BARCELONA DECLARATION

July 06, 2018

Barcelona Declaration

July 6, 2018

Asia Europe People’s Forum
Social Justice Cluster
Our common social future: Commoning and sharing for society, the environment and the economy. A programme for a democratic, participatory and transformative social protection

BARCELONA DECLARATION

Social justice is at the center of all our concerns and of all our efforts to work for a better world. These are shared concerns in Europe and Asia. Levels of development differ widely between these global regions, but also within them. The superrich in Asia have now overtaken their counterparts in Europe. However, at the level of social justice and more particularly social protection, labour law and social services, developments in Europe and Asia are similar and are dictated by the same neoliberal philosophy, strengthened by conservative forces.

Today, social protection is high on the international development agenda, for example through the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the ILO’s Social Protection Floors and the European Union’s Pillar of Social Rights. While these initiatives are interesting and important, daily political practice continues to widen inequalities, to make employment more precarious, and to roll out the privatisation of public services such as water and health care.

Benefits of market-driven economic growth do not trickle down to the poor. That is why there is now a broad movement, all over the world, to reclaim rights, health care, water, pensions, land and schools: because people are being robbed of their livelihoods, including jobs and wages.

Governments and international institutions often make socially viable solutions impossible. As a result, trust in public authorities is dwindling, sometimes deservedly but often as a result of political manipulation. More and more people are responding by taking initiatives to help themselves, creating small scale farms, providing care for the elderly or the very young, and organizing to produce clean energy, local currencies and cooperatives.

The commons are life’s necessities, we need them to meet basic human needs. Social commons are activities and relations co-designed and co-produced by people, with shared ownership and control, forging new relations between people and the public realm. Commons go beyondmarkets and states, but not without markets and states: both will have to adopt a different logic. Commons change the ways in which we understand and practice democracy, participation and governance.

This conference further reflected on progressive definitions of social commons in the context of the self-organisation of people. It has explored the conceptual and practical implications of claiming social resources as commons. It contributed to clarifying the concept and begun to explore links with other sectors, such as the environment and culture, macro-economics and fiscal policies. It examined the potential of the social and solidarity economy.

Climate change broadens the requirements for social protection and social justice. Both will have to be re-defined and scaled up with even more urgency. Climate change is a game changer for how social protection, equitable and sustainable development and the fulfilment of human rights can be realized.

Feminists put the emphasis on social re-production, helpful for thinking about the interdependence of human activities. Many of the commons initiatives are started by women because the expansion of commodification and privatisation in patriarchal and capitalist societies increases the workload for women by integrating them into global commodity chains while at the same time expanding their unpaid social re-production work. It is important that commons do not become women’s responsibilities in a new gendered division of labour.

This pursuit of social commons must be seen in the context of our ambition to shape a better world. This calls for a transformation of social, economic and political systems, and for resistance to the dismantling of economic and social rights, which are in effect a new form of enclosure. We are not searching for harmony through adaptation of the status quo. On the contrary, it should be clear that commons and neoliberal capitalism cannot peacefully co-exist. Commons can only endure in the long term through struggle and conflict aimed at building a new political economy to support people’s control of essential resources. Therefore, the social protection we envisage will go beyond the currently existing initiatives; it will not be a corrective mechanism but will contribute to the radical changes we need.

By focusing on the collective dimension of our social and economic rights and by directly involving people in shaping public policies, the commons approach can become a strategic tool to resist neoliberalism, privatization and commodification. It can help to build a new narrative to strengthen and broaden people’s movements as well as for political and legal action against the exploitative use of our resources. Commons are about power. Claiming and controlling social commons means building power together with others. It is a primary task of all progressive forces, at all political levels, from local communities to global institutions. Facing the challenges of all important recent changes, it is clear the labour movement has to play an important role, countering the fragmentation and precarisation of work, taking into account the role of women and creating alternatives based on their abilities and skills.

Social protection alone will not be enough to achieve system change. But social justice can become an entry point for policies of social, economic and political transformation. Emphasizing our interdependence and the necessary collective dimension of all our efforts can be a vital step towards strengthening social movements and building citizens’ power.

Many important questions remain to be further examined, such as the issues of scale, of class, the role of public institutions, ownership and the transformational potential of commons.

What we are working for is the sustainability of life, for people and the planet. Our social protection, our economic and social rights are ours, so we decide on them. This is a call to join our efforts and fight for social justice in a comprehensive way and to create a message of hope for the future.

This Declaration has been adopted by the conference on social commons, held in Barcelona from 8 to 10 June 2018, co-organised by the social justice cluster of the Asia-Europe People’s Forum and Transform! Europe. More information can be found at: www.aepf.info – www.transform-network.net and www.socialcommons.eu

To watch the videos click here

Read More

Let’s talk politics: Implementing the Commons

July 04, 2018

Let’s talk politics: Implementing the Commons

July 4, 2018 | Birgit Daiber

Conference on Social Commons, Barcelona June 2018

After years of commoning in conferences, cooperation projects, networking, discussions on the diversity of experiences and designing strategies how broaden them – I think it’s time to discuss how to implement them on a political level: Commons as one dimension of initiatives to reclaim a social, ecological and democratic Europe connected with the reconstruction and democratization of public services.

Different from some of the commons networks in Europe which try to stay outside direct political debates, claiming commons as a fundamental new way of economic and social practice that is not assignable to one or the other political direction, I think commons are potentially an essentially left issue. Why? Very simple: The question of property is basic for all left politics from its (organised) beginning in the 19th century – until today. In his theory of value, Karl Marx revealed the contradiction between exchange value and use value. And this too is still relevant today. Within these two dimensions of left thinking we find the global movements of the commons. Francois Houtart says in his basic manifesto from 2011 that commons initiatives focus on use value, democratic participation and autonomy, being part of a new post-capitalist paradigm and in a short note from 2014 he is pointing out: “Concretely, it means to transform the four ”fundamentals” of any society: relations with nature; production of the material base of all life, physical, cultural, spiritual; collective social and political organization and culture. For the first one, the transformation means to pass from the exploitation of nature as a natural resource, merchandize to the respect of nature as the source of life. For the second one: to privilege use value rather than exchange value, with all the consequences with regard to the concept of property. The third one implies the generalization of democratic practices in all social relations and all institutions and finally inter-culturality means to put an end to the hegemony of Western culture in the reading of the reality and the construction of social ethics. Elements of this new paradigm, post-capitalist, are already present all over the world, in many social movements and popular initiatives. Theoretical developments are also produced. So, it is not a “utopian vision” in the pejorative sense of the word. But a clear aim and definition [1] is necessary to organize the convergences of action. It is a long-term process which will demand the adoption of transitions, facing the strength of an economic system ready to destroy the world before disappearing. It means also that the structural concept of class struggle is not antiquated (fiscal heavens and bank secrecy are some of its instruments). Social protests, resistances, building of new experiences are sources of real hope.”

We are just in time, as left parties in Europe are preparing their national campaigns and their European performance for the next European elections in 2019. Election-campaigns always give the opportunity to discuss programmes and projects more intensely in public debates, and so the Common Good could become one of the core-issue for the Left. Practical initiatives and debates are already well developed on different levels in some countries – as e.g. Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy and France and Belgium and there are hundreds of examples of successful initiatives on municipal, national and international levels. Just to give some few examples:

The municipal level: most of commons initiatives are local activities, in cities as well as in rural areas. Urban Commons are prominent and well documented. Cities as Seoul (KOR), Barcelona (ES), Naples (IT), Ghent (BE) and Frome (GB) show how to realise urban commons and how municipalities can work together with commoners. There are legal competences too supporting commons initiatives. The Berlin Senate for example has the right to confiscate abandoned property (but they don’t use it yet and there is no obligation for social use).

National level: The movement for Water as a commons in Italy initiated a referendum with the result that 51% of Italian citizens voted for it. The government must act and the Parliament has to discuss new laws – a still on-going struggle. The water-movement is putting the question of Commons in the context of re-thinking the role of the public in the management of goods and services related to the universal human rights.

The “old” left idea, that the State per se would guarantee public services, failed with processes of privatization – and even when the State is still holding the ownership, goods and services are often given to private companies. It is crucial to suspend market activities from public services to ensure that profits in this sector are re-invested for public use. At the same time, public services must be democratized and there has to be public control with the participation of workers and citizens (only?) to guarantee correct functioning of the common good.

On national levels, the laws on social and common use of property and the laws on cooperatives are decisive. An interesting example is the legal structure of SCOPs in France (“Societé cooperative et participative” or “société coopérative ouvrière de production“). In 2016 there were 2680 SCOPs with 45 000 active members – and they are still on the rise.

International level: Bolivia and Ecuador included Commons explicitly in their constitutions. In 2010 the UN general assembly adopted the resolution on access to clean water as basic human right. The initiative for a fundamental declaration on the Common Good of Humanity goes beyond this – well aware that a proclamation has no legally binding character but can be an instrument for social and political mobilization, creating a new consciousness and serving as a basis for the convergence of social and political movements at the international level. Clearly it is a long-term task, but it needs to be started. Not only can the coming together of social movements like the World Social Forum and political parties like the Forum of São Paulo contribute by promoting such a Declaration, but individual countries through their representatives in international organizations like Unesco and the United Nations can also push this agenda forward.

Coming to the European Level: Since some European Parliamentarians from different political groups founded an ‘Intergroup’ on Commons and Public Services in 2014, the ‘European Commons Assembly’ developed with participants from nearly all European countries. ECA initiated conferences and various activities and published a general call: “We call for the provision of resources and the necessary freedom to create, manage and sustain our commons. We call upon governments, local and national, as well as European Union institutions to facilitate the defence and growth of the commons, to eliminate barriers and enclosures, to open up doors for citizen participation and to prioritize the common good in all policies. This requires a shift from traditional structures of top-down governance towards a horizontal participatory process for community decision-making in the design and monitoring of all forms of commons. We call on commoners to support a European movement that will promote solidarity, collaboration, open knowledge and experience sharing as the forces to defend and strengthen the commons. Therefore, we call for and open the invitation to join an on-going participatory, inclusive process across Europe for the building and maintenance of a Commons Assembly. Together we can continue to build a vibrant web of caring, regenerative collective projects that reclaim the European Commons for people and our natural environment” (europeancommonsassembly.eu).

How could the common good be important for European politics? Just to remind one of the prominent battles of the Left (including Greens and Trade Unions) in the years 2000: the battle against the Bolkestein-Directive. In the end it was possible to introduce the protection of public services as “services of general social and economic interest (SSIG’s) on a European level. This could be a starting point for initiatives for commons to fight for the recognition of commons initiatives in different fields as basic citizens rights in Europe.

All these examples show at least the slightly fragmented situation. The political and legal conditions differ widely and there is a need to discuss demands on all levels – and there is the need to discuss them on the European level.

Opportunities for the European Left

The general interest of the European Left is to re-think the role of public for goods and services with relation to universal rights and to prohibit market-logic in public services. The aim is to suspend the market from public goods and services and to democratize public services for the recuperation of public services as Common Good. This is the first dimension. The second is to re-think social and workers rights as common goods. And the third is the recognition of citizens’ initiatives as basic rights and the promotion of commons initiatives.

So, it’s a three-fold battle and it could start from the general statement:

Commons are of general public interest, thus the general demand is the political and legal recognition of citizens’ initiatives whose aim is to create, re-construct and recuperate resources, goods and services in a social, ecological and democratic way. But there are specific demands to add. As there are (just to give some examples):

  1. Cooperative use of abandoned land and houses. Social use of confiscated property
  2. Right for workers to recuperate their companies and manage them collectively – before selling them to investors or going bankrupt
  3. Open access for all citizens to information services that are democratically organised, and free public internet
  4. Collectively and self-managed funds for citizens’ initiatives and access to public funding
  5. democratization of digital radio and TV by reserving e.g. 30% of the slots for non-commercial, community etc. stations
  6. participatory re-communalization/re-municipalization of energy and water

And I’m sure there are others to add.

This could be the right moment to start to discuss practical political proposals – not with the illusion to change European politics immediately, but with the intention to bring the debate into the light of a greater public.

To watch Birgit’s Video follow this link https://youtu.be/fSnKzURElZM

Read More

Peace and Security in Asia and Europe: Challenges Ahead and a Peoples Vision” – A note for civil society movements

June 17, 2018

Peace and Security in Asia and Europe: Challenges Ahead and a Peoples Vision” - A note for civil society movements

June 17, 2018 | Anuradha Chenoy

This brief paper analyses civil society processes that strengthen the network of peace movements and their linkages with peoples’ organizations in Asia and Europe. In the first part I do a brief analysis of the situation of peace and security, and how it impacts peoples’ lives on the two continents of Asia and Europe. In the second part I look at the tasks of peace and civil society.

The aim for civil society movements is to seek peaceful, negotiated and just solutions to problems, especially for those living in zones of conflict; to build and popularise ideas for ending conflicts through just and equitable peace. To strengthen international solidarity against mindless militarism that continues to threatens human development and human security. We believe that participatory democracy strengthens the cause of peace and that peace is a holistic social process involving deliverable justice which is sustainable when people themselves are part of these processes.

Background

Neo liberal globalization has led to an extraordinary concentration of finance capital and political power with deep inequalities and exclusions. The consequences are new instabilities, insecurities, and threats as participatory democracy has declined in many countries and has been absent in others. This has deep consequence on the international system and geopolitics.

Post globalization there are three broad sets of impacts and reactions:

  1. One reaction has prompted neo-nationalisms, authoritarianism, xenophobia, and the rise of identity movements, Islamophobia and fundamentalisms. This reinforces the rise of the far Right that constructs a civilizational discourse and hatred for the other. This phenomenon has encouraged the rise and election of populist and authoritarian leaders to power in many countries of Asia, Europe and world over (select examples: Hungary, Turkey, India, Philippines). In many countries the insecurities of neo liberalism have led to a substantial group of citizens turning against the other. So substantial numbers that constitute this ‘other’ live in a state of fear. In these circumstances there is insecurity for all.
  2. The second broad set of impacts is the liberal fight back. Cosmopolitan institutionalism that laid the foundations of liberal institutions and liberal ideas see the dangers of the neo –right in their political practice. But the liberal idea remains divided about the neo liberal economic agenda. Many analysts (Fraser, Patnaik 2018) collapse the liberal and neo liberal positions as they see this as a combination of economic neo liberal/ hegemonic economics combined with domestic liberal discourse of rights. Other liberals and neo liberals want an expansion of globalization with a liberal domestic agenda in a ‘blended’ fashion.
  3. The third broad set of ideas, is that of resistance that seeks international solidarity, seeks alternatives to hegemonic policies and endorses democratic, peaceful, non-violent and just solutions. The task of critical progressive thinkers is to examine and reject the first set of ideas, and to strengthen and build solidarity with all forces who believe in just peace and deepening democracy in both civil as well as political society. This is a challenge to CSOs and political formations.

Characteristics of the Contemporary International Geopolitical System

Briefly summed up the current international geopolitical system despite its complexity, contexts and specificities, has broad and common characteristics that we can sum up. These include:

  • Relative slow growth of the US and EU and growing demand of protectionism from ruling regimes for themselves, without changing neoliberal globalization for the others. (President Trumps’ critique of the G-7 and trade disputes for ‘America first).
  • Despite austerity, the USA with some allies continue to work on militarized regime change in several countries; proposes military intervention in several others; retain eight hundred military bases and client states; imposes unilateral economic sanctions; dominate international narrative with a network of interlinked media and social media control. Asserts itself as a state of exception and disregard international law.
  • The stabilization, reassertion, and securitization of Russia. Russia continues to return to its roots because of insecurities fueled by threats of further territorial disintegration, encirclement and sanctions; isolated by an expanding NATO. In return for sovereignty and an elusive Eurasian ‘difference’ and exceptionalism, Russian citizens have given up many rights and freedoms. They have endorsed the reassertions for regaining bits of Soviet (Russian) territory and renewing zones of influence on its vast borders (Brenton, 2018). This has meant the breakup of Ukraine and Georgia. The re-emergence of Russia as a regional power/ player in West Asia and Central Asia. However, given its economic slowdown, and sanctions from the West, Russia is getting increasingly strategically and economically allied with China, (trade in renminbi, gold backup of currency, direct oil pipelines, communication and defense links, economic and trade ties). Russia maintains close strategic and economic relations with a number of countries in the Global South including India and Vietnam. (India, Vietnam, China and others have ignored the sanctions on Russia, and continue trade with them).
  • China after an amendment (After the 19th Chinese Communist Party Congress) narrowed its power elite command and control, constitutionally endorsing a single leader for his lifetime. China has declared a clear plan for economic global domination as well as an official narrative that China ‘will play a greater international role’. The major steps include: geopolitically and geo economically linking South, South East and Central Asia with a trillion dollar infrastructure transport corridor (Belt Roadway Initiative or Silk Route); This BRI will link China’s interior provinces with a globalized world economy and support financial monopolization favorable primarily to China; a series of hub and spokes relations with ‘satellite states like Pakistan; and closer strategic relations with Russia. A key strategic goal is increasing its naval domination over the South China Sea, asserting its control over the many islands and communities, making a string of ports with logistic facilities through the Indo-Pacific. China is moving towards a G-2 position of pressure-compromise-pressure with the US. Trade wars and retributions. China puts pressure through financial debt to developing countries. (Example, the inability of Sri Lanka to repay Chinese debt has led to Sri Lanka give over their port of Humbantota to China).
  • The comparative high growth in the ‘emerging countries’ like India, Brazil, Indonesia and others, are all accompanied by extraordinary levels of inequalities and exclusions of communities. All these countries project medium to great power status and influence over their region and beyond. The countries symbolized by the BRICS, believe they have gained from neoliberal policies and view globalization favorably. The creation of BRICS, as a transactional grouping, with assertions for a more equitable share in global financial institutions, and with new institutional structures like AIIB, NDB ( China, Russia, India hold 48% of shares and 62 countries are members). This is not an alternative but gives an option to countries of the global South of a choice between similar paradigms. Other groupings like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), ASEAN, BIMSTEC, are competing with traditional alliances. The ASEM does not have the same level of dynamism as these cited above.
  • In a context where the United Nations system requires reforms, dominant multilateral institutions like the World Bank and IMF have a hegemonic disposition. Regional associations including ASEAN and ASEM, SAARC, have been comparatively weakened because these are not accompanied by strong institutional mechanisms. The EU has suffered a blow from BREXIT. BRICS is hedged by the unresolved issues between India and China. These organizations have focused and are dependent on free trade and financial flows, and in some cases more on economic integration. Their regional security, cultural relations and people to people linkages are mediated by more powerful countries (US and increasingly China) and ranges from weak, stagnant or dependent. Some Asian and ASEAN countries try and maintain some semblance of an independent foreign policy by balancing between the US, EU, and China; or even between US, Russia ( India and Vietnam) Further, these regionalisms remain weak because these are not sufficiently backed by people to people movements. (The People’s movements’ are also restricted because of decline in democratic spaces).
  • More than eighty armed conflicts rage in different parts of the globe, but largely in the Global South. Insecurities from terrorism and unresolved frozen conflicts lead to destruction, displacement and environmental damage.

In sum the international system, now called the multipolar system has characteristics whereby:

  • Economic neoliberalism has supported the rise of political authoritarianism in many countries, and in others turned significant populations against others. It has given fresh lease of life to neo-conservative neo realism. Neo realism, is the underlying strategy of neo conservatives and seeks to dominate in multiple and different ways.
  • The focus of such geo strategy is based on competitive and even conflictual geostrategic goals, policies and aspirations.Continuing militarisms.
  • Geostrategic maneuvering has replaced foreign policy.
  • Regional assertion/hegemony is undermining regional cooperation.
  • There are no real cuts in defense spending. Nuclear weapons continue to viewed as a currency of power, status and defense.
  • Unresolved, frozen conflicts and liberation struggles in Asia and Europe; in addition to new dangerous conflagrations in West Asia lead to further regional wars, instability, forced migrations and insecurities.
  • Neorealism as the dominant narrative has prevented us from an intersectional/ holistic explanation of viewing international system and security.
  • Globalization has weakened internationalism, independent foreign policies.
  • Wars are leading to ecological damage and breaking down societies.
  • There is a threat of the return of great power competition as counter-hegemonic power like China is building the capacity to dominate the Asia –Pacific militarily and is being countered by new groupings.

Alternatives and Role of Peace and Social Movements

At this conjuncture peace and social movements have a critical role to play. First they have to evolve an acceptable alternative.

  • There is a need for linking of movements in a rainbow alliances like AEPF with movements, progressive political formations. Civil society by its very nature is plural and fragmented. It has multiple issues and methods. These cannot be homogenized, but on key issues, they need to see how their aims and objectives intersect and thus they need to have solidarity with each other.
  • Deepening intellectual engagements with progressive movements and partners. Social movements, progressive academics and others, have to develop more methods of solidarity and more convincing arguments and advocacy.

Developing independent analysis and arguments for greater synergy between academia, researchers, social movements, policy makers.

  • The peace movement has seen a recent success, in that the Nobel Peace prize was awarded to the Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). Further, the first sign of success in the peace talks between the US and North Korea, backed by the South Koreas and China, and Russia, (in a distant background) has moved de-nuclearization one step forward. It is important to note that peace and women’s groups are playing a role in this.
  • The peace and social movements continue to reinforce support to liberation movements including Palestine, the Kurds and many others for peaceful self determinism and autonomy.
  • Peaceful resolution of claims in South China Sea

Global end to Nuclear weapons

  • Continue to show the link between social and defense expenditures and broaden the horizon of peace and security.
  • Supporting honest and critical alternate media to build rainbow alliances like AEPF and others.

It is these steps that can add to the much needed peace and security in service of people.

References

Brenton, Tony, Russia and the West on the Brink, Lob Log, at: https://lobelog.com/russia-and-the-west-on-the-brink/

Frazer, Nancy, (2017) Interview available at: http://politicalcritique.org/opinion/2017/emancipatory-movements-must-have-a-populist-dimension-an-interview-with-nancy-fraser/

Rufanges, Calvo Jordi (2018) Stop Military Expenditure to Stop War, AEPF, at: https://aepf.info/single-post/2018/04/29/Stop-military-expenditure-to-stop-war

Patnaik, Prabhat, Is Imperialism still relevant Concept? See for example discussion on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRvcGP1ALvI

Read More

PEACE AND SECURITY IN ASIA: MUCH NEEDS TO BE DONE

June 17, 2018

PEACE AND SECURITY IN ASIA: MUCH NEEDS TO BE DONE

June 17, 2018 | Pham Van Chuong

Vietnam Peace and Development Foundation

Almost two years have elapsed since the 11th Asia-Europe People’s Forum in Ulaan Baatar, Mongolia, and developments related to peace and security in the world, and in Asia in particular, still face us with more questions than answers.

Many Asian countries (Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, and others) were among the first to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons last September. The Treaty marks an encouraging step toward a world free of nuclear arms, but the reduction of risks remain only symbolic, since all nuclear-armed States, including the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and most of their allies stay out. In such a context, efforts toward effectuation and promotion of the Treaty, like those of the Japan Council Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs (Gensuikyo), deserve our support.

Also related to nuclear weapons, directly or indirectly, are the upcoming inter-Korean and DPR Korea – United States summits. Let us hope that these much spoken of events would impact positively peace and security in Asia and elsewhere, directly or indirectly.

The situation in Western Asia leaves little room for hope, unfortunately.

Along the Gaza-Israel border, at least 18 Palestinians were killed and some 1,700 wounded on 30 March 2018 when Israeli forces opened fire on defenseless demonstrators commemorating their “Land Day”. Pope Francis and UN Secretary-General António Guterres raised their voices against the mass murder. The UN Security Council held an emergency meeting on the same day, but failed to agree even on a joint statement. The land of the Palestians remains in fragments and their life in tatters.

In Syria, despite heavy losses suffered by IS forces, the war still drags on, with the participation of land, air and naval forces from big powers, many of them UN Security Council permanent members. Life continues to be nightmarish for the Syrian people, especially women, children and the elderly.

Elsewhere in Asia, the people are also faced with multiple threats – traditional and non-traditional: ethnic and religious conflicts, internal and border clashes, military buildup and deployment, terrorist attacks and land grab, climate change and environmental destruction, trafficking in drugs, arms and persons, piracy, harassment of fishing activity and depletion of marine resources that render fisherfolk’s livelihood insecure.

Let us have a look at the South China Sea, by the side of which our workshop is taking place. The Sea looks quite calm on the surface, but beneath lie numerous challenges.

There are territorial and jurisdictional disputes that need peaceful solutions in keeping with agreements between two or more countries directly concerned and as provided for by instruments of international law; and pending settlement, self-restraint from all related parties, abstention from the threat or use of force and from acts that may further complicate the situation.

There are issues related to safety and freedom of navigation in and overflight above the Sea, through which about half of the world’s merchant shipping tonnage passes every year. Those issues, likewise, need peaceful solutions in keeping with international law, notably the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The high seas are open to all States, and no State shall validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its territory.

There are also, but often overlooked, issues related to the preservation and exploitation of the Sea’s maritime resources, upon which rely economically the life of 60% of the population of the 8 Southeast Asian countries bordering it. Related instruments of international law should be observed. All acts that may damage resources and harm the people’s livelihood, e.g. overfishing, or large-scale land reclamation leading to environmental destruction, should be avoided.

Thus, across Asia, there are so many issues that need to be tackled. Concerning their resolution, allow me to venture a few ideas:

  1. The life and livelihood of the people are part and parcel of peace and security. The rights and interests of the people should be taken into due consideration in the process of tackling peace and security issues. NGOs could and should serve as a channel for the people’s voice to be heard.
  2. Instruments of international law are made and signed by States, and States are duty-bound to ensure that they are respected and observed. In this connection, bigger and stronger States are expected to assume a larger share of responsibility. For their part, NGOs are expected to serve as a reminder in the form of advocacy, caution, warning, pressure, or protest, if necessary.
Read More

Our Common Social Future Program of Events

June 03, 2018

Our Common Social Future Program of Events

June 3, 2018 | Social Justice Cluster

Asia Europe People’s Forum
Social Justice Cluster

Our common social future: Commoning and sharing for society, the environment and the economy. A programme for a democratic, participatory and transformative social protection –Barcelona – 8-9-10 June 2018

Social justice is at the centre of all our concerns and of all our efforts to work for another world. Democracy is not possible if people do not have the feeling they have equal worth, they can have their voices heard, they can take part in decision-making with the same capacities as all others. It is not just about formal equality but about real equality through social and economic citizenship and just taxes in order to fight inequality. This is even more important since the level of inequality continues to grow.

Social justice strongly remains at the heart of all civil society’s concerns and demands. For the Asia-Europe People’s Forum it is crucial for a just and fair relationship between Europe and Asia. All problems are interlinked and solidarity between peoples is not a matter of diplomacy, it is a matter of justice and of participation, with common concerns and aspirations for more equality, economic security and social protection. For climate justice – one cannot ask people to respect nature if their basic needs and livelihoods are not protected and if we allow extractive corporations to violate human rights. Social justice is also at the heart of fair trade, where the aim is to avoid rules and standards that violate people’s rights, that dismantle social services and put competitiveness and economic freedom above social and economic rights. Gender equality is integral to social justice. Finally, peace will never be possible without social justice, as was stated very clearly when the Peace Treaty of Versailles with the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation was adopted in 1919.

There are shared concerns and demands in the European Union and Asia. The level of development is very different from Europe to Asia, but also within Europe and within Asia. Nevertheless, at the level of social justice and more particularly social protection, labour law and social services, the recent developments are very similar and are dictated by the same neoliberal philosophy. While most Asian countries have limited systems of social protection and some European countries have very highly developed collective insurance systems and universal public services, they are both faced with attempts to reform and/or dismantle them. A new social paradigm is being introduced, all over the world, where social protection serves the interests of growth, markets and the economy, and where the principles of collective solidarity and social justice are steadily eroded. Social protection should be about the inalienable rights of all people, everywhere in the world, to have their needs met so that they can flourish. Even if better social protection is good for the economy, this can never be the ultimate goal. The agenda must be broadened and transformed.

Social protection, social rights and reducing inequality are again on the agenda of global development. The Sustainable Development Goals offer leverage to strengthen our advocacies for social protection and our fight against inequality, in favour of human rights and universality. ILO’s Social Protection Floors offer comprehensive though limited systems of social protection. We have to remain vigilant not to allow policymakers and corporate interests to hijack the discourse in order to perpetuate failing practices.

Our objective is to put into place social protection as commons, in the first place because it is ours, in the second place because we want to democratize it and reflect on the linkages between social and economic rights – health care, education, pensions, housing, child care … – on the one hand, with democracy, ecology, trade, culture and gender relations on the other hand.

We want to shift the global debate about social justice and social protection on to a new level, by embracing theory and practice that suit the needs and conditions of today, rather than harking back to the last century. By social protection we mean access to social resources that enable every individual to survive, to manage risks they cannot cope with alone, and to flourish. We also want to look at labour law and public services. By commons, we mean resources that are life’s necessities, to which everyone should therefore have an equal right of access and for which we all share responsibility, for both current and future generations.

The idea of natural resources as commons (especially land, but also air, water and energy) has deep roots in history. The idea of cultural resources as commons (such as information and digital platforms) features increasingly in current debates. The aim of this conference is to explore the conceptual and practical implications of claiming social resources as commons and clarify the connection with natural and cultural commons.

How does this approach differ from conventional social protection systems? This question is central to our agenda. It concerns democracy and participation, self-determination, models of ownership and control; inclusion and solidarity; governance and relationships between public authorities and locally generated initiatives. Ideally, people do not wait for public authorities or private corporations to take initiatives, but seize opportunities within their own localities to decide for themselves what they need, and take action together to ensure that their needs are met. This approach overrides the market/state dichotomy and carries with it the potential to transform both. Also, in establishing social protection as commons, in promoting cooperation between citizens and public authorities, we not only want to protect people but society as such, against the current overriding individualism.

In Europe as well as in Asia, social protection should be a collective insurance mechanism that contributes to an equitable distribution of incomes and wealth and to equal opportunities for all. Social protection should be universal and transformative, that is, contribute to the political, social, environmental and economic transformation we need. Universalism does not mean identical systems everywhere. In order to answer the real needs of people, systems can be different at the local, the municipal and the national level. Basic human needs are, however, the same everywhere, across place and time. Rights should therefore be the same. Social protection should be a way to achieve social justice and emancipation. Social commons are a mechanism for broadening social protection, anchoring it within the control of those who need it and ensuring that it contributes to social justice in a transversal way.

The economic and social crisis we are currently living in, is in the first place a crisis of social re-production, in a world where employment increasingly fails to support subsistence. The privatisation of public services is a new enclosure, where the livelihoods of people are taken out of their hands and are turned into profit-making mechanisms. We want to defend our rights, make them concrete and contribute to new rights and policies in which people take back control.

This conference is the second in a series of three, covering the whole range of social protection aiming for social justice. In February 2018, we discussed public services in Manila, The Philippines. In 2019, we will discuss labour rights in Asia. In between, the Asia Europe People’s Forum will take place in Ghent, Belgium, from 19 to 21 October 2018.

PROGRAMME

To watch Birgit’s Video follow this link https://youtu.be/fSnKzURElZM

Friday 8 June

Session 1: 10 am – 14 pm

  • Opening of the conference:
  • Brief presentation of AEPF and Transform, Tina Ebro and Roberto Morea
  • Federica Fantini, European Commission (DEVCO) (tbc)
  • Laura Perez Castaño, City Councillor Barcelona
  • Charles Santiago, MP, Malaysia

The case for commons and social commons:

  • Dario Azzellini, Italy
  • Francine Mestrum, Belgium
  • Anna Coote, United Kingdom
  • Dinesh Devkota, Nepal
  • Shalmali Guttal, Thailand
  • Bru Laín Escandell, Barcelona

​Facilitation : Tina Ebro and Koen Detavernier

Session 2: 16 – 20 pm

The new commons debate: The importance of commons in the process of social transformation

  • Chantal Delmas, France
  • Peter North, United Kingdom
  • Sandeep Chachra, India
  • Marco Berlinguer, Barcelona

Discussion

The new commons debate: The importance of commons in the process of political transformation

  • Roberto Morea, Italy
  • Dong Huy Cuong, Vietnam
  • Birgit Daiber, Germany
  • Koen Detavernier, Belgium

​Facilitation: Ghulam Mustafa Talpur and Elisabetta Cangelosi

Saturday 9 June

Sesion 3: 10 am to 14 pm

Conditions for social commons

  • What we already achieved: report on the conference in Manila on public services
  • Tina Ebro, Philippines

Macroeconomic policies, development, the changing world of work, gender

  • Núria Lozano Montoya, Barcelona
  • Alessandra Mecozzi, Italy
  • Khalid Mahmood, Pakistan
  • Federica Giardini, Italy
  • Alex Scrivener, UK

Discussion

The environment, inequality, taxes

  • Lidy Nacpil, Philippines
  • Ghulam Mustafa Talpur, Pakistan
  • Ah Maftuchan, Indonesia
  • Vedran Horvat, Croatia

Facilitation: Lucia Bárcena and Sandeep Chachra

Public event: 18 pm to 20.30 pm

Social commons as a Strategic Tool for Transformation

  • Camil Ros, UGT
  • Laura Roth, Barcelona en Comú
  • Marisa Matias, MEP, Portugal
  • Ernest Urtasun, MEP, Barcelona
  • Charles Santiago, MP, Malaysia
  • Toni Mora, CCOO
  • Federica Fantini, European Commission (tbc)
  • Chantal Delmas, France
  • Ana Maria R. Nemenzo, Philippines

Facilitation : Pablo Sanchez Centellas and Francine Mestrum

Sunday 10 June

Session 4: 10 am to 14 pm

Implementing social commons:

  • The centrality of economic and social rights
  • German Jaraiz Arroyo, Spain
  • The centrality of culture for social commons
  • Julie Ward, MEP United Kingdom

Practical implications of adopting a commoning approach to social protection – options for activism and policy development

Practical implications of adopting a commoning approach to social protection – options for activism and policy development Labour (Dario Azzelini), gender (Elisabetta Cangelosi), Land and food (Sandeep Chachra), health (Enric Feliu), housing (Santi Mas de Xaxás), care (Anna Coote)

​Concluding remarks and adoption of the Declaration of Barcelona

​Francine Mestrum and Roberto Morea

Facilitation: Kris Vanslambrouck and Lidy Nacpil

Co-organisers of the Conference

AEPF Social Justice Cluster – Global Social Justice – Transform! Europe – Institute for Political Ecology – Fundació l’alternativa – Barcelona en Comù – Fighting Inequality Alliance – Tax Justice Alliance Asia – Asean Parliamentary network for Human Rights – UGT (Union General de Trabajadores) – CCOO (Comisiones Obreras) – Network for Transformative Social Protection

Venue of the Conference:

Comisiones Obreras, Via Laietana 16, 08003 Barcelona

Venue for the public event on Saturday evening:

UGT (Union General de Trabajadores), Rambla de Santa Monica 10, 08002 Barcelona

www.aepf.info / www.transform-network.net

Download the program here

You can read it here using your e-reader

Read More

Peace and Peoples struggles: The Conflict in Syria

June 01, 2018

Peace and Peoples struggles: The Conflict in Syria

June 1, 2018 | Kamal Mitra Chenoy

AEPF, Vietnam Peace and Development Foundation
Vietnam
14-16 April, 2018

The peace that seemed to have come to the fore after the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, has been unexpectedly difficult. Besides the hundreds of intra and inter-state conflicts, the most dangerous conflict currently is in the West Asia region, with ramifications for all of Asia, Europe and globally.

Currently, there is a major conflict on in Syria, in which Turkey, the Free Syrian Army FSA), Al Nusra now called Al Shams, are involved in a bitter conflict in which the Kurdish formations Kurdish Peoples Protection Units (YPG) and Women’s Protection Force (YPJ) are fighting a grim battle versus the Turkish alliance. The US, under President Trump continues to make attempts at regime change in Syria. In response to an alleged chemical weapon attack by President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, the US and its allies France and UK targeted Damascus’s chemical weapon facilities with over a hundred cruise missiles. This further militarises West Asia, firms up military intervention as a model for regime change and is a step against conflict resolution through negotiated and political agreemnts.

This conflict is in the classic mode of earlier conflicts where military interventionism and great power geo-politics as opposed to people’s lives, peace and security matter. It involves (i) capturing resources like oil (by Turkey) as well as olive oil (from northern Syria where Kurds control ) (ii) territorial expansionism (by Turkey) (iii) Regional great power aspirations (Iran and Saudi Arabia) (iv) Great power hegemony and intervention (USA, Russia), (v) Arms sales and weaponry (EU to Turkey); (vi) shifting geo-strategic moves (Russia, USA, Israel’s relations with Turkey) (vii) Attempts at regime change (of Syria’s Assad) (viii) Attempts to retain military and authoritarian control by a singular elite (by Assad) (ix)Rise and shifting locations of lethal terrorist groups (ISIS into Al Nusra and Al Shams) (x) Invisibilization and oppression of a national liberation struggle(Kurds) (xi) Humanitarian crises and genocide (Kurds and sections of Syrian people) (xii) Possibility of military intervention by using doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (xiii) Resulting in exacerbating the civil war, increasing anarchy, fragmentation of the Syrian State (like Iraq, Libya); creating another ‘failed state’. (xiv) Keeping West Asia in a continuous state of crises. (Rising militarisation and use of chemical weapons) (xv) Creation of humanitarian crises, displaced and forced migration, effects of genocide.

Background

It is well known that Recip Erdogan was involved in buying smuggled oil from the ISIS which was transferred via large convoys to be sold at a profit. BMZ –the huge shipping company involved is still headed by Erdogan’s son Bilal. (Philips, 2015) It has also been established that Turkey has allowed free travel of militant groups linked with Al Qaeda through Turkey to cross over to Syria since several years, with the aim of regime change in Syria. (Mahalingam, 2018) There is hostility by the Turks against the Kurds, who have been struggling for autonomy and have waged a national liberation struggle for decades. Erdogan claims that the Kurdish workers Party PKK is trying to destabilise Turkey. The PKK’s leader Abdullah Ocalan has been in Turkish jails for years. A party the HDP that was sympathetic to Kurds and had some Kurdish membership, was bombed in Turkey and 50 people including Kurds were killed. The Kurds claim that this was an attack initiated by Erdogan.

The real problem started when ISIS was defeated in its strongholds in Raqqa and Fallujah. Kurdish forces called the YPG were active in the defeat of the ISIS. But instead of the defeat of ISIS leading to more peace and possibilities of resolving differences, the reverse happened. The USA wants to remove Bashir al Assad from the leadership of Syria and possibly to intervene in the re-making of a Syria with boundaries favourable for their own and their allies’ interests. Russia supported status quo with Assad at the helm.

Around that time several things happened in quick succession. There was an alleged attack by a large group of Turks who were followers of Gulen, who is based in the US supported by hundreds of exiled Turks and a significant number of soldiers who entered Turkey. This intrusion legitimised Erdogan’s urge to concentrate more power in his own person. In the first few months more than 60,000 people were arrested. Arrests continue of liberal academics, journalists and various strata for working people.

In this situation Erdogan believes that in a seemingly stable Turkey, he could invade Northern Syria and wipe out the Kurdish militia who had been armed by the US to fight the ISIS in Raqqa and Fallujah, under the pretext that they were loyal to the PKK and allied groups hostile to Turkey. Turkey launched attacks on the Kurdish areas of northern Syria since January 2018.

The situation is still confused and delicate. President Vladimir Putin has stated that Syria’s borders must remain intact and inviolable. The US are also worried about the situation as they do not want a conflagration there. Many observers and journalists feel that Erdogan is trying to change the boundaries in that part of Asia. However, the Iranians who are a major power are watching the situation carefully. Their allies the Hezbollah who some years ago had repulsed the Israeli army that sought to capture large swathes of Lebanese territory were given a rude shock by the coalition of Lebanese forces. Including the Christian Maronite forces, the Druze, the Shia and Sunni forces apart from Hezbollah and a small but committed unit of the Lebanese Communist Party that also formed the pro-Palestine front . Clearly, no peace in the West Asian region is possible without Iran on the negotiating table.

The so called Free Syrian Army who were initially armed by the Americans managed to get arms also from the fleeing and disrupted ISIS. But Al Nusra/ Al Shams remain a potent ally of the FSA. The arms meant for the FSA went in large measure to Al Nusra. The defence forces in Afrin are the Peoples Protection Units (YPG) and Women’s Protection Units (YPJ). In later stages of the fighting against ISIS the Kurds were armed by the Americans particularly to help in the fighting in Raqqa and Fallujah.

So it is clear that this area continues to be volatile despite the defeat of ISIS. There are major powers apart from the US like Russia, Iran who are totally against the disintegration of Syria. Turkey which tried to build an alliance with Israel was soon disappointed and the alliance broke.

From all journalistic and information sources it is quite clear that in the area of the city and outskirts of Afrin in northern Syria, where the Kurds are a majority is a multi-ethnic province, and where they have had autonomy since 2012, when the Assad regime lost control of the region. The Turks are now systematically attacking. The Kurds state that there is ongoing genocide conditions (Koc, April, 2018). There is a medical and humanitarian emergency.

Experienced observers are warning against a revival of ISIS or a strengthening of Al Shams, which will lead to major conflicts in the confused fighting particularly in Afrin. If Afrin falls, the Syrian state will be even in more difficulty. The Kurds have been fighting fundamentalist-terrorist forces, along with the Syrian troops. But given the numbers of Turkish troops and their virtual allies make things are difficult. The Turks in recent years bought sophisticated German Leopard tanks, whereby the Germans asked for a guarantee from the Turks that these highly modern tanks should not be used in any neighbouring country. That notwithstanding, Turkey has moved a large number of tanks and weaponry into the northern Syrian war zone.

In sum what does this mean. First it was thought that Iraq was a danger to that area of West Asia, particularly when it used mustard gas against the Kurds, where hundreds died. Later Saddam Hussain himself was defeated charged in court and summarily hanged. Then, Hilary Clinton was secretary of state she ordered the removal of Munnawar Gaddafi. Gaddafi was killed but within months Libya collapsed and is currently considered to be controlled in large part by ISIS. Even Iraq, it was only because of Western help and fire power that the ISIS was defeated. One of reasons for ISIS’s hostility to Iraq was its Shia majority. Thus Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi the major leader of the ISIS was an Iraqi Sunni. Therefore the belief that this area could be given adequate relief, armaments and Western support altogether being sufficient to control the situation in this area has turned out to be a pyrrhic hope.

It is clear that Afrin is now in a pincer attack. If the international community does not move to give succour to the Kurdish population and the Syrians in the Afrin area, the situation might get further destabilised. There is no indication that the Russians will watch and stand by, when it is quite possible that this area may again fall into sectarian strife, skirmishes and regional wars.

The lessons from ISIS had not yet been fully understood. In the societies of West Asia and its neighbours there has to be a clear sense of justice and all possible material help to get their countries and troubled areas back into a peace mode. The region has to be looked holistically. For instance there cannot be an attitude that existing trouble spots will be looked at first and other outbursts can be ignored until they become too difficult to handle in the short run. This is what happened in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya and all claims that the regime change would lead to stability and peace have turned out to be palpably false.

This really is a matter that the UN and the Security Council must deal with very strongly before the current firestorm and another which will inevitably follow lead to further regional wars and humanitarian crises. The idea of executing a leader whether it be Saddam Hussain or Gaddafi or anyone else is highly misguided. Apart from the individual leader or dictator, there is always an army and punitive police force and armed gangs based on religion or sub religions or local identities and rivalries. If this way of looking at things had been done two years ago, the situation would not have been so grim. If done five years ago, it would have been relatively easy.

It is high time that the international community buckled down and asked for negotiations from all the warring parties and when necessary UN peacekeeping to snuff out local hotspots. But as history has shown, this cannot be a one time effort. There will have to much more dedication much more aid and whenever necessary intervention to save the people of this region from their terrible existence.

The international peace movement has an important role to play. They must ask for:

  • A ceasefire in Afrin and all of Syria, as requested by the UN Security Council.
  • Immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Turkey from Syria
  • The participation of all parties in this Syrian conflict, including the Kurds to come to the negotiating table.
  • A UN led peace process.
  • Urgent humanitarian assistance.
  • Investigation into war crimes and use of chemical weapons.
  • Jihadi groups and states who indulged in war crimes be tried in the International Criminal Courts.

* Kamal Mitra Chenoy is a Professor, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

References.

Koc, Nilufer, (2018) Co-Chair of the Kurdistan National Congress, Interview with author, April 10, 2018. Also interview with Nilufer Koc at: https://peaceinkurdistancampaign.com/2015/12/10/kurdistan-report-interviews-nilufer-koc-co-chair-of-the-knk/

Mahalingam, Brigadier V. (2018) “Has Trump and the US Allies Done the Right Thing by Attacking Syria?”, Centre for Land Warfare Studies, New Delhi, at http://www.claws.in/1899/has-trump-and-the-us-allies-done-the-right-thing-by-attacking-syria-v-mahalingam.html

Philips, David (2016) Turkey-ISIS Oil Trade, Huffington Post at: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/research-paper-turkey-isi_b_8808024.html

Read More

Peace and Security in Asia and Europe: Challenges Ahead and a Peoples Vision Resolution and Recommendations

May 22, 2018

Peace and Security in Asia and Europe: Challenges Ahead and a Peoples Vision Resolution and Recommendations

May 22, 2018

Asia Europe Peoples Forum
&
Vietnam Peace and Development Foundation
Vietnam 14 April, 2018
“Peace and Security in Asia and Europe: Challenges Ahead and a Peoples Vision”

Recommendations for ASEM leaders:

  1. Sign, ratify and implement the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons thus stopping research, development, production, and use of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. Provide all necessary assistance to Hibakusha, victims of Agent Orange and other war victims in their daily lives and their struggles for justice.
  2. Significantly reduce military expenditures and increase budgets for social and public services such as health, education, employment and climate change.
  3. Strengthening dialogue and information sharing with all other stakeholders, including academic sector and people’s organizations/CSOs, especially the grassroots movements and organizations for a peaceful Asia, Europe and the world as a whole. Practice transparency and accountability in its relations with civil society organizations and social movements. Follow a rule-based international legal regime.
  4. The rights and interests of the disadvantaged and oppressed must be fully protected in the process of tackling peace-security issues. Civil society could and should serve as a channel for the peoples’ voice to be heard.
  5. Support the resolution of disputes and tensions by peaceful means. This should include respect for diplomatic and legal means to deal with all South China Sea disputes. We support all efforts towards dialogue and peace building on the Korean Peninsula, including the participation of civil society.
  6. Inequalities, exclusions, between groups, races, religions, gender in states and among nations should be addressed by a clear and balanced definition of rights amongst those groups in the light of their constitutions and international laws).
  7. Reinforce self-determination and autonomy and all legal support for liberation movements including Palestine, the Kurds and many others in accordance to international law.
  8. Stop using or threatening to use force and violence in all setting, contexts and circumstances.

Strategy of people’s organisations/ peace movements

  1. Deepening intellectual engagements with progressive movements and partners.
  2. Developing independent analysis and arguments.
  3. Reinforce support to liberation movements including Palestine, the Kurds and many others for peaceful self-determination and autonomy.
  4. Strengthen peace education and the promotion of peace culture and ideology of peace among all people, especially the younger generation. Eliminate all kinds of violence against people.
  5. Reviving peace movements, anti-nuclear and alternative movements; linking of movements in rainbow alliances like AEPF, and progressive political formations. Supporting honest and critical alternate media.
  6. Enhance exchanges and information sharing, both bilaterally and multilaterally, especially face-to-face and through digital means.
  7. Launch solidarity campaigns outside and inside countries and among countries.
Read More

Preventing Violent Extremism: A Peace-building Perspective

May 13, 2018

Preventing Violent Extremism : A Peace-building Perspective

May 13, 2018 | Marc Batac and Gus Miclat

Initiatives for International Dialogue (IID)
Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict-Southeast Asia (GPPAC-SEA)

In the last few years, since 9/11 and the Global War on Terror, there has been a resurgence in interest in discussing and addressing violent extremism (VE) and its prevention. In the Southeast Asian region, the most recent precursors are the Marawi siege in Southern Philippines and the Rohingya crisis in the Rakhine state in Myanmar.

Let me provide emphasis on the Rohingya.

As you may remember, in early May 2015, the world watched as Southeast Asia was rocked by a humanitarian crisis involving hundreds of Rohingya refugees. Having been subjected to systematic discrimination in their home country of Myanmar since the 1950s, the Rohingya have been forced to flee for their lives and attempt to seek refuge in any country that would take them in. Last year, on 25 August, violence dramatically escalated in northern Arakan/Rakhine State, aTer the Tatmadaw / Myanmar military’s heavy-handed response to an attack by a newly formed armed group, the Arakan Rohingya Salvadoran Army (ARSA). The aftermath of the ferocious military action has led to hundreds of innocent civilian people being killed and hundreds of thousands displaced. Over 600,000 civilians from northern Rakhine State, mostly members of the Rohingya community, have been forced to flee their homes. Most alarming are the “clearance operations” conducted by the Tatmadaw / Myanmar military, during which various independent reports have documented systematic burning of Rohingya villages, sexual violence against Rohingya women, and opening fire on unarmed civilians. Within Arakan and Myanmar itself, the rift between Muslims and Buddhists, and between Rohingya and non-Rohingya ethnics have also widened, with discrimination against the Rohingya raging especially on social media.

But let us echo and emphasized the argument of partners working at the grassroots level on this issue: the Rohingya issue is not merely a lateral, social conflict that came about because of coincidental, essentialist disagreement between religious beliefs (Buddhist versus Muslims) or racial interests (between the various ethnic nationalities in Myanmar). What ultimately drives this is not just reactionary, unscientific tendencies of communities. Rather (which is part of the reason why we chose to emphasize on the Rohingya) it showcases how in many contexts as Southeast Asia, conflicts are manufactured and enabled by governments and political elites through interchanging use of assimilation and of segregation /divide-and-rule strategies.

At the center of this, of course, is the Myanmar government, particularly its military, which has also received immense criticism for its policies against other non-Bamar ethnics, and its widely documented human rights violations in other regions of the country, particularly in Kachin and Northern Shan states, where serious crimes continue to persist and security forces have targeted civilians with extrajudicial killings, rape, and sexual violence, arbitrary detention, and forced displacement.

While the Rohingya issue best illustrates the contradictions of ASEAN’s regional integration project, this problem is not limited to the Rohingya issue, or to Myanmar’s treatment of some of its minoritized ethnic and religious communities. We see this in other SEA countries and beyond, in various forms and gravity but with the same element of systematized discrimination enabled and at Dems perpetrated by states.

For decades, the region has been hounded by a history of hegemonic nation-building tactics by governments post-colonization, which often led either to repressive and violent assimilation programs or to discriminatory segregation programs against minoritized communities. In response, various self-determination struggles were born in Timor, Aceh, Bangsamoro/Mindanao, West Papua, Patani/South Thailand and Burma/Myanmar, with many of these violent conflicts continuing until the present. In the last years, we have also witnessed in Indonesia and Malaysia, the rise in intolerance fueled by the politicalization of religion and race for narrow political gains of one or several competing elites, which have in turn undermined the democratic instituition in and pluralistic nature of these societies.

While we indeed need to talk about the immediate threat of VE, we, especially civil society and peoples’ movements, must not forget about the struggle for human security and self-determination of peoples that is intertwined with this issue.

And as we tackle VE, we must continue to talk about its causes. We will talk about poverty, joblessness, alienation, marginalization, and intolerance as some of the drivers of the VE phenomena. But we need to also talk about accountability of governments and political elites in the politicalization of race and religion for narrow interests.

Radicalization and Violent Extremism

It is worth emphasizing that violent extremism is not a new phenomenon. When we talk about VE, our minds have been virtually conditioned to picture Muslim fighters such as ISIS/Daesh, Al Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah, Abu Sayyaf or the Maute Group. While their methods and actions are indeed brutal and yes, terroristic, we tend to forget that terrorism is also employed by states or their agents.
Thus we need to be candid with each other that the understanding of violent extremism is contested and, still in many quarters, remain misunderstood and prone to confusion. When some of those who avow Islamic beliefs perpetrate VE, it is called terrorism. But if a Caucasian male who does it, he is called a crazed or disturbed person, and if a state conducts it, is called national security or national interest.

This should not be taken as a justification of any of these, rather a challenge for all of us to clarify our understanding of very disputed concepts.

When we say that accurate conflict analysis is critical, we do not mean this just in a rhetorical sense; we mean this in very concrete terms. For some, this seems to be sophistry, but to conflate and mix these concepts and these contexts with each other is a critical mistake we can make as allies and advocates of peace.

Fundamentalism means “Changing from the roots”. While Radicalization is a process of developing extremist ideologies and beliefs.

  1. Extreme – deviation from the norm
  2. Norm – informal understandings that govern the behavior of members of society

It is important to note however that there was a time when the concepts of human rights, democracy, the calls for racial and gender equality and the right to self- determination of peoples, to name a few, were also a deviation from the “norm” of the times.

Violent extremism. on the other hand, is an “ac?on pathway” or as a process of engaging in violence.

So while Radicalizedtion remains to be just in the area of idea/belief, Violent Extremism entails an “action”.

Moreover, Terrorism, another controversial concept, and trend, is just one form of VE; it is the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence to create terror/fear, in order to achieve a political/ religious/ideological aim.

Sociological and political science theories still do not have a consensus on the causality between radicalization on the one hand, and VE on the other. One school of thought argues that radicalization per se does not lead to the violence.

b.1. Not all those who have radical ideologies, take part in violent extremism.

b.2. Also, not all those who take part in VE, are radicalized due to an ideology or belief; in fact, some members of Al Qaeda/IS are not ideologues or deep believers in nuanced, extremist doctrine. In fact, a recent analysis of the background of Americans and Europeans who partake in violent extremism does not show that they have a background on radical ideological doctrine and training.

Thus, while there is a relationship between radicalize?on and VE, we should not jump into assuming the linear relationship between these two.

Conclusion

So how does the misplaced antagonism toward any belief that is perceived by mainstream culture and society as “deviant” and extreme”, and how does the conflation of the meanings of “radicalization” and “violent extremism” affect(s) civil society and peace building’ work?

For example, most of the VE tendencies we face in the SEA region (in the various ethnic states in Burma/Myanmar, in South Thailand, in Mindanao in the PH; before, in Aceh and Timor) are ethno-nationalist struggles in nature that is driven by the assertion of their right to self-determination. Focus in the process of transformation of “ideas/beliefs”, rather than addressing the “acDon pathway”, may lead to crackdown of perceived “radical” beliefs, i.e., crackdown on madrasas (e.g. attempts by governments toward nationalisation of madrasas without community participation and ownership are counter-productive in transforming these ethno-nationalist conflicts), and on legiDmate and peaceful expression or practice of cultural, linguistic and religious characters, of self-determination, all are protected under international law; further discriminating against and radicalizing minoritized communities and sectors in society.

In cracking down on “peaceful” pathways, such as direct but non-violent actions to express legitimate dissent, states push peoples and communities towards other pathways, some of those are violent.

As a final message, we call for a fundamental change in how we perceive violent extremism and violent conflict. Rather than addressing manifestation of these, we should work to address the conditions that give rise to these. We should ensure spaces and conditions for the respect for diversity, equality and peoples’ right to self-determination. We call for a shift from reaction to prevention, from state-centered security towards human- and people-centered security.

GPPAC has developed 10 Human Security Guiding Prac?ces for Countering/ Preven?ng Violent Extremism, which may be useful to consider, to wit:

  1. Human security guards the essential freedoms, safety, identity and human dignity of all people. It reflects the values in the preamble of the UN charter and encompasses development, humanitarianism, human rights, and security. It calls for holistic and context-specific strategies to counter violent extremism.
  2. The ultimate goal and responsibility of any security policy, including counterterrorism policy, should be the preservation and protection of the freedoms, safety, identity, and dignity of individuals and their communities.
  3. Terrorism must be fought within the rule of law and with respect for human rights. Police and military functions must be distinguished and operate within the rules of national and international law.
  4. Military strategies to eradicate terrorism oTen harm innocent civilians. Such strategies must be amended to prioritize individual freedoms, safety, identity, and dignity.
  5. Militarized counterterrorism measures do not change radical ideologies. They oTen backfire, further radicalizing vulnerable populations, and should be used only as a last resort.
  6. Both victims of terrorism and counterterrorism measures should receive international recognition and reparations.
  7. To effectively address terrorism, the security policy must address root causes and focus on conflict prevention and transformation.
  8. Civil society organizations are essential partners in countering violent extremism. Local civil society actors have valuable knowledge and relationships that are essential for transforming conflict.
  9. Restricting civil liberties and civil society space in the name of security creates the conditions of repression that fuel violent extremism.
  10. Listing practices have the unintended consequence of impeding peacebuilding and humanitarian access. Civil society must have legal and political space to engage with armed parties and the communities in which they operate.

As we in GPPAC and hopefully the rest of civil society endeavour to internalize and practice these principles, we call for a partnership and engagement between and among governments, multilateral, civil society and even with non-state actors to promote pluralism, prevent and transform conflict, and build a durable peace.

Not one player can do it alone.

***This was delivered during the Asia-Europe Peoples’ Forum (AEPF) Peace and Security Circle Workshop last April 14-15, 2018. This is an abridged and updated version of the piece entitled “promoting Pluralism In Countering Violent Extremism: A View from Civil Society” delivered during the Conference on Peace and the prevention of Violent Extremism (PVE) in Southeast Asia held in Manila, Philippines last September 23, 2017.

Read More

On Disarmament and Military Spending

May 13, 2018

On Disarmament and Military Spending

May 13, 2018 | Kalle Sysikask

During the last few months there has been some positive developments in relation to the situation in the Korean Peninsula. Even if President Trump and Kim Jong Un may be considered as unpredictable leaders it seems that both have faced restricting pressure domestically and regionally and in the coming times we have to assess the impact and see what this means.

President Putin announced in March that Russia has developed new nuclear weapons – an announcement no doubt as a reaction to the US Nuclear Posture review which was released in February, 2018.

Amid these developments many politicians and observers worldwide worry that nuclear weapons are back as a currency of geopolitics.

But we know and are trying to get people all over to understand that these weapons of mass destruction, never really left. The total stockpile numbers have come way done from their Cold War high but the mad strategic rationale for nuclear weapons remains.

Well over 100 states were supporting the new UN treaty to ban the nuclear weapons. It opened new ways to apply pressure on the nuclear powers and industry. But there remains a problem with the signings and ratifications. The only European countries until now who have signed the treaty are Austria, Ireland and Liechtenstein. In Finland the right-wing government is not going to sign but the situation may change after general election next year. In Sweden which is an important non-aligned country in Europe the government is considering the signature but there are problems, The Trump administration has said they will punish Sweden if they sign. Probably it is the same with Finland even if the government does not admit and is unwilling to sign because it wants to keep a close relationship to NATO. That is their policy because an overwhelming majority in Finland is opposing the NATO membership. In Sweden there is a split not only between the parties but in the prime minister’s socialist party too.

In Helsinki we arranged a goodwill Pippi Longstocking demonstration front of the Swedish embassy encouraging Sweden to sign the treaty and had a good discussion with the ambassador but these kinds of demonstrations are needed all over Europe – and why not in Asia, NZ and AUS – because if Sweden would sign it would make the atmosphere better in other European countries too.

So we need a lots of campaigning, lobbying, talking, writing, education, training and media attention still.

But we can also support and offer small steps in the right direction in preventing the nuclear catastrophe and making the situation better for further disarmament talks between the nuclear powers and in strengthening the international disarmament efforts.

There is the US-Soviet Agreement on the Prevention of Nuclear War from 1973, the two sides the US and Russia could use the agreement as the basis for a new political understanding by reaffirming it and asking China, France and UK to join. Adam Sherman who was Obama’s representative on nuclear arms issues has proposed this recently and I think it would be wise to constructively support these kinds of small steps too in order to break the current deadlock internationally and of course especially in US-Russia relations. This would be more symbolic but anyhow a step forward.

We have had talks on military spending here in Vietnam and In Ulan Bator AEPF Forum about two years ago. The major figures for nuclear weapons have not changed much except that China’s share is clearly increasing in both nuclear and arms expenditure. Further the militarization of the Indo Pacific Oceans has increased. The volume of international transfers of major weapons and other weapons is going more up too.

But on the positive side, the peace movements are strengthening campaigning against the arms trade especially in relation to the Middle East and to nearby areas Further, during this millennium we have achieved agreements on arms trade and small arms and such arms control should continue.

In Europe we have an increasing problem with The European Defence Fund, which the European Commission established in June 2017. The purpose of this Fund is to channel money for military products and technologies. The main beneficiaries of the Fund are the arms industry and their connected researchers.

For the years 2017-2020, 590 million euros will be channeled to the fund. For years 2021-2027 the minimum sum is estimated at 10,5 billion euros. In addition the member states are supposed to give altogether 30 billion euros from their own budgets. The fund consist of two parts.The fund supports the military capability of the member states and on the other hand it contributes to the economic growth and employment and innovations in the military field.

The establishing process of this Fund has been criticized because of lack of transparency. The Fund was planned by a working group where the Commission, against the rules never revealed who were the members of the group. Probably they were from the arms companies and during the last years the European arms industry has almost doubled its lobbying machine in Brussels. It seems that after the BREXIT, European security is being tried to be built by military means instead of the soft power and development co-operation.

It seems that The European Commission tries to make the arms industry like a normal part of businesses without really thinking or caring about the consequences. But the decisions are not final and there is a strong opposition in the European Parliament and by the peace movement.

In the Baltic Sea there is an increasing number of permanent groups and war exercises. That is why we have a campaign to call upon all governments in every country around the Baltic Sea to use their financial means to save the Baltic Sea. instead of financing armament and other environmentally polluting activities. We want to engage politicians, peace institutes, researchers, artists, well-known personalities and NGO’s to take part in our project to make the Baltic Sea a Sea of Peace.

Finally of course all these questions go back to the basic issue of the understanding that peace is absence of fear and presence of justice.

*** AEPF and Vietnam Peace and Development Foundation | Quang Ninh, Vietnam, 14-16 April 2018 | The Peace Union of Finland AEPF’s Peace and Security Coordination Group

Read More

Subscribe Newsletter

Archive