouse. She cooked Asian‐fusion food for 24 guests.20th March: Alexandra spoke on ‘payment for ecosystemservices’ at a conference of the Chartered Institute ofEcology and Environmental Management in the UK.

QUAKER HOUSE NEWS

Benjamin Zephaniah was born and raised inBirmingham to a Barbadian father and Jamaicanmother. He is a poet and writer whose work is said tobe influenced by the music and poetry, or ‘streetpolitics’, of Jamaica. Zephianah rejected an Order ofthe British Empire in 2003.Zephaniah’s novel Refugee Boy (2001) has recentlybeen adapted for stage by Lemn Sissay, Associate Artistat Southbank Centre, London. Sissay’s birthmother wasan Ethiopian who migrated to the UK in the 1960s. Sheand Sissay were separated when he was born, and shewas deported to Ethiopia. Sissay, a British citizen,spent his childhood in the UK care system.I saw Refugee Boy at the West Yorkshire Playhouse inLeeds, England, at the end of March. It tells the storyof a young boy, Alem Kelo, who was placed in the caresystem in the UK whilst he waited for a decision on hisrefugee status. Alem and his father, Mr Kelo, came toEngland on holiday from Ethiopia. Alem’s fatherreturned to Africa but believed it safer for Alem toremain. The play depicts Alem’s life in the UK, hisparents' struggle in Ethiopia and Eritrea, and thesituation and turmoil faced by Alem’s foster family.Refugee Boy puts a face on migration and gives a socialcommentary about the care system in England duringthe late 1980s. The story switches between the realityof Alem’s daily life, and the geo‐political context ofthe 1998‐2000 war between Eritrea and Ethiopia. AfterAlem’s mother is killed in the Ethiopian‐Eritreanconflict, his father returns to the UK in search of Alem.Together they request asylum but are denied. In amoving, powerful conversation, Alem says: ‘Everythingis politics, Father! You know this. We are here becauseof politics! The judge is there because of politics! Andwe are being sent home because of politics!”Alem was the only character in the piece played byone actor, Fisayo Akinade. The other sixteencharacters were played by six actors who movedseamlessly between different personalities. Alem’sabandonment and upheaval is thus magnified by thetransitory sense of characters gliding in and out of hislife. The small stage was overwhelmed with suitcases,symbols of travel and change, helping the audienceempathise with Alem, as his life shifts. The one‐and‐a‐half hour play with no interval also maintained themomentum of Alem’s personal journey.

Sissay writes in the introduction to the play: “Maybe ifwe accepted that immigration is natural to humans …there would be more peace in the world”. Refugee Boyis a play of protest. It draws attention to theinequalities of UK politics and justice, the livedexperiences of many asylum seekers, and a child’svulnerability in the care system.

The EU Schengen Agreement (1995) abolishes internalborder controls of its 26 signatory states, creating onesingle external border. It allows freedom of movementof goods and services, making it easier to travel and dobusiness between states. It has also become easier forpeople to migrate between different EU MemberStates. However, some signatory states now wish fortighter borders to limit movement and migration.For example, since the 2011 NATO militaryintervention in Libya, France and Italy have tightenedtheir shared border. These states were party tointervention in Libya, in the name of ‘responsibilityand protection’ of the Libyan people. The interventiondisplaced thousands of people; many of whom soughtrefuge in France and Italy as the closest Europeanstates. The boat that sank off the Italian island ofLampedusa while carrying migrants from North Africaacross the Mediterranean, caught the attention of thepress in 2011. The story illustrated EU Member Stateneglect for the migrant passengers: Italy and NATO hadignored distress signals from the boat.As Refugee Boy depicts, people seeking asylum havecomplicated and sometimes tragic stories. Many faceprecarious and desperate situations, fleeing instability,risking death and facing an uncertain future!Politicians in the EU are treading a fine line when itcomes to immigration, as nationalism and extremeright‐wing groups are gaining more political ground. AsAlem states in Refugee Boy, ‘Everything is politics,Father!’ We must support those politicians whorecognise the global consequences of their actions andthose politicians who seek equal treatment of peopleand who work towards peace. Imogen Parker

7Play Review: Refugee Boy by Benjamin Zephaniah

Find us online at www.qcea.org or email us at office@qcea.org

Photo

credit

:CVen

ables

Mr Kelo: No. No, Alem. No! No! Alem. No! Enough! Weshould wait for the appeal. We should not get involved in thepolitics of this country. We should be as peaceful as possible.Make no fuss. We cannot afford to draw attention toourselves.Alem: Jah knows what will happen to us if we get sent back?It is our rights. Our human rights, Dad. Sometimes thesejudges and Adjudicator people they don’t listen. The judgedoesn’t know anything about Ethiopia or Eritrea. He didn’teven know when our Christmas was. He didn’t even knowwhen our Christmas was, Dad! How can he know our case?An excerpt from Refugee Boy, p.51.

€Around EuropeQuaker Council for European AffairsSquare Ambiorix 50, B‐1000, Brussels, Belgium

8

A Bigger Around Europe!Enjoying the bigger Around Europe? We thankthose who have commented already and will bedelighted to receive more feedback on thisexperiment. Write to office@qcea.org, send us aletter, or comment on our Facebook page!Around Europe is designed using the open‐source desk‐top publishing software Scribus.This issue was put together by Chris Venables.

EUROPE AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE: GUARANTEEING A FAIR SHARE

What alternatives are there to austerity?What are the causes and consequences of the European economic crisis?

How can we contribute to the building of a just and sustainable economy?

Trevor Evans will give a broad analysis of theEuropean economic crisis and suggestalternative policies which could contribute tothe development of a more just andsustainable economy. He has a PhD ineconomics from the University of London, andhe worked for many years at the RegionalCentre for Economic and Social Research(CRIES) in Managua, Nicaragua. Trevor hasbeen a professor of economics at the BerlinSchool of Economics since 2006.The second keynote will be given by JudithKirton‐Darling. After completing a degree inSocial and Political Studies, Judith was aProgramme Assistant at QCEA, working onhuman rights and social policy. She hasworked inside the trade union movement formore than ten years. In May 2011, she waselected Confederal Secretary to the EuropeanTrade Union Confederation. Judith will drawon her faith and working experience toexplore the questions posed by the need forjust and sustainable development. She willthen suggest what action Quakers might takeat local, national and European levels.

On Saturday, the conference will include a choice ofworkshops on topics such as a European basic income, therole of cooperatives, local currencies, tax justice, andethical investment. There will be entertainment on theSaturday evening. And on Sunday morning there will beMeeting for Worship followed by a final plenary sessiondrawing the threads together. The conference will be anexcellent opportunity to meet like‐minded Quakers fromaround Europe who share an interest in economic issues.We look forward to you joining us here in Brussels inNovember!

SPEAKERS PROGRAMME

QCEA and QPSW Conference 2013Brussels, 15‐17th November

Editeur responsable : Alexandra BosbeerNo. entreprise 0420.346.728www.qcea.orgqceablog.wordpress.com

DETAILSThe conference fee of €185 (£160) per person includesregistration, meals and accommodation, but not travel.There is a reduced conference fee of €170 (£145) forparticipants who are Associate/Supporting Members ofQCEA or who represent an Area or Local Meeting which isan Associate/Supporting Member. Brussels residents,please contact QCEA regarding non‐residential prices.Booking forms are available from QCEA and must bereturned to conference@qcea.org by 31 July 2013.Participants living in Britain are asked to return theirbooking forms with payment to: Karl Gibbs, FriendsHouse, 173 Euston Road, London NW1 2BJ; Phone: 0207663 1109; E‐mail: karlg@quaker.org.uk