This Communication is intended to promote the discussion of this important topic between the other EU bodies and if successful, it could become a legislative piece or a defined policy. In this case the topic chosen cannot be more appropriate, urgent and important.

With the revision in this year (2013) of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), meant to be fulfilled in 2015, the Commission wants to open a discussion on the post-2015 goals, that is, the new objectives that the UN should set after these fifteen years of sustained global efforts to reduce poverty and to promote equality. The second axis of the communication, and consequential discussion, is the follow-up of the agreements reached at Rio+20 —the UN Conference on Sustainable Development held in July 2012.

Although we do fully share the general orientation of the Communication because it is certainly pointing out to the two major challenges of our time, that is, how to alleviate poverty and how to assure a sustainable future for all specially under the climate change threat, the document also has its limitations.

Firstly, the Communication makes total abstraction of the present context of the crisis in Europe. It is difficult to tolerate the European rhetoric which seems to be preached from a place where the “do-gooders” are deigning to address the less developed countries, as if concepts like poverty, debt, emissions or pollution were not also issues in Europe. The very title of the Communication “A Decent Life for All” demands further consideration on how to tackle these very issues (poverty alleviation, not accomplishing environmental objectives…) inside the Union.

This is not said to protect our well-being in Europe against a hugely impoverished South, but on the contrary, to recognise that we should define strategies to deal with poverty both inside and outside of the EU. This acknowledgement of the present context will make the proposals more realistic, as it is clear that the financial margin of manoeuvre of the Union will be very limited in the coming years.

Secondly, besides the fortunate junction of concerns —poverty and environment— the Communication doesn’t synthesise new or innovative ideas. In fact, it collects the achievements of the MDGs as the target to halve the proportion of people living in extreme poverty (less than USD 1.25) was likely reached in 2010; or the target to halve the proportion of the population without access to safe drinking water which was achieved globally in 2010; and globally, primary school enrolment has increased to an average of 89%, with girls now almost as likely to be enrolled as boys. Undoubtedly the European commitment is remarkable, $53 billion in Official Development Aid (ODA) in 2001. Nor is it encouraging that the Annex just lists the “current and forthcoming actions in the EU that contribute to the implementation of Rio+20″ showing that there are in fact no new proposals.

Thirdly, there is a real risk of getting trapped into a “branding loop”. The overlapping of EU strategies (2020, 2050…) together with the international agreements (Rio+20, MDG…) makes it difficult to fully align the variety of policies being proposed. The search for coherence among them becomes an imperative, but the other big risk is to get into an endless process of re-naming policies that are mostly the same but are recycled for the sake of providing new frameworks.

The desire of the EU to tackle together the major issues of poverty and sustainability can only be praised and encouraged. The framework proposed is praiseworthy in looking for human development (and not only economic). It wants to promote sustainable development and calls for the good governance on natural resources, but it is scarce to deal with climate change and puts a lot of trust in Development Cooperation whilst mentioning very little about the role of trade and taxation.

Autumn 2013 will be a critical juncture to see the progress of real commitments made by the EU both at the Rio+20 follow-up UN Working Group and the UN General Assembly Special Event on the MDGs.

by Jose Ignacio García, JESC

]]> http://jesc.eu/a-decent-life-for-all/feed/ 0 http://jesc.eu/a-theology-of-european-citizenship-a-protestant-approach/ http://jesc.eu/a-theology-of-european-citizenship-a-protestant-approach/#comments Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:06:15 +0000 Lucía Cervilla http://jesc.eu/?p=619 The concept of citizenship refers to the life of men and women in a specific social and legal framework. Be this framework a national state or a supranational administration, such as the European Union, what is at stake when we talk about citizenship is the relationship of a person with the civil authorities. But a state or a supranational space represent a group of citizens. Thus, the issue of citizenship is related to the relationships between a citizen and the other citizens of this state or supranational space.

 I therefore propose to reflect how Protestants view their relationships with the authorities and their contribution to society. Please, note that I am not an expert on the subject and I am not a professional theologian. I am a reformed Protestant with a pastoral experience.  I am working with international networks of churches, and I come from a country where Protestants are a minority (about 2% of the population). I come from a country where Protestants have a special relationship with the state and with Europe. With the state, it is a story that combines resistance to oppression and cooperation for democracy. With Europe, it is a story of solidarity and alliance, when French Protestants were seeking refuge in neighboring countries to escape persecution in the 16^th and 17^th centuries. What I will share with you will be a point of view of a reformed Protestant, not the Protestant point of view in general. I do not pretend to speak for all Protestants.

 My presentation will have two parts : a reflection on the relationship between Christians and the civil authorities, the role of Christians in society

          1.The relationships between Christians and authorities

 1.1 The two kingdoms

Two main lines are going across the Bible regarding the civil authorities. Mistrust (“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” Mark 12.17), which can go up to condemnation (the prophets). Recognition of the legitimacy of human authorities (Romans 13,1; Peter 2,11).

 Since the first century, Christians were going back and forth between several positions vis-à-vis the state. In the 16^th century, Martin Luther develops the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, which seeks to articulate the relationship between the Church and civil authorities. Luther believes that there should be no confusion, no separation between the spiritual realm and the temporal reign. Challenging the Catholic model and then the model of radical Reform, he thinks the link dialectically. The believer still lives in both realms simultaneously.  Under the reign of Christ, he receives everything he needs. But because he remains sinful, he has to be submitted to the rules of civil authority that keeps the world running in good conditions. The Christian is working within society in order to implement the divine law, good and justice. He/she doesn’t have to establish a Christian society. “Before governing the world in a Christian manner, try first to fill it with Christians” (Luther).

 The Swiss theologian Pierre Buhler stresses that, far from establishing a separation between the public and the private area, “this doctrine allows Luther to upgrade the secular functions and to assume the secularization of society and the world under the sign of a critical and serene loyalty”[1]. The Christian who lives in these two realms is called to perform a critical function. It is his duty to ask questions. Doing so prevents the political system to legitimize itself, to be absolute, that is to say to take the place of God. This protestant way of thinking the relationships with the civil authorities leads to three consequences.

 1.2  Relationships with civil authorities

From a Protestant perspective, the Christian cannot in any way legitimize any authority or power whatsoever. His/her attitude vis-à-vis the authorities will be at best cooperation, and if necessary challenge and resistance. Both attitudes are present in Europe.

• There is a Christianity of cooperation, like in Germany where churches manage a number of social services and medical institutions on behalf of the State.

• Christianity of resistance is more common in countries where Protestants are a minority. For example, during World War 2, French Protestantism opposed the state in order to defend the Jews. In the 2000s, the Reformed Church in France criticized the government’s policy on immigration. It is also the model of Italian Protestantism.

1.3  Churches and society

Since Christians cannot escape the world, because they themselves live in the tension between God’s world and this world, the Protestant churches will refuse the following options.

• To consider themselves as a fortress against a sinful world, with values and morals to defend.

• To crusade in order to establish or to restore Christianity.

Christians do not stand in front of the world, they are not next to the world, but there are in the world as interpreters of human History in the light of Christian faith.

1.4  Secularization is an opportunity

In this perspective, the phenomenon of secularization, far from appearing as a threat, is perceived by Protestant churches rather as an opportunity. They understand this phenomenon as a process of emancipation from dogmatism. Secularization leads to a painful but necessary questioning. It allows Christians and Churches to discover again Evangelism and the importance of personal witness. It encourages a reformulation of Christian beliefs in a language more understandable by our contemporaries.

          2.The role of Christians in society

From above, we can deduce some criteria concerning the role and the attitude of Christian citizens in society, whether national or European.

2.1 Asking the question of meaning

One of the roles of Christians is to ask the question of meaning. It is a way to perform the critical function. The question of meaning means to encourage each one individually and collectively to reflect on his/her way of being, on the way he or she understands the way of living together. It means to raise the question “how to live”? Raising the question means also to be prepared to listen to the answer: the one of our fellow human beings, the one given by the biblical writings. It means to stand at the crossroads of these writings and contemporary issues. As the Swiss theologian Karl Barth said : “A Christian should live with the newspaper in one hand and the Bible in the other”. About the question “how to live?” the Bible gives many answers. Regarding the issue of citizenship, I keep one element : pluralism.

2.1  Europe is pluralist

Early Christian communities bring together people from diverse backgrounds, from different social classes and cultures: rich people, slaves, Greeks, Jews, etc. They build an open and pluralistic society. The Protestant theologian François Vouga believes that the pluralist universalism of early Christianity provides the basis for the Western democracies[2].

 In fact, many Protestants believe that Europe must be based on the pluralism of traditions and beliefs. They argue that Europe has been built through many conflicts and has learned the necessity of compromise (see the Edict of Nantes in France). European citizens are the result of multiple influences, multiple streams. We share the heritage of Christianity as well as the one of Greek democracy, Roman law, Arabic poetry or Byzantine art. Europe is like a vault that needs these pillars to be built.  According to the French theologian Olivier Abel, the strength of our continent, “is the weight and the reciprocal pressure exerted by the plurality of faiths”[3]

 Protestants willingly insist on pluralist legacies that have made Europe and the diversity of religious and philosophical traditions that characterize our continent today. In this plurality, Christians certainly have a voice to bring in order to build Europe, but one voice among many. Their main contribution is to defend the pluralism of cultures, religions and beliefs.

2.2  Being Citizen with others

Therefore, a protestant citizen will participate with other Protestant and non-Protestant to develop common values in order to live together in peace. The Protestant citizens will not seek to build a Christian society or a Christian Europe but will go into discussion with other citizens to build together the society they want. This attitude is underpinned by the conviction that Christians do not have THE truth. They have no special expertise, not even specific values, i.e. values that are not found in other religions or philosophies of life. The only mark of a Christian is the trust he/she put in a crucified God. The Truth is a man on a cross, nothing else.

 I therefore believe that a Christian believer doesn’t have Christian values to defend. He /she has to share convictions in a framework that allows the expression of other beliefs, a framework that allows to develop and live common values. Here, key words are “partnership”, “cooperation”, “dialogue”. Of course, this dialogue assumes that everyone can express his/her beliefs. This is why Protestants are so attentive to the freedom of consciousness, freedom of worship, human rights in general. The Christian vocation is to work in the public space to set up a world of peace and justice. For this, debating is essential.

2.4 Debating

What are the conditions of a pluralistic and constructive debate ? I see three of them.

 • Giving up hegemony. Recognize that no religion, no philosophy, no ideology, no State can pretend to possess the truth. Therefore, admit that no one can impose to the entire human community his values, his morals standards, his vision of the world. Admit that the other has the right to be different and to remain different. Finally, it means give up the dream of all people having the same God or the same religion or the same opinion, as if that would guarantee a peaceful and reconciled life.

 • Deepening his own convictions. Recently, I heard this formula from Matthew Harrison, rector of the St Georges Anglican Church in Paris: “We must have faith in the public debate and bring our faith in the debate.” To enter into debate, it is indeed necessary to have ideas to share! If the pillars of the arch were without strength, the vault would fall down, according to the image quoted above. In Protestant regime, these convictions are not the expression of a Magisterium, but rather elements of reflections.

 • Believing in a common future. In colloquial language, we would say that to experiment a fruitful dialogue, we must have the conviction that we are all in the same boat. We must share the belief that the fate of every inhabitant of Europe is linked to that of his neighbor, close or far. We share a common destiny. I think it is this conviction that led the French Protestants to save Jews during the World War 2. They felt concerned because they were convinced that they shared the same humanity, the same fate. They felt concerned because if they did nothing, they would have abandoned a part of themselves.

2.5 Proclaiming the Gospel

As I said earlier, quoting an Anglican colleague: “We must have faith in the public debate and bring our faith in the debate.” It means first of all proclaiming the Gospel, preaching the Good News. This is the very first and specific vocation of Christians. Being a citizen, the Christian is led to announce the Good News in the public arena, in the places where he/she lives. I do not mean here a crusade, or a noisy evangelism, but a respectful one. I do not mean ethics either. Christians and churches are often involved into ethical debates, and this is important and necessary. But according to me, their speech cannot be limited only to the field of social morals. Christians must also speak about foundations. This is what I call “preaching” the Gospel. This “preaching” has several components. Here are some.

 • Sharing the blessing from God, that is to say etymologically “share a good word”. God is a caring God. God wants happiness for human beings: we must tell them.

 • Opening space for encountering God. This involves questioning the false images of God that are in the minds of our fellow citizens. That means also a personal commitment of every Christian citizen to bear witness.

 • Renewing our language. When translating the Bible into German, Martin Luther wanted to make the Good News accessible to the greatest number. John Calvin, writing in French with simple words and images, used language as a tool to communicate his beliefs. So today we must make the same effort in order to make our faith and belief understandable to those who have never heard of Jesus Christ. How could we say in everyday language “sin,” “salvation”, “eternal life”, etc.? How could we speak of resurrection to an MEP? When CEC publishes a statement on economy, how to translate the idea of “grace”?

 This is a real theological work to be done with our Church members. It is not a job to be done by experts. It needs to be a collective approach with grass root people in order to allow every Christian citizen to express and share his/her faith.

 • Showing an example of reconciled diversity.  Which is very meaningful is the ability of Christians to live in communion, yet not having the same opinion. In Sweden, when the issue of same sex marriage was discussed, the Lutheran Church had set the following basis: it must be possible in the Church to acknowledge different views on an ethical issue and to accept them. In society, Christians could show an example of a reconciled community in diversity.

Conclusion

If I had to summarize my presentation with one formula, I would say that the Christian citizen is basically a co-citizen, a fellow citizen, that is to say a citizen with others. As such, his/her main task is to build bridges. When you look at the Euro notes, you do not see a famous character as usual. You see bridges. Why? The answer have been given more than 40 years by Ivo Andric, writer, Literature Nobel Price in 1961, diplomat, politician from Yugoslavia, a Croatian who became a Bosnian patriot. He wrote:

 ”Among all that a man should build in his life, nothing seems more beautiful or more precious than a bridge. Bridges are more important than houses, more sacred, because they connect more than places of worship. They are used by all. (…)They are built always at the best place, where the greatest number of human needs to meet. They must support more than any other building and they serve no secret or bad intention … All that gives expression to our lives – thoughts, eyes, smile, words, sights – everything indicates another bank as its true purpose and there only, the bridge receives its true meaning.”

 Building bridges, this is what Christians are meant to do as European citizens.

 By Didier Crouzet, Responsible for International Relations and General Secretary Designate
Eglise Protestante Unie de France, Paris

The notion of the ‘individual without relationships’ is an analytic abstraction. When Cain is punished by exile, he laments, ‘My punishment is greater than I can bear! . . . I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and anyone who meets me may kill me’.  He can just about imagine life without belonging (which to him means tribal belonging) and that life is unendurable. However no specific community of belonging is self-justifying. Perhaps families are as basic to fulfilment today as the tribe was to Cain, yet plenty of reject the family, at least temporarily (the disciples are called to do this by Jesus), or resent the family’s demands. Second, even if the family is counted as ‘the basic unit of society’, permissible models of family are nowadays fiercely contested, and they are subject to political definition.

Citizenship, too, resists any single definition, and has taken very different forms at different times, from Greek city-states to the EU. The Treaty of Lisbon speaks of citizenships, plural.^[i] But at least the term citizenship denotes that the citizen belongs, and is recognised to belong, to a specific political community, and denotes the citizen’s dignity in such belonging. Second, membership brings rights, privileges and responsibilities. According to the Council of Europe, ‘Citizenship, in the widest sense, is a right and indeed a responsibility to participate in the cultural, social and economic life and in public affairs of the community together with others.’^[ii]

In the case of European citizenship there is obviously a constitutional debate to be had about its relationship to national citizenship: but this is hardly a theological question. The two major debates about citizenship, sufficiently foundational to be called theological, appear to me to derive from:

1. the relationship of this specific form of belonging, citizenship, with other forms;
2. the nature of ‘citizenship-belonging’ on the part of a human person endowed with freedom & moral responsibility, who has with a unique personal destiny, a vocation to be creative not merely passive, and a human solidarity without any possible institutional limits.

I. Citizenship and other forms of human belonging

1. Since belonging is intrinsic to our humanity (and is not some failure in our personal autonomy or psychological individuation) the structures that express belonging can authentically express our humanity. In Book I of the Politics, Aristotle describes the family unsentimentally, as the association ‘established by nature to supply for our everyday wants’: families cluster together in villages, which can be ‘nearly or quite self-sufficing’. The state, though, exists not merely to provide the necessities of life but ‘for the sake of a good life’. The state is ‘natural’, since it is the purpose of the more rudimentary associations, their full development (I, 1252-53): and for Aristotle, the intrinsic telos of something is part of its nature. Persons in isolation can be neither happy (since happiness, eudaemonia, is expressed by living well in the social world) nor virtuous (since virtue or excellence (arete) supposes the public world that calls it forth). That is why man is a political animal. However conversely, one cannot contribute ‘noble actions’ to the state except from one’s own moral freedom and creative capacities.^[iii]
2. I cite Aristotle, of course, because in this matter he was followed, though critically, by Thomas Aquinas, in arguing that human beings need to associate with each other not only for subsistence and self-defence, but for their full intellectual and moral development.^[iv]  But whereas Aristotle identified a class of ‘natural slaves’ (in addition to slaves by unfortunate extrinsic circumstance such as conquest) Aquinas denied the existence of natural slaves.^[v] Thus the rights and responsibilities of citizenship cannot not reserved to an elite.
3. Citizenship is one among other forms of social belonging, etc of which expresses different dimensions of our being and each of which makes rightful demands on us. These demands come into tension (citizenship versus kinship, or citizenship versus religious community), and the resolution of the tension depends on specific contexts, and on processes of human discernment (therefore, of spiritual freedom). In war, for example, the state may legitimately require someone to combat cousins or fellow believers. Family networks, a child’s basic needs for a parent, religious fellowship, are all brutally disrupted – as far as death. And yet: it is essential that citizenship be held in healthy tension with other modes of social membership. Any claim to absoluteness turns it into a dangerous idol. Consider these provisions of the Settlement of Westphalia, 1648:

• governments of states, inheriting the former powers of princes are the only possessors of sovereignty;
• there is no ‘international law’ as such, only treaties signed by sovereign states;
• war between sovereign states is a legal means of resolving differences (this being, I suppose, the ideological legitimation of cuius regio, eius religio)

If the true God is one who gives his life for humanity, the idol is something that demands the sacrifice of our life, and that day by day diminishes our humanity. We know that states can become idols. (So can families. So can money.)

1. I have said that in ancient Greece, citizenship was a privilege reserved to an elite. Not only in ancient Greece! The philosopher Michael Walzer has stressed that citizenship is not the entirety of legitimate social belonging: ‘indeed the rule of citizens over non-citizens, or members over strangers, is probably the most common form of tyranny in human history’.[vi] Here we can use he non-denominational term ‘catholic’, universal. Citizenship in a Catholic perspective necessarily involves a critique of existing modes of citizenship, since our primary belonging is to humanity.

II: Citizenship and human freedom/responsibility

1. I mentioned critique. Critique entails both membership and critical distance. Here we can start from the second major way in which Aquinas goes beyond Aristotle. Human beings have a purpose / telos beyond temporal well-being. Since we are social beings that presumes not an exclusive individual relationship to God but a different form of membership: in his case, that of the Church 9n a broad definition). So the question always arises of the right relationship between these ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ purposes: in eloquent Protestant terms, perhaps, between Bonhoeffer’s dimensions of the ‘penultimate’ and the ‘ultimate’. The natural is not less important than the supernatural, or the penultimate less important than the ultimate, any more than Jesus proposes the love of neighbour to be ‘less important’ than the love of God. The two dimensions are mutually dependent and are incommensurable. Human freedom is both for the common good which is the proper objective of the political, and transcends – in both ‘natural and supernational dimensions. Everything is political, but it is not good even for politics to imagine that it is ‘everything’.
2. So we stress social responsibility (though not at the cost of individual obligations). Karl Rahner has reflected that in pre-modern ages, social structures changed more or less imperceptibly, so that people scarcely reflected upon the nature of their society, or its capacity for change. [cf. The Letter to Philemon.] Now we refuse to see that system of social coordinates as fixed, and we know we can change it. Thereby every Christian’s vocation to love of neighbour now implies our shared responsibility for the social structures required for a life worth living. A Christian may be conservative and need not be ashamed of it (some features of existing society are no doubt worth preserving). But Christians may not act as if achieving sociopolitical change were simply somebody else’s business or as if ‘the defence of prevailing social structures, subject as they are (just as future structures will be) to sin, finitude, and human disappointment, were the only viable Christian task’.^[vii]
3. We also stress responsibilities as a necessary complement to the citizenship rights emphasises above all in the European Treaties. Rights are crucial and non-negotiable. But the modern rights-driven approach to citizenship turns the European project into the instrument of individual and national claims of welfare freedom and welfare which are assumed to be prior, quasi-absolute. Such citizenship seeks benefits from Europe without cultivating any sense of responsibility and commitment. The quality of citizenship is threatened. Responsibility operates first to ensure that our concern for others’ rights is no less than our concern for our own. A sense of ‘responsibility-driven citizenship’ – is needed to create enable a sense of sacrifice (self-giving) offered in freedom (Christians are not embarrassed by such terms) and a generous solidarity. To put this in a way that is typically Catholic: responsible citizenship aims to fulfil the telos of politics which is  justice and the common good: and the common good (unlike the utilitarian ‘greatest good of the greatest number’) starts with the good of the poor and excluded.
4. If ‘politics is not everything’: neither obviously is the state. Some political models tend to absorb civil society into the sphere of the State. The ‘catholic’ commitment seeks the common good through solidarity and subsidiarity.  The subjectivity and the creativity of citizens is as important as their loyalty – and must be respected and fostered for the state itself (or the EU) to flourish. We have always to discern the frontiers between the political community as a ‘structure of grace’ (in service of justice and the common good) and as ‘a structure of sin’: Such discernment is not a rejection of the city, state, EU, but a deeper contribution to its life and its truth.

So we still need the testimony of the famous second-century Letter to Diognetus, with which I end. Speaking of the ‘manners of the Christians, the letter says:

As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. . .  They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. To sum up all in one word – what the soul is in the body, Christians are in the world.

By Frank Turner, SJ

A first plan for a graduated scheme of enforced losses (‘haircuts’) for all bank account-holders in Cyprus was accepted by the President of Cyprus on behalf of his government. Only then could it be agreed by the ‘Eurogroup’ – after which it was rejected by the Cyprus Parliament without a single vote in favour: a humiliation for the President, course but also an embarrassment for the rescuers

The second plan spared small customers while penalising accounts of over €100,000, notably those of Russian investors, who attracted little sympathy given Cyprus’s reputation as an offshore tax haven: the country has 320,000 registered companies, including shell companies, in a population of 860,000. It is natural why, if Plan B was obviously more equitable, Plan A was ever endorsed by the Eurogroup. If some credit must go to the Cypriot Parliament for forcing a change of mind, it ma be noted that they had failed to restrain the irresponsibilities of activities of Cyprus banks. And yet, these banks, because of exposure to Greek banking crisis, suffered their own haircut. Nothing is simple in these matters.

For example, even if we agree that Plan A was defective, or unjust, in forcing on ordinary savers in Cyprus a levy of 6.75%, nevertheless the measure was far less harsh than that imposed on the customers of Iceland’s banks in 2008. Banks closed to prevent withdrawals while the currency was devalued. In January 2008 the króna stood at 90 to the Euro, in December 2008 about 290 – a ‘levy’ of approximately 65%! There are many ways of losing money to banks, and in the case of Iceland, no Eurogroup stepped in to mitigate the damage.

Cyprus’s burden is nevertheless crippling, even though the sums involved are dwarfed by bank rescues elsewhere. (The UK’s National Audit Office estimated that the UK spent £850 billion on the bank crisis in 2009 – some of which would be recovered) As we have learned since 2008, banks get special treatment: even if too big to fail, they tend successfully to resist effective regulation. The banks of Cyprus, however, were not too big to fail.

by Frank Turner, SJ

Cette société est initialement spécialisée dans la prospection mais la crise ayant rendu difficile la vente des concessions, BANRO a décidé d’en entamer l’exploitation, non sans avoir établi 4 contrats distincts, un pour chaque site, en cas de vente éventuelle.

En 1996, BANRO rachète la concession de la Société Minière et Industrielle du Kivu, société mixte belgo-congolaise créée en 1976.  Laurent-Désiré Kabila déchoit la compagnie de ses droits la même année dans un contexte de conflit armé.  Avec la signature des accords de paix de 2002, le Président Joseph Kabila négocie un arrangement à l’amiable avec l’entreprise qui réclamait un milliard de dollars de dommages et intérêts à la RDC devant une cour internationale d’arbitrage.

BANRO possède actuellement 4 permis d’exploitation aux concessions aurifères de Kamituga, Lugushwa, Namoya et Twangiza.  Les activités de la compagnie ont débuté en 2003 et la production industrielle d’or en 2011 à Twangiza où l’entreprise a fait construire une usine et exploite une mine à ciel ouvert.  La durée de ce gisement est estimée à un quart de siècle.

Une visite dans la région nous a permis d’obtenir des informations de seconde main, via la société civile locale et particulièrement les ONG de la Province qui suivent les activités de BANRO.  Les associations rencontrées et avec lesquelles le cas de la compagnie aurifère canadienne a été abordé sont les suivantes : BEST, OGP, APRODEPED, le CERN et la Commission Justice et Paix.

Une visite du site n’a pas été possible à cause de tensions entre la population locale et la compagnie lors de notre présence sur place, par ailleurs l’entreprise n’a pas donné suite à notre demande de rencontre avec le responsable des questions sociales.

La convention signée entre BANRO et le Gouvernement congolais est antérieure au Code minier qui ne s’applique donc pas à la relation contractuelle entre la compagnie canadienne et les autorités de la RDC.  Le Code minier a cette année 10 ans d’existence, ce qui ouvre la possibilité d’une révision et peut-être de son application à tous les contrats miniers liant l’état congolais et des entreprises extractives comme le souhaite la société civile du Kivu.

Un million de dollars auraient été versés au Gouvernement national contre une exonération fiscale totale pour les 4 concessions de la compagnie.  Ce qui revient à une spoliation de fait des 40% de rétrocession fiscale prévue par la législation vers les provinces.

Ni le contrat signé avec le Gouvernement, ni l’étude d’impacts environnementaux ni le plan communautaire n’ont été rendus publics, au grand dam des communautés locales et de la société civile provinciale puisqu’il est alors impossible de savoir à quoi exactement la compagnie s’est engagée vis-à-vis de la population.

En terme de responsabilité sociale, BANRO a créée une fondation dont l’objectif affiché sur le site de la compagnie est de «favoriser le développement social et économique local ».  Il est intéressant de noter à ce propos que seule cette rubrique y est traduite de l’anglais vers le français et que les deux versions linguistiques ne présentent pas un contenu identique.

A Twangiza, seul site actuellement exploité par BANRO, il existe des tensions entre la communauté locale et l’entreprise.  La principale raison de celles-ci semble être liée à la personne de l’épouse du chef coutumier décédé, également parlementaire provinciale, dont l’autorité est contestée par la communauté, qui souhaite le retour de son fils de l’étranger, et avec laquelle la compagnie traite au titre de représentante de l’autorité traditionnelle.

L’entreprise a délocalisé 850 familles dans un village nouvellement construit et dont la localisation ainsi que la taille et la qualité des maisons sont vivement contestées par la population, pourtant associée au choix du nouveau site via leur représentante officielle en la personne de la parlementaire.

La société civile estime qu’il existe des conflits d’intérêts et trafic d’influence entre les représentants de la communauté locale soupçonnés de s’enrichir personnellement et de   népotisme.

La politique de recrutement de la compagnie est également questionnée après qu’elle aie engagé 3000 travailleurs dont 500 émanant directement de la communauté locale.  Selon BANRO, l’embauche est compliquée faute de candidats qualifiés.

Sur les 6000 creuseurs artisanaux recensés sur le site, la compagnie en a recruté et formé 500 à des postes peu qualifiés pour une durée de 6 mois à l’issue de laquelle il est convenu qu’ils soient progressivement licenciés.

En parallèle, BANRO projette de financer la création de petites et moyennes entreprises locale via l’octroi de micro-crédits à condition que celles-ci engagent une partie du personnel licencié.

Concernant la présence de creuseurs artisanaux sur la concession, la compagnie semble prête à en tolérer un nombre limité à condition qu’ils respectent certaines règles.  Se pose alors la question de savoir comment les contenir dans les zones prévues à cet effet ou convenir d’un accord leur permettant d’exercer quelque part jusqu’au commencement de l’exploitation industrielle au même endroit.

La société civile discute également avec l’entreprise la possibilité de permettre l’accès aux entrepreneurs locaux aux marchés publics de BANRO avec des critères de compétitivité et d’approvisionnement suffisants.

Un projet de monitoring de la compagnie est à l’étude à la demande du Carter Center avec le financement de MIRECA II.  Les aspects communautaires, juridiques et environnementaux seraient respectivement suivis par OGP, APRODEPED et BEST, trois ONG du Sud-Kivu.

A ce jour, il existe des suspicions de la part de l’entreprise à l’égard d’OGP, accusée d’agiter et de soulever la communauté locale, ce que cette dernière dément en arguant notamment soutenir une démarche participative et avoir entamé son travail d’accompagnement avant l’implantation de BANRO sur le site.

Jusqu’ici, la compagnie a refusé de prendre part aux tables-rondes organisées par la société civile et fournit des réponses de nature exclusivement juridique aux questions qui lui sont soumises.

Cependant, l’ensemble des interlocuteurs rencontrés assure que la population locale n’a aucun intérêt au départ de l’entreprise et il nous a même été dit que le village de Lubwinja, proche du site de Twangiza, a vu sa situation sécuritaire nettement améliorée depuis le départ des FDLR suite à l’implantation de BANRO dans la région.

L’évaluation des bienfaits et inconvénients de la cohabitation entre cette compagnie minière, la population locale et les creuseurs artisanaux doit donc être nuancée et demanderait une analyse plus approfondie des réalités de chacune des parties.

 Extraits d’un rapport de mission de terrain effectuée en mars 2012 aux Sud & Nord Kivu

Par Emmanuelle Devuyst

The deeper the social and economic crises, the more people are affected by them, the more that citizens as a whole must be actively involved in responding. Without such an active contribution by citizens, politics could be imagined as a technical operation, in which decision are made by electees under the expert guidance of their specialist advisors (though privately influenced by the most powerful special interests). That kind of elitism would amount to the triumph of the empty form of democracy over the democratic ideal. It would leave politicians out on a limb, neither truly ‘representative’ nor truly accountable. These possible outcomes, these ‘woulds’  are a danger where citizens at large lose trust in national and suprantional political institutions.

Politics concerns justice and so ethics, and these are everyone’s business. Citizens have inalienable fundamental rights but also responsibilities: and the possession of rights in no way guarantees the quality of political participation, at the level of nation states or of the European Union. The fact that 2013 is the European Year of Citizens offers the best opportunity to stimulate such participation.

Our conference brought together academic, politicians and European officials with civil society organisations involved in education for citizenship. It sought to embody the active citizenship it recomended.

The position paper was at the heart of the discussion. The three extended academic papers behind it will soon also be available on http://www.citizenship-education.eu. But the conference itself also considered the roots of Euroscepticism (rooted in passivity and the sense that ‘my voice doesn’t count’); the complex relationship between human rights, ethics, and education; the balance between rightly recognising the advantages brought by European citizenship and contributing to the betterment of public life.

The projects presented can all be sampled through their own websites. The Flemish initiative LetsGo5050 offers intergenerational encounter between the ‘over 50s’ and young people, so as to imagine a future Europe. The SocialErasmus project of the Erasmus Student Network promotes student exchange and the discovery of European diversity. Our democracy works through political parties and groups, so we invited the youth wing of a specific political group, the European People’s Party (whose website presents their contribution. We heard also from the EU institutions themselves, which also run citizenship projects, as in the European integration project of the Jean Monnet Programme and the Council of Europe’s project of ‘Citizenship and Human Rights Education’.

Active Citizenship, Brussels 31st January, 2013

Our final panel was drawn from the European institutions. The European Economic and Social Committee is precisely designed by represent and promote active citizenship. Andris Gobins explained this European Year of Citizens less as the search for some new idea than as a recovery, a refreshing, of the very ideals that lie at the heart of the European Union; Jutta Koenig of the European Commission showed how the Commission’s work (both empowered and restricted by the terms of the EU treaties) seeks to reach beyond its necessary core function of promoting citizenship rights; and Leonidas Donskis MEP showed how responsible politicians of the EU must always reconcile two narratives: of their direct responsibilities to those compatriots who elect them, and of  a broad European vision faithful to a centuries-old reality of transnational European culture.

In summing up, Laurent Grégoire, President of JESC’s ‘parent organisation’ OCIPE, and a lifelong European, integrated the two dimensions of European citizenship. We must not only ‘know the law’ but we must ‘know Europe’ – something of its history, its rich and living culture and cultures – and must take our own share of responsibility for Europe’s future.

By Frank Turner

“From war to peace: a European tale”

10 December 2012

Speech of President Van Rompuy

Your Majesties,

Your Royal Highnesses,

Heads of State and Government,

Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee,

Excellencies,

Ladies and GentlemenIt is with humility and gratitude that we stand here together, to receive this award on behalf of the European Union.

At a time of uncertainty, this day reminds people across Europe and the world of the Union’s fundamental purpose: to further the fraternity between European nations, now and in the future.

It is our work today.

It has been the work of generations before us.

And it will be the work of generations after us.

Here in Oslo, I want to pay homage to all the Europeans who dreamt of a continent at peace with itself, and to all those who day by day make this dream a reality.

This award belongs to them.

War is as old as Europe. Our continent bears the scars of spears and swords, canons and guns, trenches and tanks, and more.

The tragedy of it all resonates in the words of Herodotus, 25 centuries ago: “In Peace, Sons bury their Fathers. In War, Fathers bury their Sons.”

Yet, … after two terrible wars engulfed the continent and the world with it, … finally lasting peace came to Europe.

In those grey days, its cities were in ruins, the hearts of many still simmering with mourning and resentment. How difficult it then seemed, as Winston Churchill said, “to regain the simple joys and hopes that make life worth living”.

As a child born in Belgium just after the war, I heard the stories first-hand.

My grandmother spoke about the Great War.

In 1940, my father, then seventeen, had to dig his own grave. He got away; otherwise I would not be here today.

So what a bold bet it was, for Europe’s Founders, to say, yes, we can break this endless cycle of violence, we can stop the logic of vengeance, we can build a brighter future, together. What power of the imagination.

Of course, peace might have come to Europe without the Union. Maybe. We will never know. But it would never have been of the same quality. A lasting peace, not a frosty cease-fire.

To me, what makes it so special, is reconciliation.

In politics as in life, reconciliation is the most difficult thing. It goes beyond forgiving and forgetting, or simply turning the page.

To think of what France and Germany had gone through…, and then take this step… Signing a Treaty of Friendship… Each time I hear these words – Freundschaft, Amitié –, I am moved. They are private words, not for treaties between nations. But the will to not let history repeat itself, to do something radically new, was so strong that new words had to be found.

For people Europe was a promise, Europe equalled hope.

When Konrad Adenauer came to Paris to conclude the Coal and Steel Treaty, in 1951, one evening he found a gift waiting at his hotel. It was a war medal, une Croix de Guerre, that had belonged to a French soldier. His daughter, a young student, had left it with a little note for the Chancellor, as a gesture of reconciliation and hope.

I can see many other stirring images before me.

Leaders of six States assembled to open a new future, in Rome, città eterna…

Willy Brandt kneeling down in Warsaw.

The dockers of Gdansk, at the gates of their shipyard.

Mitterrand and Kohl hand in hand.

Two million people linking Tallinn to Riga to Vilnius in a human chain, in 1989.

These moments healed Europe.

But symbolic gestures alone cannot cement peace.

This is where the European Union’s “secret weapon” comes into play: an unrivalled way of binding our interests so tightly that war becomes materially impossible. Through constant negotiations, on ever more topics, between ever more countries. It’s the golden rule of Jean Monnet: “Mieux vaut se disputer autour d’une table que sur un champ de bataille.” (“Better fight around a table than on a battle-field.”)

If I had to explain it to Alfred Nobel, I would say: not just a peace congress, a perpetual peace congress!

Admittedly, some aspects can be puzzling, and not only to outsiders.

Ministers from landlocked countries passionately discussing fish-quota.

Europarlementarians from Scandinavia debating the price of olive oil.

The Union has perfected the art of compromise. No drama of victory or defeat, but ensuring all countries emerge victorious from talks. For this, boring politics is only a small price to pay…

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It worked.

Peace is now self-evident.

War has become inconceivable.

Yet ‘inconceivable’ does not mean ‘impossible’.

And that is why we are gathered here today.

Europe must keep its promise of peace.

I believe this is still our Union’s ultimate purpose.

But Europe can no longer rely on this promise alone to inspire citizens. In a way, it’s a good thing; war-time memories are fading.

Even if not yet everywhere.

Soviet rule over Eastern Europe ended just two decades ago.

Horrendous massacres took place in the Balkans shortly after. The children born at the time of Srebrenica will only turn eighteen next year.

But they already have little brothers and sisters born after that war: the first real post-war generation of Europe. This must remain so.

Presidents, Prime Ministers,

Excellencies,

So, where there was war, there is now peace. But another historic task now lies ahead of us: keeping peace where there is peace. After all, history is not a novel, a book we can close after a Happy Ending: we remain fully responsible for what is yet to come.

This couldn’t be more clear than it is today, when we are hit by the worst economic crisis in two generations, causing great hardship among our people, and putting the political bonds of our Union to the test.

Parents struggling to make ends meet, workers recently laid off, students who fear that, however hard they try, they won’t get that first job: when they think about Europe, peace is not the first thing that comes to mind…

When prosperity and employment, the bedrock of our societies, appear threatened, it is natural to see a hardening of hearts, the narrowing of interests, even the return of long-forgotten fault-lines and stereotypes. For some, not only joint decisions, but the very fact of deciding jointly, may come into doubt.

And while we must keep a sense of proportion – even such tensions don’t take us back to the darkness of the past –, the test Europe is currently facing is real.

If I can borrow the words of Abraham Lincoln at the time of another continental test, what is being assessed today is “whether that Union, or any Union so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure”.

We answer with our deeds, confident we will succeed. We are working very hard to overcome the difficulties, to restore growth and jobs.

There is of course sheer necessity. But there is more that guides us: the will to remain masters of our own destiny, a sense of togetherness, and in a way… speaking to us from the centuries … the idea of Europa itself.

The presence of so many European leaders here today underlines our common conviction: that we will come out of this together, and stronger. Strong enough in the world to defend our interests and promote our values.

We all work to leave a better Europe for the children of today and those of tomorrow. So that, later, others might turn and judge: that generation, ours, preserved the promise of Europe.

Today’s youth is already living in a new world. For them Europe is a daily reality. Not the constraint of being in the same boat. No, the richness of being able to freely share, travel and exchange. To share and shape a continent, experiences, a future.

Excellencies,

Ladies & Gentlemen,

Our continent, risen from the ashes after 1945 and united in 1989, has a great capacity to reinvent itself. It is to the next generations to take this common adventure further. I hope they will seize this responsibility with pride. And that they will be able to say, as we here today: Ich bin ein Europäer. Je suis fier d’être européen. I am proud to be European.

Speech of President Barroso

Your Majesties,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

“Peace is not mere absence of war, it is a virtue”, wrote Spinoza: “Pax enim non belli privatio, sed virtus est”. And he added it is “a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice”.

Indeed, there can only be true peace if people are confident. At peace with their political system. Reassured that their basic rights are respected.

The European Union is not only about peace among nations. It incarnates, as a political project, that particular state of mind that Spinoza was referring to. It embodies, as a community of values, this vision of freedom and justice.

I remember vividly in 1974 being in the mass of people, descending the streets in my native Lisbon, in Portugal, celebrating the democratic revolution and freedom. This same feeling of joy was experienced by the same generation in Spain and Greece. It was felt later in Central and Eastern Europe and in the Baltic States when they regained their independence. Several generations of Europeans have shown again and again that their choice for Europe was also a choice for freedom.

I will never forget Rostropovich playing Bach at the fallen Wall in Berlin. This image reminds the world that it was the quest for freedom and democracy that tore down the old divisions and made possible the reunification of the continent. Joining the European Union was essential for the consolidation of democracy in our countries.

Because it places the person and respect of human dignity at its heart. Because it gives a voice to differences while creating unity. And so, after reunification, Europe was able to breathe with both its lungs, as said by Karol Wojtyła. The European Union has become our common house. The “homeland of our homelands” as described by Vaclav Havel.

Our Union is more than an association of states. It is a new legal order, which is not based on the balance of power between nations but on the free consent of states to share sovereignty.

From pooling coal and steel, to abolishing internal borders, from six countries to soon twenty-eight with Croatia joining the family this has been a remarkable European journey which is leading us to an “ever closer Union”. And today one of the most visible symbols of our unity is in everyone’s hands. It is the Euro, the currency of our European Union. We will stand by it.

Your Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Peace cannot rest only on the good will of man. It needs to be grounded on a body of laws, on common interests and on a deeper sense of a community of destiny.

The genius of the founding fathers was precisely in understanding that to guarantee peace in the 20^th century nations needed to think beyond the nation-state. As Walter Hallstein, the first President of the European Commission said: “Das System der Nationalstaaten hat den wichtigsten Test des 20. Jahrhunderts nicht bestanden (“The system of sovereign nation-states has failed the most important test of the 20th century”). And he added ” through two world wars it has proved itself unable to preserve peace.”

The uniqueness of the European project is to have combined the legitimacy of democratic States with the legitimacy of supranational institutions: the European Commission, the European Court of Justice. Supranational institutions that protect the general European interest, defend the European common good and embody the community of destiny. And alongside the European Council, where the governments are represented, we have over the years developed a unique transnational democracy symbolised by the directly elected European Parliament.

Our quest for European unity is not a perfect work of art; it is work in progress that demands constant and diligent tending. It is not an end in itself, but a means to higher ends. In many ways, it attests to the quest for a cosmopolitan order, in which one person’s gain does not need to be another person’s pain; in which abiding by common norms serves universal values.

That is why despite its imperfections, the European Union can be, and indeed is, a powerful inspiration for many around the world. Because the challenges faced from one region to the other may differ in scale but they do not differ in nature.

We all share the same planet. Poverty, organised crime, terrorism, climate change: these are problems that do not respect national borders. We share the same aspirations and universal values: these are progressively taking root in a growing number of countries all over the world. We share “l’irréductible humain”, the irreducible uniqueness of the human being. Beyond our nation, beyond our continent, we are all part of one mankind.

Jean Monnet, ends his Memoirs with these words: “Les nations souveraines du passé ne sont plus le cadre où peuvent se résoudre les problèmes du présent. Et la communauté elle-même n’est qu’une étape vers les formes d’organisation du monde de demain.” (“The sovereign nations of the past can no longer solve the problems of the present. And the [European] Community itself is only a stage on the way to the organised world of the future.”)

This federalist and cosmopolitan vision is one of the most important contributions that the European Union can bring to a global order in the making.

Your Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The concrete engagement of the European Union in the world is deeply marked by our continent’s tragic experience of extreme nationalism, wars and the absolute evil of the Shoah. It is inspired by our desire to avoid the same mistakes being made again.

That is the foundation of our multilateral approach for a globalisation based on the twin principles of global solidarity and global responsibility;

That is what inspires our engagement with our neighbouring countries and international partners, from the Middle East to Asia, from Africa to the Americas;

It defines our stance against the death penalty and our support for international justice embodied by the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court;

It drives our leadership in the fight against climate change and for food and energy security;

It underpins our policies on disarmament and against nuclear proliferation;

As a continent that went from devastation to become one of the world’s strongest economies, with the most progressive social systems, being the world’s largest aid donor, we have a special responsibility to millions of people in need.

In the 21^st century it is simply unacceptable to see parents powerless as their baby is dying of lack of basic medical care, mothers compelled to walk all day in the hope of getting food or clean water and boys and girls deprived of their childhood because they are forced to become adults ahead of time.

As a community of nations that has overcome war and fought totalitarianism, we will always stand by those who are in pursuit of peace and human dignity.

And let me say it from here today: the current situation in Syria is a stain on the world’s conscience and the international community has a moral duty to address it.

And as today marks the international human rights day, more than any other day our thoughts go to the human rights’ defenders all over the world who put their lives at risk to defend the values that we cherish. And no prison wall can silence their voice. We hear them in this room today.

And we also remember that last year on this very podium three women were honoured for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights.  As a Union built on the founding value of equality between women and men, enshrined in the Treaty of Rome in 1957, we are committed to protecting women’s rights all over the world and supporting women’s empowerment. And we cherish the fundamental rights of those who are the most vulnerable, and hold the future in their hands: the children of this world.

As a successful example of peaceful reconciliation based on economic integration, we contribute to developing new forms of cooperation built on exchange of ideas, innovation and research. Science and culture are at the very core of the European openness: they enrich us as individuals and they create bonds beyond borders.

Your Majesties,

Your Royal Highnesses,

Heads of State and Government,

Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Humbled, and grateful for the award of the Nobel Peace Prize, there is no better place to share this vision than here in Norway, a country which has been giving so much to the cause of global peace.

The “pacification of Europe” was at the heart of Alfred Nobel’s concerns. In an early version of his will, he even equated it to international peace.

This echoes the very first words of the Schuman Declaration, the founding document of the European Union. “La paix mondiale”. “World Peace,” it says, “cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it.”

My message today is: you can count on our efforts to fight for lasting peace, freedom and justice in Europe and in the world.

Over the past sixty years, the European project has shown that it is possible for peoples and nations to come together across borders. That it is possible to overcome the differences between “them” and “us”.

Here today, our hope, our commitment, is that, with all women and men of good will, the European Union will help the world come together.

Thank you.

« Vois, je te propose aujourd’hui vie et bonheur, mort et malheur. … Je prends aujourd’hui à témoin contre vous le ciel et la terre : je te propose la vie ou la mort, la bénédiction ou la malédiction. Choisis donc la vie, pour que toi et ta prospérité vous viviez, aimant Yahvé ton Dieu, écoutant sa voix, t’attachant à lui » (Deutéronome 30, 14.19).

Jean-Baptiste de Foucauld pose le défi à sa manière[2], arguant que ce que nous appelons conventionnellement la « crise » est composé d’au moins quatre crises :

-financière et économique : née de la crise financière et révélant à quel point le système de marché des économies globalisées est dysfonctionnel ;

-sociale : engendrée par la crise économique. de Foucauld note qu’en France (qui n’est pas le pays le plus touché), 3,8 millions de personnes sont maintenant sans-emploi ou sous-employées, même si cette situation n’a suscité aucune réponse politique cohérente. Le chômage casse les liens sociaux ; en particulier, les jeunes sans emploi n’ont pas de représentants sociaux efficaces. Les personnes au travail sont constamment exhortées  à augmenter la productivité de manière à mieux faire face à la concurrence, peu importe si cette demande résulte en de l’exploitation.

-écologique : pour lutter contre cette crise, il faudra des politiques très différentes que celles promouvant la « croissance » pour stimuler l’économie. Même la « croissance verte », aujourd’hui favorisée, demandera des investissements lourds pour améliorer l’efficience énergétique afin de renouveler les réseaux des transports, et les systèmes d’électricité et d’eau, nettoyer le sol de la pollution, etc.  Bien que ces mesures créeraient de l’emploi, ces emplois devront être principalement financés par les pouvoirs publics. Comment pouvons-nous empêcher ceux qui sont en situation de pauvreté, les plus touchés par les problèmes environnementaux, d’être les victimes des mesures conçues pour faire face à ces problèmes ? En affirmant que la crise écologique est « à la fois une menace et une opportunité pour vivre mieux », de Foucauld partage la perspective plus profonde de Michel Serres.

-de sens : les grands systèmes symboliques qui apportaient de la profondeur à la vie humaine et élargissaient l’horizon des gens ont perdu leur légitimité. La démocratie, privée de toute référence transcendantale (comme par exemple l’inaliénable dignité de chaque personne), ne peut guère retenir les gens les plus généreux et engagés, et retombe sur une préoccupation d’ordre institutionnel et procédural.

J’ajouterais la dimension d’une crise de la démocratie. Les Etats-nations sont incapables de gérer séparément les questions transversales de notre époque – la mondialisation, et en particulier la finance globalisée et la possibilité pour les multinationales d’échapper à pratiquement tous les impôts nationaux ; le changement climatique et la durabilité environnementale ; les flux migratoires. Pourtant, la confiance retirée des Etats n’est en aucune manière transférée à un niveau transnational – dans ce cas, le niveau européen. Cela provoque un déficit de citoyenneté. Cependant, les changements significatifs dans notre vie publique dépendent de l’engagement actif des citoyens.

En 2007, José Manuel Barroso, président de la Commission européenne, a salué la signature du Traité de Lisbonne comme une avancée. L’impasse institutionnelle étant résolue pour le moment, l’UE était libre d’aborder ce dont « les peuples d’Europe se soucient vraiment » : le changement climatique, les migrations, la mondialisation, la croissance économique, et la sécurité face au terrorisme. Prenant la parole, certes avant que la crise économique n’éclate, Mr Barroso n’a pas ajouté « solidarité » à la liste de ce dont les gens « se soucient vraiment » – ou devraient se soucier. Cinq ans plus tard, le paysage politique est fort différent.

La pauvreté en Europe

Pour évaluer la politique de l’UE dans la perspective de la justice et de la solidarité, il faut partir de la dure réalité de la pauvreté[3].

Il y a certainement des « nouveaux pauvres » depuis 2008-09. Cependant, beaucoup de ceux qui sont les plus durement touchés, dans la plupart des pays de l’UE, ont déjà fait l’expérience de la pauvreté. Les revenus des travailleurs ou des sans-emploi ont été compressés de toute part, y compris par la réduction des prestations d’emploi et de droits pour les retraités, et par des hausses d’impôts.

Comme toujours, certains groupes souffrent de risques disproportionnés. Les femmes salariées sont plus touchées que les hommes par les compressions dans le secteur public et les services ; les travailleurs migrants sont en grand danger, car dans certains pays, ils risquent  de perdre leur permis de séjour s’ils perdent leur emploi, même s’ils sont irréprochables. Certains groupes ethniques européens, en particulier les Roms, mais aussi d’autres travailleurs migrants à l’intérieur de l’UE, sont particulièrement vulnérables. Ce qui est le plus inquiétant pour le futur, ce sont les jeunes adultes ayant terminé leurs études et qui souffrent d’un taux de chômage de plus de 50% en Grèce et en Espagne. La décision de relever l’âge de la retraite permet d’épargner de l’argent public sur les pensions tout en augmentant les dépenses d’indemnisation du chômage et en rendant les emplois plus difficiles à trouver pour les jeunes. Le Comité de la protection sociale de la Commission européenne montre que les mesures nationales visant à réduire les dépenses publiques ont d’abord touché les systèmes de protection sociale et d’inclusion sociale. Les coupes dans les dépenses publiques ont la priorité par rapport aux hausses d’impôts sur les revenus plus élevés, et les hausses d’impôts ont souvent pris la forme d’augmentation de la TVA, qui est socialement régressive.

L’Europe, centre et périphérie

Au niveau des différences entre les Etats, certains pays sont maintenant couramment décrits comme à la périphérie de l’Europe – par exemple, la Grèce et l’Espagne. Le terme « périphérie » est lui-même un signal de danger. Dans les années 1960 et 1970, deux théories générales du développement se faisaient face. Le modèle le plus optimiste postulait que les économies marginales décolleraient tout simplement, une fois qu’elles auraient atteint un point levier, en vertu d’une tendance naturelle vers le progrès. Son expression classique est celle du sociologue américain Walt Rostow dans un livre de 1960, intitulé de façon significative Les étapes de la croissance économique : un manifeste non communiste. « Les pays sous-développés » ne rattraperaient pas nécessairement les plus riches, mais ils prendraient de plus en plus part à la prospérité mondiale croissante, stimulés par l’exemple de leurs voisins plus prospères. Dans les années ’80, Margaret Thatcher a appliqué ce modèle à la pauvreté britannique, en citant l’adage « La marée montante soulève tous les bateaux », arguant que le but n’était pas de partager le gâteau plus équitablement, mais de cuire un plus gros gâteau. J’ai vécu dans deux des régions les plus pauvres du nord-ouest de l’Angleterre pendant dix ans – et je peux affirmer par expérience que ce n’est pas comme ça que les choses marchent. Si la prospérité générale augmente et que plus de personnes acquièrent des machines à laver, la laverie locale fermera et ceux qui n’ont pas de machine à laver seront moins bien lotis. Si plus de personnes achètent des voitures, le service local de bus décline – et ceux qui n’ont pas de voiture sont moins bien lotis qu’avant.

Un modèle concurrent a contesté la théorie du « décollage », et a souligné au contraire la concurrence et le conflit : un modèle de « dépendance » ou de « centre-périphérie ». Il était déjà clair au 19^ième siècle que l’augmentation du commerce mondial creusait les inégalités. Le centre peut exploiter la périphérie, jusqu’à la saigner à blanc. Ce modèle est la négation de la solidarité. En Europe en 2012, l’écart entre les différents taux auxquels les pays sont en mesure d’emprunter sur les marchés obligataires est un mécanisme classique de centre-périphérie. Volontairement ou non, l’économie allemande profite à court terme de la souffrance des Grecs et des Espagnols. Le système de marché nie intrinsèquement la solidarité.

Contrairement à l’Allemagne, en 2012, l’Espagne dépensera plus à rembourser ses dettes (même sans les repayer substantiellement) qu’à financer ses services sociaux. Pourtant, l’Espagne n’était pas, jusque récemment, criblée de dettes particulièrement élevées, et elle a équilibré son budget jusqu’en 2008. A ce moment-là, la bulle immobilière a éclaté, ayant été financée par des prêts bon marché aux constructeurs et acheteurs de maisons. La dette de l’Espagne provient de la nécessité de renflouer son secteur bancaire (qui avait profité de la bulle immobilière) et ses gouvernements régionaux[4].

Le cas de la Grèce est très différent. Son gouvernement a falsifié ses finances publiques lorsqu’elle a adopté l’euro (ce dont l’UE elle-même, ayant la capacité technique de dévoiler cette manipulation, doit partager la responsabilité), il y a eu une augmentation spectaculaire du nombre de personnes recrutées et des salaires dans le secteur public et la pratique généralisée de l’évasion fiscale. Les déficits budgétaires et la dette nationale ont tous deux explosé. Les prêts d’urgence s’élevant à ce jour à près de 240 milliards d’euros par l’UE et le FMI, l’effacement des énormes créances bancaires (une opération nommée « haircut » – coupe de cheveux -, un euphémisme pittoresque) ont été accompagnés par l’insistance des prêteurs sur le fait que la Grèce devait réduire drastiquement ses dépenses publiques, imposer des augmentations d’impôts et réformer les marchés du travail et des pensions.

Que doit faire l’UE ? La pratique de la « solidarité » ne peut ignorer le danger d’un « aléa moral » – le risque qu’en fermant les yeux sur une mauvaise pratique, on n’encourage sa poursuite à l’avenir. Deux commentateurs de l’European Policy Centre, un think tank basé à Bruxelles, avancent les arguments suivants :

Le gouvernement grec doit être prêt à poursuivre les réformes radicales de l’administration publique et des fondations de son économie. Mais nous devons aussi avoir des mécanismes qui garantissent que des pays comme la Grèce aient une chance réaliste – et suffisamment de temps et de soutien – pour réformer leurs économies et leurs systèmes politiques, tout en maintenant pour leurs citoyens un niveau de vie minimal acceptable … [pour assurer] une Union européenne qui protège non seulement la prospérité des plus forts sur le plan économique, mais aussi la paix, la prospérité et la démocratie pour tous ses citoyens[5].

La solidarité dans une perspective chrétienne

Les rapports annuels de la Commission européenne mettent en évidence la « solidarité » : le mot est utilisé pour décrire tout financement de projets de cohésion sociale ou du développement international. Or, ces contributions peuvent être louables, mais elles sont largement en deçà de ce que la pensée sociale chrétienne entend par « solidarité ».

Premièrement, la solidarité est le devoir moral qui découle du fait que nous sommes créés par Dieu non pas comme des individus isolés mais comme des personnes qui sont essentiellement interdépendantes. C’est par la solidarité que nous exprimons l’amour (agape) pour les personnes que nous ne rencontrerons jamais mais que nous reconnaissons comme nos sœurs et frères. Cet amour est aussi justice, puisque la justice est cette forme d’amour qui cherche le bien-être des autres, même à un coût personnel, dans leurs réalités socio-politiques spécifiques.

En 2005, la COMECE a attribué ce sens de la solidarité aux fondateurs de l’Union européenne :

L’impulsion pour la fondation de l’Europe a été donnée dans le but d’instaurer « une véritable solidarité ». La solidarité signifie ici la réalisation d’une unité réelle, dans le respect du bien commun, fondée sur l’égalité des partenaires… La solidarité est la méthode de l’intégration européenne[6].

L’UE d’aujourd’hui est loin de cet engagement. Dans le cas de la Grèce, j’ai suggéré que la « solidarité » ne peut pas exiger l’absence de pression externe pour la réforme des systèmes dysfonctionnels ou corrompus. Les pratiques qui nient la responsabilité sociale et morale doivent être réformés. Même ce qui est pour les Chrétiens la possibilité essentielle du pardon ne dispense pas les actes dommageables de leurs conséquences. D’autre part, il n’y aucun signe que d’autres pays sont prêts à partager la souffrance indéniable des Grecs. Au mieux, la « haircut » obligera les banques, par exemple, soit à accepter une baisse des profits, ou (dans le cas de pertes globales conséquentes) à projeter cette perte  sur les finances publiques de leur propre pays. Il serait idiot de penser en termes d’« abnégation » ici. Le commerce ne connaît pas le concept de solidarité.

Deuxièmement, la notion chrétienne de solidarité est fondée sur deux axiomes intermédiaires :

-          Le bien commun : alors que l’idéal classique utilitariste du « plus grand bien pour le plus grand nombre » relègue inévitablement le bien-être du « plus petit nombre » à la marge, le concept de « bien commun » commence par le bien des oppressés et des exclus et ne peut être identifié que si ceux-ci sont servis, cela démasque donc beaucoup de faux-semblants politiques ;

-          La destination universelle des biens de la Création : le libéralisme occidental accorde une valeur quasi absolue à la notion de propriété privée – même quand il s’agit en fait de sociétés d’une extension mondiale. Dans la pensée sociale chrétienne, les besoins du pauvre passent avant les droits des riches sur leur superflu.

Troisièmement, la forme sans doute principale de solidarité est celle des personnes pauvres entre elles qui doit toujours être respectée par les nantis. Lors d’une récente réunion de l’Intergroupe du Parlement européen sur l’extrême pauvreté et les droits humains, Diana Skelton d’ATD Quart Monde a cité le mantra libéral : « La concurrence pousse à l’excellence ». Mais l’excellence en quoi ? La concurrence dans la distribution de l’aide humanitaire, par exemple, peut être destructrice, si les donateurs cèdent aux pressions concurrentielles pour être le plus visibles possible afin d’impressionner leurs propres bailleurs. En revanche, en parlant d’un programme de formation en informatique à Madagascar, Madame Skelton a cité « la pédagogie du non-abandon et de l’entraide ». Les jeunes participants au programme réussissaient si bien que beaucoup ont obtenu un emploi et ont apporté de grands bénéfices à l’entreprise. Reproduire cette forme de solidarité non-compétitive est un défi profond pour les Européens occidentaux.

Quatrièmement, nous les Européens occidentaux, comptons parmi les plus riches dont le privilège doit être remis en question. L’Europe ne peut se sauver seule de la crise globale et ne peut pas essayer de le faire, et le cadre principal de la solidarité est mondial. En novembre 2012, en tentant d’élaborer un budget pour répondre aux demandes d’économies des Etats membres, le Conseil européen a proposé de réduire le budget de l’UE pour la cohésion sociale et pour le développement international. Dans ce second cas de « Global Europe », la réduction proposée était de €65.6 milliards proposés initialement, à €60.7 – environ 8% (EurActiv). Comme cette révision budgétaire n’a pas réussi à satisfaire le zèle de certains Etats membres à réduire les dépenses, on peut s’attendre à de moins bonnes nouvelles encore lorsque les négociations reprendront. La solidarité doit de la même manière façonner la politique de l’UE dans le commerce, les migrations – et dans la recherche de cohérence entre ces différentes politiques.

Nouvelles menaces

Une menace économique : après avoir sauvé les secteurs financier et bancaire en 2009 au prix d’un coût public massif, les gouvernements ne peuvent plus se permettre de tels « paquets de stimuli ». (En 2013, la dette grecque va atteindre 190% de son PIB). D’où la pression pour réformer les finances publiques d’urgence en donnant priorité à une forte réduction immédiate de la dette.

Pour le néolibéralisme, les « coupes dans les dépenses publiques » apparaissent comme un acte de vertu. Cette affirmation est aujourd’hui âprement débattue par les économistes. Un ménage peut améliorer ses finances en réduisant les dépenses, tant que son revenu est garanti. Pour qu’un pays puisse bénéficier de l’austérité, il doit également maintenir ses revenus, par exemple en orientant l’argent économisé vers le soutien à la croissance des exportations. Ce plan est contrecarré, cependant, quand la plupart des autres gouvernements suivent des politiques équivalentes. Pendant ce temps, la montée du chômage réduit les recettes fiscales tout en augmentant les dépenses sociales – à moins que celles-ci ne soient également compressées, pénalisant encore de la sorte les plus vulnérables. Il y a un argument fort que les mesures d’austérité quasi-universelle sont autodestructrices.

Une menace sociale est encore plus troublante. Le chômage de masse est un mal énorme, susceptible de provoquer un profond malaise social et politique, d’autant plus que les jeunes n’ont pas l’espoir d’un travail futur et développent le sentiment que la classe politique est soit insensible soit impuissante. En Grèce ou ailleurs, cette protestation a tourné à la violence. On peut supposer que les milliers de manifestants de rue portent avec eux un bien plus grand nombre de personnes passivement mécontentes. Si nos représentants politiques perdent leur crédibilité, qu’est-ce qui pourra suivre ?

Signes d’espoir

Dans un avenir proche, nous devons nous attendre à de la souffrance sociale et même à des bouleversements sociaux. Cependant, l’espérance chrétienne n’est pas l’optimisme. C’est plutôt l’assurance que le travail accompli maintenant en faveur de la justice et du bien commun, n’est jamais perdu mais portera fruit.

Les efforts extraordinaires déployés au sein des institutions de l’UE, au sein de la Banque centrale européenne, etc. durant 2012 ont montré des dirigeants travaillant à la limite de l’épuisement pour trouver des moyens financiers et de régulation pour sortir l’Europe de la situation critique dans laquelle notre réductionnisme économique l’a plongée. Ce dévouement – même si l’objectif de sauver l’eurozone venait avant celui de préserver le « modèle social » européen -  mérite respect et admiration. Peut-être nous sommes nous mis nous-mêmes dans cette crise – par exemple en regardant la croissance et le profit comme leur propre justification, de sorte que la régulation était inutile voire nuisible aussi longtemps que le système a donné des résultats satisfaisants en termes conventionnels de PIB ou PNB. Peut-être, aussi, n’avons-nous pas encore atteint le point de consensus sociétal où nous reconnaitrions que notre paradigme économique actuel (unique dans l’histoire du monde, dans lequel le but principal de la politique est de servir la croissance économique) est radicalement réductionniste.

Pendant ce temps, cependant, une contre-culture se développe, un mouvement grandissant en faveur de la décroissance » (la perspective positive sur l’« austérité », ou même sur la « récession ») reconnaissant la façon dont le capitalisme libéral entraîne une concentration étroite de la richesse et creuse ainsi les inégalités, privilégie le capital sur les travailleurs, exploite l’environnement, récompense la production même des biens et services. (Ceux en situation de pauvreté, bien sûr, pratiquent la « décroissance » sous la contrainte.)

L’ « économie comme un absolu » est une idole : dans le langage du Nouveau Testament, mammona est le dieu syrien de la richesse. Mais les fondateurs de l’UE ont restructuré l’économie européenne comme un instrument nécessaire et puissant pour la paix quand ils ont lié les bases structurelles de l’industrie franco-allemande du charbon et de l’acier, dans l’espoir de rendre presqu’impensable la guerre entre ces pays. Je pense que notre défi aujourd’hui est de détrôner l’économie, en veillant à ce que l’économie serve (et « servir » est le mot-clé) non pas à fracturer la solidarité mais à la promouvoir. Cet engagement, à son tour, exige un discernement sur la croissance : où la croissance n’offre qu’une satisfaction marginale, ou devient même une nuisance (pour la plupart d’entre nous en Europe occidentale qui avons plus que ce dont nous avons besoin) ? Comment peut-elle être dirigée, directement ou indirectement vers ceux qui ont un urgent besoin de plus que ce dont ils disposent ? Dans ce mode indirect, par exemple, nous devons chercher des mesures de mitigation et d’adaptation face au changement climatique. Et nous avons besoin d’une formation éducative et culturelle accrue pour trouver une forme d’abondance humainement plus satisfaisante que celle offerte par la surconsommation.

Cette recherche comprendra toujours deux éléments fondateurs : l’identification de l’injustice, spécialement celle dont nous bénéficions involontairement nous-mêmes, ou qui vient de l’aveuglement que nous partageons en partie ; et l’apprentissage de la pratique de la solidarité avec ceux qui sont exclus par les systèmes économiques et politiques dans lesquels nous sommes impliqués – alors même que nous cherchons à les réformer.

By Frank Turner, SJ

English version

In the national elections of May 2011 the Scottish National Party (SNP) won an overall majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament. The SNP’s 2011 manifesto included the following commitment to a referendum on independence: “Independence will only happen when the people in Scotland vote for it … We think the people of Scotland should decide our nation’s future in a democratic referendum … We will, therefore, bring forward our Referendum Bill in this next Parliament. A yes vote will mean Scotland becomes an independent nation …“

The UK Government accepted that the question of Scottish independence should be a question for the people of Scotland to determine. In their preface to Scotland’s Constitutional Future, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister wrote that: “We want to keep the United Kingdom together. But we recognise that the Scottish Government holds the opposite view … We will not stand in the way of a referendum on independence: the future of Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom is for people in Scotland to vote on.”

This October, after eight months of intense negotiations, a thirty-clause agreement was signed by Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and Prime Minister David Cameron. The agreement, dubbed the “Edinburgh Agreement” gives to the Scottish parliament the temporary legal power to stage a single-question referendum on Scottish independence whilst widening the franchise to include 16 and 17 year olds. Although Scotland’s First Minister has not yet announced the date of the referendum, it is expected that the referendum will be held in October 2014. (The UK’s next general election must take place before May 2015.)

There is now both a mandate and a legal agreement for the referendum on Scottish independence. Its date is clear and the wording of the question agreed. The focus of political discussion shifts therefore to the relationship between a newly independent Scotland and the European Union should Scotland vote for independence. (Further considerations such as the relationship between a newly independent Scotland and the remainder of the United Kingdom, and whether Scotland would adopt the Euro, are beyond the scope of this article.)

There is no precedent for a newly-separate part of an EU Member State becoming independent. In the case of Scotland, the main discussion pertains to whether Scotland would negotiate as a de facto EU member and its accession be fast-tracked, or whether the normal accession procedure would be followed.

There was in fact much speculation as to whether a newly independent Scotland would consider a Norwegian-style arrangement: assuming membership of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the European Economic Area (EEA). It became quickly apparent that Scotland would not accept that under this arrangement its voice would be absent from important discussions relating to the very legislation which it would have to implement.

Whereas the Scottish Government would favour EU membership, it seems clear that Scotland would not be granted fast-track accession and would therefore be treated as a new candidate country. As stipulated in Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, the unanimous approval of the Council is required to grant such membership. Furthermore, the accession agreement must be ratified by each member state, according to its constitutional requirements. Spain, for example would almost certainly decline to ratify a Scottish accession agreement.

Had Scotland been allowed to negotiate terms as a de facto member of the EU or had its accession been fast-tracked, it was widely feared that the precedent could embolden separatist movements. For several member states this precedent would seem dangerous, as fragmentation is for them contrary to the very essence of the European project.

By Stephen N. Rooney

It is recognised that global efforts to mitigate climate change must be coupled with climate action – that is, taking measures to adapt to a changing climate, and the issue of ‘climate action’ is in fact not a new one.

Indeed, the European Commission produced a Green Paper in 2007 on Adapting to climate change in Europe – options for EU action which was followed by a White Paper in 2009 on Adapting to climate change: Towards a European framework for action and subsequently endorsed by the European Parliament in 2010.  Most striking of the European Parliament’s observations about the 2009 EC White Paper however, was that it considered the White Paper to have a lack of focus on the needs of the vulnerable.

The EPC report is the culmination of two years of collaboration between the EPC and representatives from a plethora of fields, including academia, business and NGOs, and follows the formation in 2010 of an EPC Task Force.  In the report’s foreword by Hans Martens, EPC Chief Executive, one of the explicit remits is to “look at the social and economic impacts of climate-change adaptation policies and actions on Europe and identify ways of mitigating adverse effects on the most vulnerable groups in society, bearing in mind the EU’s commitment to promoting inclusion and well-being.”

In making recommendations in the report, it is clear that the EPC Task Force has kept social justice very much in mind, whilst considering that “in every region of the world, the negative impacts of climate change will not be felt equally among the population or even within populations.  People who are poor, elderly, uneducated, disabled or in poor health will be affected first and most severely.” (Agrawal, A, as cited in the EPC Issue Paper No 70, p3)

Adaptation reduces the vulnerability to climate change; gross benefit is the damage avoided, net benefit is damage avoided less costs of adaptation. Photo Credit: From the Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change (Part V, Chapter 18, Figure 18.1, p 405)

As well as highlighting the impact that climate change has on ecosystems, on agriculture, on food security and migration (among others), whilst elucidating how these factors combine to disproportionately affect the vulnerable, the point is also made that climate change aggravates existing socio-economic pressures to the detriment of the vulnerable.  Recommendations for addressing this issue are complex and must be developed further.

The point that Europe is currently enduring an economic crisis – thus diminishing any appetite for additional expenditure – is recognised in the report and its authors repeatedly emphasise that the costs of acting are far lower than those of failing to act with regard to developing adaptation measures.  Policy makers and politicians are urged to think long-term and crucially, the point is made that adaptation measures “go beyond big infrastructure projects and providing solutions for the wealthy.” (EPC Issue Paper No 70, p10)

The European Union is committed to creating a climate-resilient and resource-efficient economy by 2050 and the EU has an important role to play in facilitating and co-ordinating adaptation to climate change at national, regional and at local level.  Eight main areas for action where the EU could play a stronger role are identified in the EPC report and much revolves around communicating the importance of adaptation as well as mitigation.  Building the knowledge base and capacities to act, as well as financing adaptation measures and encouraging innovation are vital if the EU is to succeed in promoting adaptation measures.

This could indeed be seen as an economic opportunity – an opportunity for growth in which private investment can be harnessed to drive innovative solutions in adapting to climate change.  What is required is that European policy makers and politicians think long-term and are not discouraged by short-term costs.  After all, the costs of failing to act vastly outweigh these costs and the most vulnerable will suffer disproportionately.

By Stephen Rooney

Notes:

For related reading on economic costs of climate change, it is helpful to reference the Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change .

A copy of the EPC Issue Paper No 70 (September 2012) The climate is changing – is Europe ready? Building a common approach to adaptation by Annika Ahtonen with Serban Chiorean-Sime, Caroline Schneider and Imogen Sudbury can be downloaded here.

]]> http://jesc.eu/europe-cannot-act-adapting-to-climate-change/feed/ 0