In December 2013 the Council of the European Union(a meeting of Heads of Government from all EUMember States) met to look at the future of the EU’sCommon Security and Defence Policy (CDSP). Thesummit identified three priorities: to increase theeffectiveness and visibility of EU security policy; tofurther develop military capabilities; and tostrengthen Europe's defence industry. This focus isintended to “bring benefits in terms of growth, jobsand innovation to the broader European industrialsector” (Conclusions from the European Council, 20December 2013, p2).Despite calls for a broadersecurity policy from QCEAand others, the Councilpushed forward with thedevelopment of militarytechnologies such asRemotely Piloted AircraftSystems (drones) and air‐to‐air refuelling capacityneeded to supportairstrikes. Similarly, theCouncil called for the EU toagree defensive strategieson cyber and maritimesecurity, evidence of acontinued 'Fortress Europe'approach. The Council’s 26‐page concluding documentdedicates only onesentence to the need tofurther develop civiliancapabilities within CSDP.This is particularly perverse given that the EU iscurrently undertaking 12 civilian missions and onlyfour military operations. The EU also gives nearly 3billion Euro in bilateral development aid to fragilecountries. This scale of contribution deserves asecurity policy that complements it.

Growing the EU Defence IndustryThe Council agreed that EU countries need to expandefforts to ensure EU citizens have the skills requiredby the defence industry. Following the economic crisisit is not surprising that EU states wish to grow theirdefence industries, but this should not happen bypreparing for military conflict and trading in arms.

QCEA consistently argues that prioritising jobs andgrowth over all other considerations is repeating theeconomic mistakes of the past. All EU policy shouldcontribute toward increasing human well‐being. Apolicy of defence industry growth is inconsistent withthe notion of the EU as a peace project.

Alternatives to MilitarismInstead of militarisation and support for defenceindustries, the Council should focus on the root causesof conflict and on civilian peace‐building. In 2011 the

European Commissionpublished 'Agenda forChange'. This new policyidentified the intertwinednature of security withdevelopment policy,peace‐building, conflictprevention, human rights,and good governance.The Agenda argued thatthe EU should focus onsecurity challenges instates which are fragile,conflict‐affected, or intransition.However, the conclusionsfrom last December’sCouncil show an almostsingle‐minded focus onmilitarism. The documentmakes no reference topeace‐building

capabilities such as transitional justice, police reform,or mediation programmes. Instead the

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

No. 355 February‐March 2014European Union Reverts to Militarism

In this issue:Militarisation in Europe (p.1)QCEA Study Tour (p.2)Press Freedoms in the West Bank (p.3)The TTIP Sunset Clause (p.5)QCEA's Action Alerts (p.7)Quaker House News (p.7)Don't Forget to Have Your Say at the EU (p.8)

Latvian troops taking part in a European Union Battle Groupexercise, Salisbury Plain, United Kingdom, August 29th 2012

Photo

Credt:

LA(Ph

ot)Jas

onBal

lard,

CC

European Council ignored cost‐effective preventionstrategies, prioritising instead reactive capabilities tofight ‘illegal migration, organised crime andterrorism’. These challenges are symptoms ofunderlying problems which can only be addressedthrough civilian capabilities rooted in a moresophisticated concept of security.

Since the days of the firstQuakers in the 17th century, wehave testified that both war and

the preparation for war areinconsistent with the spirit of

Christ‘Human security’ has been promoted by academics andNGOs for many years as it focuses on developingpolitical, economic, social and environmentalstructures that protect individuals and communities.This contrasts with traditional approaches to securitythat protect the nation‐state through the threat or useof violence against perceived enemies.Since the days of the first Quakers in the 17th century,we have testified that both war and the preparationfor war are inconsistent with the spirit of Christ (or theDivine). Today Quakers in Europe seek an EU security

policy that reflects the challenges andinterdependence of our world. Like Quakers in NorthAmerica, QCEA advocates for more integratedproblem‐solving approaches that value human dignityand create a stronger basis for lasting peace andsecurity.

The Road AheadOn 27 March 2014 the EU’s Defence Agency will hold itsannual conference, reviewing initial progress againstthe goals set by the December summit. The ItalianGovernment have promised that they will continue toprioritise defence when they take over the Presidencyof the European Council next year. They plan to holdanother Heads of Government summit with a similarlymilitarist focus in June 2015.Our world is too small for security to be anything otherthan an indivisible concept to which all people areentitled. We should continue to encourage ourrepresentatives to reflect on the self‐defeatingoutcomes of fear‐based policies and whetherenhancing support for European arms manufacturers iseither useful or consistent with stated Europeanvalues.

Andrew LaneFind out more: QCEA produced a briefing paper on thegrowing militarism within the EU in advance of theDecember European Council.

2"Let light shine out of darkness", 2 Corinthians 4:6

Last Minute Places!QCEA Study Tour 5th – 12th April 2014

Registration is still open for the QCEA study tour 5 – 12 April 2014. Join us for a special week! "The StudyTour is a remarkable opportunity to see and access the institutions and buildings in Brussels and Strasbourg",

said one recent participant. Last date for registration is 24 February 2014. For more information, seehttp://www.qcea.org/home/events/study‐tours/ or contact studytour@qcea.org

A Neuron Drone at the 'Salon du Bourget' Paris Airshow, June 22nd 2011.

Photo

Credit

,Guer

ric,CC

Find us on Facebook, search for 'QCEA'! Follow us on Twitter @QCEA.3

Freedom of expression, including press freedom, is anessential component of democratic rights andfreedoms. The Council of the European Union hasidentified press freedom as an essential pillar ofdemocracy which both ensures transparency andfacilitates public participation in democraticprocesses. A free media can empower citizens byproviding them with a civic forum through which tohold democratic institutions to account. It is alsoimportant for voters to be exposed to a wide variety ofpolitical opinions and accurate information in order tomake well‐informed decisions. The internationalorganisation Reporters without Borders estimates thatalmost half of the world’s population is currentlydenied freedom of expression and information. In theOccupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) of the West Bank,press freedoms are restricted by the activities of boththe Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Israeli occupyingauthorities.

The Occupied Palestinian TerritoriesThe OPT is divided into two parts: the West Bank andthe Gaza Strip. Since 2007, the Gaza Strip has beenunder the de facto control of the Islamic organisationHamas. Approximately 40 per cent of the West Bank iscurrently administered by the PA, which is run by thepolitical party Fatah. The other 60 per cent remainsunder direct Israeli military and civilian control.Consequently, Palestinian citizens in some parts of theWest Bank are effectively subject to the dualadministration of both the PA and Israeli authorities.Activities which undermine press freedoms, such asphysical attacks on journalists and confiscation ofequipment, have been documented as beingperpetrated by both governing authorities in the WestBank. The Palestinian Center for Development andMedia Freedoms (MADA) reported that 30 per cent ofmedia freedom violations in the OPT in 2012 werecommitted by the PA, whilst Israeli military actionsaccounted for the remaining 70 per cent.

Israeli Military ForceAccording to Reporters without Borders, Palestinianjournalists are extremely vulnerable to abuse by theIsraeli Defence Forcse (IDF) in the West Bank. Anexample is the case of Palestinian journalist Amer AbuArafa. Arafa was released from Israeli administrativedetention in August 2013, after being held withoutcharge for nearly two years. In March 2013, PrisonerSupport and Human Rights Association (Addameer)noted a sharp increase in the numbers of Palestinianjournalists being detained by the IDF in the West Bank,compared to the same period in 2012. The routine useof administrative detention by Israel contravenes thestrict parameters established by internationalhumanitarian law.

Limiting Democratic FreedomsPress Freedom in the Occupied Palestinian Territory of the West Bank

The language used to describe events in the WestBank can sometimes be as complicated as thesituation itself. Here are some useful definitions:

Administrative detentionAdministrative detention is implemented solely onthe basis of an administrative order, withouteither indictment or trial. (‘AdministrativeDetention’, B’Tselem)

Arbitrary arrest and detentionArrest and detention are arbitrary when:1. It is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basisjustifying the deprivation of liberty.2. Deprivation of liberty results from the exerciseof guaranteed rights or freedoms, such asfreedom of expression.3. International norms regarding the right to a fairtrial are not observed.(Fact Sheet No. 26, The Working Group onArbitrary Detention, Office of the UN HighCommissioner for Human Rights)

Investigative journalismInvestigative journalism is ‘the unveiling ofmatters that are concealed either deliberately, bysomeone in a position of power, or accidentally,behind a mass of facts and circumstances, andthe analysis and exposure of all relevant facts tothe public’. (The Global Investigative JournalismCasebook, UNESCO)

Ramallah in the West Bank, OPT. Photo Credit: Felix Abraham, CC

4" Every human being is a child of God with a measure of God’s Light. War and other instruments of violence andoppression ignore this reality and violate our relation with God." Philadelphia Yearly Meeting Advices, III. 

Palestinian AuthorityWhilst it is Israeli military forces in the West Bank whoare responsible for the majority of violations of therights of Palestinian journalists, the PA is also hinderingfreedom of expression. Palestinian Basic Law and the1995 Press and Publication Law state that there shouldbe no censorship of the press. However, the laws alsospecify that press activity can be restricted if itthreatens ‘national unity’ or ‘Palestinian values’. Thiscondition allows leeway for the PA to restrict thepress, often through arbitrary arrests and detentions.In November 2013 there were at least three knowninstances of arrest and detention amongst members ofthe media. For example, Palestinian security servicesarrested Radio Bethlehem 2000 manager GeorgeCanawati on charges of slander after raiding his home.According to MADA, on 12 January 2014 members ofthe PA security services temporarily detained RayaMedia Agency photographers outside a refugee camp insouthern Ramallah, ordering them to destroy anyfootage they had filmed. MADA has expressedconcerns that the continuing policy of arrests isresulting in self‐censorship of the press and a declinein independent investigative journalism. Theweakening of investigative journalism is problematicas it threatens the freedom of expression which iscentral to any democracy.

The EU has a role to play inprotecting freedom of expression

for PalestiniansThe Council of Europe resolution regarding mediafreedoms in EU member states demonstrates theimportance of media freedoms to the promotion ofdemocracy in Europe. The importance of theseprinciples also holds for countries outside the EU.

The EU is an outspoken supporter of the creation of aviable, democratic Palestinian state through a two‐state solution. A free press is an essential component.Currently, direct military and civilian control by Israelin parts of the West Bank undoubtedly undermines therule of law and limits the ability of the PA to take stepstowards independent statehood. The actions of bothIsraeli forces and the PA are negatively impactingfreedom of expression through detentions ofjournalists and other abusesThe EU has a role to play in protecting freedom ofexpression for Palestinians and strengtheningdemocracy in the West Bank. Since 1994, the EU hasprovided more than €5.6 billion in assistance to thePalestinians. In 2013 alone, the EU supplied €300million for development and security sector, and €168million in direct financial support. As the largest singledonor to the PA, the EU has both the right and theresponsibility to publicly insist on accountability for PAactions which limit democratic freedoms.With regards to Israel, one way in which the Israeligoverning authority violates press freedoms in theWest Bank is the detention of Palestinian journalists.The EU is obliged under international law to respond toIsraeli failures to comply with laws regardingadministrative detention. In challenging Israel’s lack ofcompliance regarding detention, the EU can indirectlyaddress the issue of abuses against press freedoms. Anencouraging step was taken in March 2013 when theEuropean Parliament passed a resolution calling for afact‐finding mission to assess the current situationwith regard to the detention conditions of Palestinianprisoners in Israeli detention centres. It is importantthat in future policy, the EU is careful to consolidatethis positive movement from verbal protests towardsmore concrete measures.

Rebecca Viney‐WoodSubscribe to Around Europe

QCEA is an independent organisation and dependson the support of Quakers and other Around Europereaders to be able to be the Quaker voice inEurope. Please consider encouraging others tosubscribe.Subscription rates for Around Europe from 2014:Become a supporter for 100 euro (or £80)! Associatemembers pay 50 euro (or £40).A single subscription costs 25 euro (£ 20) for printversion or 15 euro (£ 10) to receive an electroniccopy by e‐mail.If you are subscribing in the euro zone, pleasecontact the QCEA office; to pay in sterling pleasecontact Simon Bond at simon@armitage.biz; or visithttp://www.qcea.org/home/involved/donate/

Media freedoms are under threat in the West Bank.Photo Credit: Olatz eta Leire, CC

5An Exit Strategy

A Sunset Clause for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Around the European Union (EU) institutions, there arealways buzzwords that are used to representcontemporary policy ideas. ‘Competitiveness’,‘liberalisation’, and ‘harmonisation’ are some standardexpressions that are currently being used by EUleaders to symbolise the free trade policy pursued bythe EU. Free trade is nothing new to the EU or itspredecessors; in fact, it was part of the reason forestablishing a formal European community in 1957.However, the scale and depth of free trade today ismassive, with the EU negotiating ‘Free TradeAgreements’ (FTAs) with nations across the globe in anattempt to boost economic growth in Europe.

TTIPThe Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership(TTIP), currently being negotiated between the EU andthe United States of America (US), is set to becomeone of the largest FTAs ever, covering over 50 per centof the world’s gross domestic product. Those in favourof the deal say that unnecessary costs will beeliminated by removing (the few remaining) tariffbarriers and by harmonising regulation ‐ for example,standardising the safety protocols for cars to preventduplication of regulatory costs. It is hoped that thesesavings can then be passed on to the consumer, orreinvested in the economy, creating jobs. Theaerospace, automotive, chemical, and pharmaceuticalindustries are areas earmarked to gain significantly.Negotiators have stated that some sectors will beexcluded from the deal, but stakeholders don’t knowwhich, as the talks are confidential. The Centre forEconomic Policy Research estimates that the dealcould be worth up to €119 billion for the EU economyand €95 billion for the US. The same report (producedindependently for the European Commission) predictsthat wider global trade will be boosted by thisincreased interaction between the world’s two biggesteconomic areas.

OppositionTTIP has encountered significant criticism andopposition. Concerns have been raised by specificeconomic sectors worried about the impact of the dealon their businesses. For example, EU pig farmers haveargued that food standards will be lowered and theirbusinesses negatively impacted by cheaper USproduce. The potential environmental impact has ledsome to oppose TTIP, particularly as it could establishrules facilitating increased import ofcrude oil from tarsands into the EU. Following the revelations made byEdward Snowden around the NSA surveillance scandal,others have questioned the viability of placing trust inthe US.There have been suggestions that the EU and USresearch figures showing economic benefits are eithermiscalculations or over‐estimations. The calculationsthemselves have been difficult to obtain, and theresults have been described as too precise to beplausible. It has also been noted that these studies arebased entirely on financial gains and give very littlethought to the all‐round well‐being of citizens.The most consistent and repeated criticisms, though,have focused on the undemocratic nature of the TTIPtalks. All negotiations are totally confidential, whichprevents public scrutiny and has heightened publicsuspicion. One of the few known aspects of the deal isthe plan to include a controversial Investor‐StateDispute Settlement (ISDS), which will give corporationsthe ability to take governments to internationalarbitration courts over regulations that they do notagree with. Newspapers (for example the Guardian, LeLiberation, and the Independent), NGOs (Corporate

“[Equality] is the cornerstone of a society that affirms our common humanity and recognises wellbeing andhuman fulfilment as the desire of us all", Statement on Equality, British Meeting for Sufferings, 2012

German protest against TTIP, Berlin, 2014.Photo Credit: Emma Rothaar, CC.

TTIP is currently being negotiated between the EU and USA.

Photo

Credit

:Hars

hLight

,CC

6Europe Observatory), trade unions (European TradeUnion Confederation), and many other groups haveargued that including an ISDS clause will negativelyimpact on democracy. ISDS could create a situation inwhich law‐making is impeded by fear of financiallosses and corporate powers are given an exaggeratedrole in the legislative process.

Responding to TTIPQuakers and others may want to oppose TTIPcompletely, but that is unlikely to have much of animpact. Large businesses (which have a powerful lobbyindustry at their disposal) are actively supportive ofTTIP. The deal is especially attractive to companies inthose sectors earmarked by negotiators. The EUCommission also remains a strong supporter of TTIP. Ithas said that it recognises that this is an ‘ambitious’deal but has responded to criticisms with repeatedstatements saying an agreement is essential for EUeconomic growth.Currently, this deal does not have an ‘exit strategy’,should the projections about the benefits proveinaccurate or concerns prove to be correct. There is asimple way to protect European and American citizensfrom potential problems: a set date at which TTIPceases to be legally binding.

A Sunset ClauseSunset clauses, or sunset provisions, have had a longhistory and have served many purposes. However, thefundamental idea has always been the same: a specificend date for a piece of legislation, law, or treaty.QCEA is proposing that TTIP includes a specific datewhen the sun sets on TTIP. It would specify a time atwhich renegotiations could be carried out to correctimbalances that may have emerged. The review wouldtake place at a mutually agreed time ‐ after five, ten,

or 20 years – and, of course, a mutual agreement tosimply renew the current agreement is neverimpossible.Sunset clauses are not common in trade deals, butthey have previously been used in a wide range ofsituations, from agreements about the ending ofapartheid in South Africa, to regular use in Germany atthe federal and state (Länder) levels as a tool fordeveloping high quality and efficient legislation.Sunset clauses offer a form of protection and a methodfor achieving an equitable trade deal. If difficultiesarise, it would be in the interests of both parties tonegotiate a workable solution. Otherwise, at thespecified date, one partner could refuse to renew andthe entire deal would end. If there are major problemsthat are ultimately beyond negotiation, either partnercan exit the agreement.Those in favour of TTIP (particularly corporations)would perhaps argue that the defined time limits of asunset clause would put off investors because itcreates a sense of insecurity. They might say that thisinstability could reduce the impact of TTIP (asinsecurity puts off investors) or even doom the deal tofailure before it has even begun, as the anticipatedinvestment never materialises.The response to such an argument is simple. Firstly,governments should not be held hostage by corporateinterests who are unwilling to negotiate a deal thattakes into consideration the legitimate apprehensionsof wider society. The range and depth of concernexpressed by civil society indicate the high level ofpublic anxiety around TTIP, and those raising concernshave a democratic right to have their viewpoint takeninto account. Secondly, democracy, economicstability, and the wellbeing of people must not be putat risk, especially not for a trade deal which is farfrom certain to deliver tangible benefits. It is simplecommon sense that locking oneself into an endlessagreement is very risky. Even if this deal were to besuccessful, would it really be wise to give corporationsmore power for an indeterminate period?Advocating a sunset clause does not imply support forTTIP, but it is a way of ensuring that, whatever formthe deal takes when stakeholders finally see theoutcome of the negotiations, there is at least an exitstrategy. This deal and other FTAs like it should bequestioned and their consequences examined todetermine their impact on society beyond financialgain. However, a sunset clause for TTIP and other FTAscould be a form of insurance, a form of review thatreduces the potential harm from these deals. A sunsetclause would allow the deal itself to be refined overtime, ensuring a more equitable deal, maximisingbenefits and minimising risk.

Chris Diskin

EU‐US Trade meeting, June 2013. Photo Credit: President of theEuropean Council, CC.

We regularly publish short, informal articles on our blog. Why not subscibe via email? Visithttp://qceablog.wordpress.com

"‘Politics’ cannot be relegated to some outer place, but must be recognised as one side of life, which is asmuch the concern of religious people and of a religious body as any other part of life." Lucy F Morland, 1919

QUAKER HOUSE NEWS18 December: QCEA hosted an evening reception ofthe Human Rights and Democracy Network inQuaker House.January: We welcomed additions to our team:Deputy Representative Andrew Lane and OfficeManager/ Friendly Presence Gordon Matthews.9 January: Alexandra and Andrew met with staff atthe European Commission's Justice Directorate.11 January: Quaker House was the location for afun and useful ‘inspiration’ workshop led by DutchQuakers.14 January: Chris attended a dialogue with theEuropean Commission's Trade Directorate about theTTIP trade negotiations.17 January: Quaker House received a visit from 50Belgian students for a discussion of Quakertestimonies.

7

Sign up to participate in calls to action on EU policy. QCEA operates a system of action alerts, in which we sendout e‐mails to Friends and others who have signed up, on the following topics;

PeacePalestine/IsraelCriminal JusticeSustainability and EnergyOther topics as they arise.

How does it work?When QCEA identifies an advocacy point on which the input of European citizens and residents may help bring thepoint forward, we will let you know. These take different forms: they can be a call to send a letter or e‐mail tospecific policy‐makers, to write to your MEP, or to respond to a call for consultation responses from the public. Tohelp you, we will send a model letter or a series of model answers on the topic, so the background research isprepared for you. You may, of course, use this model letter or send a different one of your own devising. What isimportant is that EU citizens are participating in the making of policy!

To sign upTo sign up for action alerts, send an e‐mail with your name, country of residence, and citizenship to Gordon atoffice@qcea.org

We look forward to hearing from you!More information: http://www.qcea.org/home/involved/action‐alerts/

QCEA's Action Alerts

24‐26: January: Alexandra discussed the work ofQCEA at East German Quarterly Meeting (seehttp://quaeker‐berlin.de/).28‐31 January: Alexandra represented QCEA at theCouncil of Europe INGO Forum and observed theParliamentary Assembly (PACE). (Come to the studytour to observe the PACE for yourself!)

Andrew Lane discussing Quaker testimonies with Belgian students

Photo

Credit

:Chri

sDisk

in

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

Around Europe is designed using the open‐source desk‐top publishing software Scribus.This issue was put together by Rebecca Viney‐Wood

Learn more about QCEA's work at www.qcea.org (or email us at office@qcea.org).

Don't Forget to Have Your Say at theEuropean Union

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

8This May, there will be elections for the European Parliament. Hoohum, you might say. It was certainly that waywhen I lived in Ireland, when the European Parliament was considered a bit of a joke compared to the nationalparliament. But things have changed quite a bit since then, with the Lisbon Treaty. Today, the EuropeanParliament has more law‐making powers than before. It is involved in final negotiations on laws with the twoother institutions of the EU: the European Council (of heads of government of all the EU Member States) and theEuropean Commission. The European Parliament ratifies the results of negotiations with other nations, such asTTIP (see this issue, p5). The EU as a whole is taking a greater role in international bodies like the UnitedNations, and the European Parliament and your national ministers are the politicians framing these contributions.

Don’t forget, even if you have a personal skepticism of the European Union, it is a major shaper of our lives. Itwill continue to exist for at least some years to come, and it will continue to influence the lives of those peopleliving in Member States and those outside. The elections in May 2014 are your opportunity to affect one of themajor EU institutions. The 751 Members of European Parliament represent 500 million citizens, so their collectivevoice should be quite loud!

Did you know?• The European Parliament has a much more important role since the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. Hereare some of the things they can do: legislate in areas such as energy security, immigration, and justice; agree thebudget for the European Union; and elect the President of the Commission.• It is predicted that the 2014 election will be an election of extremes, when especially far‐right and Euroscepticparties may become strong in the Parliament. For example, France's Front National recently came top in anational poll of how people will vote in May. This makes it all the more important for centre and left voters toturn out to cast their votes.• If you are a UK voter and do not normally have proportional representation, your vote in the European

Parliament elections is more likely to count, particularly with regards to supporting smallerparties like the Greens.• Now is the time to engage with candidates on those issues which are important to you, such asthe environment or arms control. You can support human rights as QCEA does, by asking all thecandidates in your area to pledge to support human rights at www.stand4humanrights.eu.When I was 19 and moping about perhaps not voting because it didn’t really count, a friendpointed out to me that democratic participation is a right for which many people give their lives.It is our Europe: let’s encourage our friends and neighbours to vote!

Are you confused by the complex field of candidates? You can look online or contact your local parties to findout about the candidates and their views. Websites like www.MyVote2014.eu andwww.votewatch.eu/en/votematch.html can help you find the party that is the best fit for your view.

Image

Credit

:Proof

Strate

gies,C

C