An
American Quaker on Peace
Speech
by an American Quaker delivered on 27th September at a rally in Brussels
protesting the occupation of Iraq and the West Bank and Gaza.
Good
afternoon.
I am
not George Bush.
But
I am an American.
I do
not carry a gun.
But
I am an American.
I do
not fly the flag of the United States above my home, or from my
car’s antenna.
But
I am an American.
In
this new “global society” we have been all too rapidly
thrown into, we are not permitted to see the true faces, nor to
know the hearts and minds of our neighbours. Instead we bear witness
to the representations the world media chooses to show us. All too
often, the people we see and the opinions we hear do not reflect
even a small minority of the views of the individuals in question.
I am
here today to tell you that this all too frequently
unseen majority in the United States is not keeping silent.
I am
here today to tell you that although you might not see us on the
“Nightly News” we are there, and we are outraged
by what a few “representatives” in our government –
(most of whom, many of us are
not truly certain we actually voted into office) – believe
they can portray as “the will of the American people”.
These
actions taking place in the Middle East are not based on the will
of the people. They are based on the greed and avarice of a few
wealthy businessmen. They are based on the desire to extend and
deepen US control over the energy-rich Middle East, the single most
important source of strategic power in an industrial world that
runs on oil.
Before
the latest war in Iraq began, the voice of protest could already
be heard throughout the country.
Many
of you here today might remember the demonstrations of 26 October
where in Berlin over 20,000 people demonstrated to stop the war
in Iraq before it began, and here in Belgium where 150 people gathered
in front of the US Embassy. You may also know of the other protests
throughout Germany and Europe that were staged to coincide with
this event.
What
was glaringly overlooked by the mainstream media was that the epicentre
of the protest was the White House in Washington DC, which some
200,000 people surrounded in protest that day. This was the largest
anti-war action since the US military was defeated by a people’s
army in Vietnam in 1975. Another 100,000 demonstrated in San Francisco,
and thousands of others in cities across the US where people were
unable to travel to the main protest centres.
Since
then the protests and demonstrations have continued even as the
Bush Administration has ignored the voices of hundreds of thousands
of Americans. Americans including: doctors, governmental representatives,
authors, college professors, religious officials, war veterans,
labor union representatives, and people from all imaginable walks
of life, all of whom are against the war and the
continuing occupation in Iraq. At the cost of $6 billion per month
(that is $1.5 billion each week) the price tag for the US occupation
of Iraq is being paid for by dramatic budget cuts in primary education
and at the college level, as well as in health care, housing, veterans’
benefits, and other programs that assist working and poor people.
And the Bush administration has used the fear generated by the World
Trade Centre tragedy to push forward this agenda and in the process
limit and dismantle the very freedoms he claims the United States
is fighting to defend.
This
is the time and the place to forget about the borders represented
on the political map and move forward with an international movement
for renewal, for peace, for reconciliation, and for justice.
It
is the time and place to free our hearts and minds from the bonds
of terror and fear, and to go forth not as representatives of our
own interests, but the interests of a global community of friends
and family.
Our
presence here today should serve as a “wake-up call”
to those in power, that the people of the world (including the US)
are demanding a government based on the moral and ethical principles
upholding the human rights of every individual, and not on the principles
of power, domination and Empire. This is the inheritance of every
American from the founding fathers of our country, and a philosophy
which has been shunned by the power-hungry few who control our nation’s
purse strings.
In
peace, and only in peace lies the key to restoring this inheritance,
this precious gift, that the Bush administration has been rapidly
dismantling since “George W.” finessed his way into
office. It is through this restoration that we can create an evolutionary
politics of vision, of compassion, and of joy; to create a new global
nation using the power of love, of community, and participation,
to transform our politics, and ourselves.
The
United States is not the world’s policeman, and should not
try to choose the leaders of other sovereign nations. Neither should
the American people make themselves the unwitting pawns of international
oil interests and arms dealers at the expense in pain and suffering
of the Middle East and other nations suffering under their stronghold.
I pray
for peace for the world.
And
I am an American.
I love
each person as if they were my brother.
And
I am an American.
I believe
we can make of this planet a joyful world without borders.
And
I am an American.
Thank
you for your time.
Return
to contents
Between
a Rock and a Hard place: Developing Countries at the WTO
The
collapse of the WTO ministerial conference in Cancún has posed
the threat of the collapse of the multilateral system for devising
international trade rules. Whilst the WTO rules are much in need of
reform to ensure that a just process delivers a just outcome, (the
reason perhaps why the strength of the developing countries’
voice fomented a collapse), the WTO as it stands at present, at least
offers some degree of protection from the jungle of bilateral agreements,
where the differences in strength of the EU and the US and the developing
world is such that they can demand almost any concessions they want
in bilateral agreements. This
essential dilemma, between a deeply flawed multilateral system much
in need of reform and the wild terrain of bilateral trade rules,
divided, unsurprisingly, the NGOs at the Cancún Ministerial.
It is an impossible question but one which arises only because of
the insistence of the EU and the US to use their power to establish
rules that benefit their interests above all else.
The
EU ‘s External Trade Commissioner, Pascal Lamy, has already
brought into question the route that the EU should take saying that
“We will have to have a good hard think amongst ourselves...
should we maintain our priority as multilaterialism which was the
basic tenet of EU commercial policy?”. On this issue the EU
likes to present itself as the good guy dedicated to multilateralism
whereas the US is the bad guy who has been more openly challenging
the WTO to deliver what it wants or else.
Earlier
in the year Lamy made the statement that “We have the arm
twisting capacity to get investment in bilaterals.” So surely
now that investment appears to be off the WTO’s agenda, Lamy
must expect to pursue investment in bilateral agreements? Realistically
it doesn’t seem that the use of bilateral trade agreements
really poses that much of an ideological dilemma for the EU.
The
WTO conference in Cancún witnessed the emergence of strong
unified groups of developing countries and others. Despite shady
practices that saw a draft text which clearly ignored the concerns
and expressed opinions of developing countries over the New Issues.
The developing countries were able to maintain common positions
and articulate their viewpoints strongly through differing groups
of developing countries: the G22, the G32 and the G90. The G22 managed
to maintain a common position with regard to the agriculture talks
especially with their emphasis on agricultural subsidies in the
US and the EU. The G32 held a common platform over the issue of
special products and special safeguard mechanisms (safeguards for
developing countries on agricultural imports to avoid the worse
effects of agricultural imports) ; and the G90 which held a common
position opposing the start of negotiations on the New Issues.
It
was in the face of this pressure that the EU and the US were shown
as out of touch and unused to negotiating with equals that they
cannot manipulate and divide and conquer into achieving their aims.
This led to an attempt at last minute brinkmanship from Lamy, perhaps
hoping to repeat previous experiences where last minute movements
have led to freefall in developing countries’ positions enabling
the EU to obtain its priorities because of its greater organisation
and negotiating strength. The strength of the G90 in opposing this
move and holding firm to their opposition meant that the EU’s
meagre concessions were shown to be the paltry offerings they were.
It
has to be hoped that this welcome change in the politics of the
WTO will continue and will not be undermined by efforts of the EU
and the US to move the forum for trade negotiations to bilateral
fora where coordination amongst countries in the developing world
will be much much harder. If multilateralism is maintained, then
the failure of Cancún may be a watershed where the collective
interests of the developing world first started to be taken seriously
and to have influence over the process and outcomes. Pascal Lamy’s
recent suggestion for a review of the way in which the WTO works
may offer just such an opportunity if the EU chooses to take it.
Owen
Espley
Return
to contents
The
6th Inter Governmental Conference
QCEA has
reported previously and extensively on the process of the Convention
on the Future of Europe. The Convention completed its work in the
summer of 2003 and presented its proposed Draft Constitutional Treaty
(DCT) to the European Council in Thessaloniki in June 2003. The European
Council accepted this as a basis for further negotiation and called
for an Inter Governmental Conference (IGC) to be held in the second
half of 2003 to finalise the draft of this Treaty for acceptance in
May 2004. IGCs
are the mechanism which the European Union employs to change its
Treaties. As the Constitutional Treaty, if agreed, is intended to
replace all previous treaties on which the European Union is based,
such a Conference is necessary.
There
is now an outline timetable for the IGC. The Conference began on
4 October 2003. Issues will be discussed at different levels.
Matters
of detail will be discussed by the representatives of the Governments
of the Member States and Accession Countries. Most likely, these
representatives will be the Permanent Representatives of each country,
i.e. their EU Ambassadors.
Most
issues will be discussed in the General Affairs Council. This involves
the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and/or the Ministers for European
Affairs of the Member States and the Accession Countries. They will
be meeting several times during the period between 4 October and
10 December 2003.
There
will also 2 or 3 meetings of the European Council. This is a meeting
of the Heads of Government/State of the Member States and Accession
Countries. They will discuss and decide on broader issues and will
probably, at their Meeting on 12/13 December 2003, agree the final
draft of the Treaty.
All
of these meetings are being held in private, although the European
Parliament will have observers there. The Convention undertook its
work in public with much opportunity for public participation. This
was fully used by organisations such as QCEA to make representations
and submissions. The influence of the public and non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) at this stage of the process is likely to be
much less and much less effective. The only way of influencing the
process is by approaching the participants in the Conference directly
at national level. This requires input from individual citizens
in Member States and Accession Countries as well as from NGOs.
Although
it is not the only important issue arising from the DCT, QCEA has
focused its work with the IGC on the issue of the militarisation
of the EU. We will continue to do so and will make representations
to the Permanent Representatives to the EU, the Foreign Ministers
and European Affairs Ministers of Member States and Accession Countries.
The
European Peace Building Liaison Office (EPLO), a network of NGOs
of which QCEA is a member, will do likewise. EPLO has agreed a submission.
QCEA has been actively involved in the drafting of this and we will
therefore use the same submission in our continuing work.
QCEA
has a series of briefing
papers on the militarisation of the EU which are accessible
on our website. They include a briefing paper specifically on the
lobbying process at the IGC. We would like to encourage you to use
these briefing papers and to contact your own governments on this
issue. Approaches to members of national parliaments may also be
useful in order to gain their support in asking relevant questions
in parliaments on the issue of the IGC in general and on the militarisation
issue in particular.
If
you would like further information not available in the briefings
on our website or if you would like to let us know about your approaches
to decision makers on these issues and any responses you have had,
please contact us at mweitsch@qcea.org.
Look
out for future articles on related issues: Referenda on the Draft
Constitutional Treaty and The European Parliament Elections.
Martina
Weitsch
Return
to contents
QCEAs 25th Anniversary Associate Members Conference on Economic Justice
2004 is
QCEA’s 25th Anniversary Associate Members’ Conference
on Economic Justice in conjunction with Quaker Peace and Social Witness
(Britain YM) 5th
- 7th November 2004 in Brussels
Put
It In Your Diary NOW!
Return
to contents
Spring
Study Tour 2004
Further
details in the next edition of Around Europe Return
to contents
Back
to the main Around Europe page |
