Jagger Receives ‘Right Livelihood Award 2004’
Jagger, a prominent campaigner for human rights, was awarded the
‘Right Livelihood Award 2004’ “...for her long-standing
commitment and dedicated campaigning over a wide range of issues
of human rights, social justice and environmental protection, including
the abolition of the death penalty, the prevention of child abuse,
the rights of indigenous peoples to the environment that supports
them and the prevention and healing of armed conflicts.”
Award is sometimes referred to as the alternative Nobel Prize. It
exists to strengthen the positive social forces that its recipients
represent and to provide the support and inspiration needed to make
them a model for the future. It has been said that if the Nobel
Prizes reflected world concerns of the 20th century, the Right Livelihood
Award should reflect those of the 21st.
the invitation of Angelika Beer, MEP, Bianca Jagger came to Brussels
on 11 and 12 December and gave a lecture at the Free University
of Brussels, met with EU decision makers and attended a lunch (on
12 December) with a small group of representatives of European NGOs.
QCEA was one of the NGOs invited to the lunch (see photo).
had the opportunity to present a brief overview of the work each
organisation does and Bianca Jagger took careful note of what each
of us said, responding with comments of her own on how and to what
extent our work links with hers.
was a very useful opportunity to meet with someone who, because
of their prominence in the public awareness has the opportunity
to give a much needed high profile to issues of peace, human rights
and economic justice.
Jagger will set up a foundation for human rights with the prize
African Peace Facility – What issues does it raise?
is the African Peace Facility?
April 2004, and at the request of the African Union (AU) (1),
the European Union set up a funding mechanism referred to as ‘The
African Peace Facility’. This is ‘a € 250 million
instrument to finance peacekeeping operations in Africa and is led,
operated and staffed by Africans.’ (2)
African Peace Facility will finance peacekeeping operations and
in this context it will fund:
Soldiers’ per diem allowances
Wear and tear of civilian equipment
African Peace Facility will not fund:
Arms and specific military equipment
parts for arms and military equipment
training for soldiers.
initiative to be celebrated?
take a look at the positive features of this initiative. It was
asked for by the African Union. That means it is an African initiative
and it is ‘owned’ by the AU. That in itself is a very
positive aspect of this facility. Secondly, the facility will finance
activities which are to be undertaken by Africans. It won’t
fund Europeans to go to Africa to assist in peacekeeping. That,
too, must be welcomed. And some of the money (some 14%) is allocated
to capacity building. That, too, is a good sign.
and Peace – the connections
can be no development without peace. That much is obvious. However
much money is spent on development projects, violent conflict will
undermine the capacity of people to benefit from this or it will
destroy the very infrastructure and resources that have been funded.
Equally, there can be no peace without development. One of the root
causes of many violent conflicts is poverty and inequality in terms
of access to resources and power. Development can, if directed appropriately,
address this in the longer term, thus removing some of the causes
of violent conflict.
does that mean that funds identified as ‘development funds’
should be used to support peace and security? Far from it.
what are the issues?
there is the underlying concept of peacekeeping. It is a primarily,
if not exclusively military concept. There is little or no room
in the Facility for the deployment or training of civilians to undertake
either peacekeeping or peacebuilding work. This is a concept that
certainly pervades European thinking and, on the basis of the evidence
of this Facility, also pervades the thinking in the African Union.
there is the question of where the money comes from. And that question
opens a Pandora’s Box of issues which go much further than
the African Peace Facility.
money comes from the European Development Fund (EDF). By allowing
development funds to be used for peace and security operations,
and especially if such operations are essentially to be carried
out by military forces, a number of potential consequences follow:
the overall allocation to development funds does not increase, even
less is spent on actual development;
the overall allocation to development increases because of the funding
of peace and security operations, then the donor countries may get
closer to their target of 0.7% of GNI for development without actually
spending more on development. In other words, it might make the
measurement against that target internationally unreliable. As a
result, it will be harder to hold donor countries to account.
In either case, development funding may be re-targeted at countries
which are seen as a ‘security risk’ from the point of
view of the donor countries’ political perspective and away
from countries which may need development assistance just as much
but which don’t pose a security risk.
of these consequences should be dismissed lightly because all of
them have significant implications for donor countries and recipient
countries. For example, if there is an appreciable trend of development
funding moving in the direction of countries which are subject to
violent conflict, this may encourage violent conflict rather than
implications for EU development funding
EU is currently in the process of developing its long term financial
framework for 2007 to 2013. This process includes proposals to change
the way in which external actions are funded. Instead of having
a large number of narrowly defined budget lines for external actions
and having the European Development Fund (EDF) ring-fenced and essentially
outside the budget framework, the intention is to develop 6 new
‘instruments’ to fund external action.
6 instruments as proposed cover the following areas:
policy: funding for candidate countries and potential candidate
countries for Membership of the EU
European Neighbourhood and Partnership policy: funding for those
countries which are not likely to become candidates for membership
but form the immediate neighbourhood of the EU
Cooperation and Economic Cooperation policy: funding for all other
third countries; by including development and economic cooperation
under the same instrument, a clear connection and potential conditionality
in terms of economic cooperation is implicit in this instrument
policy: ‘This is a new instrument designed to provide an adequate
response to instability and crises and to longer term challenges
with a stability and security aspect’ (3)
Humanitarian Aid: this policy area remains unchanged
Financial Assistance: this policy area remains unchanged.
total money allocated to external action as a whole, as foreseen
in the financial perspectives for 2007 to 2013, shows no significant
increase in percentage terms.
the example of the African Peace Facility and given the inclusion
of the EDF in the overall external action ‘pot’ post
2007, the division into these 6 instruments shows clear signs of
the possibility of development funding being used to further the
security interests of the Member States of the EU.
itself, it is understandable that the EU would want to further the
security interests of its Member States, even if there is a need
for a serious public debate on what those interests really are.
But if such a policy is funded at the expense of much needed and
woefully lacking development funds then that is not a positive direction.
the contrary, if the EU wants to fund peacekeeping and peacebuilding
in third countries (and it should!) then it should consider finding
additional monies (maybe at the expense of its own Member States’
military budgets) to do so. That, coupled with a real move towards
peacebuilding (primarily on the basis of civilian interventions)
would be a real step in the right direction.
The African Union was launched by African Leaders at their summit
in Durban in 2002; it has a broad political mandate in the field
of conflict prevention and management. The African Union has set
up a Peace and Security Council which is comprised of 15 elected
Member States representing all regions of Africa.
Securing Peace and Stability for Africa, The EU-Funded African Peace
Facility, European Commission, DG Development, 2004, available on
line at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/body/publications/docs/flyer_peace_en.pdf
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the
European Parliament On the Instruments for External Assistance under
the Future Financial Perspective 2007 – 2013, COM(2004) 626
final, Brussels, September 2004
form Intergroup for Peace Initiatives
5th 2005 the first meeting of the newly formed Intergroup on Peace
Initiatives was held at the European Parliament in Brussels, co-chaired
by the MEPs Caroline Lucas and Tobias Pflüger.
are not official bodies in the European Parliament but are cross-party
groups formed by MEPs which allow them to work together on matters
of common concern. Topics that Intergroups look at are varied and
numerous. Some current examples are Anti-Racism and Diversity, Sky
and Space, Bioethics, Gay and Lesbians Rights and Viticulture (Wine
Intergroup on Peace Initiatives will act as a forum where MEPs of
different political groups can discuss peace & conflict issues,
and further the political debate on these issues. The Intergroup
will work on issues and initiatives which will bring peace, disarmament
and peaceful conflict resolution a step nearer and act as a driving
force for parliamentary political initiatives on the European Union’s
policies relating to peace and disarmament. This will involve various
activities including organising hearings with civil society actors
on peace issues, considering possible responses by the EU in regions
of violent conflict, ensuring parliamentary participation in preparing
the EU position in multilateral conferences on peace and disarmament
and engaging with international peace movement campaigns.
will be acting as secretariat for the Intergroup on Peace Initiatives
providing logistical and administrative support. We are very pleased
to be able to work with this important and timely Intergroup.
Sri Lanka Relief and Peacekeeping Work
Nonviolent Peaceforce, an international grassroots organization
dedicated to nonviolent peacekeeping, has its first team of international
civilian peacekeepers working in Sri Lanka. In the aftermath of
the Tsunami, team members are identifying and visiting areas which
have received little or no attention so as to alert humanitarian
relief agencies about immediate needs. They are also meeting with
other international agency personnel in their areas to assess the
damage and loss of life and to plan for relief efforts.
help the people of Sri Lanka, there are two humanitarian relief
agencies the Nonviolent Peaceforce works with. These agencies are
doing excellent grassroots relief work. To donate, contact:
- The largest civil service organization in Sri Lanka with over
2,000 volunteers working round the clock in the affected areas.
To donate via credit card, please go through the Nonviolent Peaceforce:
- a civil service organization that is dedicated to creating solutions
to global poverty, hunger, and social justice – and is currently
sending food and water to the countries hit by the tsunami: https://secure.ga3.org/02/asia_earthquake04.
updates and more information, please visit: http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org
to the main Around Europe page