International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation

100 Years Hague Peace Conference

Tobias Damjanov

To mark the 100th anniversary of the first two international peace conferences in 1899, two different NGO conferences were held in recent months: At The Hague, the "Hague Appeal for Peace Civil Society Conference" took place from 12 to 15 May, while at St. Petersburg, the commemoratory event, held on18-20 June, was entitled "Nuclear Policy and Security on the Eve of the 21st Century". Of course, either venue had been chosen in accordance to the historical places, at which the governments' peace congresses were conducted hundred years ago.

The Hague Conference turned out to be a truly centennary event for NGOs: no other previous international gathering of nongovernmental policymakers was ever attended by so many organisations and participants. Well over 700 NGOs were officially registered; up to 10,000 people were present out of which almost 1,000 came from the United States alone, followed by Japan with some 500 participants. According to the official programme, 400 workshops, round- table debates, panels, etc. plus quite a few additionally set up on the spot covered nearly any subject you could think of in terms of NGO concerns. To complete this unique picture it must be noted that a considerable number of UN agencies as well as governments sent high-ranking representatives, including, for example, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh and Queen Noor of Jordan; also, the Nobel Peace Prize winners Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Rigoberta Menchu Tum, Jody Williams, and Joseph Rotblat attended. Even UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan participated in the final plenary session to give a keynote speech to the conference.

These certainly impressive facts and figures, however, do not tell too much about the substance of discussions or about the overall outcome. In fact, it was quite difficult to grasp an overview on what was going on each day of the conference. To give you an example: at least seven international key initiatives were either launched at or presented to the conference, including the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), the Global Campaign for Peace Education, the initiative to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, a call for a global ban on depleted uranium, an international network on disarmament and globalization, and, most prominently, the Global Ratification Campaign for the International Criminal Court.

One major striking point was the heated debate concerning the NATO war in Yugoslavia. Special meetings had been scheduled daily; however, there was no draft resolution or statement presented to the conference plenary because the pro and con assessments of NATO's policy could not be bridged. A number of NGOs used this as an opportunity to present resolutions, call for actions etc. of their own - a move which at least showed that NGOs do not get frustrated very quickly if an overall compromise can't be achieved. Also, it was particularly inspiring and helpful what kind of analyses and nonmilitary conflict solutions were presented by the Scandinavian peace researchers Prof. Johan Galtung and Jan Øberg. After all, some kind of formula in terms of mere slogans rather than (a package of) demands - as many participants appearantly would have desired - were found in the plenaries: Cora Weiss, the conference president, called for "No more Kosovos"; Maj-Britt Theorin, president of the International Peace Bureau (IPB), which was one of the key initiators of the conference, was more clear when demanding for "no more bombing" as well as "no more human rights violations". As a general perspective, several plenary speakers pointed out that the need for peace must not be put against the need for justice. To elaborate on this demand more in-depth in the future, could mean to develop one of the most decisive principles NGOs have ever taken on when it comes to their specific influence on international security and non-military conflict resolutions.

Addressing the conference for the host nation government, both the Dutch Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister should have felt lucky that only some 2,000 participants found space in the auditorium: The vast majority loudly disapproved the fact that representatives of a government being in war with another European country did dare to make their points to an audience committed to non-military politics. Although it might be considered unavoidable, polite and in accordance to common standards that officials of the host country should have a word, people felt very uneasy about these statements knowing that the Dutch Foreign Ministry was supporting the event financially - a decision which was taken only after NATO had started its bombings against Yugoslavia. (The mayor of the City of The Hague was less lucky when rectifying the NATO bombing at a special reception for selected conference participants just the evening before the opening: he was criticized in public by Bruce Kent, a former president of IPB and the British CND who simply took the mikrophone from him to explain why the mayor's statement was unacceptable.) Whatever one might sense about these incidents, they did charactericize the very nature of non-governmental approaches. And if you follow the assessment of Kofi Annan, the "international community" needs the impact by nongovernmental initiatives.

The situation in Yugoslavia was by far not the only conflict the conference dealt with but seemingly, participants were more succesful in finding common ground with regard to other "hot spots" in this world: Kashmiris, Indians and Pakistanis reached an unprecedented peace agreement on Kashmir; Ethiopians and Eritreans held a dialogue on the Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict; and young people from Turkish Cyprus and Greek Cyprus wrote a "Timetable for Peace in Cyprus" action-plan. At the same time, the excellent conference daily newspaper made known that an entire delegation from Yugoslavia bound for the conference was not permitted to enter the country.

The International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES) played a quite interesting role at this conference. By membership, INES certainly does not belong to the "big" international NGOs, let alone in terms of its budgetary capacity if one takes this as criteria. As a scientific NGO present, however, INES appeared as one of if not the most active organisations: First, it was member of the 72-organisation-strong Organising Committee, at which INES was represented by its chair Prof. Armin Tenner. Secondly, as it turned out during the very conference, no other international NGO was directly involved in the conduction of more workshops than INES and its international Project Groups such as INESAP , which convened the Workshop of Nuclear Weapons and the INES Ethics Committee. In addition, one could notice that quite a few INES member organisations also participated in the conference. In terms of public attention, INES was well-advised to rent one of the hundreds of booths which built together a big "market" where organisations and initiatives displayed their material and would discuss their aims and approaches with visitors passing by all day long.

In Front of the Meeting Hall of the Hague Appeal for Peace Conference

 

Hague Agenda for Peace

The "Hague Agenda for Peace and Justice for the 21st Century" is the title of the document which was finally adopted as an overall platform of the conference. Consisting of 50 paragraphs, it is not a declaration or a joint statement but a unique list of demands, campaigns and initiatives of all major fields NGOs are active on. Appearantly, the "Hague Agenda" is considered a high-ranking document not only by the NGO community which intends to present this compilation of international NGO policy to the governments of the world. Meanwhile, it has been adopted as an official UN document (Reference A/54/98) which underscores that the relationship between NGOs and the UN is obviously developing into a new encouraging stage of collaboration and joint activities.

Given the rare dimension of this conference, one should not overestimate the technical and organisational shortcomings during this event. More serious, however, were some political problems: It was never clear whether this conference followed the idea of a working congress or simply aimed at a "big bazar" for exchanging information and evaluation. Certainly, it was a mixture of both. But the fact that the final programme was published only weeks before the event was not particularly helpful, to say the least, and: it indicated that there was no clear orientation. With regard to perspectives of future NGO cooperation, the presentation of the "Hague Agenda" was a good idea but not enough: up to now, only rumours are flooding around whether or not the capability of so many different NGOs coming together would materialize in, say, a new approach of jointly networking. The launching of a number of international initiatives and campaigns at The Hague showed already that there is not only the need but also the will to elaborate on and promote various projects. It would have been very encouraging if the leadership of the conference would have been more courageous and bold to concentrate in detail what about the practical perspectives of a meeting like this. Last but not least it must be charply criticized that the organizers widely failed to set up a adequate media campaign for promoting this conference and its results in public.

St. Petersburg Conference

The St. Petersburg Conference was quite different in many respects. Carried out as an "Abolition 2000" event, it concentrated on nuclear issues, and more, specifically, on the corresponding situation in Russia and the Baltic countries. Very soon after the start of the workshops it turned out that ideological differences among participants from the former Warsaw Pact region are still determining the debate. For example, INES Executive Committee member Alla Yaroshinskaya, one of the keynote speaker at this conference, was criticized because some people still dislike that she was known as having been supportive to Gorbachev's policy. To some extent, western participants felt helpless because this was not openly admitted.

Two appearances drew very much attention to the conference: One was the speech by Robert Green, a retired Royal Navy Commander who is now working for Abolition 2000: He admitted that when he was in charge of nuclear weapons, they coincidentally were targetted against St Petersburg Airport. Robert Green publicly apologized for this irresponsibility which was widely reported by the media. A second highlight was that Alexander Nikitin was able to participate. Althoug stating he would not refer to his case, he then gave an overview on the latest development of his pending trial. It seems that the accusation against him is mainly based on "secret advices" by the Russian Defence Ministry rather than on current law. Nikitin called upon organizing an international information exchange regarding nuclear issues with special emphasis on incidents and environmental danger.

After controversial debates it was a positive surprise that the conference ended with the adoption of a "St Petersburg Declaration" which has then been forwarded to the International Conference "Centennial of the Russian Initiative. From the First Peace Conference, 1899, to the Third, 1999" in St. Petersburg 22- 25 June, 1999, the governmental commemoration event. The excellent character of this Declaration is mainly due to the presentation of urgent and clearcut measures to implement seven principles for the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons. Somewhat in contrast to the conference at The Hague, some of the organizing NGOs are meanwhile working on follow-up projects which will try to establish a better "East-West" understanding and cooperation, as well as to provide assistance for and promotion of NGOs in the Baltics and Russia.

Tobias Damjanov works with INES.

Adress: Am Beckerkamp12/app26, 21031 Hamburg, Germany, tel +49-4072692394,

email damjanov@math.uni-hamburg.de

ST. PETERSBURG DECLARATION Conference on Nuclear Policy and Security on the Eve of the 21st Century Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons St. Petersburg, Russia - 19 June 1999 In 1899, the Russian Czar Nicolas II took the initiative to convene a general peace conference which was hosted by the Dutch Queen Wilhelmina in The Hague. 100 years later in St. Petersburg, we, the participants in the Abolition 2000 Conference, summarize our findings on nuclear policy and security on the eve of the 21st century. These will be forwarded to the International Conference "Centennial of the Russian Initiative. From the First Peace Conference, 1899, to the Third, 1999" in St. Petersburg 22- 25 June, 1999. There can be no peace and security with nuclear weapons. The dogma of "nuclear deterrence" led to the building of ever larger arsenals by the nuclear weapons states. It is illegal, immoral and irresponsible; it must be rejected. For worldwide security, nuclear weapons must be eliminated. We must move to common security based on human and ecological values and respect for international institutions and law. NATO's recent assertion of the right to engage in "out-of-area" operations conducted without United Nations authority is contrary to this imperative. Future European security arrangements must comply with international law, encompass all European countries including Russia, and exclude nuclear weapons. Genuine and lasting peace cannot be achieved by building and expanding military alliances. Despite reductions, the nuclear weapons states still hold enough explosive power to annihilate the planet. Nuclear weapons have not prevented war. Across the world and within Europe, at the end of the millennium, brutal conflicts rage. The spirit and the letter of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty have been broken. By maintaining and modernizing their nuclear arsenals, the United States, Russia, France, the United Kingdom and China have encouraged other states including India, Israel and Pakistan to follow their example. In the development of nuclear weapons, these governments have brought death and suffering to succeeding generations of innocent people and irreversible environmental destruction. Vast resources have been devoted to nuclear warfare preparations. In the last 50 years, the gap between rich and poor has grown, not least within the nuclear weapon states. Funds have been denied to international bodies concerned with conflict prevention, especially the United Nations and its constituent regional organizations including the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OSCE). The OSCE is a pan-European security organization, representing 54 countries including Russia, the United States, and Canada, which promotes non-military solutions to conflict. We call for recognition and implementation of the following principles: 1. Redefine security in terms of peoples rather than states, where protection of human health and preservation of the natural environment have overriding priority; 2. Support and strengthen the role of the United Nations, which was created after World War II to resolve international disputes peacefully; 3. Place new emphasis on regional security organizations, such as OSCE, acting under Chapter VIII and the UN Charter and using political rather than military tools for conflict resolution; 4. Uphold and apply international law in a consistent and non-discriminatory manner; 5. Recognize the link between nuclear energy and proliferation, and give high priority to energy conservation and development of alternative energy sources. The following urgent measures are needed to implement these principles, which should be taken simultaneously and in parallel: 1. Massively increased funding and resources for OSCE; transparency and democracy in the creation of its forthcoming "Charter for European Security in the 21st Century" with the full involvement of civil society. 2. Taking all nuclear forces off alert status through coordinated measures lowering their readiness for use, including separation of warheads from delivery systems and withdrawal of nuclear-armed submarines from patrol; 3. Removal of US nuclear weapons from Europe back to the United States; 4. Initiation of parallel, reciprocal actions between the United States and Russia to de-alert, reduce, and account for warheads and fissile materials, bypassing the blocked START process; 5. Commencement of multilateral negotiations on the elimination of nuclear weapons to culminate in a comprehensive treaty. These negotiations could incorporate or be conducted in parallel with negotiations on interim steps including no first-use and no modernization pledges and a fissile materials ban; 6. Reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons research and development infrastructures and capabilities. This process should accompany the reduction and elimination of warheads and delivery systems. It will require a new emphasis on development of societal verification methods; 7. Reduction and elimination of other weapons of mass destruction and/or indiscriminate effect, including depleted uranium, cluster bombs, and land mines. In conclusion, we strongly endorse the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as echoed in the words of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan: "Today security is increasingly understood not just in military terms, and as far more than the absence of conflict. It is in fact a phenomenon that encompasses economic development, social justice, environmental protection, democratization, disarmament and respect for human rights. These goals - these pillars of peace - are interrelated. Progress in one area begets progress in another. But no country can get there on its own. And none is exempt from the risks and costs of doing without... The world today spends billions preparing for war; shouldn't we spend a billion or two preparing for peace?"