Ways to freedom of conscience for COs in Europe
Panel
Johannes Afflerbach, volunteer for amnesty international, his activities centre on Conscientious Objection and Turkey.
Tim Brown, from 1995 until the end of 1997 director of the Quaker Council for European Affairs in Brussels
Wolfgang Gerz, Head of the working group on Human Rights at the Foreign Office in Bonn
Jan Niemöller (Moderator), Chair of the Evangelic work group for the care of COs
Christian Sterzing, Member of the parliamentary group "Bündnis 90/Die Grünen"(Green Party) and their speaker for European Affairs
From the audience took part in the discussion (among others)
Rafael Ajangiz, Member of the Movimiento de Objecion de Conciencia, Bilbao - Spain
Detlev Beutner, Member of the Total Objectors’ Initiative Braunschweig (Germany)
Stephan Brües, Deutsche Friedensgesellschaft - Vereinigte KriegsdienstgegnerInnen (German Peace Society - United War Objectors)
Ulrich Finckh, Chair of Zentralstelle KDV
Markus Graf, former CO, performed his alternative service in a youth hostel
Günter Knebel, Manager of the Evangelic work group for the care of COs,
Barbara Kramer, Deputy Chair of Zentralstelle KDV
Nikos Pulos, Counselling Centre for Greek conscripts and COs in Berlin, member of the campaign against conscription, compulsive services and the military in Berlin
Mustafa Ünalan, member of the campaign against conscription, compulsive services and the military in Berlin
Jan Niemöller:
Judging from the reports from several European countries "ways to freedom of conscience" for COs seem barely to exist. At least all the road-signs seem to have been unscrewed. Mr. Brown, since when are the Quakers supporting the cause of conscientious objection?
Tim Brown:
Already back in 1660 we have made a declaration to King Charles: "We fundamentally oppose to every war and armed fight, for which purpose or under what subterfuge whatsoever. This is our testimony before the whole world. The spirit of Christ by who guides us is always the same in itself. He does not order us one time to leave evil alone and next time to turn to the same evil. And we know for sure that the spirit of Christ who leads us to every truth will never move us to fight with arms against any human being, neither for his kingdom nor for all the kingdoms of this world." The German group who made the translation added: Since this time we perform an unaltered conciliatory service in the place of war, even against the will of governments and majorities.
Jan Niemöller:
And this is still true?
Tim Brown:
We still have this vision: a world without weapons, a world without violence, a world without armies, a world without war, which means a world of understanding with good relations between all peoples, with feeling and understanding for the others. Every day we make one step on the long way towards this vision.
Jan Niemöller:
What do the steps the Quakerhouse in Brussels takes look like?
Tim Brown:
Our task is to influence European institutions in the spirit of this vision. In the 80ies the Quaker Council for European Affairs helped to set up the European Bureau on Conscientious Objection. We then as well prepared and spread reports on the situation of COs in several European countries. At one of the latest conferences of the European Union we proposed a European Peace Agency, hoping that in the future the EU will send well-trained unarmed people to places of conflict instead of soldiers as it is the present practice. In Germany this is known as "Ziviler Friedensdienst" , civil peace service.
Jan Niemöller:
And the European Union simply decides to do this?
Tim Brown:
That would be nice but of course it is a long process. It also depends on choosing the right moment for the introduction of such ideas. Two years ago we have taken on the issue of conscientious objection again. In 1996, after discussions with the European Bureau on Conscientious Objection and other organisations, a resolution was accepted by all non governmental organisations which support the issue of Human Rights at the European Council. All European Council members’ governments, almost 40 governments in Europe, have received a questionnaire from the European Council to find out the member states’ activities for the improvement of conscientious objection. In December 1997 the results will be discussed in the European Council’s committee on Human Rights. At this occasion, amnesty international will represent the non governmental organisations.
Jan Niemöller:
This is Human Rights work with the emphasis on peace work. Or, just the other way round: Peace work with the emphasis on Human Rights. Both issues seem to be linked inseparably. When did amnesty international start its work?
Johannes Afflerbach:
Exactly 300 years later. In 1961 amnesty international was founded and got subsequently known as an organisation which helps prisoners, because it primarily lent aid to political prisoners.
Jan Niemöller:
How do amnesty international’s letter-, fax- and telephone appeals work?
Johannes Afflerbach:
We have a special form of action, the "urgent actions" In more than 50% of the 400 cases which are annually treated this way the situation can be improved. That means the prisoner is either pardoned or released or the person is not tortured any longer or gets medical care. In cases of a death penalty it can be commution of the sentence or postponement of the execution.
Jan Niemöller:
Who takes part in it?
Johannes Afflerbach:
In the urgent actions net amongst others more than 160 members of the Bundestag are involved in appeals to governments in favour of certain prisoners. Even the Foreign Office is willing to support us in some cases. But in cases where public criticism is asked for the Foreign Office acts very reserved.
Jan Niemöller:
These appeals are only made when somebody is already imprisoned. Shouldn’t you become active earlier?
Johannes Afflerbach:
We have the instrument of trial observation which has also a preventive function. Therefore we have tried three times this year to send observers to the trial of the Turkish CO. But because the trials take place on restricted military territory they could gain access only once.
Jan Niemöller:
Do you also try to influence the fundament of such trials, the state’s legal system?
Johannes Afflerbach:
One of amnesty international’s fundamental fortes is the generally acknowledged quality of our impartial investigations which are published in the annual reports. If we express open criticism governments can’ just globally deny it, they are at least forced to make a public statement on the situation in their country. Sometimes the consequences are concessions and improvements.
Jan Niemöller:
Is this also true for Germany?
Johannes Afflerbach:
In the last years we have addressed several times the issue of the prohibition of the export of electro-shock-arms and torture devices. On the level of our "lobby-contacts" one was not willing to make an advance towards the prohibition while hinting that one was aiming to effect the harmonisation of arms export restrictions within the European Union. In March 1997 we have launched an international campaign on the issue where especially Germany with 15 producers of such arms was criticised. Already in May the Ministry for Economics made the draft for a by-law which shall stop this export.
Jan Niemöller:
I am impressed. Mr. Gerz, do you need pressure and international denouncement in order to react?
Wolfgang Gerz:
This special story touches me personally because I have experienced the very thing in action at the end of the 80ies in East-Berlin. There were concerts then in the Western part of the town and on the Eastern side of the Wall the Stasi tried to disperse the listeners. From 1986 to 1990 I have worked in the constant representation of West-Germany in East-Berlin. During an event in the Roemer in Frankfurt I was sitting next to Volkmar Deile, the secretary general of amnesty international who suddenly held up a letter and read out the contents. The author, another governmental department, declared in their official bureaucratic language that even if they tried prohibition, nothing would change. The mentioned event was a good occasion to take up the issue again and bring it to a good end. There were enormous difficulties to overcome because the electro-shock rods did not fit in any category. They were neither weapons nor anything else. We had to create a new category and for that reason the whole affair took a bit longer.
Jan Niemöller:
So, obviously, pressure is needed. Is it also wished for?
Wolfgang Gerz:
In the Foreign Office we have always appreciated to be in constant contact with the NGOs to get prompts and information, to discuss the issues on which we usually agree as well as the ways to reach our goals.
Jan Niemöller:
On which issues is your work centred?
Wolfgang Gerz:
We are working on an amendment to the Convention Against Torture. The aim is that observers can visit prisoners with no advance notice. We also want to develop further the Convention on the Rights of the Child. There we are dealing with the difficult question of raising the minimum age for children soldiers in armed conflicts from 15 to 18. The German government had reservations against the minimum age of 15 from the very beginning. We have many opponents though, from China to the USA.
In addition we have other topics which are close to our hearts. One of them is the plan to provide better protection for Human Rights activists. We are working on this now since more than ten years. The country reports on this conference have clearly shown the importance of individuals and groups who publish information. But these people must be protected themselves. We hope to move a step forward when next year the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights will be celebrated because then probably all countries will want to demonstrate that they have a positive attitude towards Human Rights.
Another issue we are working on is conscientious objection as expression of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This is very clearly expressed in a resolution which we are supporting in the Human Rights Commission in Geneva since many years.
Jan Niemöller:
Only abroad Human Rights seem to be a problem. But if you ask the Foreign Office it is only in nature of things as abroad is their responsibility.. Mr. Sterzing you are a member of the German Bundestag and thus foremost dealing with Germany’s inner affairs.
Christian Sterzing:
Of course there are questions of Human Rights to be resolved in this country too. I only want to mention a few key-words like the right to asylum, Europol, the bill to legalise tapping of private conversations ("der große Lauschangriff"/ "the big bugging attack"). Arms export is another one. To mention the link between arms export and Human Rights’ violations is always a delicate thing to do. The government often judges the situation in other countries quite different from us. It is our opinion that the government’s policy too often is focused on economical interests to the disadvantage of Human Rights.
Jan Niemöller:
And what are you doing against this?
Christian Sterzing:
We use the Bundestag to bring these issues to the public’s conscience, for example when we put the question of arms export to Indonesia before it.
Jan Niemöller:
Do you as well help in individual cases?
Christian Sterzing:
Mr. Afflerbach has already told us that 160 colleagues from the Bundestag take part in the urgent actions. We often are also approached in other individual cases and try then to take advantage of our position as parliamentarians either by writing letters or by using our personal contacts with colleagues in the parliaments of the respective countries or members of other governments. This is a work that is being performed in close co-operation with the NGOs. We have are relying on this co-operation because these organisations have better knowledge of the conditions in the respective countries.
Jan Niemöller:
In the Bundestag, on which issues do you put emphasis as an European politician?
Christian Sterzing:
We have to see clearly that within the European Union we are involved in a process of integration which is primarily economically orientated. But gradually integration also happens in political areas, in the areas of justice, inner and foreign affairs. In these areas a visible development exists. In this context we try to enforce the demand for a Human Rights catalogue embodied in the European Treaty, something that has not been achieved yet. There also has not been the necessary support from the German government. A second possibility could be that the EU joins the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, to have a standardised Human Rights catalogue within the EU. This has not been achieved yet as well,
Günter Knebel:
Mr. Gerz, you kindly mentioned that Germany has been supporting the bi-annually renewed resolution on the Human Right to conscientious objection in the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations. Unfortunately this year this resolution was not renewed because the Netherlands, probably due to their abolition of conscription, did not introduce the issue again. Can you imagine that Germany will take over the responsibility for this issue?
Wolfgang Gerz:
This is a clear question to which I unfortunately don’t have an equal clear answer. We will support the resolution as long as it is not enriched with issues we can’t support or watered down. It really looks as if the Dutch are not pursuing this issue anymore. Whether we are going to take a leading role here I can’t say.
Detlef Beutner:
Amnesty international adopts non-violent political prisoners but no total conscientious objectors even though German Courts in about 80% of the cases recognize reasons of conscience but sentence them nevertheless.
Johannes Afflerbach:
Amnesty international is supporting the right to object to conscription on reasons of conscience. This is valid for total objection as well as which objects to any involvement in armed conflicts as well as the objection in special situations, like when a Kurd in Turkey does not want to participate in the conflict in Kurdistan, or if someone in Czechenia is not willing to take part in massacres or bombing of towns. But amnesty international does not deny states the right to demand an civil alternative service. That is because the whole work of amnesty international is based on the acknowledgement of agreements concerning the Human Rights under international law. We don’t take sides whether it is legitimate to impose certain duties, like subscription, on the citizen. In consequence we do not adopt total objectors as no-violent political prisoners whose release we demand when certain minimum standards for an alternative service are given. This may seem contradictory but in my opinion it has a political logic that is related to the Human Rights mission of amnesty international. This may possibly change in the future, for example when all states have generally acknowledged the right to conscientious objection as such.
Nikos Pulos:
In Greece there is a new law on conscientious objection. How will amnesty international act if the publicly declares COs do not make use of this restrictive overly long alternative service? Will amnesty international adopt the next candidates for Greek prisons?
Johannes Afflerbach:
Already the length of the planned alternative service, the involvement of the military in the decisions on the acknowledgement of COs and the extensive reasons for exclusion from making an application will lead to the assessment of this law by amnesty international as inapropriate. In the case of arrests we surly will adopt these prisoners as non-violent political prisoners.
Nikos Pulos:
What will Germany do when Greece applies for the extradiction of Greek COs who live in Germany? I am asking this because of the new European police co-operation. Will these COs then be arrested and extradicted to Greece?
Wolfgang Gerz:
Until now it has not been achieved to establish the persecution on the grounds of conscientious objection in itself as qualifying for asylum. But it may substantiate the application, for instance when the reasons for punishment are political. Then the CO would be a de facto refugee which means he can not be immediately deported. But those cases happen only in theory, I don’t know of any.
Ulrich Finckh:
We are talking about the Schengen treaty and the extradiction of those on whom a final sentence after the Greek military law has been passed. Under the new conditions their extradiction becomes possible.
Wolfgang Gerz:
After the constitution the government is bound to the Human Rights, even in cases like this.
Mustafa Ünalan:
I am a CO from Turkey, the first to get asylum in Germany on the ground of conscientious objection. As far as I know more than 100 other Turkish persons from Kurdish descent who objected to conscription are living in Germany. At least 70 of them have applied for asylum. In the proceedings often the Foreign Office is asked for a statement. In my case they stated: "As the applicant claims to have evaded conscription in Turkey, after the relevant Turkish laws he can be sentenced in the worst case to a maximum of 3 years imprisonment.(..) Such a punishment is without relevance concerning the application for asylum, because everyone evading conscription gets the same (...)."
Christian Sterzing:
We should try to establish a catalogue of criteria which have to be met by the countries which want to join the European Union, which will include a regulation on the freedom of conscience for conscientious objection. Up to now I am very unhappy because the situation concerning Human Rights in the respective countries is not dealt with by the European Union. Due to the strong economic interest of these countries to co-operate with the European Union a lot of things could be achieved, especially also for the COs.
Rafael Ajangiz:
In Spain some who do not perform neither a military nor an alternative service are sentenced to a suspension of their civil rights for a period of 12 month, they can not work as civil servants, hold any official position and are not entitled to any welfare money from the state. Isn’t this contradictory to the Human Rights?
Wolfgang Gerz:
Actually I Don’t know. I believe that in Article 29 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the state is entitled to certain duties from the individual. This entitlement has to be understood. So for me the whole thing is reduced to the question whether the punishment is appropriate. As far as I understood it seems to be absolutely inappropriate.
Detlef Beutner:
Mr. Gerz, you have spoken so euphorically about the regulation in article 4 paragraph 4 of the Grundgesetz (German constitution). The right to conscientious objection though is limited to the objection to armed service, to object to the war-supporting alternative civil service is not allowed.
Wolfgang Gerz:
I know this is a problem. But I can’t offer you a solution. In connection with the freedom of conscience and religion we have we have prescribed the possibility of objection to armed service in the Grundgesetz. This regulation was and is easier to enforce if there is an alternative service. My position in this question has been made once perfectly clear by president Kennedy who said:" Don’t ask all the time what society does for you but ask yourself what you could do for society. In my opinion it is good that the state is entitled to demand from the individual to contribute to the community. On the other side I mean that the right to object to armed service as an expression of the freedom of conscience has to be maintained in any case and under all circumstances.
Stephan Brües:
There seem to be great differences in the definition of freedom of conscience. Apparently the German as well as the Spanish government assume that armed and alternative service have priority to the individual’s freedom of conscience. Why can not somebody who says my conscience forbids me to perform an alternative service because in the long run only the army is gaining? For me this naturally is also freedom of conscience.
Wolfgang Gerz:
Of course nothing can be estimated higher than the freedom of conscience. It is the highest authority the individual depends on. This freedom is inviolable. The other question is when he makes use of the freedom of conscience. Society demands a certain service like nursing ill people. The majority can reconcile this with their conscience. But if you make the nursing of sick people a matter of conscience more and more problems will arise. It can not be that somebody just declares his decision of conscience and the community has to sanction this.
Barbara Kramer:
I am a bit unhappy about the direction the discussion is taking now. I want to draw attention - especially here in Germany- to a big problem, the problem of the masterminds behind the scenes, the men at the desks. One can become guilty in a legal sense without shooting or even touching somebody. 50 years after the end of Nazi-terror we have not yet managed to look back on and reappraise what the lawyers, the "murderers under the gowns" did then. Total objectors say: I can become guilty before my conscience if let myself in times of peace getting involved in a military system. Of course, somebody who pushes somebody in a wheelchair through the park on a sunny day does not actual become guilty. But if he thing a bit more general and abstract he will see what he would have to do in the case of war and how he and how he is legally involved in war. If he then days: This is exactly taking part in something I have to object to because of my conscience, this has to be taken seriously. We can not only dismiss it saying "the community is entitled to demand services" and "It cannot be that some serve and the others make money in this time. Total objectors are not the kind of people who say "We don’t care what happens after we’ve gone". They are persons who have thought a lot about their arguments and who ask themselves the question, Germany’s past in mind: How can we - individually as well as as a group- cause a change?
Markus Graf:
I had to perform this service for the state as a simple CO. Eight hours per day I had to clean a youth hostel. With that I have taken up one regular working place, so I had to act anti-social. The social service always came second, after my "ordered service". Then I spoke to the children or helped them with their bonfires or the like. If we are now reproached that we should do something for the state I wonder whether these reproaches are really meant seriously.
Wolfgang Gerz:
I believe I have been misunderstood. The decision of conscience to me is the highest the individual depends on. This decision must not become restricted. But I have raised the question whether it is still a decision of conscience when - on a higher level of abstraction - the service for a disabled person is equalled with being involved in war strategies. This can lead to the development of grey areas in which the individual follows the lead of his conscience and ends up in irreconcilable conflict for which no law exists yet. Maybe sensitivity for this will be developed in the near future. Human Right are neither for minorities nor majorities. They are rights every individual is entitled to.
Ulrich Finckh:
International contracts one can refer to are the basis of states’ Human Rights work. Our dilemma is, that these very contracts regularly state the right of states to demand an armed service and those who have a conscription system an alternative, civil service. For the Foreign Office this is the actual situation on Human Rights in nearly all contracts. Of cause we can and have to argue that this has to be change because of the freedom of thought, belief and conscience. If the freedom of conscience is being taken seriously, no service against the conscience can be demanded form anybody. We have to keep in mind that Human Rights’ work is more than merely the fight against conscription and the question how we cab establish a peaceful world. This we have to keep in mind while doing every single step.
Jan Niemöller:
I want to come back once more to our opening question "Ways to freedom of conscience for COs in Europe". What can we actually do to come one step closer towards freedom of conscience?
Wolfgang Gerz:
In my position as Head of the working group on Human Rights at the Foreign Office you have drawn my attention to problems I was not aware of before. Even in the fundamental question of freedom of conscience for total objectors a first step towards change has been made by exchanging arguments. I can only pledge you to keep the Foreign Office informed on the issue of conscientious objection. Only if we are informed we can take action and give the right information.
Tim Brown:
We move towards our vision of a peaceful world, step by step. If the COs in the different European countries supported more the work of the European Office for Conscientious Objection in Brussels, they could put more pressure on the bodies which then could influence national governments to improve the situation of COs.
Christian Sterzing:
As a member of parliament I depend on the knowledge of and the information from the Conscientious Objectors’ organisations. I have already mentioned my work towards a criteria catalogue which includes regulations on conscientious objection for new members of the European Union. My colleagues from all parliamentarian groups are prepared to work for the freedom of individual COs. But for this we need detailed information on the respective cases and the situation in the country concerned.
Johannes Afflerbach:
Amnesty International has made good experiences with our typical international forms of action. Obviously this could also be used for COs who are being persecuted. Adoption of single cases, urgent letter actions and public protests help the individual and bring the fundamental problem to the attention of the public. The closer the international net is knit the more problems to national gave to suppress COs.
Jan Niemöller:
Thank you all very much.
|
