What happened on 11th September 2001 and in its aftermath in Afghanistan and in other parts of the world has a wide range of implications for the work of the EED. This is also true for the work of our partners in the South and in the East as well as within Germany. There will be consequences. One central question is in how far globalisation in both economic and cultural terms, dominated by Western values, has taken us to a new and rather dangerous level of confrontation. Taking dialogue serious, we have produced this document in order to inform our partners of the current state of our assessment. Within and around the EED, positions have been elaborated and discussions have been summarised and documented - with different objectives, of varying significance and with one major conclusion: What happened on 11th September has serious global implications.
Issues Discussed
1. Terrorism
"Terrorism" has become a catchword in the political debate after 11th September. It has been used in an inflationary manner and with different meanings. The only thing that is clear is that the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon were "acts of terrorism". How far the "war against terrorism" should go remains an open question. For political scientists researching terrorism, it is a phenomenon to be described as a political way of fighting. It also includes state terrorism or actions by liberation movements, without assessing them in political or ethical terms . On the other hand, "terrorism" is being used as a political term to describe conflict, for example by Mugabe in Zimbabwe, by Israel in Palestine, by India in Kashmir and by the United States in Afghanistan.
It is not possible to lead a meaningful political and ethical debate about terrorism without specifying what the term actually includes. However, we can talk about the causes of each individual action that is being called "terrorism". For example, about the situations in Northern Ireland, in the Basque Country, in Chechnya, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Palestine, Kurdistan, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Indonesia, Peru and Colombia. It soon becomes clear that a generalisation, reducing the causes of "terrorism" to singular aspects such as poverty, religious fanaticism, ethnic conflict, political power struggles or the "mafia" plundering natural resources is problematic.
2. The Role of Religion
The EED as an organisation of the Protestant Churches in Germany is particularly challenged to carefully analyse the religious dimensions of 11th September and its aftermath. In a discussion at the World Council of Churches (WCC) in November/December 2001, criticism was raised that in Europe this aspect is being underestimated and that the search for the causes of terrorism is often focused on the social and political realm. On the other hand, the churches must not succumb to the temptation of overemphasising the religious aspects, thus leading the discussion on to familiar ground.
What is striking is that today, religious categories play a much more important role than during the time of East-West confrontation, as a background to and as instruments in many conflict situations worldwide. Religious terminology is not only being used by Osama Bin Laden, or by organisations such as the Islamic Jihad, but also by the American President George Bush. He speaks of a "crusade" or of the "fight against evil". The role that the term "sacrifice" plays on either side is also remarkable.
In his comprehensive statement at the WCC consultation, WCC General Secretary Konrad Raiser pointed out that both Bin Laden and the American Government speak of a "fight of good against evil". He pointed out that this kind of Manichaean way of thinking in terms of good and evil is inconsistent with the Christian faith, as with the death of Jesus Christ on the cross and his resurrection this antagonism has been resolved.
For Christians, the struggle between good and evil, light and darkness, God and the devil has been decided once and for all. Our eschatological hope, however, does not imply that we are now assured of a bright future and that all evil has been eliminated. But, as Raiser emphasised, our hope is not dependent on the victory of the project of our civilisation. As Christians we must carefully distinguish between our eschatological hope based in our faith and a religion turned into a political ideology.
3. Security in a Globalised World
Apart from "terrorism", everybody is talking about "security": internal security, military security, security of waterways, security in air traffic. The idea is to imply that despite the threat of terrorism in a globalised world it is possible to guarantee security - an assumption which does not stand up to a critical examination. The attacks in New York and Washington have shown that the United States, too, is vulnerable. This is an experience which in the course of globalisation many other countries have been making for years. Increasing poverty, social and economic disintegration, ethnic and political conflict, weak governments and a loss of traditional values have created a climate of vulnerability. Through communication without borders and growing interdependencies this vulnerability has increased even further. Only isolation may offer perfect security. Politicians promising perfect security through the operations of police, military, secret services and technical control devices are either naive or deceitful.
Without peace, security will not last. And lasting peace requires a minimum of justice. Justice, in turn, requires a minimum of security and secure livelihoods. Both are inseparably interconnected. This is clearly illustrated by the situation in countries like Somalia or Congo - where a state authority to protect its citizens is virtually non-existent. In a modern constitution like the German Basic Law, this interconnectedness is expressed by the fact that it establishes not only the monopoly of state authority and the rule of law, but the protection of basic and human rights is also enshrined. Therefore, if there nowadays is frequent talk of Germany’s "national interests" in a changed world, this cannot simply refer to security concerns and the stakes of alliances in the narrowest sense. National interests also include more justice at the global level.
As far as security is concerned, development cooperation of the church must in the current situation above all pay attention to strictly maintaining the rule of law and protecting political, economic, social and cultural rights as well as the universal human rights. And we should not - neither voluntarily nor "involuntarily" - get involved in security structures provided or designed by the state, nor should we allow ourselves to be used by these structures for their purposes, unless they are explicitly and clearly targeted at promoting justice and peace.
Is development policy a viable tool in the fight against terrorism? Generalised like this, the approach falls short of many important aspects. The causes of the actions classified as "terrorist" and their consequences are much too complex. A short-term increase of funds available for development cooperation will, as a solution to the problem, turn out to be inadequate. The challenges are manifold. They include the fight against poverty and its causes, the strengthening of peace building, the safeguarding of human rights and the empowerment of disadvantaged groups to enable them to take up their own causes. All these are challenges to be addressed by development cooperation. They are sound and justified, and do not require any additional legitimation under the "fight against terrorism" label. Despite all the discussions about security: Christians must be conscious of the fact that vulnerability is an integral part of human existence. Dependence and vulnerability are not signs of weakness, but remind us that relationships are an integral part of life.
Consequences for the Work of the EED
As a church organisation, the EED is structurally in a suitable position to exchange views with government institutions. The German Basic Law provides for cooperation between the state and the church, and most of the funds available to the EED for development cooperation come out of the government’s budget. For many years, the EED and its predecessors have closely cooperated with the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). The EED is therefore in a different position than other development agencies in Europe. But this does not prevent the EED from developing its own points of view on politically charged issues. Since their foundation, it has been the policy of the Protestant and Catholic Associations for Cooperation in Development, and of the churches’ development services in general, to create their own profile for the cooperation with countries in the South. This has been particularly relevant in cases in which the German government, in accordance with its political and structural policy frameworks, set other priorities. Merging four organisations to form the EED has even strengthened their independence in this regard.
Germany’s role in world politics has changed since 11th September 2001. What are the consequences for the work of the EED? We will continue to ask critical questions and point our own ways to the future. The pros and cons of concrete proposals are assessed before decisions are made. One central yardstick is our credibility in the relationship with our partners. Credibility requires readiness for dialogue, truthfulness and trust. Different assessments must be shared and divergent positions must be argued out through dialogue. Mindful that peace and justice form the overall context and continue to be the objectives of the EED, we will discuss whether to apply for extra funds that have, in view of the current situation, been made available by the German government. We should not feel forced into inadequate action. Changes in content and in our geographical priorities for support must not be based on ad-hoc decisions.
. Partner Orientation and Poverty Reduction
In its international work, the EED will continue to follow the principle of partnership. Cooperation with local partners often facilitates political analysis of the actual situation in the respective region - also with a view to "terrorism". We might, however, have to sharpen our awareness in the selection of our partners in some of the conflict regions: Which role do they play? Do they promote peace and justice or do they contribute to aggravating conflicts? Do they really represent the poor and the downtrodden in their region?
Promoting basic social services, supporting those who are particularly affected by poverty, such as women, children, slum dwellers and ethnic minorities and fighting the structural causes of poverty are continuous challenges for development cooperation. The current situation has not changed these priorities. However, we should - even more than before - listen to the experiences of our partners in the South and make sure that their voices are being heard in the North. From Seattle to Genoa, the debate on globalisation has undergone a change. It is right for advocacy workers to place emphasis on the structures of world trade (and especially the World Trade Organization). This applies to the member organisations of the Association of World Council of Churches related Development Organizations in Europe (APRODEV) and to the Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance. Questions of cultural and political power must be included in the debates.
Promoting Peace
In the current situation, promoting peace has become more important than ever before.
The EED actively
- finances basic social services in conflict regions,
- provides a range of services through peace workers in conflict regions,
- strengthens politically suppressed minorities to resolve conflicts through non-violent means,
- provides various forms of post-war humanitarian assistance: land mine clearance, reconstruction, psychological help for traumatised persons, mediation,
- promotes democracy and participation,
- engages in political advocacy for suppressed peoples and victims of war.
The objectives of this work have not changed after 11th September 2001. The EED will increase its commitment in this field, in the context of development and peace. As the current discussion shows, the interconnectedness of these two areas is more complex than has generally been acknowledged. It remains undisputed that sustainable development is impossible without peace. However, more research will need to be devoted to the question in how far development cooperation can actually prevent armed conflicts or at least reduce their incidence. This is one of the tasks of the new working group "FriEnt".
New thought must also be given to the relationship between liberation and violence. In their fights against colonialism, Apartheid and suppression under dictatorships, many of the liberation movements of the 1960s, 70s and 80s have used violence - which often was followed by even more violence. In several cases, it was a kind of violence that could today be called "terrorism". The churches, in their development work at that time, supported some of these liberation movements, at least indirectly. At the beginning of the 21st century, we have to find new answers to that question: Where and how do we cooperate with partner organisations that have contacts with militant "liberation movements"? Does the current debate on terrorism give us cause for rethinking our policies in these regions? Should we become more active in certain countries? Should we critically revise our support for other countries?
For the time being, I think that there is definitely a need to look at these questions carefully. The consequence, however, should not be to adopt a policy of merely ensuring that we always "keep our hands clean". Equal rights and living conditions for all people, irrespective of race, religion or gender, must continue to be one of our main concerns. And the objectives of the churches’ development work always include liberation from oppression.
