The ecumenical approach to the pressing concerns of economy and ecology is based on the vision of human development and life with dignity, within sustainable communities. Such a vision can become a reality only when economic, financial and ecological justice is addressed holistically, with democratic participation at all levels.
The vision can never be achieved while the material over-abundance enjoyed by a small part of the global community continues to grow side-by-side with, and often at the expense of, the extreme need of a large proportion of the same community, resulting in increasing inequity.
It is precisely this vision that WCC shares with the UN in its aspirations to end hunger and extreme poverty. The number of people who suffer from extreme poverty, hunger, lack of health and education is a violation of human rights. The WCC calls for all countries to honour the implementation of MDGs, particularly in implementing Goal eight, to “develop a global partnership for development”.
The current inequitable trade policies make it difficult to achieve the goal of "creating an international partnership for development". Trade is a crucial part of global society, and, ideally, trade policies should serve the needs of development within a government’s overall policy. The present tendencies and patterns of trade liberalisation have critically weakened the structures that are necessary and thereby have widened the gap between poor and wealthy countries, between those individuals that have the strength to participate in a competitive market and those that have not. The timely finalisation of the Doha Development Round should contribute to increasing resources in the developing countries to combat poverty. 100 per cent debt cancellation for poor countries and increase of Official Development Assistance, ODA, to the UN level of 0.7 are also essential. It is impossible for many developing countries to escape the poverty trap without major growth in ODA.
2. Peace and Security
The danger of war and the need to restrict and limit military violence with the help of international law is reflected in the UN Charter, in particular in Chapter VII and Article 51. The Charter was drawn up from the experiences of two world wars. The legal foundation to avoid or place limits on war remained important during the process of decolonization and the Cold War. We are therefore concerned by the far-reaching interpretation the HLP, in paragraph 188, gives to Article 51, by referring to the possibility to pre-emptively “take military action as long as the threat is imminent”. For the same reason we cannot agree with the interpretation in your report, paragraph 124, that "imminent threats are fully covered by Article 51". There is no consensus among international law expertise on such a reading, and we would not wish the UN to give away so much of its responsibility.
Although there are examples prior to the UN Charter where such an interpretation would be valid, we cannot find the examples after 1945 where such principles have been relevant. Furthermore, given the developments of information technology, there is today no threat so imminent that there is no time to go to the Security Council when facing any potential threat. We understand the need for wide consensus on Article 51. However, this political goal cannot be achieved by re-interpreting the legal foundation. Given the seriousness of military action, the final resort to such action needs strict legal regulation, to be limited to self-defence when attacked, and to be the responsibility of the Security Council when international peace and security is threatened. Actors who move outside of these strict principles need to be judged legally as well as politically for their actions.
We welcome the progress made in the High-Level Panel Report and also in your report on criteria for the responsibility to protect individuals in a situation of genocide or other serious violations of International Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law. The responsibility to protect can ultimately best be met by a stronger political commitment to the responsibility to prevent – being answerable to act accordingly and appropriately in time. The difficulty of promoting human rights, democracy and a healthy society calls for the focus of our discussion to be shifted from a consideration of borderline cases at a late stage, to an emphasis on meeting our responsibility toward the vulnerable, including civilian means, police forces and peace keeping.
The WCC, together with its member churches, is undertaking a study process on “The Responsibility to Protect: Ethical and Theological Perspectives”, leading up to the WCC Assembly in 2006. We would be happy to provide you and the UN Secretariat with the results of this study.
In this context, we also wish to express the appreciation of the WCC of the importance given in your report to the International Criminal Court, ICC. As you state, "enormous progress has made been with the establishment of the International Criminal Court" (§ 138). We firmly believe the ICC provides a new framework to combat impunity and to enhance the rights of victims. WCC member churches are working in their countries for the universal ratification of the Rome Statute and are joining other religious organisations in advocating for the ICC.
The WCC furthermore appreciates the strong commitment to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in your report as well as in the High-Level Panel Report. The WCC was born at the same time as the Atomic Bomb and at the time when the nuclear arms race began. The concern about a possible nuclear war and commitment to nuclear disarmament has been with the Council throughout the years. Already at its Second Assembly, in Evanston in 1954, the WCC called for a new international order where nuclear weapons were eliminated and prohibited and for a mechanism for effective international inspections and control. The WCC considers that the production and deployment as well as the use of nuclear weapons are a crime against humanity and that such activities must be condemned on ethical and theological grounds.
We are concerned at the risk of collapse of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT, at its review in May 2005. The five nuclear weapon states are not honouring their commitment to disarmament and more states are looking at the nuclear option, at the same time as non-state actors, ready and able to use terror, are organised in a way that they might obtain nuclear weapons. A breakdown of this fundamental instrument for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation might bring us to a situation of nuclear anarchy with a clear risk that nuclear arms would be used against urban centres or in some of the asymmetric wars of today.
We are fully in agreement with you that the international community must not only urgently address the issue of terrorism and have a clear definition of the term, but also address the
issues of poverty, deadly infectious diseases and environmental degradation. The comity of nations, civil society and religions, working together collectively must help to promote the values of tolerance, human rights, peace and justice in order to overcome trends directed to violence and war.
