The Churches in International

Affairs

Reports 1995-1998

Ecumenical Centre

P.O. Box 2100

150, route de Ferney

1211 Geneva 2

Switzerland

Tel. +41.22.791.61.11

Fax +41.22.791.03.61

E-mail: ccia@wcc-coe.org

Website: http://www.wcc-coe.org/what/international

Church Centre

777 United Nations Plaza, Suite 9D

New York, NY 10017

U.S.A.

Tel. +1.212.867.58.90

Fax +1.212.867.74.62

E-mail: unlo@wcc-coe.org

ISBN: 2-8254-1328-3

Printed in Switzerland

For Leopoldo Niilus

Architect of the modern CCIA and

mentor to a generation of ecumenical practitioners

of international affairs

ccia staff 348

It was the practice of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, from its formation in 1946, to publish annual narrative reports summarizing the work it had done in pursuit of the aims contained in its by-laws. Since 1973 more detailed quadrennial reports have been prepared to provide the churches, ecumenical organizations and the wider public with a more comprehensive resource.

This seventh volume of The Churches in International Affairs reproduces basic documents related to the work of the Commission, the development of ecumenical policy and the actions taken by the World Council of Churches in the field of international affairs between 1995 and 1998.

The WCC is a fellowship of some 340 member churches in more than 120 countries in all continents and from virtually all Christian traditions. The pamphlet, The Role of the World Council of Churches in International Affairs* clarifies the scope of the WCC’s authority in this field:

For the first time, documents in this volume are reproduced in the original languages, accompanied by English language translations.

Special thanks to Ms Béatrice Merahi, Ms. Patricia Brüschweiler and Mr. Alexander Freeman for help in collecting and reviewing the material presented in this volume; to Ms Libby Visinand for her meticulous proof-reading; of the final text and to Mr. Pierre Beffa and Ms Denise Leger, WCC Librarians, for providing space and a congenial atmosphere for the compilation and editing of this volume.

When reading the reports from the 1995-1998 quadrennium, one is immediately struck by the remarkable number of issues and events to which the World Council of Churches responded all over the globe, as well as the breadth and depth of the analyses and conviction embodied in those responses. This demonstrates in part the remarkable capabilities of the Council’s staff who help to steer WCC international affairs work, as well as the expanse of concerns and engagements of the member churches themselves. It also raises questions about who chooses how, when, and where the WCC will intervene.

Alongside monitoring many world events from 1995 -1998, during this period the WCC also initiated a rigorous examination of the nature of the ecumenical movement of which the WCC is a "privileged instrument." This process came to be known by the title of its final report, the Common Understanding and Vision of the WCC (CUV). A central thrust of the CUV process was a re-articulation of the Council primarily as a fellowship of churches gathered together for a number of common purposes, as distinct from an organization set apart from the churches.

Occasionally, the WCC receives criticism for its stance on one or more public issues. Often implied in such criticism is that the Council is a distant from the socio-political or ethnical positions of the churches that constitute the Council, or that the WCC gets involved in too many such matters. Yet, the reality of more than 330 members churches spread across more than 100 countries is itself part of the complexity of world affairs to which the Council responds. When a crisis or difficulty erupts for one or more of these members, they often seek assistance from or accompaniment by the WCC. The size of the organization alone demonstrates that the reports contained in this book represent a significant subset of the concerns to which the WCC might have responded. Furthermore, this subset is chosen according to longstanding priorities evident in this quadrennium and previous ones – priorities set according to the rules and procedures of the Council, which is governed ultimately by the churches.

Thus churches working together in the WCC have established some considerable consistency in the concerns and perspectives they bring to issues like human rights, peace and disarmament, global governance and others, and this is one of the great assets of ecumenical heritage and tradition to which the Council has given significant leadership. In this regard, the CUV process reaffirmed the necessity of the WCC facilitating the churches in speaking together to promote a common Christian witness to the world.

Due to their differences in national origin and other circumstances, however, churches sometimes have contending perspectives on issues in international affairs. This makes speaking together with clarity and conviction more challenging. During the 1995-1998 period, this situation arose most prominently and controversially in the former Yugoslavia but also to some degree in Rwanda.

These and other circumstances of deadly civil strife, often aggravated by the political manipulation of religious symbols and heritage, accentuated the need for more concentrated and assertive work by the churches for peace with justice. Furthermore, a range of scholarly research on the causes and consequences of civil conflicts fueled in part by the exploitation of religious sentiment came to one profoundly important common conclusion. Put very simply, religion can be part of the problem or part of the solution. When religious sentiment tends to contribute to or exacerbate violence and oppression, the best antidote is for religious leaders to renew and reinvigorate the efforts to deescalate the conflict, to creatively search for more peaceful mediation or resolution, and to work tirelessly for justice.

During the period 1995-1998, the Programme to Overcome Violence took shape in recognition, on the one hand, of some churches’ too frequent indifference to or complicity in violence and oppression, and on the other hand, some churches’ careful, creative and sacrificial contributions to peace with justice. Building on the work done and the models forged in the POV, and in the face of so many threats to peace with justice, the 1998 Harare Assembly called for a Decade to Overcome Violence: Churches Seeking Reconciliation and Peace, 2001-2010. It is held in conjunction with the United Nations Decade for a Culture of Peace and Nonviolence for the Children of the World.

The documents contained here give a flavor of the issues, concerns, and perspectives that gave rise to the DOV within the totality of the WCC work in International affairs. More importantly, they stand as one more installment in a much longer testimony about the still unfolding ecumenical effort to witness faithfully to peace with justice in the world.

Janice Love

Columbia, South Carolina, April 2004

The quadrennium 1995-1998 was one that called for renewed reflection by the churches joined in the fellowship of the World Council of Churches on their role in international affairs.

The period marked the fiftieth anniversaries of the end of the Second World War (Message, p 72), the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations (Memorandum and Recommendations, p 92) and the founding of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (Message on Church, Community and State, p 17).

It called for reflections, too, on the impact of the Cold War that began in 1946 and led both to a nuclear weapons standoff between the world’s two great superpowers and to proxy wars between them for strategic advantage throughout what became known as the "Third World". The Cold War shaped world history in an unprecedented way. It educated generations in a simplistic and militaristic view of human reality that divided nations and peoples in a cosmic struggle between good and evil. The collapse of Communism and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 brought the Cold War to a formal end. However, its nefarious impact continued to be felt all over the post-Cold War world, not least among and within the churches – especially those in the former communist nations of Eastern Europe – as Christians sought to come to terms with decades of ideological confrontation, repression and divisions within their communities. The WCC’s role during the time of the Cold War, when it sought to foster dialogue and to provide a human bridge across the "Iron Curtain," was again and repeatedly called into question, especially its approach to human rights (cf. Statement on Human Rights, p 51).

The ethnocentric and narrowly nationalistic conflicts, especially in the Balkans and the Caucasus following the collapse of the Soviet Union continued to rage (cf. pp 248ff), and conflicts in the Great Lakes Region (cf. pp 157ff) spread like wildfire throughout the whole of Central Africa. In the face of reports of massacres of civilian populations, the international community was incredibly slow to respond. When it did act, its response was most often in the form of massive military action, reflecting still the mentality of the Cold War. The WCC issued insistent appeals for a more differentiated approach to what were now often referred to in international parlance as "complex conflicts," calling for more intensive diplomatic efforts and non-military solutions.

The debates in the WCC Central Committee were often heated, especially with respect to the situation in the Former Yugoslavia, leading to the need for further reflection on how best the ecumenical movement could contribute to peaceful solutions to its own and the world’s problems (Note on the Contemporary Role of the Church, p 23).

Studies were undertaken to help guide the churches and the international community in search of ways to respond to conflict that could offer constructive alternatives to those prescribed by the Cold War mentality. A Memorandum and Recommendation on the Application of Sanctions (p 8) was adopted and shared with the UN Security Council. The CCIA developed a Programme to Overcome Violence and engaged in intensive work on Impunity, Truth and Reconciliation to help the churches deal not only with the terrible symptoms of social reality, but also at a fundamental level with the root causes of armed conflicts.

Often the question is posed: What power does the WCC have to impose its thinking on world affairs? As stated in the Foreword to this volume, the Council has always been cautious not to overstate its power or authority. Experience shows that only very seldom have WCC statements, appeals, studies and programmes had a notable impact on the immediate course of events. Results, if they come, are often only seen after decades of patient work. However the very construct of the WCC as a "fellowship of churches" determined to stay together in the pursuit of the unity of the Church and of humankind, even in the face of conflict of opinion and political adversity, is itself a witness to the redeeming power of the Holy Spirit.

The basis of ecumenical social thought was laid at the Oxford Conference on Church, Community and State, held in 1937 in the shadow of the looming demon of National Socialism in Germany. At a time when churches were sorely tempted, either out of fear or conviction, to give in to the dominant ideology of the State, the Conference issued the ringing call, "Let the Church be the Church!" Against the experience of this quadrennium, the Eighth WCC Assembly held in Harare, Zimbabwe, reiterated that call. The "power" of the WCC resides in its ability constantly and consistently to remind the powers that God alone rules over all of history and to keep faith with the promise that

As Dietrich Bonhoeffer reminded us, this requires "costly discipleship," for the principalities and powers – and sometimes even the churches – are seldom pleased to be reminded that they, too, stand under the judgment of the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

Dwain C. Epps

Geneva, March 2004

In recent times the international community has often felt helpless in face of armed conflicts and wars. The cost of military force, in terms of lives and property is heavy. Sanctions are a valuable tool available to enforce international law and to bring about the peaceful resolution of disputes.

The applicability, effectiveness and impact of sanctions on the people have been a frequent topic of ecumenical discussion. In World Council of Churches Assemblies and Central Committee debates since 1968, but more particularly since 1991, the subject of sanctions has come up repeatedly in relation to the cases of South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, Iraq and the Former Yugoslavia. Some Christians have preferred the use of sanctions as a non-military option in situations of conflict. It is in this spirit of overcoming violence that this study has been undertaken at the request of the Central Committee during its meeting in Johannesburg (January 1994). It aims to help churches to understand the complexities surrounding sanctions and to offer criteria which might be applied to improve this instrument and limit its negative effects on powerless victims of conflicts.

Various measures have been classified as sanctions. Some have questionable legitimacy under international law, as shown later. They have been imposed both unilaterally and multilaterally by a government or group of governments. Some have had the authority of internationally recognized bodies, others have not.

The churches need to have a proper grasp of the term "international sanctions", especially as it is understood in international law on the basis of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, in order to make informed judgments about the application of such measures.

Though the commonly understood aim of sanctions is to bring about a peaceful resolution of conflict and to enforce compliance with international law, they are by definition coercive. As such they have the potential also to polarize conflict, contribute to its escalation, or inflict unacceptable suffering on populations caught in the middle.

Sanctions tend not to distinguish between those responsible for perpetrating an unlawful act, and innocent victims of a situation over which they have no control. As they make judgments about sanctions, churches must have uppermost in their

minds both the positive and the potentially negative impact of such measures on the powerless and the victims.

Sanctions are never a first resort for the international community. They must be seen as part of a range of interrelated options available to obtain the compliance of states with the requirements of international law and established humanitarian principles, and to resolve conflicts within and between states. First come efforts to find a solution through diplomatic means, including "quiet" diplomacy. Positive incentives need to be offered, to induce an offending state to correct its behavior short of the application of coercive pressures. Beyond sanctions lies the power of the United Nations Security Council to authorize the use of "all necessary means" – including military force – to enforce compliance.

Even if early efforts fail to remedy a situation and a violation continues to the point where sanctions become necessary, the door must always be kept open for diplomacy and negotiated solution.

As noted at the outset, this study considers sanctions to be a valuable tool, when in responsible hands and used prudently. It recognizes, however, that present practice often fails to meet these criteria. Therefore at its conclusion, a set of criteria is listed for consideration, along with proposals to improve the effectiveness and applicability of this instrument and to reduce its potential for becoming yet another act of violence.

International legal experts concur in regarding sanctions as measures of enforcement in response to violations of international law. Sanctions contribute to setting the acceptable limits of conduct and seek to restore legality. Properly and consistently applied, they serve as a deterrent. In this understanding, the principal actors are sovereign states, subject to no direct superior authority. Effective application of sanctions presupposes a degree of coherence on the international level, and an acceptance of the rule of international law.

Sanctions, as a term to describe measures taken by a state or group of states against another which has violated accepted norms and standards, is a comparatively new concept in the history of international law. Sanctions have been imposed only rarely by competent international bodies, and the cases where they have been effective in gaining compliance by an offending state are even rarer.

The notion of sanctions has nonetheless become increasingly commonplace in contemporary international politics. Sanctions are generally understood as a way to describe concerted international action by non-military means against a state which is in violation of international law.

Sanctions have been seen by some as a non-violent means to correct systematic violations of human rights or to stop acts of aggression. Yet, powerful states have at times sought to justify aggressive, and sometimes very violent actions against another state with the official aura of sanctions to which some international body has given approval.

Sanctions may take many forms. In order to avoid misunderstandings, this study has considered especially those forms – economic, communications and diplomatic – foreseen in Art. 41 of the United Nations Charter.

The last of these, diplomatic sanctions, has a long tradition in the history of international relations. They include the recognition or non-recognition of another sovereign state, or the suspension of such diplomatic relations as a means of expressing displeasure with the behavior of the other. Diplomatic measures may include a strong inducement for a state to correct its behavior through the offer of recognition or the extension of greater privileges.

Attention is concentrated here, however, on economic sanctions, those most frequently proposed and disputed in present practice. Economic sanctions are generally taken to include such things as restrictions on international travel and communication; trade, commerce, foreign investment, and other areas of finance; restrictions on access to certain goods, like arms and strategic materials; and cultural exchange. Diplomatic sanctions themselves also frequently have an economic effect.

The League of Nations foresaw collective measures to be taken against member states who violated their obligations under the Covenant. In fact, the short-lived League only applied sanctions once, in the classic case of Ethiopia, and then without effect.

This concept was carried forward nevertheless to the United Nations Charter, though the word "sanctions" is not used there. In fact, the International Law Commission has dismissed the term as a legal category, preferring to discuss such actions under the heading "countermeasures ... legitimate under international law." "Measures" in the clear sense of sanctions are, however, described in Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and in the Statutes of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Rules of the Bretton Woods Agreement.

The Charter continues to give sovereign states the limited right to act unilaterally in self-defense in case of armed attack. Clear priority is given, however, to collective decision-making and provision is made only for collective action to correct violations of international law or infringements of accepted international norms and standards of behavior. Acts of retaliation are in any case forbidden.

Economic sanctions by one state in order to gain advantage over another are expressly forbidden in the Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States, adopted by the General Assembly (res. 2625, XXV).

Even when appropriately applied under the authority of the UN Charter, sanctions have not always been consistent, impartial or effective. Decisions to apply multilateral sanctions have often been hotly disputed. Interpretations of universal norms vary widely. Permanent members of the Security Council have regularly used or threatened to use their veto power to shield friends or allies from the application of mandatory sanctions.

The absence of a clear, consistent, and effective system of enforcement by the UN further complicates the picture. This, and the ambiguity of international law, has allowed individual governments to use the term sanctions to provide a cloak of moral and legal justification for some of their own foreign policy initiatives. Especially since 1990, powerful states have sought UN endorsement of their intention to apply what they have termed sanctions. This practice requires careful scrutiny by the churches and by the international community.

In practice, the Security Council has seldom decided to apply sanctions against states. It has, however, frequently condemned illegal behavior, or acts of states which threaten international peace and security. Other individual member states or coalitions have frequently used such condemnations as moral justification for unilateral retaliatory actions, claiming to be operating within the framework of international law in defense of universal values, and not just in their own self-interest. The implications are far-reaching. A trend may emerge where a simple, but not prescriptive majority vote in the Security Council, irrespective of veto, may be taken to legitimize the behavior of those states who are in the majority, and to disregard significant dissenting powers. This trend could have serious negative consequences for the credibility and viability of the UN as the principal protector of international law. It also puts into serious question the credibility, moral authority and legitimacy of the Security Council in its present structure and composition.

Another set of problems related to sanctions arises because only inadequate standards exist to determine what measures are appropriate in response to a given offense. Governments, therefore, have been left with a wide range of options. Sanctions, particularly economic ones, are usually put forward as the preferred non-military alternative.

The legality and propriety of non-military sanctions has also been the subject of controversy. It has been the contention, especially of many developing country governments, that all forms of economic coercion are proscribed under the terms of the UN Charter [Art 2 (4)] as acts of illegitimate force against the territorial integrity and political independence of a sovereign state. Many of these countries see sanctions as a tool of the North to continue its domination and exploitation of the South.

Questions are also raised about whether economic sanctions are the most efficient form of concerted action. It has proven virtually impossible to gain universal compliance with their application. Concerns have also been voiced about their indiscriminate effects on the civilian population and on third parties. It has been argued that such sanctions are a form of economic violence against whole peoples. Further doubts have been expressed about the slow and often limited results which can be obtained through economic sanctions, and their cost not only to the offending state and its population, but also to states obliged to apply them. 

Sanctions have been seen primarily as an instrument to be used to address international disputes. Their use in cases of civil wars, for example to block the flow of arms to warring parties, has been severely restricted by appeals to the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states. Some of the most serious threats to international peace and security are, however, posed by precisely such conflicts, although they have not been addressed as such by the Security Council. A review of the application of sanctions needs to take this into account, and guidelines need to be developed to allow for more concerted international action to resolve internal disputes.

The Christian case for sanctions as an instrument of diplomacy must ultimately be based upon a theology of just peace and a clearly articulated set of ethical criteria, as well as on firmly established norms of international law.

The moral appeal of economic sanctions is that they purportedly offer non-violent alternatives to warfare in situations of manifest injustice. That appeal, however, must be tested in any specific case by prudential questions as to whether sanctions themselves may result in violence and further injustice, and also by questions as to whether there may be irenic alternatives to sanctions.

The vision of a world of justice and peace is central to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. While the perfecting of a just peace is beyond the possibility of human achievement, it is within the power of the Sovereign God of Love who has created one whole, indivisible human family in a covenant of peace. Before our Sovereign God, the nations rise and fall; but the promise of shalom, of love binding peace with justice, is eternal.

Every member of God’s family bears God’s sacred image and is entitled to an abundant life of freedom, security and well-being. To be so endowed is to enjoy God-given dignity from which flow principles of human rights which it is the responsibility of all persons and governments to respect and protect. The ultimate justification of sanctions must be such a concept of justice for the sake of authentic peace and security.

God has set our common life in human communities which have in turn established institutions necessary to govern them. Governments are responsible not only for justice and peace within their borders, and for security against aggression. They are rightly called to policies of initiative and cooperation in the quest for a just peace among all nations. The indivisibility of political liberty, common security, civil equity, economic welfare, and ecological integrity requires effective instruments of global governance and transnational action. Such instruments must promote the development of peoples, the resolution of conflicts, and the overcoming of violence.

Christian imperatives of justice and peace are especially grounded in the prophetic heritage of the scriptures and the ministry of reconciliation in Jesus Christ.

The policies and actions of all human institutions, including government, must be judged according to their impact upon the innocent, the poor, the weak and the oppressed; not only within domestic societies, but within any other society affected by these policies and actions. Coercive concepts of justice, as in the imposition of sanctions, risk becoming policies of injustice and cruelty if they compound the sufferings of the disinherited.

Under the sovereignty of God, no nation or group of nations is entitled to prosecute vengeance against another. Nor is any nation entitled to make unilateral judgments and take unilateral actions that lead to the devastation of another nation and the massive suffering and impoverishment of its people. Whenever aggression or massive and flagrant abuses of human rights by one nation call for preventive or punitive action under international law, a concerted multilateral response authorized by the United Nations or other competent international body is most likely to meet the requirements of just peacemaking, especially if that response is faithful to the integrity of carefully articulated ends and means.

While Christian churches and individual Christians have long differed with regard to the ethics of military action, our commitment to peacemaking has shared a common presumption against the resort to violence. For some Christians, that presumption may be overridden by the imperatives of justice when nonviolent strategies appear unavailing.

Sanctions have typically been regarded by churches as peaceful and nonviolent alternatives to war. But experience has revealed that sanctions, in some instances, may contribute to violence, widespread suffering, and the escalation of conflict. Thus sanctions must be understood as a morally mixed and ambiguous strategy. They may gain legitimacy when more conciliatory approaches to injustice have failed, but when military action seems premature or inappropriate. At best, sanctions may not inflict physical violence. Their very effectiveness, however, depends upon either their coercive force or the offer of compelling alternatives. The coercive consequences of sanctions typically involve suffering among at least some segments of the object nation. Sanctions may thus become implicated in the spectrum of violence and must not be sanctified with the name of nonviolence.

Just peacemaking, for Christians, must always be shaped by our commitment to the ministry and message of reconciliation. The Gospel’s promise of reconciliation is based on God’s first-loving initiative in Jesus Christ, who is our peace, breaking down the dividing walls of hostility, loving even our enemies, and making us one new humanity. Such a faith will not move to any coercive policy, whether economic or military, before seeking positive incentives to peacemaking among aggrieved adversaries. Any resort to a coercive strategy must aim at the reconstruction of peaceable and humane relationships, take great care to avoid or minimize suffering of the general populace or any innocent groups, and avoid causing more harm than good.

Nations facing decisions on either military or economic sanctions must always recollect the possibilities of their own complicity in the injustices of other nations they now seek to overcome. The moral burdens of history, if forgotten or neglected, may be deprived of their due weight and their chastening power on nations self-righteously about to launch punitive attacks on their partners in iniquity. The recollection of such moral burdens does not necessarily imply a prohibition on just action in the present; it does serve to enhance the possibilities of humility and humanity in the conduct of sanctions and the quest for irenic alternatives. Repentance in most human conflicts, be they personal, social or international, is a precondition of reconciliation.

The Central Committee of the World Council of Churches, meeting in Geneva, September 1995,

• basing itself on the churches’ experience with the impact of the imposition of economic sanctions, and on a preliminary study of several dimensions of sanctions as an instrument to restore respect for international law, to redress gross and systematic violations of accepted international standards of conduct, and to promote peace through non-military means;

• and in the context of the Council’s Programme to Overcome Violence:

receives and commends the background document accompanying this statement to the churches;

aware that sanctions are by definition coercive and that they often inflict additional suffering on affected populations, particularly the most innocent, for example, children;

conscious of the need for churches to consult one another in times of crisis, especially when measures like sanctions are being considered which will impact the people of their country; and

convinced that sanctions should only be applied after all other less coercive measures have been exhausted;

adopts the following criteria by which churches may judge the legitimacy of imposing sanctions, assess their effectiveness, and ensure humanitarian care for those affected by sanctions applied against a state whose policies they may neither share nor be able to change.

• avoid the danger of provoking sentiments of abandonment and isolation in the object nation which could serve to intensify the conflict and frustrate the aims of sanctions;
• keep open the possibility of dialogue with political and other leaders in pursuit of a diplomatic negotiated solution;
• assure open access to competent humanitarian bodies, including those of the churches, to allow them to minister to the needs of those who suffer needlessly as a result of the sanctions.

Almost sixty years ago the foundations of contemporary ecumenical social thought, and the bases for the churches’ engagement in international affairs, were laid by leaders of the Christian church confronted by a world in deepening crisis. The concerns and preoccupations of the Oxford Conference on Church, Community and State have continued to reverberate across these several decades. The fiftieth anniversary of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs presents us with an opportunity to explore the continuities and discontinuities in the ecumenical understanding of the role of the church in the world.

We have chosen to use the theme of the Oxford Conference as the lens through which to examine the present situation of the churches and international affairs.

It was particularly appropriate for us to do this in Seoul, Korea, where less than ten years ago several of those present at this consultation were part of the Convocation on Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation. Its affirmations provide a backdrop to our deliberations at this time.

Our discussions here in Korea have added potency, as we experience the realities of this country which continues to bear the visible marks of the Cold War era. A country in which the church has at times courageously and sacrificially defended the people against the excesses of a state committed to serving economic and military interests rather than human needs. A church which continues to give expression to the people’s desire for the unification of the nation as their unique contribution to regional and global peace and security.

Oxford had the benefit of the thinking of many of those who were seen at the time as being among the best theological minds in the world. Our understanding of who must participate in constructing meaning and discerning the movement of God in our history has undergone significant change, and the pool from which we can draw has broadened and deepened. As a result of this greater inclusiveness, fresh ideas have come and new expertise has been added. Our discussion has highlighted the importance of bringing all these minds together wherever they may be found as this can only enhance the quality of our analysis and strengthen the validity of our conclusions.

We acknowledge that our meeting over these several days is little more than a very preliminary attempt to reopen a chapter which has been unexplored for perhaps too long. Our hope is that the churches will use the record of these discussions as a contribution to their own process of debate and reflection, particularly as we prepare for the Eighth Assembly of the World Council of Churches.

The Oxford Conference was held at a time when the Western world was in chaos and falling apart. The rise of fascism in Germany was a palpable, frightening reality in 1937. It forcefully confronted the Church with the issue of its relationship to the State, and its attitude to nationalism. In other spheres, there were concerns that the State, especially in relation to its role in protecting the poor and vulnerable, was losing power, or abdicating its responsibilities. Secularism and totalitarianism seemed to be emergent on all sides. The question was: How could the Church be the Church in such a situation?

Today, the role and authority of the State is again under siege as global financial institutions usurp the function of shaping and defining our world. Indeed it has been suggested that one of the characteristics which distinguish the present period from the previous one, is the dominance of capital and the idealization of neo-liberal conceptualizations of the market. This factor should be added to the present-day discussion of the Oxford theme.

While the supporters of the process of globalization argue that it promotes social, political, cultural, and, in particular, economic integration (which should perhaps be called homogenization), it is noteworthy that it is characterized more by fragmentation and alienation. Communities suffer from internal division or are set one against the other, and people are drawn into creating scapegoats to rationalize their own exclusion.

The new World Trade Organization (WTO) is in a real sense the new guardian of a "re-engineered" global division of labor. Despite the potential of supra-state organizations such as the WTO to defend the economic interests of poor countries and smaller producers, the trend is already towards the elaboration of the kinds of terms for the production of goods and services, which result in discrimination in favor of the wealthy corporate sector.

The WTO joins other global economic institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, as well as political institutions such as the UN Security Council, as a defender of powerful economic and political interests. Indeed the resurgent dominance of the Security Council belies the claim that a new era of peace is being ushered in.

There are no signs of any meaningful reduction in military expenditures in any of the world’s regions. Indeed there has been no abatement in the competition between nations to be armed. Armaments continue to flow, the globe continues to be wracked by war, and the priorities of States and lives of communities continue to be deformed by processes of militarization.

The social and economic impact is clear. It includes, among other things, the virtual elimination of public provision of essential human services for most members of many societies, a rapidly widening gap between the rich and the poor within and between nations and worsening tensions and a growing sense of personal and collective insecurity.

Since Oxford, the concept of "nation-State" became current. Deformations of this idea also emerged, and marked the post WW II period. One of these was the "national security State."

The latter, heavily determined by military influence and control, is giving way now to new forms of democracy, however fragile. These new democracies have no strong support in the State as the organized expression of community. The State, not only, but especially in small territories, seems incapable of defending national sovereignty, and thus of defending cultures, traditions and common aspirations against the onslaught of the unregulated flow of speculative and exploitative capital.

The new visions of democracy and human freedom which have emerged in recent times are not without their own tensions and potential contradictions. Several states for example have yet to shape an appropriate response to the demands of indigenous peoples and other groups to have their rights acknowledged in the new dispensation.

While recognizing the possible value in reconceptualizing the term "nation-state," it must be acknowledged that the ability of peoples to provide an organized response to their collective economic and social needs is being steadily undermined. Some participants in the consultation felt that there was a need for the State to be strengthened in order to assume its duty to defend the poor and vulnerable, and that the church might have a role in this regard.

In fact, there remains both a "community" which is often referred to in positive terms as nation and a state associated with it. The resulting combination often fails to meet the needs of the community. But what kind of State do we wish to see emerge? In addition, what kind of international institutions, or what reforms in present ones, are necessary in order to strengthen the positive roles of States and control the abuses of power of some States which are also manifest in the present day?

These were but some of the issues and developments which made us ask how the Church can build on its earlier work in the realm of international affairs and continue to forcefully address itself to the true centres of power in the contemporary world. What would it mean to remind individual nations and states, as well as the new global institutions of the need for repentance? The drafters of
the message from the Oxford Conference reminded the Church of the need for it to repent its complicity with the world in order that it might credibly call others to repentance.

Oxford was preoccupied with the rise in Nazi Germany of a particular understanding of community as Volk: "a shared identity of blood, occupancy of the same territory, possession of the same language, customs, history and culture." The negative interpretation and practice of this conceptualization remains with us in some situations marked by narrow nationalism and ethnocentrism.

But our consultation pointed out that it is impossible to speak of a single form of community (koinonia) as the model to be pursued. Rather there are several different, and sometimes conflicting conceptions and manifestations of community. Indeed it was observed that the scriptures describe not just one form of community, but rather various forms (koinoniae).

Nation, identity, common bonds, shared experiences, memories and history, are some ways of defining Community. The process of globalization already mentioned has contributed to the disintegration of community at international, national and local levels. It is the people themselves who define and organize their communities. This is a fundamental principle which is under attack today. But the heartfelt desire of these same persons for meaning and solidarity has not been quelled.

Associated with our exploration of the character of community, was the attention now being given to the role of "civil society". This is perhaps one of the intersections of local, national and global. It is also one of the possible arenas in which the Church may act to strengthen people’s organizations so that they may successfully confront the ravages of capital.

But, as it was at the time of the Oxford Conference, we are alert to the danger of the Church becoming either a pawn of or synonymous with a Community in its more ethnocentric and xenophobic manifestation.

We can only reiterate the stance taken so many years ago at Oxford: "The deification of nation, race, or class, or of political or cultural ideals, is idolatry, and can only lead to increasing division and disaster".

The Church of which Oxford spoke was the universal Church which is far more than the sum of its individual parts. There is, it said, no strictly "local" Church. The Church is the one Body of Christ. However we must acknowledge that the expressions of this Body in those countries outside of North America and Europe, which were represented at Oxford only by a limited number of missionaries and even fewer of their nationals, are growing more rapidly than in those countries so overwhelmingly present at that historic meeting. The composition of a conference held today, similar to that held in 1937, would be dramatically different. But the issue of how the churches understand and promote unity in this radically changed context, and whether they can transcend local loyalties remains a pressing one.

The themes of people and nation should not be taboo for the Church and the ecumenical movement. Representatives of almost all the sometimes conflicting parts of the human community are present in both. It would indeed be regrettable if they were not able to bear the tension between the claims of group identity and universal humanity.

The positions of the churches on violence and war were already divisive issues in Oxford. They remain so today. Then and now some churches have given costly witness and suffered martyrdom in opposing abuses of State power. Others have either remained silent or lent support to the State under similar circumstances. Regrettably there are, in several places, growing tensions between churches, faith communities, states and groups of states in the field of church-state and church-community relations.

Within the ecumenical fellowship itself, churches hold radically different positions on these matters. Thus, the debate on our mutual accountability and responsibility for one another in the ecumenical movement continues as the churches explore their common understanding and vision. It is a necessary part of the process of developing guidelines for making ethical judgments about international affairs.

The construction of unity among the churches is an important contribution to the construction of peace and reconciliation among peoples and nations. It is a costly process which requires thoughtful study, dialogue and the adoption of positions in favor of justice and peace. The Church must give leadership in society to define and address difficult political and social questions. This cannot, however, in today’s world be pursued by the Church alone. Increasingly it has become clear that it must work alongside other religious and social bodies.

There is a much greater conscience today of what it means to be a Church for and among the poor. In both quantitative and qualitative terms the absolute poor are a dominant presence in our world and among many of our communities.

While the Church is legitimately active in caring for the needs of the household of God, it must think carefully about its response to the call by the state to assume responsibility for many functions which the state itself used to perform: health care, education, the care of especially vulnerable groups. There are fundamental ethical questions here. The Church must be a competent actor in society, not just in the field of charity, but also in terms of determining where social responsibility should reside. In addition, the Church needs to ensure that it is in a position to set the terms of its engagement in the exercise of a welfare role in alliance with the State. Among other things, this requires competence in the arena of international affairs which is where much of the new social policy is being formulated.

In virtually every place around the globe today, individuals, groups, communities and nations encounter a world in deep turmoil. Increasingly there is agreement that although the situation manifests itself in social, economic and political terms, we are indeed confronting a severe moral and spiritual crisis. To be the church in these times is to face up to the continuing challenge of living and proclaiming a Gospel which is uncompromisingly prophetic, which speaks to immediate realities and locates them in their proper global and moral context.

It is in living out this proclamation that the churches can unite in resistance and witness, and bring renewed hope to the world. It will create local Christian communities capable of protecting the rights and responding to the needs of its most vulnerable members wherever they may be located. It will create space for dialogue and mutual learning. It will construct an effective response to the forces which seem to so dominate the globe at the present time.

The greatest danger that we face at the present time is to submit to despair, to the heresy that no alternatives exist. The concluding message of Oxford rings true for us today:

At this meeting of the Central Committee attention will be focused on preparations for the Eighth Assembly, the Common Understanding and Vision of the World Council of Churches, ecclesiology and ethics, and reconsideration of ecumenical priorities in a time of severe financial constraints. This is an appropriate context in which to review the Council’s engagement in international affairs and public issues since the Canberra Assembly.

In each period of the life of the Council, succeeding Central Committees have had to respond to urgent crises, to analyze trends in world affairs and to promote a common witness among the churches for peace and justice. Each has identified areas where deeper study was required on the causes of the inequalities and injustice which lead to conflict and war. Ecumenical programmes have been elaborated and initiatives taken to inform the churches and enable them to act together, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to address the structural causes of oppression, division, and violations of the life and dignity of God’s people and the integrity of God’s creation.

But few Central Committees since 1948 have devoted so much time and energy to public issues as those chosen to guide the Council since the VI Assembly in Vancouver (1983). None has had to struggle with such a rapid succession of complex crises and radical, fundamental changes in international relations as this one, elected in Canberra (1991). Now, as the churches prepare for the VIII Assembly in Harare and the daunting task they will have there to equip the ecumenical movement for mission, witness and service on the threshold of the new millennium, it is important to take stock of what we have learned in this time of transition from one stage of history to another.

These reflections seek to provide a framework for that assessment, and to pose some of the questions arising from our work together in this period which require the attention of the ecumenical movement.

The period of preparation for the VII Assembly was one of uncertainty, but of considerable hope for the future. The precipitate collapse of Communism which began in 1989 opened up remarkable new opportunities in international affairs. In rapid succession, a series of national and regional conflicts were quickly resolved as the former Cold-War enemy powers found new ways to cooperate. The United Nations, long blocked from the use of the strongest peacemaking powers available in the Charter, put in place new mechanisms for conflict management and to keep and build peace.

But on the eve of Canberra, the use of these powers was usurped by a group of nations led by the sole remaining superpower, putting the integrity of the world body to a rude test. The issues raised during the Assembly debate on the Gulf War have had serious repercussions in the ecumenical movement.

"Operation Desert Storm" raised the question: Who may use instruments of war to deal with conflicts, in what circumstances, and under what authority?

The Gulf War provoked great international controversy, and gave rise to one of the most important, difficult and contentious debates in an assembly since the one in Amsterdam over how the ecumenical movement ought to relate to Communism and the socialist states, stimulated by the heated exchange between Czech theologian Josef Hromadka and U.S. statesman John Foster Dulles. The Canberra debate reopened the old, seemingly irremediable breach between those who believe that Christians must reject absolutely the use of violence as a means to resolve conflict, and those who believe that, under strict conditions and as a last resort, the use of violence may be unavoidable and necessary.

The heated character of this debate came as a rude surprise to those who believed that the bold statement of the Vancouver Assembly and the subsequent affirmation of the Seoul Convocation on JPIC showed that a new consensus was being shaped on the morality and theological justification of war and the use of violence in international affairs. It showed how divided the churches remain on crucial theological, ecclesiological and political issues.

These differences surfaced anew in subsequent debates in the Central Committee, most notably in connection with war in the former-Yugoslavia, but also around the ethics of armed "humanitarian intervention" in situations of complex emergencies.

Many questions arose, among them:

• What alternatives to violence has the church to offer as a response to conflict?
• What can the church do to lower or eradicate the incidence of violence in society?
• How can the churches and Christians strengthen their capacity to remain in dialogue on deeply divisive social and political issues?

Some attempts were made to find answers:

• The use of sanctions was seen to be a workable alternative to the use of armed violence to bring an offending party into compliance with international law, and a set of criteria were elaborated on when and under what conditions the churches might advocate the application of sanctions.
• A Programme to Overcome Violence was launched to stimulate reflection and action by the churches to help reverse the tide of violence in and between societies.

But it may be asked:

• Have we been effective in moving from declaration and affirmation to action?
• Have we spoken in a way that what we say can be heard by, and make a difference to the churches?
• Have we helped to make the universal Christian witness meaningful and potent in a needy and confused world?

The Canberra statement on the Gulf War also dealt with the broader consequences of the Security Council decisions which authorized a massive military operation in the Gulf. It warned of the far-reaching consequences of pursuing a "New World Order" dominated by an emerging coalition of major powers. This Central Committee offered additional critiques of the impact of the "New World Order" on the role and functioning of global institutions, and noted the waning effectiveness and credibility of intergovernmental bodies. It reiterated the ecumenical position that an effective United Nations, responsive to the will and the needs of the peoples of the world, is essential, while drawing attention to the weaknesses of the world body today.

It has not been easy for the churches to discuss the UN without falling into the trap either of uncritical support for the world body, or of joining those voices who make it a scapegoat for the chaotic world situation. Here, too, attitudes are widely divided in the churches.

Questions arise here such as:

• In a time of widespread proliferation of complex, often competing and overlapping international institutions at world and regional level: How can the churches remain close enough to them to be able to influence their behavior, promote constructive reforms, and support conscientious and effective international civil servants who share our concerns? How can we maintain sufficient distance to be able to reflect on what kind of institutions are needed today?
• What could the churches do more effectively to ensure that the "voice of the peoples" is more effectively represented in the debates and the programmatic activities of the United Nations?

The Central Committee has not only been concerned about global institutions, but about the crisis in confidence with respect to political institutions at every level of society. It has considered the role of "civil society" as a means of pressuring political institutions to fulfil their responsibility to respond to the will of the citizenry. It has been suggested that "civil society movements" may be the harbinger of new forms of governance.

• What have the churches to say about waning confidence in and the diminution of the power of the state?
• How can Christians and their churches exercise the responsibilities of citizenship vis-à-vis their own states and governments and at the same time retain the capacity to call these to accountability when they fail in their responsibilities?
• What roles do we see for "civil society" movements in the process of governance?
• How can "civil society" movements themselves be protected from the temptations of dogmatism and institutional rigidity?
• Will the churches, as they appeal for greater inclusiveness and democracy in the institutions of governance, apply the same critique to themselves and reform their own systems of government when they fail to meet these standards?

A dominant feature of the post-Cold-War "disorder" has been the imposition on global society of the neo-liberal form of "free market" economy. In the name
of the "market," the power of weak states to defend the sovereignty and national interests of their own peoples has been severely eroded, and in some cases destroyed. Fundamental principles of justice and fairness in international relations give way under the onslaught of profit-seekers. Ours has become a world of double standards, one set for the rich, another for the poor. People despair, and anger and frustration abound. No other set of forces in our time has such a debilitating and divisive impact on community, nation, state and church.

In every society the impact has been felt through the inability or the abandonment by the state of its responsibilities to deliver social services to the most vulnerable. Unemployment is on the rise. The gap between rich and poor grows wider than ever.

Nowhere has this become so clear as in our discussions on the plight of Africa. Shortly after Canberra, the Executive Committee adopted a "Minute on Africa" which called for intensive WCC attention to the situation of this continent and its churches. In the extensive statement of the Johannesburg Central Committee (1994) on "Contemporary Challenges to Africa" the impact of globalization on this continent was drawn out in detail. Through the lens of Africa we saw how the social fragmentation resulting from globalization alienates communities from their own cultures and traditions, and renders them vulnerable to new, often destructive religious movements, to religious and other forms of extremism and thus to destructive conflict.

Traditional means of dealing with conflict in many cultures are pushed to the margins. The flourishing, unregulated trade in arms of every sort has rendered African and other poor societies, which have borne the brunt of globalization, vulnerable to fratricidal warfare.

The churches in both poor and rich societies are also besieged by these divisive and fragmenting forces. Many have been set against one another in competition for "souls" and diminishing resources. When they have resisted globalization, many have become targets of destabilization campaigns. Others have been overwhelmed – and at times intentionally marginalized – by the burdens they have taken up in ministering to those abandoned by the state: refugees, displaced persons and migrants, abandoned and abused children, women and others who suffer most from the violence of uncaring societies, the sick and the elderly.

The process of globalization is more complex and is impelled by more powerful forces than anything we have had to face in our time. It is pervasive, systemic and often faceless. It reveals a profound moral, ethical and even spiritual breakdown in society. It lays bare the inadequacy of many of our customary tools of analysis.

• How can the churches resist the forces of division and fragmentation today?
• As the forces of globalization put on the cloak of "internationalism" and even of "ecumenism," how can the Church, the One Body of Christ, make its understanding of universality heard? How can the ecumenical movement manifest in social and political terms the unity given in Christ and the sovereignty of God over all human powers?
• How is the moral voice of the church to be used in the face of such widespread economic, cultural and political immorality?

By the meeting of the Central Committee in Geneva (1992), Soviet domination of Eastern and Central Europe had come to an end, and the Soviet Union itself had disintegrated. Ethnic and national conflicts had exploded throughout the former Communist world. Open wars were raging in the Caucasus and the Balkans. Many of these took on a religious character, and member churches of the WCC were caught up in several of them directly.

The ugly head of racism and xenophobia rose up in many parts of the world as movements reminiscent of the worst days of fascism attacked racial and ethnic minorities. Old ethnic and tribal tensions were growing, especially in some of the world’s poorest regions. The simultaneous upsurge of religious extremism and intolerance left many minority populations virtually defenseless. The religious factor moved to the cenre of ever more violent social and political conflicts.

Two of the most baffling, complex and shocking conflicts came in rapid succession: the war of "ethnic cleansing" in the former Yugoslavia, and the Rwandan genocide. The debates stirred by these two tragedies which have dominated the public issues agenda since 1992 have been reminiscent of the ones which took place in Canberra.

Many of the questions the Central Committee raised in our statement on the former Yugoslavia when we met in Geneva in 1995 apply not just to that situation but everywhere where church and nation, church and ethnic group have such an inseparable bond that Christians risk being blinded to the demands of the gospel. These questions await answers and continue to pose fundamental challenges for the churches’ life together. For example:

• What is the nature of the ecumenical fellowship and what does Christian unity require in a divided world?
• Does membership of the Council make churches accountable to and responsible for one another in such times?
• Can a church which fails to distance itself from and vigorously resist the use of violence by its own nation and people disqualify itself from membership?

Again in this sphere, the inextricable relationship between ecumenical responsibilities in international affairs, mission, service and in the fields of ecclesiology, doctrinal unity and Christian social ethics has been underscored.

Commemorations of events related to the end of the Second World War led the Central and Executive Committees to reflect on what it requires to become a truly confessing church. In their 1995 Pentecost Message, the Presidents of the Council urged the churches to take that opportunity to "proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ...to recapture the vision of peace among reconciled communities and peoples...to confess that we have failed to build the foundations of a just peace, to repent our sin of disunity as churches and peoples." This is a time of jubilee, they said, a time to forgive and seek forgiveness, "to restore right relations among neighbors and with God;" a time to say to the nations, "Turn to God - Rejoice in Hope."

Our wrestling with such intractable conflicts as those in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda brought to mind the admonition of the prophet Jeremiah:

We were reminded how humanity’s repeated failure to heal deeply the wounds inflicted by one people against another, or by brutal regimes upon their own nations, has led to rising spirals of retributive violence. Justice has too rarely been done. The pain of the victims has too seldom been assuaged. Impunity has too easily been granted to offenders. And the international community has too seldom brought the authors of crimes against humanity to the bar of judgment under international law. True reconciliation has rarely occurred. The accumulation of offenses on all sides, and our failure to heal the memory of injured peoples has contributed to a proliferation of what came to be known as "complex emergencies".

After decades of dealing with what seemed to be clear-cut issues of right and wrong, the churches have been confronted with new moral and ethical dilemmas.

• What do we do when there is no "just" solution, when the "legitimate" claims for justice by the several parties to a conflict deny justice to the other?
• What moral criteria do we apply when to judge the one and absolve the other is itself an act of injustice?

We belong to a generation schooled in Cold War thinking based on the identification of an enemy and the confrontation of absolute good and evil. Debates among the churches since Canberra have shown that it is as difficult for the churches as it is for policy makers to escape the distortions and limitations of this way of looking at things. In retrospect, many have come to see that reality was seldom, if ever, so simple. Good and evil, justice and injustice, righteousness and unrighteousness are omnipresent. What we are gradually discovering is that they are most often present together on different sides of disputes. We need a fresh approach.

• How can the churches free themselves from bondage to the past and live out a model of caring and respectful dialogue which we can consistently apply and offer to others as an alternative?
• Can the churches learn a new way of looking at conflict which can enable us to see the humanity of people on all sides?
• What can the churches contribute to the shaping of new modes of thinking which take seriously the historical roots of conflict and approach it on its own terms, rather than on ours?

Our approach to the law is key to our understanding of justice. Frequently during this period recourse has been had to law as a political instrument to punish those perceived to be the enemy, but it has rarely contributed significantly to the resolution of a conflict or the healing of the deep wounds of history. The international tribunals hastily established to identify and try those charged with crimes against humanity in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda have been perceived to lack impartiality and thus effectiveness. Some have suggested that such special judicial bodies are too susceptible to the politics of the moment, and that they should be replaced by a permanent International Criminal Court endowed with authority to assure fair, consistent and equitable administration of international law.

Such matters are a legitimate and important concern of the churches, and may demand more considered attention in the future. But our experience since Canberra shows that the law alone is insufficient to bring lasting justice or a durable peace. Here, too, we see the intersection of theological affirmation and the church’s responsibility in the world of nations. Jesus came to fulfil the law, but at the same time to free us from bondage to an absolutist system of law based on retribution. His message of forgiveness has shown itself anew to be not just a requirement of the faith, but a political necessity if we are ever to overcome ancient enmities, our tendency to pursue justice on our own terms and at any price, and our penchant to resort to violence in the name of peace and justice.

The ecumenical movement has repeatedly affirmed that there can be no peace without justice. We have learned that sometimes there can be no justice without some peace.

We must ask again:

• What is the relationship between peace and justice? If they are intertwined, how do we work as church to achieve both?
• Some of our absolutist statements of the past may have led us to miss opportunities to witness effectively in the present. How do we retain a prophetic voice and remain able to respond to crises which demand nuanced thinking and action?
• How can we oppose the granting of impunity for serious crimes against humanity in a way which can contribute to healing the wounds of history, and at the same time respond to the requirement of new democracies for stability in a time when the criminals of the past continue to wield power?
• How are truth-telling, impunity, forgiveness and reconciliation related?

The issues have become much more complex. Our tools of analysis need to be refined, and some corrected. And if, as it appears, we are in a time of deep moral crisis we should reflect anew on how the church can bring the moral voice of faith more consciously and effectively to bear in our actions and statements on public issues.

It is troubling to note that in precisely such a time many churches have become introspective, and tend to devote more of their attention and resources to their own institutional and confessional realities and pressing domestic concerns. Our resources are dwindling, but the demands upon the church are great. We need to consider how the Council can encourage and enable the churches to maintain a sense of universal responsibility and exercise it more effectively.

Your Holiness,

Your Eminence,

During this period of Holy Week when Christians pray in anticipation of the Cross of Jesus Christ and His resurrection, our thoughts are with the Armenian people whose history has been a constant movement from suffering to hope, from cross to resurrection.

This year the Armenian people in Armenia and all over the world commemorate the 80th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. The World Council of Churches in accordance with its clear stand for justice and human rights has on various occasions reminded the world community of "the tragic massacre of one-and-a-half million Armenians in Turkey and the deportations of another half million from their historic homeland at the beginning of this century". The WCC has also stated that the "public recognition of those events is essential in order that they do not continue to engender violent acts of retribution, and that through remembering the history of the Armenian people other peoples might be spared a similar fate". Recently, when expressing its concern for uprooted people, the WCC stated "the presence of uprooted people in their midst reminds churches of their vocation and of the powerful and energizing message of the coming Kingdom that is obscured and overshadowed by the realities of injustice and oppression, of marginalization and exclusion, of destruction and war – of sin and violence against human beings, other creatures and the earth." The presence of the Armenian Church and people in diaspora is a concrete example of an uprooted people who continues to survive.

With this letter we express to you and to your people our concern and solidarity affirming at the same time our commitment for justice. We believe that "proclaiming the Gospel of hope for all people and remembering the communion in Jesus Christ, in his death and resurrection, churches live their vocation as viable and inclusive communities, accompanying uprooted people, sharing in their hope and suffering and providing space for them."

May the memory of the Armenian martyrs become for the Armenian Church and the people a source of renewed hope, faith and vision.

Dear friends,

For some years, the World Council of Churches has been concerned with climate change and its implications for the future of humanity. You remember the statement the Central Committee issued at its meeting in Johannesburg (January 1994) and the study paper which was shared with you. The enclosed booklet describes the broad range of current WCC initiatives on climate change which are coordinated by a committee chaired by Dr David Hallman.

Unfortunately, governments are slow in taking the measures needed to meet the threat.

In March/April last year delegations of the countries that have ratified the Climate Change Convention met in Berlin. Mindful of our ecumenical relationships, the WCC supported the urgent appeal from countries [of the Pacific region] most exposed to the consequences of climate change.

However, the governments did not adopt binding reduction targets of greenhouse gas emissions. They only decided to engage in a new round of negotiations in the hope that new results can be reached by Autumn 1997 when the UN General Assembly will evaluate the follow up of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992).

Often, government representatives explain their inability or unwillingness to act by referring to the perceived lack of support by the population. Clearly, further progress is only possible if the level of consciousness about the urgency of the issue can be raised. To contribute to this goal the World Council of Churches proposes to the member churches in the industrialized countries to organize a petition campaign to mobilize public opinion, and to urge their governments, through this means, to take more determined action. This petition would be circulated simultaneously in industrialized countries. We are concentrating on industrialized countries as they have contributed most to date to the climate change problem through their greenhouse gas emissions, and largely have resisted taking adequate steps to address the magnitude of the problem, in our view.

The petition campaign is being launched between April and June of 1996 depending upon the country, and will run through January 1997. The signatures then will be first submitted to national governments and later, in an appropriate way, to the UN. We enclose the text of the petition. Obviously, the wording will need to be adapted to the context of each country.

Some details about climate change and its impact on society can be found in the WCC study paper of which we include another copy. Meanwhile, a new report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a representative UN body of scientists has been published (December 1995). It confirms earlier findings and further affirms that actions of humankind are contributing to the problem. Therefore, it urges governments not to further delay action.

In preparing for our campaign we have made contact with various international church organizations. We are happy to report that the following have agreed to support the campaign: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, Lutheran World Federation, World Alliance of Reformed Churches, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, World YMCA and World YWCA. Others have indicated that they will take up the matter through their decision making bodies in due time. From initial contacts, where we received commitments and positive indications, we are also confident that various environmental organizations will be supportive of the campaign. Therefore, we encourage you to be in contact with the organizations in your country affiliated with these bodies.

I draw your attention to the attachment which provides details about the climate change petition campaign in your country. …

There is now strong scientific consensus that the atmosphere is warming as a result of human activity, and that this is likely to have far-reaching environmental, social and economic consequences. Climate change is a serious threat to the well-being of creation.

The effects of climate change are predicted to include: more intense storms, more floods, more droughts and more disease. To keep climate change within bearable limits, the emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO₂), must be significantly reduced.

Industrialized countries are the main source of these emissions while the first victims will be the small island states such as in the Pacific and low-lying coastal countries like Bangladesh.

Despite the clear risks, governments are slow to act.

In solidarity with those most likely to suffer from climate change, the signatories of this petition ask their government to take steps required to meet the danger:

• by fulfilling their promise made in the context of the Rio Earth Summit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000;
• by establishing firm policy measures and adopting a binding international agreement which will achieve greater reductions in emissions after the year 2000, primarily through renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, reframing market incentives and new consumption patterns (without relying on an increase in nuclear power generation); and
• by initiating more forcefully the public debate on climate change issues, and increasing the citizens' active participation in finding solutions.

By signing this petition, we declare our commitment to accept the consequences of reductions for society, economy and our personal lives. We are prepared to take responsible steps in our own lives to reduce our energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. We believe that such changes would improve the long-term quality of life for all.

This petition is being circulated throughout industrialized countries. It has been initiated by the World Council of Churches and has the support of the following organizations so far:

The UN's Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently confirmed in its Second Assessment Report that the climate changes we observe today are due to human activity. The IPCC includes scientists from around the world working on climate change.

These changes are caused by the emission of greenhouse gases which leads to a gradual warming of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide, the most significant of these gases, is released in large quantities into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels, e.g., through industry, heating, the increasing number of cars and other vehicles. In the past, and at present, the industrialized countries are the main source of these emissions. If the total amount over the last century is taken into account, they are responsible for over 80 percent. Therefore, it is imperative that the consumption of energy from fossil fuels be dramatically reduced in these countries.

At the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro (1992), our government signed the Convention on Climate Change and accepted, as a first step, the obligation to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000 at 1990 levels. From the beginning, it was clear that further reductions had to be achieved after the year 2000. However, measures to date are insufficient. Projections show that, emissions will increase considerably after 2000. This danger must be prevented.

We will all suffer from the consequences of climate change, but the first victims of rising sea levels and more intense storms will be small island states and low-lying coastal zones such as Bangladesh.

In international negotiations they press for swift action. The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) has submitted to the international community a proposal to strengthen the Convention on Climate Change, i.e., to reduce emissions from industrialized countries by 20% by the year 2005.

The IPCC Reports show that a reduction of at least half of the present level will have to be achieved in the next 50 years in order to prevent dramatically destructive effects. In order to avert the loss of small island nations and other serious climate change consequences for us all, the faster we take the necessary measures, the less drastic they will need to be in the future.

Significant reductions can occur through increased energy efficiency and use of renewable energy resources. Yet deeper reductions in industrialized country emissions, needed in the longer term, will require more far-reaching changes. Morally, there is no other choice. The signatories of the petition call on both the government and the public to move forward on the needed reductions. We further are convinced that, in the long run, the decisions required will enhance the quality of life for present and future generations, both in our own country and around the world.

The signatories believe that taking action to reduce the threat of climate change is an important contribution to the struggle for justice, peace and the well-being of all creation.

The US government has given in to the opposition of the oil and automobile lobby. This is a recipe for environmental disaster. That is the view of the General Secretary of the WCC, Rev. Dr Konrad Raiser who has today expressed his grave disappointment following the US Government's announcement that it will delay the cutting of greenhouse gas emissions for 20 years.

Suspense over the long-awaited position of the US government in the continuing negotiations for an international climate change treaty ended yesterday when President Bill Clinton went back on United States promises to stabilize emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. This pledge was made by President George Bush at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro five years ago and renewed by Clinton in 1993.

The WCC General Secretary stated: The lack of political will and power by the US to prevent severe damage to the earth's environment is alarming. The announcement made yesterday is a surrender to pressure from the US automobile, oil and coal industries. The US government can no longer claim moral leadership in international negotiations on environmental issues. The WCC will continue to call for adequate measures for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. This simply cannot be the last word by the US president.

The WCC is firmly committed to joining people of faith and communities of conscience in implementing the sabbath-jubilee mandate, sounding the trumpet and rejoicing in the hope of jubilee when debt is cancelled. We offer this policy statement for reflection by all members of the ecumenical community, call our churches to action and commit ourselves to achieving debt cancellation.

Since the 1970s, the WCC, its member churches and ecumenical partners have placed high priority on addressing the debt crisis. On several occasions the WCC has spoken in solidarity with the victims of indebtedness. In response to a mandate of the central committee, the WCC Los Rubios [Spain] consultation on debt (1998), involving representatives of 24 countries and diverse denominations, launched a process to develop this policy statement on debt. However, the churches’ hopes for canceling the debt of impoverished countries and for alleviating hunger have not been realized.

The sabbath tradition of the jubilee vision is as relevant today as it was thousands of years ago. Debt bondage by the poorest countries to Western governments and creditors is today’s new slavery. The accelerating concentration of wealth for a few in the richest countries and the devastating decline in living standards in the poorest countries call for correction along the lines of the ancient sabbath and jubilee cycles. The social, political and ecological costs of the debt crisis can no longer be tolerated and must be redressed. Only when we have implemented the sabbath-jubilee mandate can we "turn to God" and "rejoice in hope".

Today’s globalized economy promotes the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few through lending money or through speculation. This process is promoted by G7 leaders through the Bretton Woods institutions, which have encouraged debtor nations to borrow on international financial markets, made easier by the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) deregulation of capital movements around the world. Because foreign debt can only be repaid in hard currency (e.g. US dollars or sterling), indebted countries are obliged to orient their economies towards the raising of these revenues from exports or new loans. This explains why debtor nations are forced to concentrate on cash crops such as coffee, cocoa and carnations, as opposed to staple foods, and why they are caught up in endless cycles of borrowing.

The foreign debt is growing exponentially. Present debt-management proposals such as those devised by creditors (the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative) offer too little, too late, too few countries. Because these are designed by creditors, their purpose is debt collection not debt relief. Furthermore, Western creditors, represented by the IMF, impose conditions whose purpose is to generate revenues for debt service. Structural Adjustment Programmes impose unacceptable conditions on debtor nations and drain them of precious resources. Unless present debt-management plans are transformed into debt-release opportunities, the devastating cycle of debt accumulation will repeat itself, condemning millions more people to suffering.

The poorest countries are not the only ones trapped by the debt crisis. Countries that are arbitrarily defined as "middle income" are also threatened by debt crises. As the crisis in southeast Asia and in Brazil shows, reckless lending leads to speculative investment, high levels of debt and capital flight. When governments have to back their own currencies against speculative attack, they are forced to raise interest rates and seek new loans from the IMF. Furthermore, as illustrated in the case of Thailand, the IMF obliges debtor governments to "nationalize" private losses caused by the financial crisis, transferring the burden to the public, who did not benefit from the loan. Substantial debt reduction is urgently needed for these severely indebted middle-income countries to enable them to escape the downward cycle of debt and economic degradation.

The policies of the Bretton Woods institutions, in particular the rapid liberalization of capital flows, are increasingly being questioned. Recent public statements by the chief economist of the World Bank have drawn attention to fundamental flaws in these policies. Furthermore, he has noted the double standards applied by the Bretton Woods institutions to Western economies on the one hand and indebted nations on the other. It is important to support those leaders in the World Bank and IMF who promote poverty eradication policies.

Highly indebted countries pressed by capital shortages to seek new loans are forced to adopt IMF policies and renounce control of their economic sovereignty. Debtor governments are obliged to give debt repayments priority over spending on health, sanitation, clean water, education and other social needs. This undermines accountability by debtor governments to their people, which in turn erodes local democratic institutions. Debt and loan negotiations are always conducted in secret between elites in the North and elites in the South, fostering corruption.

The diversion of resources from impoverished peoples in debtor countries to rich Western creditors is a violation of human rights. Furthermore, the impunity with which creditors are able to impose such policies is a travesty of justice. Children and women are forced to bear the full costs of debt repayment through reductions in health, sanitation and clean water programmes. In addition, by concentrating on exports, poor countries strip forests and over-exploit land and non-renewable resources, further aggravating serious environmental problems. High levels of debt and economic degradation inevitably lead to social conflict and disintegration, in particular war. Military and corrupt dictatorships and those of the apartheid regime have incurred the most unacceptable kind of debt, defined in international law as odious debts.

Both lenders and borrowers must take responsibility for the debt crisis. It is unjust that creditors dominate the debt relief process. We need new, independent and transparent structures for governing relations between debtors and creditors. In particular, we need a new just process of arbitration for international debt cancellation, such as the introduction of an international insolvency law, which ensures that losses and gains are equally shared.

Collective political will is urgently needed to develop an international, ethical lending- borrowing mechanism, which involves civil society, including churches, in the process of debt relief and in preventing future debt crises. These mechanisms must produce ethical, mutually responsible and transparent solutions, which not only satisfy requirements for economic efficiency, but also for the protection of basic human needs and rights as well as the environment. Where funds are released through debt cancellation or other relief measures, civil society organizations must be enabled to take part in determining how monies are reallocated for social priorities.

Significant work towards debt cancellation has been done by churches and Christian World communions. The WCC encourages member churches, church-related institutions, relevant campaigns and movements such as the jubilee 2000 Coalition, to renew their commitment to solving the debt crisis, informing and mobilizing the public to generate political will to transform unjust international structures and relations. Churches can best do this by demanding information from their governments on lending and borrowing policies.

The assembly encourages member churches and its partners to provide critically needed fora for discussion with governments and international financial institutions. They should urge governments of the wealthier countries to: (1) increase support for bilateral and multilateral debt cancellation, and (2) undergird efforts to make international financial institutions more democratic, transparent and responsive to the needs of the world’s most impoverished.

• debt cancellation for severely indebted, impoverished countries to enable them to enter the new millennium with a fresh start;
• substantial debt reduction for severely indebted middle-income countries within the same time frame;
• participation by civil society in deciding and monitoring how funds made available by debt cancellation should be used to restore social and ecological damage;
• establishment of an independent, transparent arbitration process for debt cancellation, and ethical lending and borrowing policies to prevent future recurrence of the debt crisis;
• ethical governance in all countries and legislative action against all forms of corruption and misuse of loans;
• full support to impoverished people of the indebted nations which cannot service their debts and suffer sanctions as a consequence.

• cancel the debts of the poorest countries to enable them to enter the new millennium with a fresh start;
• substantially reduce the debts of the middle-income countries within the same time frame;
• accept that debt cancellation cannot wait until conditions set by creditors are met;
• introduce a new, independent and transparent arbitration process for negotiating and agreeing upon international debt cancellation;
• implement measures to promote accountability of debtor countries when debts are relieved; these measures must be determined and monitored by local community organizations, including churches and other representative organizations of civil society, to ensure that debt cancellation leads to a just distribution of wealth;
• use their powers to ensure that funds illegitimately transferred to secret foreign bank accounts are returned to debtor nations;
• engage, in consultation with civil society, in a process of global economic reform towards a just distribution of wealth and preventing new cycles of debt.

Globalization is not simply an economic issue. It is a cultural, political, ethical and ecological issue.

Increasingly, Christians and churches find themselves confronted by the new and deeply challenging aspects of globalization which vast numbers of people face, especially the poor. How do we live our faith in the context of globalization?

1. It is our deep conviction that the challenge of globalization should become a central emphasis of the work of the WCC, building upon many significant efforts of the World Council of Churches in the past. The vision behind globalization includes a competing vision to the Christian commitment to the oikoumene, the unity of humankind and the whole inhabited earth. This recognition should be reflected in our efforts to develop our Common Understanding and Vision as well as in the related activities of member churches and other ecumenical bodies. Although globalization is an inescapable fact of life, we should not subject ourselves to the vision behind it, but strengthen our alternative ways towards visible unity in diversity, towards an oikoumene of faith and solidarity.

2. The logic of globalization needs to be challenged by an alternative way of life of community in diversity. Christians and churches should reflect on the challenge of globalization from a faith perspective and therefore resist the unilateral domination of economic and cultural globalization. The search for alternative options to the present economic system and the realization of effective political limitations and corrections to the process of globalization and its implications are urgently needed.

3. We express our appreciation of the call by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches 23^rd General Council (Debrecen [Hungary, 1997]) and confession (processus confessionis) regarding economic injustice and ecological destruction and encourage the WCC member churches to join this process.

4. In view of the unaccountable power of transnational corporations and organizations who often operate around the world with impunity, we commit ourselves to working with others on creating effective institutions of global governance.

5. It is of high priority to improve the capacity of the WCC to respond to the challenge of globalization with a more coherent and comprehensive approach. This includes especially close co-operation and co-ordination of work on economic and ecological issues.

6. Work on globalization should build upon and strengthen existing initiatives of churches, ecumenical groups and social movements, support their Cupertino, encourage them to take action, and form alliances with other partners in civil society working on issues pertinent to globalization as, particularly:

• formulating alternative responses to the activities of transnational corporations, the Organization for Economic Cupertino and Development, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the International Labor Office and related multilateral agreements in order to identify the harmful as well as positive impact of their policies in a competent manner;
• advocating and campaigning for the cancellation of debt and a new ethics and system of lending and borrowing;
• co-operating with initiatives for a new financial system including a tax on financial transactions (Tobin tax) that can be used to support the development of alternative options, limits to the unregulated flow of capital, etc.;
• supporting initiatives to address unemployment and the deteriorating conditions of work faced by workers in all regions as a result of globalization;
• enabling and supporting local alternatives through new forms of organizing production, fair trade, alternative banking systems and, particularly in highly industrialized countries, changes in life-style and consumption patterns;
• reviewing the churches’ own dealing with land, labor, unemployment and finances as, for example, the ethical investment of pension funds and other financial resources, the use of agricultural land, etc.;
• promoting economic literacy and leadership training on globalization and related issues;
• reflecting on economic issues as a matter of faith.

That vision is still alive in the struggles of the people for daily livelihood, to sustain their community life, to be nourished by the rich traditions and values inherited from the past, to live in harmony with the earth, to find space to express themselves. People are longing to live in dignity in just and sustainable communities. We resonated to their vision and aspirations because, though we come from all parts of the world, we experience the same yearnings.

In the midst of these visions for our people, and our children’s children, we have become more acutely aware that, in some fundamental respects, the legacy of colonialism of the past is still present with us in a new form – a form perhaps more seductive on the surface, but demeaning and dangerous at deeper levels. The driving forces of this new form of domination are economic powers which may be as insidious as political colonizers and a subtle but powerful ideology which assumes that the most promising way to improve the quality of life for all people is to give free rein to market forces.

Globalization affects all of us. It contributes to the erosion of the nation state, undermines social cohesion, and intensifies the conquest of nature in a merciless attack on the integrity of creation. Debt crisis and Structural Adjustment Programmes became instruments to gain more control over national budgets and create a profitable and safe environment for investments by the private sector at unbearable costs for the people.

This process is greatly strengthened by the development of global communications and media networks. It is also accompanied by a very costly, but successful strategy by the USA and other developed countries to gain and secure military and political hegemony on a global scale. The forging of new institutions, like the World Trade Organization and the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment, solidify the power of the already privileged. The convergence of such factors in the 1990s represents a new level of challenge to the poor, the vast majority of the world’s population.

The concomitant homogenization in the process of globalization does not include labor. While the movement of global capital is unrestricted, new barriers are created to keep migrant workers in check. In the face of globalization labor is controlled and is losing its strength. Although the liberalization of trade is high on the agenda of economic globalization, developed countries still protect their local agriculture and certain industries against the import of competitive products. They still subsidize their exports with often devastating effects for local markets in the South.

Those who defend the free market argue that free market economies have demonstrated remarkable capacity to produce goods and services in a world which has a desperate need to meet people’s basic material needs. While they acknowledge that some economies have been distorted by being more closely linked to the world economy, they also emphasize that sometimes this link has afforded new levels of prosperity. Such alleged benefits of globalization make it attractive to those who see an unfettered free market system as a way out of poverty.

The reality of unequal distribution of power and wealth, of poverty and exclusion, however, challenges the cheap language of a global shared community. The often-used image of the "global village" is misleading. The new situation is lacking exactly the sense of community, belonging and mutual accountability that is typical of village life. Global media networks promote a consumerist monoculture. The situation of many poor people deteriorates. The World Bank has concluded that in 1998 the number of countries with negative economic growth had grown from 21 to 36 during the past year. As a result, they observed that fiscal policies and interest rates have had a much greater social cost than originally envisaged.

Further, only a small fraction of the one and one-half trillion dollars of currency exchange each day is related to basic economic activities. The great proportion is mere financial speculation, not genuine investment. That speculation weakens further the already weak economies. Massive speculation led to the collapse of financial markets in Asia and risks to jeopardize the global economy as a whole.

The life of the people is made more vulnerable and insecure than ever before. Exclusion in all its forms breeds violence that spreads like a disease. The number of migrants desperately searching for jobs and shelter for their families is increasing dramatically. In the industrialized countries of Europe and North America pockets of the poor are growing in number and size. Everywhere, the gap between rich and poor is widening, making Indigenous Peoples, women, youth and children the primary victims of poverty and exclusion. The vast majority of those excluded are inevitably people of color who are targets of xenophobia, racism and oppression.

While globalization universalized certain aspects of modern social life, it also causes and fuels fragmentation of the social fabric of societies. As the process goes on and people lose hope, they start to compete against each other in order to secure some benefits from the global economy. In some cases this reality gives rise to fundamentalism and ethnic cleansing.

As a consequence, people tend to lose their cultural identity and deny their political and ethical responsibility. Promising wealth for everybody and the fulfillment of the dream of unlimited progress, neo-liberalism draws a picture of universal salvation. But obsessed with rising revenues from financial markets, expansion of trade and growth of production, the global economic system is blind to its destructive social and ecological consequences.

Plurality and diversity within the ecumenical movement, for example, are no longer seen as an obstacle to the unity of the churches and a viable future for humankind. Diversity provides rich resources and options for viable solutions if the stories, experiences and traditions of others are recognized and individual Christians, ecumenical groups and churches search together for alternatives that affirm and sustain life on earth. The traditional concept of the catholicity of the church deserves renewed attention. The notion and praxis of catholicity can be understood as an early form of Christian response to the imperial form of unity that was shaped and represented by the Roman Empire. Such an alternative option to the imperial power is of relevance for the affirmation of the ecumenical dimension in the life of the churches in the context of globalization.

The jubilee has important implications for our reflections on globalization today. Globalization usually appears benign, or even beneficial, especially when one benefits from that process. But the increasing concentration of power – economic, political, cultural, military – is dramatically shaping the world of the present and future in ways that are not benign. The scandal of crippling debt, the marginalization and exclusion of vast numbers of sisters and brothers, the exploitation of women and children, additional strain on minorities struggling to keep their culture, religious tradition and language alive, the destruction of the ancestral land of Indigenous Peoples and their communities are in part an expression of this concentration of power legitimized in the name of a better standard of living.

Jesus came so that all may have life and have it more abundantly (John 10:10). God’s salvation in Jesus Christ not only means fullness of life for the human community, but the restoration of all creation to its goodness and wholeness. God’s Holy Spirit comes to renew the whole creation. According to the creation stories of the Bible, the earth was meant to be home for all living creatures, which live in different spaces, but linked to each other in a web of relationships. The human community is placed within the wider community of the earth, which is embedded in God’s household of life. It is this vision of a truly ecumenical earth that challenges the ecumenical movement to search for new ways of revitalizing and protecting the communities of Indigenous Peoples and of the marginalized and excluded, participating in resistance against the growing domination of economic globalization, and engaging itself in the building of a culture of peace and just relationships, a culture of sharing and solidarity.

Peoples’ stories show and reflect the longing and desire for sustenance of life through fulfilling the essential needs of all people, for the protection of life through peace-building and peace-making in situations of violence and war, for the enhancement of life through the strengthening of accountability in a truly democratic society and the improving of people’s economic welfare by broadening opportunities and solidarity linkages, and for the enrichment of life through the deepening of people’s spirituality and cultural activities as well as the up-building of just and sustainable communities.

Four essentials for a life-centred vision need to be nurtured: participation as the optimal inclusion of all involved at all levels, equity as basic fairness that also extends to other life forms, accountability as the structuring of responsibility towards one another and Earth itself, and sufficiency as the commitment to meet basic needs of all life possible and develop a quality of life that includes bread for all but is more than bread alone.

We acknowledge that in the context of globalization we have compromised our own convictions. We repent for the ways the power of new technologies, the lure of having things, the temptations to superiority and power have diverted our attention from our neighbor who suffers. We acknowledge the temptation we have to strive for our own inclusion in a world which has space for a privileged few. Lest our confession and repentance be hollow, we are called to discover and restore our solidarity with the excluded ones.

It is the task of the WCC to strengthen the ecumenical dimension in the life of the churches and provide space necessary for dialogue and mutual up-building towards a common witness by the churches locally, regionally and internationally. There is a need to strengthen the voice and representation by the WCC on international levels, a representation that can build on the capacity to analyze global trends, but one also that depends upon the kind of networking, support and transformation the WCC can muster as the churches’ own instrument. Critical to the vision of earth as home is the call for people in very different situations and contexts to practice faith in solidarity and affirm life on earth together.

In retrospect, it is clear that since the seventh assembly in Canberra the different programmatic areas of the WCC have been increasingly aware of the challenges and dangers inherent in the process of globalization. The new central committee and all of the member churches should be encouraged to develop a more coherent approach to the challenges of globalization, with a focus on life in dignity in just and sustainable communities.

The first WCC Assembly in Amsterdam fifty years ago had high hopes for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights under discussion by the United Nations at that time. As we, representatives of churches in some 120 countries, gathered here in Harare on 10 December 1998 in the Eighth Assembly of the World Council of Churches, to reconsider the words of the Preamble, we find that they are as pertinent and challenging today as they were when they were adopted.

We remember with gratitude those who advocated on behalf of the ecumenical fellowship at the San Francisco Conference in 1945 the inclusion within the United Nations Charter of provisions for human rights, including a special Commission on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to develop and implement guarantees for religious freedom and other rights.

We are thankful to those whose faith and vision contributed to the shaping and adoption of this common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. We remember those all around the world who have dedicated their lives to the further development of these rights, in order that there be a progressive subordination of force to the international rule of law.

We hear the cries of the victims of human rights violations, and feel their anger, frustrations, agony, loneliness, desperation and pain. We remember particularly those Christians and people of other faiths and convictions around the world who have suffered persecution and martyrdom in defense of human rights.

We recognize that in some languages the use of masculine terminology in the original wording of the Declaration would appear to exclude women. Nevertheless, women as well as men today find in the Declaration a foundation for their hopes and aspirations. The adoption of this Universal Declaration stands as one of the landmark achievements of humanity.

Most governments have now committed themselves to respect its provisions, but we are painfully aware that these principles have yet to receive universal observance and no country fully respects them. As a result of poverty, ignorance, exploitation and repression, very many people remain unaware that they are invested with such inalienable rights. More still are unable to exercise them.

As Christians, we believe that God created every person infinitely precious and endowed with equal dignity and rights. Yet we confess that we have often failed to respect such equality, even in our own midst. We have not always stood up courageously for those whose rights and human dignity are threatened or violated by discrimination, intolerance, prejudice and hatred. Indeed Christians have sometimes been agents of such injustice.

The World Council of Churches has affirmed that human rights, including the right to religious freedom, are not to be claimed by any religion, nation or group as an exclusive privilege, but rather that the enjoyment of these rights is essential in order to serve the whole of humanity. Yet we are aware that universal human rights have been repeatedly violated or misused in pursuit of particular religious, ideological, national, ethnic and racial interests.

In this Jubilee Assembly of the World Council of Churches held under the theme, "Turn to God - Rejoice in Hope", we continue to pursue the goal of unity for the Church and the whole of humankind.

We look forward with hope and reaffirm our faith that God will continue to guide us and give us strength to confront the potent forces of division, dehumanization and social exclusion which assail us today.

In this spirit, we recommit ourselves to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to promote and defend them in a way which takes into account:

• the values and insights into human rights and dignity derived from the rich heritage of peoples’ religions, cultures and traditions;
• the rights of peoples, nations, communities and their cultures, as well as the rights of each individual within them;
• the indivisibility of human rights, including social, economic and cultural, civil and political rights, and the rights to peace, to development and the integrity of the Creation;
• the right of every person and community, be they in the majority or in the minority, to participate fully in decisions about their common future;
• the equal rights of young and old, of children and adults, of women and men, and of all persons irrespective of their origin or condition.

We commit ourselves to pursue this goal in a way which does not further divide, but rather unites the human community through:

• encouraging and supporting the efforts of the United Nations;
• urging our governments to ratify and respect international and regional instruments for the promotion and protection of human rights, to monitor compliance with them in their own countries and around the world, and to underwrite that commitment with human and financial resources;
• seeking cooperation with peoples of other faiths and convictions;
• joining in partnerships with other civil society groups and organizations, and with governments and political authorities who share these aims.

This we do for the benefit of the present generation which desperately needs universal respect for and the exercise of the full range of human rights. We undertake these commitments especially for the children and youth of today, that they may take hope and claim the promise of the future. We do it so that the world in which we are among God’s stewards will be passed on to future generations resting upon the firm foundations of freedom, justice and peace.

The World Council of Churches has a long history of involvement in the development of international norms and standards, and in the struggle for advancement of human rights. Through its Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, the Council participated in the drafting of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, and contributed the text of Article 18 on freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. The WCC has since been active in promoting the Declaration’s implementation.

In preparation for its Fifth Assembly [Nairobi, 1975], the WCC engaged in a global process of consultation to review its fundamental policy on human rights. That review led to a "Consultation on Human Rights and Christian Responsibility" in St. Pölten, Austria, 1974, which provided guidelines for the policy statement adopted in Nairobi, 1975, placed human rights at the centre of struggles for liberation from poverty, colonial rule, institutionalized racism, and military dictatorships, and formulated a comprehensive new ecumenical agenda for action on human rights.

Churches in many parts of the world took up the Nairobi Assembly’s challenge, addressing human rights needs in their respective societies more intentionally, engaging often at great risk in costly struggles for human rights under military dictatorships, establishing a global ecumenical network of human rights solidarity and new forms of active cooperation with the United Nations’ Commission on Human Rights and other national and international human rights organizations. These strategies significantly increased the effectiveness of the ecumenical witness on human rights and had a substantial impact on the development of new international standards.

Anticipating the Eighth Assembly, the WCC Central Committee, in 1993, called for a new global review of ecumenical human rights policy and practice to draw lessons from two decades of intensive engagement, to assess emerging challenges arising from the radical changes which had occurred in the world since the Nairobi Assembly, and as a means to stimulate new action in churches where human rights had been given a lower priority. Regional consultations and seminars were held, and their reports were drawn together by an international consultation on "Human Rights and the Churches: The New Challenges" in Morges, Switzerland, June 1998.

Previous assemblies and ecumenical consultations have developed a theological basis for the churches’ engagement in the promotion and defense of human rights:

1. We give thanks to God for the gift of life and for the dignity God has bestowed on all in Creation.
2. Costly witness

1. We recall the engagements and achievements of the churches, ecumenical bodies, and of human rights defense groups to uphold the sanctity of life, and especially for the costly witness of those who suffered and lost their lives in this struggle.
2. The theme of this Assembly, "Turn to God - Rejoice in Hope," reinforces our belief in the three-fold structure of Christian faith and life: God turns to us in grace; we respond in faith, acting in love; and we anticipate the coming, final fullness of God’s presence in all of Creation. We have newly experienced God’s call to Jubilee, and this leads us to reaffirm our commitment to human rights, to the dignity and worth of the human person created in God’s image and infinitely precious in God’s sight, and to the equal rights of women and men, of young and old, of all nations and peoples. Deep theological, liturgical, and mystical experience of the broad family of Christian traditions teaches us to develop understanding of human rights and freedom in the spirit of faithfulness to God and responsibility before and for the people of God.

2. Facing the new challenges

8. Global ethics and values related to human rights. Reaffirming our stance that the church cannot surrender the values of the Gospel to the ambiguities of progress and technology, we welcome the renewed calls from humanistic and religious circles for the elaboration of shared global principles of social ethics and values. Shared principles must be based on a diversity of experiences and convictions that transcend religious beliefs and work toward a greater solidarity for justice and peace.
9. Human rights and human accountability. We reaffirm the right and duty of the international community to hold all State and non-State actors accountable for violations of human rights which occur within their jurisdiction or control, or for which they are directly responsible. Corrupt practices are a major evil in our societies. We uphold the right of every person to be protected under the law against corrupt practices. We reiterate our appeal for governments and non-governmental bodies to exercise objectivity in addressing human rights concerns, to promote and utilize improved international procedures and multilateral mechanisms for promotion and protection of human rights, and where possible, to pursue a non-confrontational, dialogical approach to the universal realization of human rights.
10. Impunity for violations of human rights. An essential part of post-conflict healing is the pursuit of truth, justice for victims, forgiveness and reconciliation in societies which have suffered systematic violations of human rights. We support the efforts of churches and human rights groups in such societies in their struggle to overcome impunity for past crimes whose authors have been given official protection from prosecution. Impunity perpetuates injustice, which in turn generates acts of revenge and endless violence, to the extent of genocide, as we have experienced on different occasions throughout this century.
11. We support and encourage the churches to engage in further theological reflection and action on the relationship between truth, justice, reconciliation, and forgiveness from the perspective of the victims, and to endeavor to replace cultures of impunity with cultures of accountability and justice. Justice for victims must include provisions for reparation, restitution, and for compensation for their losses. In this connection we welcome the agreement to establish the International Criminal Court, which should help the international community in its enforcement of human rights. We urge the churches to promote their governments’ prompt ratification of the Rome agreement, and to incorporate acceptance of its jurisdiction in national legislation.
12. Elimination of the death penalty. The WCC has long stood against the use of the death penalty, but recourse to this ultimate form of punishment is often sought by victims in societies ridden by crime and violence. The application of the death penalty against young people is especially to be condemned. The churches have a responsibility to promote strict adherence to the international rule of law and international human rights standards related to the treatment of offenders.
13. Human rights and peacemaking. Human rights are the essential basis for a just and durable peace. Failure to respect them often leads to conflict and warfare, and several times during this century it has led to genocide as a result of uncontrolled ethnic, racial or religious hatred. The international community has time and again shown itself incapable of stopping genocide once it has begun. There is an urgent need to learn the lessons of the past, and to set up mechanisms of early intervention when the danger signs appear. The churches are often most well placed to see the impending danger, but they can only help when they themselves are inclusive communities responding to the Gospel message of love for one’s neighbor, even when the neighbor is one’s enemy.

14. The inclusion of human rights in efforts to prevent or resolve conflict through peace missions, under UN and other multilateral auspices, is a welcome development. Once conflict has been brought to an end, social and legal structures should be reformed to promote pluralism and peace-building measures among the people. Peace agreements themselves should incorporate standards of international human rights and humanitarian law and their application to such special groups as military forces, law enforcement personnel, and security forces should be ensured.
15. Human rights and human responsibility. Human rights and human responsibility go together. The Second WCC Assembly, Evanston, 1954, stated that God’s love for humans "lays upon the Christian conscience a special measure of responsibility for the care of those who are victims of world disorder."

20. Religious intolerance and persecution is widespread today, causing serious violations of human rights, and often leading to conflict and massive human suffering. Churches must offer prayers and solidarity in all practical ways to Christians and all other victims of religious persecution.
21. Religious freedom and proselytism. There can be no derogation from the fundamental human right to religious freedom, but neither is religion a "commodity" to be regulated according to the rules of an unrestricted free market. We affirm the necessity of ecumenical discipline, particularly with reference to countries in difficult transition to democracy. We reiterate the opposition of the WCC to the practice of proselytism, and urge member churches to respect the faith and the integrity of sister churches, and to strengthen them in ecumenical fellowship.

4. We affirm the emphasis of the Gospel on the value of all human beings in the sight of God, on the atoning and redeeming work of Christ that has given every person true dignity, on love as the motive for action, and on love for one’s neighbor as the practical expression of active faith in Christ. We are members one of another, and when one suffers all are hurt. This is the responsibility Christians bear to ensure the human rights of every person.

Your Excellency,

We are deeply concerned by the decision of the court of United Arab Emirates sentencing Sarah Balabagan, a sixteen-year-old filipina maid, to death in a retrial ordered by Your Excellency. In the earlier trial, the court ruled Sarah Balabagan guilty of manslaughter and a victim of rape.

The circumstances surrounding Ms. Balabagan’s case require serious consideration. Her age, the differing court verdicts and the original court’s ruling that she was a victim of rape and awarding her compensation are factors that call for review of the proceedings that have resulted in imposition of the death penalty.

The World Council of Churches in a policy statement has declared its unconditional opposition to the death penalty as an expression of its commitment to the sanctity of life. It has called upon its member churches, wherever possible in cooperation with people of other faiths to work for the abolition of the death penalty.

In the circumstances we appeal to Your Excellency to demonstrate compassion and humanity by granting clemency to Ms. Balabagan.

Your Excellency,

The World Council of Churches expresses its profound concern at the death sentence passed by the Special Military Court on Ken Saro-Wiwa and other leaders of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People. In May 1994, when it was announced by the Nigerian Authorities that Ken Saro-Wiwa would be tried by the Military Court, together with the other leaders, the World Council of Churches wrote to the Attorney General of Nigeria requesting that the trial be conducted by the normal court in accordance with the constitution and due process.

The controversy that has surrounded the proceedings of the case calls for a review of the decision. As there is no right of appeal against the decision of the Special Military Court, the World Council of Churches appeals to your Excellency to exercise clemency and commute the death sentences passed on Ken Saro-Wiwa and the other defendants. We make this appeal on the basis of our conviction that all human life is sacred.

Dear Rev. Bryan,

Your efforts to obtain clemency for Mr. Sylvester Adams have come to our attention. I wish to thank you for your concern, and for your efforts as an ecumenical body to come to the aid of this severely impaired individual.

The World Council of Churches has long opposed the application of the death penalty under any circumstance. It is a clear violation of international human rights norms and standards, and of Conventions to which the United States is a party.

The circumstances of this particular case prove the senselessness of the death penalty. There would appear to be substantial reason for this convicted violator to be penalized, perhaps even with a substantial prison term for the time he is deemed to be a threat to society. But society has nothing whatsoever to gain with his execution. We plead with you for clemency.

It is a tragedy that the death penalty exists anywhere in the world today. Virtually every democratic nation in the world has long since abolished it. It is striking and indeed shocking that the public and official appetite for vengeance in the United States had led state after state to restore the death penalty after many had stricken it from their books. The position of the United States as a self-declared defender of human rights around the world is severely weakened by its increasing application of this inhuman form of punishment.

I congratulate the South Carolina Christian Action Council, and its member churches for its forthright stance in this case, and against the travesty of justice which such a penalty represents. May God continue to guide and sustain you in your work for justice and peace.

You are free to share the contents of this letter, should you so wish, with Governor Beasley and with others as appropriate.

Dear Mr. Assistant Secretary:

In light of the 23 January Interim Report of the Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad, which we have read with care and considerable appreciation, I write to you, seeking your urgent intervention with President Clinton or with the other appropriate authority with respect to the tragic case of Karla Faye Tucker who faces execution tonight in the State of Texas.

Your responsibilities, I very much understand, are for United States foreign policy in the field of human rights. I address you in light of the widespread international attention focused on the internal human rights practices of the United States by this case. The credibility of United States Government efforts to deal responsibly and energetically with human rights abuses abroad, including threats to religious freedom, depends substantially on its internal practices.

I do not need to emphasize to you the fact that the United States is the only major Western nation which still applies the death penalty, or that this practice is widely considered to be a violation of fundamental human rights. The World Council of Churches long ago called for the universal abolition of the death penalty, based on both international human rights considerations and on our deep theological concern for the sanctity of human life.

The case of Karla Faye Tucker is a poignant example of all that is wrong with this irreversible penalty. For Christians, it is difficult not to recall in this connection Jesus’s loving forgiveness of the Samaritan woman, a prostitute, to whom Jesus chooses to reveal himself as the Messiah, the wellspring of eternal life. For advocates of victims’ rights, the appeals for clemency on Ms Tucker’s behalf by close relatives of her confessed victims should suffice to show that her execution would only serve to heap pain upon pain, injustice upon injustice. For those who see in the death penalty a deterrent, the clear evidence of Ms Tucker’s sincere repentance and change of life should demonstrate that her execution would defy reason.

Trusting that you more than perhaps any other United States Government official will see the broad international implications of allowing this execution to proceed, I urge you to intervene with the President, pleading with him on behalf of many around the world to use his position to stay this execution.

We are convinced that hearts of stone can be replaced with hearts of flesh, and hold out the sincere hope that the deep-seated American values of justice will prevail in an appeal to the Supreme Court to revisit this case, and to set aside the death penalty in this case. It would be a great tragedy if the possibility of true justice were to be rendered impossible by the execution of this woman.

It is with deep respect for your own sense of justice, and in view of your commitment to international respect for human rights that I address this urgent appeal to you. I pray that you will spare no effort to make your voice heard now when it counts so much. Your recent report states well, "Concretely helping the victims of persecution must be the focal point of all policy." Here is an opportunity to show the coherence of US human rights policy in both domestic and international affairs.

Your Excellency,

According to our information, some twenty-three persons are scheduled for public execution tomorrow in your country. We appeal to you to commute these sentences to life imprisonment, and not to go ahead with these executions.

As you know, the World Council of Churches has been supportive of your government in many ways, among them calling insistently and repeatedly upon the international community to provide you with the necessary assistance to restore an effective judiciary and prison system. Most recently, we have worked with Mr. Kagame to promote with the Commission of the European Communities the adoption of a major programme of assistance for recovery from the destruction of the genocide and for the forward-looking development of the nation. We have sought in every way available to us to assist you and the people of Rwanda directly in your efforts for justice and reconciliation.

The policy of the WCC, however, is clear with respect to the application of the death penalty. We oppose it on theological, moral and ethical grounds. We are also convinced, out of long experience of working with traumatized societies, that the death penalty contributes nothing to justice and poses barriers to reconciliation. We believe that for you to apply it would also severely damage the positive international relations you have worked so tirelessly to build.

In this appeal we do not single out Rwanda for criticism. We have recently made similar appeals to leaders of other countries, including the United States of America. It is as friends and supporters that we implore you to give a sign of wisdom and generosity to the world by commuting these sentences.

Your Excellency,

The World Council of Churches has been closely following the drafting process of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The WCC has supported the participation of Indigenous Peoples in the development of the draft text and was pleased when, after twelve years of negotiation, the text was finally received by the Commission on Human Rights.

The draft of the Declaration is now in the hands of the inter-sessional working group of the Commission, established in accordance with the Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/32 of 3rd March 1995, which had its first meeting in November 1995. The WCC will continue to cooperate in its work in every appropriate way.

It is the WCC’s understanding that this text represents the minimum standards for the survival of Indigenous Peoples. The accelerated deterioration of living conditions (health, education and housing), the threat to land rights and particularly sacred sites, and controversies surrounding the self-determination of Indigenous Peoples in different parts of the globe, underlines the urgent need for this instrument.

The WCC therefore urges the governments involved in the inter-sessional working group to complete speedily its work so that the declaration may be submitted to the Commission, to ECOSOC and the General Assembly for adoption by member states without unnecessary delay.

It is our hope and conviction that this instrument will be a strong and effective complement to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Declaration on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. It holds out for Indigenous Peoples the promise for long-delayed justice and peace.

Responding to the dramatic and violent situation in which millions of children around the world live, and the urgent request from children for the churches’ commitment and spiritual leadership in the search for solutions to their problems, on recommendation of the Unit IV Committee, the Central Committee … calls on member churches and related agencies to continue to mobilize their human, moral and material resources to defend and protect the life and integrity of children; and … requests Unit IV to continue supporting advocacy work and networking for the rights of children with the direct involvement of children’s organizations around the world.

On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the United Nations Convention for the Rights of the Child, the (Central Committee):

encourages member churches to monitor the implementation of the convention on the Rights of the Child by their governments;

urges member churches together with their ecumenical agencies and partners to present independent information to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in their country;

(urges the Council to) work with member churches and ecumenical partners to facilitate a consultation of children and adults working with marginalised children by the year 2000, to evaluate the implementation of the Convention in their countries and the role played by churches to create new attitudes and conditions in favour of marginalized children;

address the many and complex issues surrounding the question of child labor, considering seriously the perspective of children;

develop an ecumenical strategy and statement calling for the improvement of child worker conditions to be presented in Harare;

support the child workers in the process of reviewing the existing international legislation with appropriate legal representation and combating the exploitative and abusive forms of child labor, (and)

asks member churches to encourage their national governments to support the addition to the Convention on the Rights of the Child of a clause raising the age of conscription to 18 years.

The UN International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on March 21^st, particularly in this European Union Year Against Racism, is a timely reminder of the racism which exists in Europe and our churches. As executive officers of ecumenical bodies whose membership includes European churches, we add our voices to those who struggle against the scourge of racism and its dangerous and inhuman manifestations.

The continuing existence of the blight of racism is an affront to the ministry of Jesus Christ, which was accomplished to reconcile all people to God and to each other.

We view, with deep misgiving, the growing acceptance by individuals and political parties, of organizations which promote racist views.

Deepening economic crises and rising unemployment in many countries have an especially detrimental effect on the already excluded sections of national societies, increasing the racial or cultural discrimination against them. This is particularly true for many women who bear the double burden of both racial and gender discrimination.

Migrants, immigrants and refugees become scapegoats for unemployment, crime and a host of other problems throughout Europe. Through the adoption, by governments and others, of the terminology of "illegal migrants", the most basic rights, and even the existence of these people, are being denied. Those without papers, even if they have lived in Europe for a number of years, have become victims of acts of racism. Often that violence is carried out against them with impunity.

To affirm the commitment of the churches to uphold the dignity and rights of all refugees and migrants, 1997 is being marked in Europe, and worldwide, as the Ecumenical Year of the Churches’ Solidarity with Uprooted People.

But it is not only racism affecting migrants which worries us. Many individuals born in Europe of mixed parentage are also discriminated against because of their colour; minority groups such as the Roma/Sinti also suffer.

We note with great concern that the spectre of anti-Semitism is again, in many and varied ways, haunting Europe. This reveals a disturbing reluctance to deal with the past in openness and with repentance. It is essential for us, as Christians, to actively oppose anti-Jewish acts and rhetoric, no matter the origin.

It is heartening that some political and humanitarian activists are calling for justice and compassion and we wish to identify with them. There are also a large number of local congregations and churches who have been outspoken on these issues and have shown tremendous personal courage as they stand in solidarity with the victims of racism and xenophobia.

But despite the activities of the international community during two United Nations decades for action to combat racism and racial discrimination, racism seems as prevalent, and as diverse, as ever. It is therefore appropriate to renew our commitment and redouble our efforts against racism. For this reason we welcome and support the Europe-wide Week of Action Against Racism.

We urge our member churches and their congregations to consider whether, even unwittingly, our churches contribute to discriminatory local or national policies.

Recalling the conviction expressed by the WCC VI. Assembly (Vancouver, 1983) "that the time has come when the churches must unequivocally declare 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";

Convinced that the logic and practice of nuclear deterrence has no place in God's design for a peaceful world and the integrity of the Creation;

Welcoming the agreement of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference to extend indefinitely the NPT regime and to conclude a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty at an early date;

Welcoming the declaration of some nuclear weapons states that they will continue to respect a moratorium on nuclear testing until such time as the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty is agreed;

Condemns the decision of the People's Republic of China to continue nuclear testing after all other nuclear powers had unilaterally declared a moratorium on such testing and after the decision to extend the nuclear non-proliferation regime;

Calls insistently on the Government of the People's Republic of China to desist from any further nuclear testing and to declare publicly its intention to join the moratorium announced by other nuclear-weapons states;

Condemns the decision of the Government of France to end the moratorium declared by the previous government, and to proceed to detonate a nuclear device on Mururoa Atoll, far from the shores of Metropolitan France, without consultation with the Territorial Assembly of French Polynesia where the experiment was conducted, and in defiance of world-wide official and popular protests, including those made by the Pacific Conference of Churches and the Evangelical Church of French Polynesia and the Council of Christian Churches in France;

Calls insistently on the President of France to reverse his decision without delay, to desist from any further nuclear testing, and to announce publicly his Government's intention to renew its moratorium through the adoption of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Calls upon member churches to press on their governments, or to support their continuing efforts to demand a universal moratorium on all further nuclear testing.

Hundreds of thousands of children under the age of eighteen, girls as well as boys, are enrolled today in national or irregular armed forces around the world. More than 300,000 children are currently engaged in armed conflicts. Many have been lawfully recruited, others have been kidnapped or otherwise coerced. The overwhelming majority of child soldiers come from marginalized and excluded sectors of society.

The involvement of children in armed conflicts violates fundamental humanitarian principles, exposes them to the risk of death and injury, threatens their physical, mental, emotional and spiritual well-being, and draws them into a culture of violence.

Recalls the affirmation of the First Assembly that war is contrary to the will of God;

Renews its commitment to seek the delegitimization of war and violence and to strive to overcome the spirit, logic and practice of war;

Restates its opposition to any policy or authority which violates the rights of the younger generation, abuses or exploits them;

Condemns any use of children in warfare;

Calls upon the its member churches to:

• call for an immediate moratorium on the recruitment and participation of children as soldiers and the demobilization of existing child soldiers;
• assist those engaged in the rehabilitation, social reintegration and reconciliation of former child soldiers, taking particular account of the needs of former girl soldiers;
• work to prevent the compulsory or voluntary recruitment or re-recruitment of children as soldiers in national armies or irregular armed forces or groups;
• promote the establishment of international standards to this effect, in particular the adoption of an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child raising the minimum age from 15 years to 18 years for all forms of recruitment and participation in hostilities;
• urge their national governments to adopt and apply such standards in their own national legislation;

Calls especially upon member churches in Africa to advocate for the prompt ratification by their governments of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child which prohibits the recruitment to armed forces and participation in hostilities of children under 18 years.

Dear sisters and brothers in Christ,

During these days and in the months to come, people have been and will be commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of events that culminated in the defeat of fascist regimes and the end of the Second World War.

These commemorations began on a triumphal note last year with ceremonies recalling the Allied landing in Normandy in June 1944 and re-enacting the joyous celebration of liberation in the streets of Paris. Amidst the global media attention to this and other anniversary events in Europe, we should not forget that the war which ended fifty years ago was a world war, exacting a terrible price in many places outside Europe: through the brutal occupation inflicted on the peoples of Asia and the Pacific and the devastation wrought in those parts of Africa and the Middle East turned into battlefields by the Axis powers. As each of us remembers the experiences and actions of our own nation during the war, let us do so in awareness of our being part of one human family and of the grim consequences that so often follow from nationalistic disregard of other peoples.

In all these occasions for looking back across a half-century, celebration of the end of the war is mingled with mourning for all who suffered and died. And as we honour the unflagging dedication and selfless courage of many who sought the overthrow of aggressive and oppressive forces, let us also reflect soberly on the depths of inhumanity and evil laid bare during those years: the Shoah (Holocaust) of millions of Jews under Nazi Germany, the creation on all sides of "enemy images" fortified by racial hatred, forced conscription and foreign occupation, wanton destruction and massive bombing of civilians by aggressors and avengers alike.

As churches together in the fellowship of the World Council of Churches, our memories of the end of the Second World War are inextricably linked with our own ecumenical history. The war's outbreak delayed the founding of the WCC for seven years. When the First Assembly could finally be held in 1948 in Amsterdam, the delegates were determined to speak an authentic word in the context of fresh and painful memories of the conflict. Their message, addressed "to all who are in Christ, and to all who are willing to hear", is a precious part of our ecumenical heritage, and rereading these words in the context of this year's anniversary commemorations can help us to go beyond simply remembering the past to assessing the present and making commitments for the future.

It is noteworthy that the message of Amsterdam was not a triumphal proclamation of the victory of good over evil. Rather, the delegates began with a sober assessment of "the world as it is (...), filled both with great hopes and also with disillusionment and despair":

Instead of seeking to assign blame elsewhere for the horrors through which the world had come, they saw the need for the divided churches to confess their own sins:

Then the Assembly went on to formulate an acid test of the ecumenical covenant the churches were making together in Amsterdam:

Looking back on the fifty years since the Second World War, we must ask whether we as churches have learned the lessons articulated by Amsterdam. Have we, in the words of the First Assembly, said No "to the defenders of injustice in the name of order, to those who sow the seeds of war or urge war as inevitable"? Have we said Yes "to all who seek for justice, to the peacemakers, to all who hope, fight and suffer for the cause of man, to all who – even without knowing it – look for a new heaven and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness"?

The joy which many peoples felt at the end of the war fifty years ago was short-lived. In eastern and central Europe the war was followed by dark decades of oppressive rule by totalitarian regimes. Throughout much of Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, Latin America, the Middle East and the Pacific, the post-war years, despite political independence, became a new era of subjugation, as the victors moved to consolidate their position of economic dominance. For the Korean people, 1995 marks the fiftieth anniversary not only of their liberation from Japanese colonial rule but also of the division of their country — a painful separation that continues even after the end of the Cold War of which it was a foreshadowing.

With memories still fresh of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Amsterdam Assembly called for the elimination of nuclear weapons. The victors did not heed this warning. Instead, they increased their reliance on nuclear deterrence, ushering in an age of nightmares for generations to come.

The decades after 1945 saw militarism continue to spread as an instrument of official foreign and domestic policy, cloaked in the rhetoric of "national security". Regional conflicts proliferated. Many were waged in the Third World as proxy wars between the superpower blocs. Yet with the end of the Cold War, unresolved and long-suppressed hatreds have erupted into horrifying new wars, typified by the bitter conflicts in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Chechnya, which rage, seemingly out of control, even as the fiftieth anniversary of the end of the second world war in Europe is being commemorated. Some of these "limited " wars, fought with "conventional" weapons, have been far more destructive than the fiercest battles in the early 1940s.

The persistence of armed conflicts over the past half century and the readiness of so many to justify war despite the countless atrocities that accompany it show the powerful influence that the logic of war continues to exert — also, it must be said, in the churches. One reason for this is that truth, the "first casualty" in any war, continues to be suppressed long after the war is over. Thus fifty years later we are still learning of some of the terrible realities of the Second World War.

Only now is the full truth coming to light about the complicity of authorities in occupied and neutral countries in the deportation and murder of Jews, Gypsies and political opponents of fascist regimes. The story of the "comfort women" of Asia, forced into sexual servitude by the Japanese military, was suppressed for decades. Not until recently did Japanese authorities grudgingly confess guilt in this and other atrocities, including the terrifying experiments on prisoners of war to measure the effects of biological weapons. A new study in the United States has revealed that many members of its own armed forces were unwittingly exposed to radiation in order to study the potential effects of nuclear weapons on enemy populations. Mass deportations of citizens considered threats to national security and mass killings of prisoners by Soviet forces during the war have been confirmed only decades later.

Would the atrocities committed in the "limited wars" of the past half-century have been so constant if such disclosures had come earlier? If we had known the full truth about the Second World War, would we have been so ready to accept the justifications offered for these subsequent conflicts? Such questions are especially pertinent at a moment when anniversary celebrations tempt us to view this war in simple terms of good and evil.

The Amsterdam Assembly stated unequivocally that "war as a method of settling disputes is incompatible with the teaching and example of our Lord Jesus Christ. The part which war plays in our present international life is a sin against God and a degradation of man." Might such tragedies as we are witnessing today in Rwanda and Bosnia-Herzegovina have been avoided if the churches of the world had fully accepted this insight and proclaimed its implications more insistently, rejecting the idea that the resolution of any dispute requires the defeat, subjection and humiliation of one side by the other?

It is true that churches have sometimes been ready to speak out against war. Already in October 1945, the Evangelical Church in Germany, recalling its struggle against "the National Socialist regime of violence," declared: "we accuse ourselves for not witnessing more courageously, for not praying more faithfully, for not believing more joyously and for not loving more ardently." Later the United Church of Christ in Japan issued its own "Confession of Responsibility for World War II." On several other occasions during the past fifty years, churches have protested their country's military engagements, sometimes eliciting sharp opposition form their own members as well as the government. Yet if we ask whether we as Christians and churches have indeed said a firm and convincing No to the logic of war and Yes to the love of Christ and the justice of the God of history, it is clear that we, like our ecumenical forebears in Amsterdam, have much to confess. This anniversary year provides us with an opportunity to do so. It can be a time to demonstrate that "our coming together to form a World Council" has not been in vain by recommitting ourselves "to the Lord of the church in a new effort to seek together... to be his witnesses and servants" among our neighbours.

This challenge to break the vicious cycle of violence and promote a global culture of peace was posed to the churches by the WCC Central Committee in Johannesburg last year when it approved the creation of a new Programme to Overcome Violence. At that same meeting the Central Committee also decided that the WCC's Eighth Assembly, to be held in Harare in 1998, fifty years after Amsterdam, should focus on the biblical notion of jubilee (Leviticus 25).

What better moment than this fiftieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War to begin preparing in our churches and congregations for this "jubilee Assembly"? The commemorative events taking place this year in different parts of the world provide the churches with occasions to rededicate ourselves to the jubilee values which make for peace: working to set free those held captive by the injustices of our world, forgiving debts and seeking forgiveness, proclaiming in word and deed the good news of God's healing and salvation, preparing the day of the Lord.

In the Christ whose resurrection we celebrate in this Easter season we are reconciled to God and called to be reconciled with one another, even with our enemies, as a living sign in a broken world that peace is possible. In the words of the theme of the Eighth Assembly, let us "turn to God, rejoice in hope".

Once again, at Christmas we hear the message of the angels who sing: "Glory to God in the highest heaven and on earth peace to all in whom he delights" (Luke 2:14). This was and is the announcement that a new era, the reign of the Prince of Peace, has begun.

We hear the message. It responds to our deepest longings but we still wait for its fulfilment. Who can count those who were killed during this year in wars and military confrontation, those who were massacred as defenceless victims of terrorism? More than ever the world seems to be held captive to the unending cycle of fighting and killing, of victory and revenge, of merciless competition for power, and of a culture of violence in which only the winner counts.

And yet, the reign of the Prince of Peace has begun. It does not make the headlines. It escapes the focus of TV cameras. It does not conform to the law that the winner takes all and can impose the terms of peace. The new era of peace which began with the birth of Jesus continues today among the little ones, those who are forgotten, excluded and lost. These are those whom God loves and in whom he delights. For, as Mary the mother of Jesus said, "(God) has lifted up the lowly and has filled the hungry with good things" (Luke 1:52f.).

Is this real, or is it wishful thinking? We may indeed need new eyes to discover the ways in which God’s reign of peace shows itself in our time. And there are examples, like parables, pointing to this different reality.

In August this year, the World Council of Churches launched a "Peace to the City" campaign as the initial focus of its Programme to Overcome Violence. The campaign is designed to make visible the efforts of those often unknown groups of women and men who dare to be peacemakers in the midst of a culture of violence. They live among us in our troubled cities, like Belfast and Boston, Rio and Colombo, Suva in Fiji, Durban and Kingston. They live and work among street children and urban gangs. They seek to mediate between ethnic groups, and protect minorities. They monitor police actions and help to improve run-down neighbourhoods.

Through their lives and actions, they help a culture of peace to emerge. These people of peace are signs that the reign of the Prince of Peace has begun. It is real. In this, today's peacemakers echo the Christmas message of the angels: "Glory to God in the highest heaven and on earth peace to all in whom he delights."

Warm greetings in the Risen Christ,

Most of you are aware of the intensive work being done by the United Nations and other major international bodies, like the International Committee of the Red Cross, to achieve an accord on the issue of "landmines." Few international organizations are more aware of the terrible, lasting effects of these weapons long after conflicts have ceased as is the WCC. Reports arrive daily from member churches whose congregations are confronted daily and in the most immediate way with this scourge.

Through these reports it has become clear that unexploded anti-personnel mines are one of the primary barriers to the return to peace of a mined country, and to the rehabilitation of social, economic and cultural life in post-conflict situations.

International awareness of the dimensions of this problem has grown over recent months. Yet effective controls and an agreement on the ultimate elimination of anti-personnel mines are not yet in sight. The political will is lacking.

At its last meeting (September 1995), the WCC Central Committee studied this issue and invited member churches

I would like to draw your attention to the international signature campaign already underway, coordinated by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, an international coalition of more than 450 non-governmental organizations in 40 countries. The WCC is among its sponsors. Some churches are already participating in the Campaign, and have submitted large numbers of signatures of supporters.

The goal of the signature campaign is to raise public awareness about anti-personnel mines, and to demonstrate to governments the will of their citizens that these inhumane instruments of war be universally banned, and that research, production, use, trade and stockpiling of anti-personnel landmines be prohibited under international law. It is encouraging to see that an increasing number of countries have declared unilateral moratoriums, providing a moral lead to a world too long indifferent to the dimensions and effects of this danger.

Rather than develop its own campaign, the WCC encourages member churches to join the International Campaign. A simple brochure, enclosed, entitled "What is Your Church Doing About Landmines," has been produced to assist your efforts. It includes a sample petition. This booklet is designed for easy reproduction for distribution to local congregations. Copies can be also be ordered in quantity from WCC Unit IV: Sharing and Service. I urge you to make them available to parishes, and to send completed petitions to the Unit IV Refugee and Migration Service.

This is a small, but an important and potentially effective way for the ecumenical family to manifest its common commitment to overcome violence and to instill a will to peace among the nations.

Your Excellency,

On behalf of the World Council of Churches’ Central Committee meeting in Geneva, 11-19 September 1997, we extend greetings to the Diplomatic Conference on Landmines meeting now in Oslo, Norway.

Many churches around the world have joined the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) in support of the ban on the use, production, stockpiling and sale of anti-personnel mines. The WCC Central Committee encouraged member churches in 1995 "to collect signatures through local congregations to protest the manufacturing of anti-personnel mines and urge for the immediate clearance of existing mines."

The WCC Central Committee welcomes this Conference and the essential work done to guarantee a convention banning anti-personnel landmines before the end of 1997. We pray that this agreement may be a true ban treaty without any exemptions and reservations. We urge all states to ratify it, committing themselves to its full and immediate implementation. Churches are prepared to assist in the implementation.

The WCC as a global fellowship is committed to challenging and transforming the global culture of violence in the direction of a just peace by confronting and overcoming the "spirit, logic and practice of war". We affirm the

sanctity of human life as persons are made in the image of God, and thus oppose all dehumanizing and life-destroying forces, including the manufacture and deployment of such cruel instruments as landmines.

His Holiness Aram I Rev. Dr Konrad Raiser Moderator of the General Secretary

The World Council of Churches warmly welcomes the decision announced today by the Nobel Committee to grant the 1997 Peace Prize to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, said a spokesperson at the Council’s Geneva headquarters.

The World Council of Churches and many of its member churches around the world actively support and participate in this Campaign to ban the production, stockpiling, sale and use of anti-personnel mines.

The WCC Central Committee encouraged member churches in 1995 "to collect signatures through local congregations to protest the manufacturing of anti-personnel mines," and to press for the immediate clearance of those already deployed. Last month, the Central Committee asked the Council’s officers to send a letter of encouragement to participants in the Oslo Diplomatic Conference on Landmines. In their message to the President of the Conference, General Secretary Konrad Raiser and His Holiness Aram I, Moderator of the Central Committee, expressed the hope that the agreement being finalized there would be a "true ban treaty without any exemptions and reservations," and urged "all states to ratify it."

"The churches have first-hand experience of the terrible human suffering which landmines inflict on the most vulnerable people caught in zones of conflict, particularly peasant women and children," the WCC spokesperson said. "These indiscriminate weapons belong to a by-gone age when the super-powers fought proxy wars in the world’s poorest countries. The churches vigorously protested this practice then, and will not accept today the ‘national security’ arguments used by some states to justify their refusal to join in a comprehensive ban. We hope that nations who remain undecided or who oppose the present treaty will take this new opportunity to announce that they will join the rest of the world in Ottawa on 3-4 December in signing this historic document."

Dear Prime Minister.

I wish to congratulate you and the House of Commons for the moral courage and wisdom you have exercised in adopting by an overwhelming majority the Firearms (Amendment) Bill extending the earlier ban on large-calibre handguns, thereby outlawing all privately-owned handguns in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Through this stunning action, you have not only kept faith with the families of the victims of the tragedy of Dunblane, but have offered to all the people of the land a new sense of security. You have kept your promise to the people. You have established a political and moral precedent for the nations.

Through our newly established Programme to Overcome Violence, and especially through our present global initiative, "Peace to the City," the long-standing opposition of the World Council of Churches to the proliferation of weapons in society has been further strengthened. Around the world, inhabitants of cities, towns and villages are being held hostage to the spiraling violence in society resulting in large part from the presence of these weapons.

Your action offers hope to your own citizens and to the world that elected leaders are indeed capable of taking hard decisions in the public interest. We sincerely hope that your counterparts in other nations will take courage from your initiative and follow your lead.

Monsieur le Président,

En annonçant l’intention de la République Française d’entamer une nouvelle série d’essais nucléaires à Mururoa, mettant ainsi fin brutalement au moratoire déclaré par la France il y a trois ans et salué de toutes les nations, vous avez provoqué l’étonnement et une profonde déception.

Les arguments scientifiques et militaires que vous avez avancés pour justifier cette décision sont loin d’être convaincants, comme l’ont montré les réactions qu’elle a suscitées à travers le monde. La logique de la dissuasion nucléaire que vous invoquez est d’un autre âge. Aujourd’hui, rares sont ceux qui admettront l’idée qua l’on peut garantir "la sûreté, la sécurité et la fiabilité" des armes nucléaires, ou l’idée que la reprise des essais loin des côtes de la France métropolitaine n’aura "strictement aucune conséquence écologique". Pour le gouvernement d’une grande puissance mondiale, la défense de telles idées, aujourd’hui, défie la raison et contredit de manière flagrante les récents engagements pris concernant la prolongation indéterminée du traité sur la non-prolifération des armes nucléaires.

Les églises membres du Conseil Œcuménique des églises ont à maintes reprises dénoncé clairement la logique et la pratique de la dissuasion nucléaire. Elles ont à maintes reprises appelé à l’interdiction globale des essais nucléaires et à l’abandon total de toutes les recherches destinées à moderniser ou à améliorer les armements nucléaires. Elles ont condamné comme étant fondamentalement immorales l’idée cynique quo la dissuasion nucléaire peut garantir la sécurité nationale, ou l’idée qu’il puisse y avoir une quelconque justification à envisager l’utilisation, en dernier recours, des armes nucléaires pour défendre son territoire ou des intérêts liés à la sécurité nationale.

Nos églises membres, dans le Pacifique, dont les populations ont tant souffert des essais nucléaires et du stockage des déchets nucléaires dans leur région, ont toujours été les premières à alerter le monde face à ces dangers. Lors d’une récente réunion sur les préoccupations du Pacifique tenue ici à Genève, à la veille des élections présidentielles françaises, des représentants de ces églises ont exprimé leur sincère espoir de voir le moratoire maintenu par le nouveau gouvernement.

Devant votre décision, et prenant le contre-pied du ton étroitement nationaliste de votre déclaration, le président de l’une de ces églises, l’Eglise évangélique de Polynésie française, a fait une déclaration en ces termes : "Nous condamnons les essais nucléaires et demandons que cessent les expériences de Mururoa. Il faut arrêter la course à l’armement nucléaire dans le monde. A la veille du cinquantenaire du bombardement atomique d’Hiroshima, l’Eglise évangélique réaffirme et confesse que son Seigneur est source de vie. Elle ne peut accepter notre participation et notre collaboration dans la construction d’armes de destruction. Nous ne demandons pas que les essais se fassent en Bretagne plutôt qu’à Mururoa, c’est l’arme de mort que nous condamnons ainsi que le risque écologique qu’il entraîne."

Vous avez qualifié votre décision d’"irrévocable". Nous vous demandons cependant instamment de l’annuler sans tarder.

Ce n’est pas dans sa force de dissuasion nucléaire que la France trouvera sa grandeur. C’est bien plutôt en renouant avec les valeurs humaines universelles sur lesquelles est bâtie la France moderne, et en assurant une direction morale et empreinte de sagesse dans un monde désespérément en quête de paix que vous-même et votre peuple pourrez recouvrer le respect de soi et une place de premier plan, digne et honorable, parmi les nations.

Je vous prie d’agréer, Monsieur le Président, l’expression de ma respectueuse considération.

[Translation]

Mr. President:

Your announcement of the intention of the French Republic to begin a new series of nuclear weapons tests in Mururoa, putting an abrupt end to the universally acclaimed moratorium declared by France three years ago, was both astonishing and deeply disappointing.

The scientific and military arguments which you have put forward to justify this decision are far from convincing, as the worldwide reaction against this decision has shown. The logic of nuclear deterrence you have applied belongs to another age. Few today will accept the notion that any nuclear weapon can ever be "safe, secure and viable," or that a renewal of testing far from the shores of Metropolitan France will have "absolutely no ecological consequence." For the government of a major world power to advance such ideas today defies reason and flies in the face of the recent commitments made in extending indefinitely the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime.

The churches joined in the World Council of Churches have repeatedly and clearly denounced the logic and practice of nuclear deterrence. They have repeatedly called for a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing and for a total abandonment of all research related to the modernization or improvement of nuclear weapons. They have condemned as fundamentally immoral the cynical idea that nuclear deterrence can ever guarantee national security, or that there is any justification for contemplating the eventual use of nuclear weapons in defence of one's own territory or national security interests.

Our member churches in the Pacific, whose peoples have been so severely victimized by nuclear testing and disposal of nuclear materials in their region, have consistently taken the lead in alerting the world to the dangers. At a recent meeting on Pacific concerns here in Geneva on the eve of the presidential elections in France, representatives of those churches expressed their sincere hope that the moratorium would be continued by the new government.

In response to your decision, and in sharp contrast to the narrow nationalist tone of your announcement, the President of one of these, the Evangelical Church of French Polynesia, said in his statement reacting to such a policy: "We condemn the nuclear tests and demand that research based on Mururoa cease. The nuclear arms race must be stopped everywhere in the world. On the eve of the fiftieth anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, the Evangelical Church reaffirms and confesses that its Lord is the source of life. It cannot accept participation and collaboration in the construction of arms of destruction. We do not demand that the tests be carried out in Bretagne rather than on Mururoa, it is the weapon of death we condemn, and the ecological risk it implies."

You have called your decision "irrevocable." We nonetheless appeal insistently that you reverse it immediately.

It is not in its nuclear deterrent that France will find its greatness. Rather it is a return to the universal human values upon which modern France is built, and the assumption of a position of wise moral leadership in a world in desperate need of peace which will bring you and your people self-respect and a place of dignified and honorable leadership among the nations.

Dear Friends,

As the deadline for resuming nuclear testing in the Pacific draws near, our brothers and sisters in that region have urged us to join them in an act of solidarity.

The attached call to action from the Synod of the Evangelical Church of French Polynesia requests that member churches join them in fasting and prayer during the weekend of 26-27 August (1995).

With the realization that the preservation of life is at stake, we ask that you share this message as widely as possible so that together we may make a common witness in God's name.

With all God's blessings,

The Evangelical Church of French Polynesia is fasting during the weekend of 26-27 August 1995.

The Pacific Churches are praying:

Dear God and Creator of all Fenua,

You have made us in your image to be like You:

In caring for one another, for the land, and for the sea we share.

We are different one from another in race and language,

In earthly things, in gifts, in opportunities…

But each of us has a human heart,

Knowing joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain.

With one voice and heart, we cry out against all injustices and hurt

done to the sacredness of our different lives, lands and ocean;

because other world powers have failed to recognize your life

which you share in us in everything we hold as sacred.

Give us the courage to stand together though scattered far and wide upon the waters of the Pacific Ocean:

• to condemn any force doing damage to any part of Your creation;
• to resist any temptation to lure us to be a part of a plan to destroy our own common heritage as people of the Pacific;
• to resist the over-valuing of material life as being above the simplicity of living in contentment with our environment, so as to fail to remember the pains different families have suffered because of past nuclear activities and testing in our islands;
• to support our Pacific and world government leaders, and all organizations calling for good stewardship of your Creation, the Fenua of our lives.

Gracious and ever listening God, Amen to these prayers and to all those of your church offered in the precious reconciling blood of Your own Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.

Amen (Prayer from the Pacific Council of Churches)

Mr. Ambassador,

I would be grateful if you would convey to your Government the deep concern of the World Council of Churches about the nuclear test carried out yesterday in China, and our dismay about the apparent intention to continue such tests up to the signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996.

The World Council of Churches has long sought an end to research, testing and production of nuclear weapons by all nations. No nation can in good conscience envisage the use of such indiscriminate and destructive arms under any circumstances.

We have also consistently opposed the notion that true national security can ever be found in nuclear deterrence. The important recent international agreement to extend indefinitely the Nuclear Non-Proliferation regime shows that the spirit, logic and practice of nuclear deterrence belong to the past. The future belongs to those who agree that nuclear arms must not be further developed, but universally destroyed. True security and well-being for the peoples of the world depends not on their capacity to defend themselves with arms, but rather on justice, a commitment to peace, and the development of trusting, friendly relationships among the nations of the world.

China is a world power. It does not need nuclear weapons to prove the point. We firmly believe in the potential of China to play a leadership role in shaping a world capable of resolving conflict without recourse to the threat or use of weapons. Out of that conviction, we urge the Government of the People's Republic of China to exercise this leadership now, to desist from any further nuclear testing, and to announce its intention to join other nations in respecting a moratorium through the formal conclusion of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

In making this appeal, I reiterate the desire and the firm intention of the World Council of Churches to continue its many areas of cooperation with your Government and its deep respect for your nation and its people.

Your Excellency:

I have the honour to convey the sincere greetings of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches, currently in session in Geneva.

During this session, we have turned our attention to the issue of nuclear testing, and have adopted the statement which I attach for your information.

We have also expressed deep appreciation of the significant accomplishments of the United Nations in the field of disarmament, welcoming in particular its leadership in achieving an indefinite extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime, and agreement of the nuclear weapons states to conclude a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

We come to you today to express particular concern about the continuation of nuclear tests on Mururoa Atoll by the Government of France. Through your good offices, we urge the Secretary-General of the United Nations to consider urgently the following actions:

1. The sending of an independent commission to assess the impact on the public health and well-being of the people of French Polynesia as a result of continuing nuclear tests.

2. The formation of a group of experts to carry out an independent scientific assessment of the long-term effects of decades of nuclear testing in French Polynesia in light of the declaration of the "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro.

3. The naming of an independent expert to study the violations by the Government of France of the human rights of the people of the Pacific, and especially of French Polynesia, in view of the recognition of the Human Rights Committee that research, testing, manufacture and possession of nuclear weapons are among the most grave threats to the right to life.

4. The issuance of a reminder to the Government of France of its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and urging that Government to desist from any activity, including nuclear testing, which may endanger the provision of nutritious foods and drinking water free of all forms of pollution to the children of the Pacific and of French Polynesia in particular.

5. The exercise of the good offices of the Secretary General to draw to the attention of the Government of France its moral obligation, especially in view of the express will of the people of French Polynesia and the wider Pacific region and in response to appeals from every part of the world, to reverse the decision of President Chirac, and to desist from any further nuclear tests.

We remain convinced that the greatness of France, the cradle of modern human rights thinking and practice, will not be found in nuclear deterrence, but through a return to the universal human values upon which modern France is built, and in providing wise moral leadership in a world in desperate need of peace.

The time has come to rid planet Earth of nuclear weapons: all of them, everywhere. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Preparatory Committee has a remarkable opportunity at its upcoming meeting to set the course resolutely for the achievement of this goal.

Nuclear weapons, whether used or threatened, are grossly evil and therefore morally wrong. As an instrument of mass destruction, nuclear weapons slaughter the innocent and ravage the environment.

This was quite apparent in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The same result would probably occur in any further use, and indeed would be worse because of the increased destructive power of modern nuclear weapons.

When used as an instrument of deterrence, nuclear weapons hold innocent people hostage for political and military purposes. The doctrine of nuclear deterrence is morally corrupt. It loses sight of the inviolable connection between means and ends by failing to recognize that just ends cannot be achieved through a wrongful means.

During the past 50 years the production and testing of nuclear weapons has proven grievously harmful to individuals and the environment in the vicinity of mining operations, processing plants, production facilities, and test sites. Numerous locales are burdened with lingering radioactivity and deadly waste products that will take decades to clean up. Some sites may never be restored to safe occupancy.

Psalm 24 teaches, "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein." The First Book of Moses, also known as Genesis, indicates that God made Earth available to humankind to till and keep, that is, to use for mutual benefit and to preserve. Because production and use of nuclear weapons causes grave harm to Earth and its inhabitants, we as good stewards of God's Earth have an obligation to rid the world of this perilous threat.

Numerous religious bodies have condemned nuclear weapons and have called for their abolition. Thus, the Sixth Assembly of the World Council of Churches meeting in Vancouver, Canada, in 1983 stated: "We believe that the time has come when the churches must unequivocally declare 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. Furthermore, we appeal for the institution of a universal covenant to this effect so that nuclear weapons and warfare are delegitimized and condemned as violations of international law."

Speaking for the Holy See before the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly on October 15, 1997, Archbishop Renato Martino stated: "Nuclear weapons are incompatible with the peace we seek for the 21st century. They cannot be justified. They deserve condemnation. The preservation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty demands an unequivocal commitment to their abolition.... This is a moral challenge, a legal challenge and a political challenge. That multiple-based challenge must be met by the application of our humanity."

In principle the nations of Earth agree on the need to eliminate nuclear weapons. Indeed, they have made a strong commitment in Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) "to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament." After reviewing this article at the request of the General Assembly of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice unanimously agreed that "There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control."

Now is the time to take this obligation seriously. We call upon the members of the NPT Preparatory Committee to make the 1998 session a notable landmark in the journey toward the abolition of all nuclear weapons.

First, we ask the delegates to call resolutely upon the nuclear weapon states to embark upon a series of steps along the road leading to nuclear abolition. There is broad consensus among study commissions, retired generals and admirals, scientists, and other civilian experts on what these steps should be. They include:

• Declare a policy of no first use amongst themselves and non-use in relation to non-nuclear weapon states.
• Cease all research, development, production, and deployment of new nuclear weapons.
• Refrain from modernizing the existing nuclear arsenal and increasing the number of deployed nuclear weapons.
• Take all nuclear forces off alert and remove warheads from delivery vehicles.
• Achieve faster and deeper bilateral reduction of nuclear weapons by the United States and Russia.

It would be appropriate for the NPT Preparatory Committee to require the nuclear weapon states to provide annual progress reports on how they are carrying out such measures.

Second, we ask the delegates to take the lead in commencing the process of developing a nuclear weapons convention to outlaw and abolish all nuclear weapons. One appropriate method would be to establish a working group of the NPT Preparatory Committee for this purpose. Although the nuclear weapons states should be part of this process, some of them seem too bound to nuclear weapons and the false doctrine of nuclear deterrence to be willing to become so engaged at present. Other nations need not wait. Rather, as stewards of God's Earth they can begin the task of developing a nuclear weapons convention that specifies a fair and effective programme to abolish all nuclear weapons.

We appeal to delegates to the NPT Preparatory Committee to consider what is best for the whole Earth and its inhabitants when they vote on issues of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Loyalty to all humankind exceeds that of loyalty within political blocs of nations. We urge delegates to act now, decisively and courageously for the benefit of all the peoples of Earth.

Cardinal Daneels Konrad Raiser

President General Secretary

Pax Christi International World Council of Churches

Mr. Prime Minister,

The news of the underground nuclear tests conducted by your Government near the Pakistani border has been received with dismay and condemnation. For the World Council of Churches, it was a cause of profound concern and sadness.

The positions taken over the past fifty years by the World Council of Churches calling for the total abolition of atomic, hydrogen and nuclear weapons has often been informed especially by the reasoned arguments of Indians as well as other specialists. Following their guidance, the churches joined in this Council have repeatedly condemned the intransigent attitude of the super powers with regard to research, development, testing and deployment of nuclear weapons.

By providing some of the most revered architects and memorable leaders of the non-aligned movement, India offered enlightened leadership on these same issues to world public opinion. This stance more than any of its other remarkable achievements, brought India honour, moral authority and diplomatic stature in the world of nations.

It was the advice of your scholars, international affairs specialists, and even your military leaders which the peoples followed when they finally stood up and declared that reliance on nuclear weapons as a deterrent is the ultimate human folly.

Now, with this act, planned and conducted even as the Preparatory Committee for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty met here in Geneva, India has tarnished its image as a wise and considered voice of reason in international affairs. It has turned a deaf ear to its own best counsel, relying on weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction to show its power, rather than on the sophisticated art of statecraft to manifest its wisdom. In so doing, it has dealt what appears to be a calculated blow to the political stability and fragile basis of security in Asia.

The WCC has understood and respected the principled stand taken by India with respect to international treaties on nuclear weapons. Indeed, we echoed it in a way at the opening of the meeting of the NPT Preparatory Committee, when we called yet again upon all participant states to take significant steps without further delay to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Hoping that the nuclear weapons states would join in a consensus to this end, but fearing that they would again fail to do so, we urged the non-nuclear powers not to wait, but to move ahead if necessary without them to prepare an appropriate binding international treaty instrument.

No political act of a state is irreversible. This is evident by the fact that states who not too long ago demonstrated their nuclear potential through testing, have now declared a moratorium. For the sake of India and its people, and in the interest of peace in Asia and the world, we urge you without delay to declare such a moratorium and your Government’s intention to adhere strictly to a policy of no-first-use. It is not too late to give evidence to the world that India has not forgotten or denied its venerable national heritage. That same path of reason and active non-violence can lead India to reclaim the respected place on the world stage it ceded with these ill-considered and unwarranted tests.

Mr. Prime Minister,

The World Council of Churches is profoundly dismayed by the decision of the government of Pakistan to proceed with nuclear tests in Chagai despite the insistent appeals by the international community to exercise restraint. This action has grave and unpredictable implications for the people of the sub-continent, the wider Asian region and the world as a whole. The escalation of the rivalry between Pakistan and India to nuclear competition can only further exacerbate the existing tensions which have given rise already to three major wars in the last fifty years. The path of nuclear confrontation provides no security for the people of Pakistan, but rather places them and all their neighbours in grave danger.

A fortnight ago, the World Council of Churches wrote to H.E. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the Prime Minister of India, expressing its concern and dismay at the underground nuclear tests carried out by the government of India at Pokharan.

The World Council of Churches has taken a principled position against the production, development and deployment of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. At the recently concluded NPT Preparatory Committee in Geneva, the Council called on the participant states to take immediate steps for a comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapons.

These developments have revived the much condemned Cold War "balance of nuclear terror" precisely at a moment when the world appeared to be moving closer to an agreement on nuclear non-proliferation and a total ban on nuclear testing. They augur ill especially for the peoples of Pakistan and India. The heavy costs of a nuclear arms race and the sanctions likely to be imposed by the international community will further add to the poverty which has left the majority devoid of the basic necessities of life in terms of nutrition, health care, education and housing.

It is not too late to reverse course. Other states who not long ago felt compelled to demonstrate their nuclear potential through testing have now declared a moratorium. We urge you, in the interest of your people and for the sake of peace and security in the region, to follow this lead without delay, and to declare your Government’s commitment to join the nuclear non-proliferation and test ban regimes. We sincerely hope that you will take seriously India’s offer to negotiate a no-first-use agreement.

During the Fortieth Anniversary Year of the United Nations, the Central Committee (Buenos Aires 1985) recalled

Four years later, in 1989, the Berlin Wall collapsed, signaling the end of Communist rule in Central and Eastern Europe. The end of the Cold War confrontation, which had immobilized the UN for decades, opened the way for the realization of the vision incorporated in the UN Charter of a just, peaceful world order. The permanent members of the Security Council began to put their shoulders to the same wheel and to use the instruments made available to the Council in the Charter but never before used because of the sharp confrontation of ideologies and the repeated use of the power of veto. In rapid succession, a series of nagging, terribly destructive conflicts were resolved in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Angola, Namibia, El Salvador. The apartheid regime in South Africa also gave way under concerted international pressure, and tensions were reduced throughout North East and South East Asia.

But the cooperative approach of the major powers to conflict resolution was short lived. The proclamation of yet another "New World Order" did not lead to a rejuvenation of the United Nations, but rather to a period of system-wide confusion which many commentators have referred to as the "New World Disorder."

A number of interrelated factors contributed to this state of affairs.

One was the heavy-handed behavior of some members of the Security Council. In 1990, asserting its role as the "world’s only remaining super-power," the United States of America pressed upon the Security Council its plan for military action to counter Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, short-cutting the UN’s effort to obtain a withdrawal through the strict application of international sanctions against the offending power.

In its statement on the Gulf War, the VII Assembly (Canberra 1991) pointed to the wider implications of that move:

A second was the use of UN peace-keeping forces as a panacea for conflict. The Secretary-General’s promising "Agenda for Peace" became bogged down in a series of ill-conceived deployments of UN forces in places like Somalia. Often lacking clarity of purpose, UN peace-keeping operations proliferated. As often as not, they further complicated conflicts rather than to bring them closer to resolution. The "Blue Helmets" were more and more regarded as partisan forces, and not the neutral peace-keepers they were intended to be. Peace-keeping and peace-enforcement became confused. In addition, the skyrocketing costs associated with these initiatives placed the whole organization at financial risk.

Third, the ideology of the unrestricted "free market" was pressed upon the component parts of the world body as a litmus test for survival in the process of reorganization. The UN’s development agenda floundered as more and more responsibility for global economic and trade reform was ceded to the Bretton Woods institutions: the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Fourth, a simplistic approach to democratization around the world also overtook the organization. To hold elections became the sine qua non for economic and political recognition, and was equated with popular democratic rule in many places, ignoring the historical and cultural context of peoples, and leaving untouched the political and economic root causes of injustice, division and conflict.

Fifth, the capacity of the UN to respond to complex emergencies has been severely impaired. Individual UN agencies continue to do heroic work in the field to protect refugees, to meet the human needs of masses of persons displaced by conflict and natural disaster, to protect children, to cope with threats of epidemics, and to feed and house threatened populations. The emergence of many new civil and international conflicts, often exacerbated by ethnic or national tensions, has severely strained the capacity of the Organization to coordinate and oversee emergency operations. The creation of a new Department of Humanitarian Affairs has helped, but the extraordinary circumstances of crises like the one in Rwanda have served to underscore the need for a thorough review of emergency response.

The crux of the problem remains, in the view of many experts, the increasing concentration of power in the Security Council, and in particular in the hands of its five permanent members. Decisions were more often reached behind closed doors, stifling debate, overwhelming the General Assembly and its subsidiary organs, and increasingly alienating the vast majority of nations from the full exercise of their responsibility for international decision-making. As a consequence, the agenda, functioning and internal coordination of the United Nations system has become increasingly confused and incoherent.

Pressure is on again for a reform of UN structures, beginning with the composition, procedures and role of the Security Council. Once again, however, the proposals for change tend to respond more to the interests of a minority of powerful industrialized nations than to the ever more pressing needs of the poorest of the world’s nations.

Thus, while the crisis of confidence in the United Nations to which the Central Committee referred in its statement a decade ago has changed in character, it persists and grows, especially in the "South". The global hope for change which burst out in 1989 has given way to widespread disillusionment. The crisis in multilateralism continues, almost unabated, further widening and deepening the chasm between rich and poor nations, and virtually abandoning the least developed countries, the vast majority of which are in Africa.

All this considered, however, the affirmation of the WCC Church and Society Conference in 1966 remains valid:

This commitment to the United Nations has its roots deep in the history of the ecumenical movement which has long advocated the shaping of global institutions capable of achieving the aims set out in the Preamble to the Charter:

The story of that commitment is worth recalling. International church leaders gathered in Geneva in August 1920 to work through the implications of the First World War for humankind and for Christianity, and to prepare the Universal Christian Conference on Life and Work held in Stockholm in 1925, which they hoped would contribute to the avoidance of another such catastrophe. That Stockholm Conference and the 1937 Oxford Conference on Church, Community and State called to further develop its ideas laid the foundations for modern ecumenical social thought in a range of areas, including the future of world order.

In the spirit of Oxford, the Federal Council of Churches in the United States of America instituted a "Commission to Study the Bases of a Just and Durable Peace." Drawing upon work of the Provisional Committee of the World Council of Churches, that Commission drew up a list of principles, almost all of which were incorporated into the draft UN Charter drawn up in 1944 at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, D.C. That draft, however, still fell short of the churches’ expectations, and an additional list of Christian expectations for the Charter was elaborated which called for:

1. The addition of a Preamble to the Charter which would "reaffirm those present and long range purposes of justice and human welfare...which reflect the aspirations of peoples everywhere."
2. The further development and codification of international law, "to the end that there shall be a progressive subordination of force to law."
3. ...
4. The establishment of a special Commission to further the "progress of colonial and dependent peoples to autonomy..."
5. The establishment of a special Commission on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which would, inter alia, develop and implement guarantees for religious freedom.
6. Universal membership of the new Organization.
7. Specific provisions for the limitation and reduction of armaments.
8. Provisions to protect smaller nations from the exercise of arbitrary power by the great.
9. Liberalized provision for amendments to the Charter which would not require the concurrence of the Permanent Members of the Security Council.

Three US church leaders active in the World Council of Churches (in process of formation) attended the 1945 United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco where they pressed successfully for the inclusion of virtually all of these points in the Charter, including the Preamble itself.

Commentators at the time credited the international Christian influence with having played a decisive role, especially in gaining the inclusion in the Charter of the more extensive provisions for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

In the words of one prominent government representative to the San Francisco Conference, they

The ecumenical observers were also influential in gaining the inclusion in the Charter of Article 71, which provides for "suitable arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organizations" with the Economic and Social Council. The Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, created in 1946, in part to play this role on behalf of the WCC, was among the first to be granted such official NGO status.

Subsequently, the CCIA was influential in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly with respect to its provisions on religious freedom, and in the formation of the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Over the past five decades, the WCC as a whole has worked at the United Nations and with its Specialized Agencies on a wide ranging agenda which has included: decolonization, human rights, the struggle against racism and apartheid, the status of women, economic and social development, the rights of the child, world food policy, the rights of migrants and refugees, basic health care delivery, standards governing the activities of transnational corporations, education and literacy, election monitoring, environmental protection, human settlements, population, and response to humanitarian emergencies.

It has also been a respected participant in a wide range of international NGO coordinating committees and organizations, including the Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations, of which the CCIA was a founder-member.

The World Council of Churches does not, therefore, critique the United Nations as either a newcomer or disinterested observer. Rather, it raises questions out of an intimate knowledge of the Organization, as a participant, and as a body committed to the goals and principles established in the Charter.

As noted earlier, the need for UN reform is widely recognized. As it stands, the UN is neither democratic, transparent nor fair. The competition among related agencies for funding, recognition and influence impairs effective action, and contributes to proliferation of sometimes overlapping bureaucracies and to the fragmentation of the global agenda.

The problem does not reside solely on the side of the UN. Among non-governmental organizations there are also major difficulties. Partly out of frustration with the incapacity, or unwillingness, of governments and intergovernmental organizations to deal effectively with the "peoples’ agenda," there has been a burgeoning of civil society organizations at local, national, regional and international levels. While this proliferation is a positive development, efforts to coordinate effective NGO pressure on the UN system run up against what often seem to be almost insuperable obstacles.

Sometimes, it is NGOs who are at the root of problems. A case in point is the competition among private voluntary humanitarian relief agencies. Again, Rwanda is a case in point. There, the massive involvement of hundreds of voluntary agencies, some of them with more personnel and funds than the government itself, makes effective coordination virtually impossible. Many look to the UN for that coordination, but even with the best will (which is not always the case) it too often has inadequate staff, finances and logistic support to play this role effectively.

The global crisis in confidence in the UN often tends in the direction of self-fulfilling prophecy. Critical founder-nations use the criticism to justify withholding funds owed to the UN, or to cut their allocations, further impairing the capacity of the system to respond. Critical popular movements seek ways around the system in efforts to respond directly to peoples’ needs and the peoples’ agendas. The nations of the "South," frustrated by the apparent inability of the UN to address their fundamental needs, are either driven into reliance on bilateral relationships which increase their "neocolonial" dependency, or are rendered defenseless against demands by bodies like the IMF and the World Bank to "restructure" their economies in ways which weaken their capacity to respond to urgent social requirements of their people.

There has been a proliferation of UN World Conferences during the period of the fiftieth anniversary celebrations of the UN. The hope was that these would galvanize international public opinion and governments’ policies behind concerted, more clearly defined international priorities. Many placed particular hopes in the Copenhagen Social Summit, which held out the promise of reordering the global social agenda. Undeniably, each of these great international gatherings was marked by specific achievements. But critics point out that they have tended more to divide governments along regional and "cultural" lines than to unify them behind clearly defined and mutually accepted objectives. "Civil society" organizations often consider themselves to have been marginalized from the policy-making process, and relegated to the role of mobilizing public opinion behind Conference conclusions which at times do not reflect a "peoples’ agenda".

There is an understandable frustration with our collective incapacity to remedy problems long ago identified as the fundamental cause of conflict and human suffering. Partly as a result of the failure of the international community to deal with such long-standing problems as underdevelopment, the proliferation of nuclear and conventional armaments, discrimination against women and minorities, and the systematic violation of fundamental human rights, today’s challenges have become complex to the extent that they defy both imagination and action.

A recent thorough review of WCC relationships with the UN system and associated NGO bodies shows an unusually broad involvement. It has also revealed that there is insufficient coherence and coordination within the Council itself, and with member churches and related ecumenical bodies. Steps are being taken to improve this, and to develop a more focused approach to WCC-UN relations. Among the conclusions reached have been the following:

1. The WCC has its own agenda. We must be attentive to UN and other international developments in setting that agenda, but then develop relationships with the UN system in a way which responds to our own priorities and which guards against being diverted from them or coopted by others.
2. A part of that agenda is to promote effective instruments of global governance. It has, therefore, a responsibility to inform and encourage member churches and related movements in their efforts to improve the UN system and to make it more responsive to the needs of peoples. Here, the CCIA UN Headquarters Liaison Office has a special role to play.
3. The WCC should make effective use of those UN mechanisms to which it has access to pressure governments to comply with international norms and standards, such as those on human rights. In this process, the WCC should support and enable partners to represent their own interests in appropriate UN forums.
4. When special events, such as world conferences, can be expected to result in constructive new policies or commitments by governments and the international community that have a direct relationship to the ecumenical agenda, the WCC should use them as a stimulus to help the churches articulate their own analysis and recommendations. One goal is obviously to influence the international agenda. But another valid one is to use such occasions for capacity building of the churches and other partners, and building more effective relationships with others who share our goals. A commitment to engage in such a process requires a commitment to help shape the agenda of such events from the earliest stages of preparation.
5. The impact of the WCC on the UN agenda can often be maximized through select involvement with other non-governmental organizations and coordinating bodies.
6. There is the need for clear priority setting for ecumenical involvement with the UN. It cannot, nor should it pretend to relate to the whole range of issues addressed by the UN. It must relate selectively, in relationship to its own programme priorities. Experience shows that day-to-day cooperation with selected specialized agencies and programme bodies are generally more effective than less focused involvements.
7. The WCC functions in relationship to the UN as a non-governmental organization through the CCIA’s formal relationship with the Economic and Social Council and several Specialized Agencies, and through other relationships maintained by other programs of the Council. Indeed, the WCC may well be the largest, and most representative, in geographical terms, of the international NGOs, and possibly one of those closest to local realities. This is a necessary role for the churches, and one often highly appreciated by partners in the UN.
8. The WCC should not, however, restrict its role vis-à-vis the UN to that of an NGO. It has a broader responsibility to the world of nations to give voice to ethical, moral and spiritual perspectives which must undergird international relations.
9. In general, WCC relations with the UN should be viewed in the light of how we might use the instruments it provides to achieve the ecumenical vision of a just and peaceful world. In this way, it becomes not an extra burden, but part of the total work of the Council.

Against this background, the Central Committee, meeting in Geneva, 14-22 September 1995:

1. reaffirms the dedication of the World Council of Churches to the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Organization,
2. reaffirms the centrality of the United Nations in the conduct of international relations, the safeguarding of the international rule of law, and the elaboration of norms and standards governing international behavior for the benefit of the whole of humankind and the global environment;
3. reiterates its deep concern about trends in the UN as described in the accompanying Memorandum which have diverted it from aspirations expressed in the Preamble to the Charter, and thus erode public confidence;
4. joins with those calling for a UN reform which would assure full participation in effective decision-making by all member states, redressing the present situation which tends to relegate small, less powerful, and economically deprived nations to subsidiary roles in the formation and implementation of international policy;
5. calls for a comprehensive review, open to public scrutiny, of the structure and functioning of the Security Council, with regard especially to its domination by the present permanent members invested with veto powers;
6. reaffirms the role of the United Nations in peace-keeping, while urging a thorough reassessment of the role of peace-keeping forces, ensuring that their deployment is in strict compliance with the terms of the Charter which protects the rights of states, and strengthening the role of cooperation for peace as a means of identifying and addressing the causes of international and internal conflicts before they become violent;
7. calls upon the UN to reaffirm its commitment to the role of independent non-governmental organizations in the work of the Organization as a means to avail itself of expertise and information available through these bodies and to assure that the "peoples of the United Nations" and especially the victims of the present world disorder have an effective voice in shaping international policy and in guiding its implementation:
8. appeals once again to all member states to cooperate actively with the United Nations, and to keep faith with their commitments to the financing of the Organization;
9. reiterates its appeal to the churches to be alert to the activities and policies of their respective governments with a view to strengthening the capacity of the UN in areas such as the promotion and protection of human rights, the struggle against racism, the enhancement of the rights of women, aid to and protection of refugees and migrants, the effective international control of production and transfer of armaments, the elimination of nuclear weapons, protection of the global environment, and the realization of a just and equitable international economic order;
10. reaffirms the role of the Board on International Affairs (Commission of the Churches on International Affairs) in maintaining and coordinating contact with the United Nations and its Specialized Agencies as the principal expression of the WCC as a non-governmental organization, and encourages it to review the adequacy of its present consultative status in the light of changes in the nature of NGO relations with ECOSOC;
11. recognizes and reaffirms the role of Unit II through Churches’ Action for Health (CMC) in relation to the World Health Organization, and through the programme on Education for All God’s People on adult education and literacy with UNESCO; the contribution of Unit III to UN bodies in the field of racism, indigenous peoples, the status of women and youth, sustainable development and climate change; the cooperation of Unit IV with DHA (Department of Humanitarian Affairs), FAO, ILO, UNHCR and UNICEF; and the effective working relations of a wide range of Council programmes with intergovernmental and NGOs at international and regional levels;
12. considers that the relationship of the World Council of Churches with the UN and its Specialized Agencies should be guided by its vocation as a major world ecumenical body in dialogue with people of other faiths, giving expression to the moral, ethical and spiritual dimensions which need to be confronted along with the political and economic aspects of the current crisis in global governance. The WCC should not confine itself to the role it presently exercises through the CCIA or other Council programmes as a non-governmental organization; and
13. encourages the General Secretary, in his efforts to facilitate access of regional ecumenical bodies, national councils of churches and member churches to the United Nations to be alert to opportunities for the Council and its member churches to exercise their influence in ways which could contribute to the shaping of a just, participatory and peaceful world order.

Mr. Secretary-General, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, Friends,

It is a distinct honor, on the occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the adoption of the Charter and during this United Nations Year for Tolerance, to be given this opportunity to speak on the role of people of faith in promoting peace and tolerance. It is a particular privilege to share this platform with you, Mr. Secretary-General, and to complement your own important reflections on this important and timely topic.

I come before you today in my capacity as General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, whose headquarters were established more than fifty years ago here in Geneva, a city long identified with the pursuit of peace. In this Council are joined some 325 Christian churches of Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox confessions, located in nearly all the member states of the United Nations. I am grateful that the spiritual head of one of our member churches, His Holiness Alexy II, honors us with his presence here in connection with his visit to the World Council of Churches and the Conference of European Churches.

As a spokesperson for a Christian world body, I do not pretend to speak on behalf of all Christians, many of whom belong to churches that are not members of the Council, nor for people of other living faiths. However, my reflections are informed by the active dialogue the World Council of Churches maintains with a wide range of Christian churches beyond our membership and with people of other faiths. I believe that many of them will share the perspectives which I bring to you today.

From time immemorial, religion has been a defining feature of human society and of the self-understanding of individual human beings. Cultures have given religions their language, and religions, in turn, have provided cultures with ultimate meaning. Religions have been among the principal bearers and protectors of peoples’ languages, traditions, cultural identity and social cohesion through the ages.

Most major world religions are rooted in a commitment to universality and tolerance. Participants representing a wide spectrum of faiths issued an important joint declaration at the conclusion of a recent UNESCO Conference on "The Contribution by Religions to the Culture of Peace" (Barcelona, December 1994), which reaffirms this. They declared:

Not all societies have taken such a positive view of religion in society. During this century, Communism sought to eliminate religion and religious institutions through severe social and political constraints and periodic waves of systematic persecution. In the West, the process of secularization and the rise of secularist ideology led many either to disregard religion, or to privatize or deny its contribution to society.

Today, there is a world-wide reawakening of religion, in part, as a reaction to the recent past. Because this resurgence of religious feeling has sometimes taken radical, even aggressive forms, it has engendered fears in many quarters. But we must not lose sight of the fact that the widespread return to religion is also an affirmation that spirituality is essential to human existence. It would be a serious mistake to equate this reawakening with intolerance, for within it is the latent promise of a common search for peace and life together in global community.

At the same time, new religious fervor is often combined with peoples’ deep desire to recover and reassert their ethnic and national identity and freedom in a world besieged by globalizing trends. Some religious movements lend theological and ideological justification for an exclusivist, defensive and at times aggressively nationalistic understanding of human community.

This is not a new phenomenon in human history. As the interfaith declaration issued at the UNESCO conference stated,

The declaration went on to say,

The reality of new religious movements is an undeniable fact. The challenge to all religions today is to infuse these movements with the fundamental values of humility, repentance, mutual forgiveness, tolerance, and a common commitment to peace based on universal values. We all recognize that this is a daunting task, but there are those in all world religions deeply committed to the task.

This is not, however, something which can be left to religions alone. Political leaders, policy makers, social scientists and leaders of international institutions have a major responsibility for creating a climate which will foster the positive values of tolerance, peace and universalism which reside in religious communities. History shows that those who exercise political and military power, and those who shape public opinion often seek to use religious sentiment to undergird narrow national, political, and even imperial interests. At the same time, the role of religions as the conscience of society is both feared and despised by many governments who regard religion as a threat, or as an impediment to the realization of their hegemonic aims.

An example of this is to be found in our own recent history. In the late 1970s and through the 1980s churches and other religious groups were at the centre of mass popular protests against the modernization and proliferation of nuclear weapons. These protests challenged the logic and spirit of nuclear deterrence. Similar movements demanded respect for human rights and democracy. Many governments attacked such groups frontally, and engaged in both overt and covert efforts to destabilize and divide religions engaged for justice, peace, tolerance and international understanding.

We have put the Cold War behind us. But the narrow, simplistic mindset which marked that period persists. Many policy makers and political leaders continue to see the world as divided into warring camps, into good and bad, righteous and evil. Regrettably, many now would divide the world along religious lines, and follow policies which militate against intercultural and interfaith understanding. This must end. The logic of the Cold War must now be buried forever.

Religion is not the enemy. Nor are religions as such enemies one of another, as we are told by those who see the future in terms of the confrontation of cultures. Fanaticism, intolerance, and the blind pursuit of power are what threatens human community and the creation of which we are a part. No religion worthy of its calling can ever be an unconditional supporter of worldly power. Faithful to its people, but more faithful still to God and the highest principles of good, religion has a vocation to challenge power when leaders depart from that which promotes peace, tolerance and well-being for all without distinction.

The promise, and the power of faith is there. Now, perhaps more than ever before in history, we need to discover how religions and the state, as well as religions and international institutions, can interact in order to create tolerance and peace.

Tolerance alone, however, is not enough to enable religions to make their full contribution. Tolerance can be limited to condescending acceptance, and fall short of full recognition of legitimate otherness and of the right to be equal, though different. Religious and cultural pluralism is not only a historical reality. It is a source of enrichment for society. Plurality, most religions believe, is part of God’s design for the world. It can only flourish in democratic societies which respect the rule of law and guarantee equal rights and privileges to all individuals and communities who accept shared responsibility for the well-being of all together.

Representatives of five major world religions gathered in a dialogue meeting sponsored by the World Council of Churches in Colombo, Sri Lanka affirmed this in their joint statement, in which they said,

Such signs of good will are essential, but tolerance, peace, and harmony among peoples of deep religions convictions, also requires that states assure full respect for the right to religious freedom. As the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion and Belief has reaffirmed, everyone must have "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion," a right which includes "freedom to have a religion or whatever belief of his or her choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private to manifest that religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching."

These words were included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 at the urging of the World Council of Churches. We have consistently affirmed that the right to religious freedom is not an exclusive right to be claimed as a privilege for any single religion. Rather it is essential for all if religion is to play its full, constructive role in building a world community characterized by tolerance, mutual respect, cooperation, peace and justice.

If religion fails to do this then faith will have lost all of its promise and all of its power. But all the major world religions, I am convinced, are aware of the challenge to faithfulness and this was given voice in the appeal issued by those who joined in the UNESCO Conference from which I quoted earlier. They said, and with this I conclude:

I thank you all for your kind attention.

It is a privilege to greet you at this important gathering of world leaders in the name of the World Council of Churches which I serve as General Secretary. The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of some 325 Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant member churches in more than one hundred countries in several regions of the world. What I present to you today has been informed by decades of dialogue between Christian churches, but increasingly also with people of other religious faiths. In addition, the two international Roman Catholic networks, CIDSE and Caritas Internationalis, have emphasised that their views on social development are similar to those of the WCC.

Since its beginnings, the World Council of Churches has been an advocate of Christian involvement in the struggle for social justice, based on the conviction that we cannot separate the material and spiritual needs of individuals and communities. Out of this conviction, the World Council of Churches actively promoted the formation of the United Nations fifty years ago as an instrument not just of sovereign states, but as the embodiment of the aspirations of the peoples of the world for peace, respect for human rights, including religious liberty, and freedom from want.

This World Summit on Social Development could hardly come at a more important turning point, a time when social policies are under attack in nations around the world. Poverty and injustice erode the foundations of fragile democracies in many nations. Even in the industrialised countries, social welfare systems are being dismantled in the interest of economic growth. Unemployment and poverty are on the increase. Almost everywhere, the gap between rich and poor grows daily.

As the world economy becomes global in nature, economic and political power is increasingly concentrated in the hands of the privileged few. The global market approach is rapidly reshaping the world, weakening the traditional role of national governments through policies of deregulation and limiting the effectiveness of the system of intergovernmental social institutions. Who is to look after the people’s interests in a time when institutions in the private sphere assume an ever greater role in the shaping of global economy? Who is to safeguard the rights of the poor nations and the small states in the face of the domination of a handful of powerful actors on the world scene?

In the face of such a challenge, a potentially powerful third force, the civil society, has begun to emerge. The development everywhere of social movements and voluntary non-governmental organizations is accompanied by a resurgence of religion, an indication that the spiritual, cultural and material needs of human community are inextricably bound together. The United Nations, through world gatherings like this one, has facilitated the emergence of an international civil society which must be regarded as an essential component of social development and as a crucial part of a new international order. It presupposes, however, the universal affirmation of basic structures for justice in the political, social and economic realms. What is at stake here is a fundamental change of consciousness and values.

One of the areas in which we need such a fundamental change of paradigms is the role of economic growth. Certainly the growth of world production over the last decades has led to great improvements, at least for certain groups in society. For many areas in the world economic growth is absolutely necessary to provide employment and income and to make possible dignified human life for all. But the tendency -- evident in the preparatory documents for this summit -- to consider open markets and economic growth as a panacea for almost all social ills, must be challenged. The assembly of the World Council of Churches in Canberra in 1991 reminded us that "growth for growth’s sake is the strategy of a cancer cell". Just as humanity has developed a sense of the minimum which is required to satisfy basic human needs, so we should consider where the maximum limits lie before excess leads to ruin.

Further, as world production has grown, so has the number of poor people. Globally, and in many cases at the national level too, the gap between rich and poor is widening, and economic growth is increasingly taking on the character of jobless growth, thereby contributing to greater inequality and exclusion. Apparently, economic growth alone does not solve social problems. If it is argued that economic growth is absolutely necessary to eradicate poverty, then why has it not done so during decades of growth-oriented development strategies?

We believe that it is time to rethink our arguments. Why not consider whether policies aimed at poverty reduction, long-term employment generation and environmental restoration and protection will lead to sustainable human development? Such an approach contrasts with the prevailing thought which begins with economic processes and trusts – against broad empirical evidence – that the benefits will "trickle down" to all layers of society. Social and ecological policies come in only as a corrective or as an after-thought.

The alternative approach would require, from the outset, the active participation in decision-making processes of those who are affected by such decisions. It would be a "building-up" rather than a "trickle-down" approach, starting with the needs of local communities and using these as the basis for global policies. This new direction is already being followed by several organizations. At the international level, for example, the United Nations Development Programme has developed the Human Development Index which qualifies economic growth by putting it alongside social development indicators. Organizations in civil society have demonstrated the effectiveness, both economically and financially, of community-oriented development schemes. One such example is the Ecumenical Development Co-operative Society which gives loans to commercially viable enterprises which comply with a set of social objectives.

Certain short-term measures are needed to foster such alternative approaches. Some of the most urgent are:

• Strengthening the United Nations: more effective control over international economic actors such as transnational corporations must be established and the international financial and economic institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization, must be held accountable as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.
• Elimination of the external debt of the Least Developed Countries and reduction of at least 50% in the debt of the Middle Income Countries. This must be accompanied by a fundamental revision of the Structural Adjustment Policy, giving highest priority to social development and environmental protection. The "Alternative Structural Adjustment Programme", recently developed by organizations in civil society in Guyana, may serve as an example.
• Implementation of the United Nations target for Overseas Development Assistance of 0.7% of the Gross National Product by all OECD countries by the year 2000. Concerns about the quantity of foreign development assistance have to be combined with policies to improve the quality. Therefore, at least 20% of official development assistance should be directed to social development areas and the fulfilment of basic needs for all.

What can "the peoples of the world" expect from this World Summit on Social Development where so many laudable intentions are formulated? It seems to me that our current dilemma is that we use a social development model when we state our intentions, but that we apply an economic growth model when we act. Nothing short of a renewed and massive political will is required if we are to practise what we preach. The changes we need are not only administrative, legal, technical or technological, but changes in the direction of life-oriented values, a change of hearts and of minds. Promoting cultures of solidarity and life has been a primary concern for faith communities all over the world. It is in this field that religious organizations can make their most important contribution. The issues at stake at this World Summit are profoundly challenging. We are willing to accept this challenge.

The World Council of Churches is deeply concerned about the threat of climate change and is committed to achievement of the objective of the Framework Climate Convention. Therefore, we regret that the CoP1 has not agreed to a mandate based on the Toronto Target of 20% C0₂ emissions reductions by the year 2005 for industrialized countries. Instead, many governments appear to be negotiating from their own interests and have lost sight of the common good of present and future generations.

The WCC delegation is especially concerned about

• the lack of good faith and concern for others. particularly for the Small Island States; and
• initiatives at Berlin to promote nuclear power and link it to technology transfer and Joint Implementation.

The WCC will continue its work to integrate the concerns of justice, peace and respect for creation. The WCC is convinced that climate change should be a common concern of all religions. It seeks cooperation with all religions and with NGOs committed to the objectives of the Climate Convention.

The WCC regards climate change as a deeply ethical issue because it is a problem caused largely by the rich industrialized countries, whereas the consequences will be suffered disproportionately by the poorer developing countries and future generations. The WCC considers climate change to be the result of human behavior that is highly disrespectful of other human beings and species and ignorant of the inter-relatedness of all creation.

The WCC has published a study paper, Accelerated Climate Change: Sign of Peril, Test of Faith, which has this to say about nuclear power: "It is sometimes argued that nuclear power is an alternative energy source that would avoid emission of GHGs. However, studies have consistently demonstrated that efficiency measures and renewable energy sources are more cost effective and practical than the nuclear option. Moreover, the unresolved issue of nuclear waste and the implications of potential catastrophes point to the ethical problems of nuclear power." Nuclear power cannot serve the development needs of the majority of Third World people!

The WCC will continue in its efforts towards achievement of the Convention’s objective. The WCC accepts the implications for changes in lifestyle, particularly in the industrialized countries, that this goal implies. We must be prepared to go beyond the so-called "win-win" solutions when these are not enough.

Mr. President, Distinguished Delegates, Observers,

We recognise that the COP3 negotiations are at a difficult point. We make this statement on behalf of the World Council of Churches with a combination of humility and prayer, wanting to assist the process and yet needing to speak the truth as we discern it.

For us in the World Council of Churches, the core of the COP3 agenda is justice.

Justice means being held responsible for one's actions.

Justice means being held accountable for promises you make.

Justice means being held responsible for the suffering you cause to others.

Justice means being held accountable for abuse of power.

Justice means an equitable sharing of the Earth's resources.

Justice demands truth.

Justice requires honesty.

God's justice is strict but it is not cruel. We are all here in Kyoto as brothers and sisters equal before God within the community of creation – a creation which we all want to be healthy and thriving for future generations. In affirmation of the goodness of creation (Genesis 1:25), God beckons us to respect all forms of life. In what we do at COP3, we must not betray life.

Confidence-building measures are needed so that together we can reduce the threat of climate change:

• Industrialised countries must demonstrate, in the near future, real and significant reductions in domestic greenhouse gas emissions which many studies have shown to be possible with a considerable net benefit to their economies.
• Though developing countries should not be subject to formal emission limitation commitments yet, many of them are pursuing measures and can continue their efforts to become more energy-efficient and to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
• The sharing of finance and technological resources is needed but it is also very important to exchange experiences from both South and North including those of indigenous cultures, women's organizations and others which can offer lessons and tools for learning to live in a socially just, equitable and ecologically sustainable manner.

In these remaining days of COP3, let us shift our energies away from trying to figure out how to attain the minimum and channel them instead toward creative risk-taking options for accomplishing the maximum. Thank you.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

The World Council of Churches, through its Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, relates to and participates in the events organized by the United Nations and its various agencies. As an accredited non-governmental organization to ECOSOC in Category II, it has accordingly participated in major recent UN World Conferences at Rio, Vienna, Cairo and Copenhagen.

The Council in general and its Women’s Desk in particular, through its programme activities, is committed to the advancement of the status and rights of women. As such, it has decided to participate in the forthcoming UN sponsored World Conference on Women to be held in Beijing, September this year.

The purpose of participation in the conference, amongst others, is to interact with government delegates and put across the viewpoint of the churches. It is therefore with concern that we have received the news of the shifting of the NGO Forum to a complex twenty miles outside Beijing, away from the official meeting. This change in venue will make dialogue and interaction among official delegates and NGO representatives extremely difficult. In addition, the reports of denial of credentials for the conference to a large number of NGOs is also a matter of serious concern for us. We may in the circumstances be constrained to review the utility of our participation.

We therefore appeal to you to pursue all measures and initiatives within your means as the Secretary-General of the United Nations to insure an effective and meaningful participation of the NGO community at the Conference on Women in Beijing.

Madam President,

The World Council of Churches is joined in this statement by other global ecumenical organizations as well as a number of religious bodies present at the fourth World Conference on Women, all of which are listed at the end of the document.

The World Council of Churches is grateful to the members of the Preparatory Committee and the Secretary General for having ensured that this important gathering is being held and that it provides a comprehensive global agenda on issues relating to the life and livelihood of the women of the world. With 325 member churches of the Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox Christian traditions, located in every region of the world, the World Council of Churches is aware that these questions are urgent and complex. Only an approach that will link the empowerment of women with ensuring the quality of life for all citizens can offer hope to the millions of women in our world who are struggling for survival and dignity.

In 1988 the World Council of Churches launched a Decade of the Churches in Solidarity with Women, as a follow-up of the UN Decade for Women. This program has brought the WCC in close contact with the everyday lives of women and we have documented evidence of the various forms of violence women experience and the extent of this violence. It has been painful for us to acknowledge that institutions which should stand in solidarity with women, including governments and the churches, have not often responded with resolute action. We encounter, through our contact with women at the periphery of all our societies, the struggle for dignity and livelihood that women engage in every day.

One cause for the increase in incidents of violence against women is the global economic insecurity in which our families and societies exist. We believe that empowerment is not possible as long as women live in contexts of violence, often exacerbated by cultural and religious traditions. At Vienna it was acknowledged that women’s rights are human rights - we urge the immediate introduction of legal and institutional instruments to protect the human rights of women. Our particular concern is focused on the rights of migrant and refugee women, of women living under the yoke of racism and on the situation of Indigenous women who are often the targets of vicious violence.

The World Council of Churches comes to this World Conference to lift up the voices of those women who are often ignored. We believe that economic, political and social justice are prerequisites for the empowerment of women. Contrary to the widely held development ideology which emphasises that economic growth alone and by itself can improve the quality of life, we support and wish to raise here the views emphasised at the World Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen, according to which people should be at the centre of development. We also endorse the position taken in Copenhagen that empowering people, particularly women, to strengthen their own capacities is the main objective of development, and its principal resource.

Many in the member churches of the WCC will testify that the effects of foreign debts and structural adjustment programmes erode the traditional occupations and livelihood of women and result in increasing poverty and marginalisation of women both in rural and urban settings. Echoing again the World Summit on Social Development, we emphasise that structural adjustment programmes should be restructured to include social development goals, that they should include gender-sensitive social impact assessments. It should also be ensured that women do not have to bear a disproportionate share of the burden of the transition costs. We would add that in order to promote equality in all societies, it is important that steps are taken to recognise, count and value unwaged work - still typically women’s labour, in the home and in the community.

Of equal concern is the fact that women seem increasingly to be at the centre of the AIDS epidemic and more and more women are infected with the virus. The spread of HIV/AIDS is as much related to poverty and the subordinate status of women, as it is to the virus itself. We urge that more attention and resources be devoted to the care of people living with HIV/AIDS and its prevention, particularly in the context of the in-built gender discrimination in health care programmes. Governments should also ensure that women do not carry the entire burden for care of people living with HIV/AIDS.

We draw to the attention of the world community the liberating power of religions and we affirm the positive and supportive role that the churches and other religious institutions can play in standing in solidarity with those women who have to make ethical choices and decisions regarding their sexual and reproductive rights. But of equal concern to the World Council of Churches is the increasing religious extremism in all faiths and the deleterious consequences this has on women’s legal, political and social rights.

We remind our governments of all previous commitments made which are still far from implementation and are not even ratified by some governments. International instruments are sometimes not implemented because they do not respond to specific cultural and developmental needs. We therefore urge for more regional and national commitments and strategies that can be more realistically implemented.

We urge that special funding instruments be set up at the local, national and international levels so as to ensure enough resources to implement decisions made at this gathering for the empowerment of women.

As the World Council of Churches, through our member churches, we commit ourselves to monitoring the implementation of commitments made here in Beijing, to the women of the world. Thank you.

1998. Oral intervention presented jointly with LWF and WARC on human rights in Colombia.

Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Delegates,

We appreciate the opportunity to address you in the name of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs of the World Council of Churches. The Council represents 325 Orthodox, Protestant and Anglican churches in over 130 countries around the world with a combined membership of about 400 million people.

This 5th Session of the CSD is intended to review progress toward sustainable development since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in preparation for the UN General Assembly Special Session in June. We fear that the assessment will be inadequate because important questions are not being asked.

In our own work, we are regularly questioning the term "sustainable development". We find it often misused in order to legitimize current economic approaches which are premised on unlimited economic growth and a continuous and unregulated expansion of production and consumption for the world's rich. Thus to measure progress toward sustainable development in this context is to avoid challenging the very dynamics which are increasing the gap between the rich and the poor in the world and causing environmental destruction. We call upon governments, international institutions and people of good will to demonstrate moral courage and political will to confront the excesses of globalization.

The Council understands that all economic systems must be tested from the perspective of their effect on the poor, the oppressed and the marginalized. God has created the whole cosmos to be good; it is a common inheritance for all peoples for all times to be enjoyed in just, loving and responsible relationships with one another. This understanding is foundational in our vision of a just and moral economy where:

• people are empowered to fully participate in making decisions that affect their lives,
• public and private institutions and enterprises are accountable and held responsible for the social and environmental impacts and consequences of their operations, and
• the earth and whole created order is nurtured with utmost respect and reverence rather than exploited and degraded.

Our vision of a just and moral economy places on us the responsibility to build and nurture economies that put people and the environment first.

We speak increasingly of "sustainable community" because it implies the nurturing of equitable relationships both within the human family and also between humans and the rest of the ecological community – in other words, justice within the whole of God's creation.

The question we should be asking at this CSD and the Special Session is "what must we do to bring about justice and attain sustainable community?"

Within the human family, many people lack health, security, hope. The member churches of the WCC around the world are intensely involved in the everyday struggles of people for sustainable community. Thus, our understandings emerge from our real-life experience. Let us share three examples.

Our first example concerns women in Sri Lanka. Structural Adjustment Policy dictated the replacement of hill country forest land with export tobacco cultivation. The trees helped retain the moisture which was the source for mountain streams; now they were gone and the water flow was significantly reduced. This forced the women tea workers of the area to climb extra distances to fetch their daily water. In addition to increasing the workload of these women, insufficient water has added to the health hazards of the entire community. Going beyond their traditional roles, the women, along with children, organized themselves to plant trees on those hills where soil erosion was most evident with the hope that tomorrow these hills will once again be covered with streams.

For Indigenous Peoples, sustainable development is integrally linked to their struggle for recognition of rights to self-determination, control over ancestral lands, resources and indigenous knowledge systems.

Traditional practices for sustainable production and consumption are under threat from the negative impacts of globalization and trade liberalization. This new face of colonization, perpetuated by the often aggressive policies of governments and TNCs, has seen extensive extraction of resources from Indigenous Peoples’ lands in deforestation, mining and dam building. Also, Indigenous Peoples are confronted with the increase in bio-prospecting and genetic engineering, practices that pose a direct threat to the protection of their intellectual cultural property rights. Thus Indigenous Peoples are continually challenging governments and international institutions to establish meaningful participatory mechanisms in the preservation of sustainable community.

Our churches are actively addressing the issue of climate change. We see it as an ethical issue. Because of the economies and consumption-oriented lifestyles of the industrialized nations, the consequences of climate change will be suffered disproportionately by the poorer developing nations, low-lying states, and future generations. It is not just the human family that will be adversely affected by climate change but all the ecosystems of the planet. The peoples and ecosystems of the Pacific Islands are among the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change through rising sea levels and tropical storms.

Humanity is threatened. The earth is threatened. We see some common sources of this threat. In an address to the Copenhagen World Social Summit, WCC General Secretary Konrad Raiser said:

A current example which is of great concern to us is the emerging power of the World Trade Organization whose decisions will supercede the authority of national governments and/or international institutions, including the CSD. We question the idolatry which is often bestowed upon the notions of free trade, market access, speculative investment, and competition, seemingly at any cost. The process for making decisions in the WTO and related bodies is highly secretive, non-participatory, and dominated by the interests of transnational corporations. It is not just civil society that is excluded from the table but even many parts of national governments are kept in the dark. This exclusion is most severe for the governments and civil societies in countries of the economic South.

If we are to work toward sustainable community for all, then local, national and global priorities must be based on justice, peace and respect for the integrity of creation.

The World Council of Churches recommends that:

1. National, regional and international policies and programmes in economic, social and environmental areas should be based on criteria of sustainable community with specific principles, indicators and assessment procedures to measure progress. In this context, we endorse the proposal of regular Rio review processes to assess progress and roadblocks for sustainable development e.g. Earth Summit III in 2002.

2. WTO proceedings and decision-making should be transparent and inclusive allowing full participation of all countries and meaningful access for representatives of civil society such as non-governmental organizations. The WTO should be formally accountable within the UN system.

3. In reference to women, we need to implement the Beijing agreement and go beyond to create new development strategies that would promote both sustainable livelihoods and communities, based on gender and social equity for all sectors of society.

4. The CSD promote: the immediate adoption of the UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which provides minimum standards for the continued existence of Indigenous communities; the establishment of a Permanent Forum in the UN for Indigenous Peoples; facilitate greater participation of Indigenous Peoples in the CSD sessions and the related processes.

5. In terms of climate change, governments of industrialized countries should a) fulfil their promise at the Rio Earth Summit to stabilize CO₂ emissions by the year 2000 at 1990 levels, b) establish firm policy measures and agree to a binding international agreement which will achieve greater reductions after 2000, and c) engage public discussion on the risks of climate change and increase public participation in finding solutions.

6. The CSD should recommend that a high-level segment of the Economic and Social Council be devoted to the theme of globalization and sustainability.

We pledge to work with peoples of all faiths to pursue these goals.

The World Council of Churches delegation appreciates the opportunity to make a statement on key issues before the CSD6.

As we have underlined in past CSD Sessions, we believe that the integration of social justice and ecological sustainability should be central to the CSD’s work. Because we believe that the focus should be on ensuring a good quality of life for all people within a healthy environment, we prefer the terminology of "sustainable community". The term "sustainable development" tends to concentrate attention on the promotion of economic growth with the anticipation that it will lead to the improvement of people’s well-being, an anticipation which we find often not realised.

Sustainable community requires a just and moral economy where people are empowered to participate in decisions affecting their lives, where public and private institutions are held accountable for the social and environmental consequences of their operations, and where the earth is nurtured rather than exploited and degraded.

Our focus on sustainable community leads us to a serious critique of the current trends toward economic globalization including a concentration of power in the hands of a minority, an increasing gap between the rich and the poor, regional and global threats to the environment, and a weakening of political institutions and their legitimacy on the national and international level. We are particularly concerned about the impacts on the most vulnerable including Indigenous Peoples, Women and children.

Within this ethical context, we would like to address issues related to the CSD6 agenda items on Industry and on water.

The growth in corporate power and influence raises many issues for the World Council of Churches. Here, we wish to address two aspects regarding Industry, namely corporate responsibility and the expansion of "free trade".

The movement toward economic globalization and deregulation, trends which are strongly supported by most corporations, undermine public channels to ensure the accountability of corporations. Industry argues that globalization and deregulation will facilitate more efficient economic activity with the benefits trickling down to an improved standard of living for people. We are unconvinced by the trickle-down theory. Further, we are deeply concerned about companies making major decisions primarily on the basis of economic gain, decisions which can be detrimental for the social and environmental well-being of the people affected.

Prior to the Rio Earth Summit, churches were encouraged by the initiative of the former UN Centre on Transnational Corporations to develop a code of conduct for companies in their global operations. Unfortunately, opposition from some powerful industrialized countries prevented that process from coming to its intended fruition in Rio. Realising the gravity of this issue, over the past several years, member churches of the WCC in the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States have worked together to develop a draft code for corporations called "Principles for Global Corporate Responsibility - Benchmarks for Measuring Business Performance." The principles cover such areas as corporate responsibility related to eco-systems, national communities, local communities, employees, shareholders, customers, suppliers and contractors. In the churches’ draft code, the principles are translated into criteria for implementation which are in turn reflected in measurable benchmarks for independent verification. The churches involved have already had consultation about the draft code with partners in developing countries and with some companies which have provided useful feedback. This revised code will be made available to interested parties.

Secondly, pressure is now gathering for the development of regional and global trade agreements. These threaten efforts to build sustainable communities. In our statement to CSD5, we raised concerns about the MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investment) particularly its implications for human rights and the environment. Coalitions including member churches of the WCC in Canada and over 600 citizens’ groups in the U.S.A. have gone beyond critiquing the MAI and have articulated possible principles for a foreign investment code which would foster rather than jeopardize sustainable communities. Those guiding principles include:

• regulation of foreign investment to ensure just and equitable development;

• participatory processes for the development of regulations, where citizens’ groups are consulted by a range of relevant government ministries and agencies;
• multilaterally-agreed regulations to prevent unfair competition; and
• internationally recognised labor, environmental and other human rights taking precedence over investors’ interests.

The churches’ work on corporate responsibility and trade issues promotes alternate approaches to economic development which seek to nurture sustainable communities as a whole rather than focussing only on the primacy of the market.

Water is the source of all life, healing, revitalizing, cleansing and quenching the thirst of all living beings. It cannot be substituted, nor multiplied; it is unique. Water symbolizes the spiritual essence in all religions, that which is sacred. For Indigenous Peoples, water is the element with which a spiritual relationship is woven. For them water is a living and sacred resource, an inalienable and collective right as reflected in their cultural identity. It is found in purification, curative rituals, marriage and other ceremonies.

In the Christian tradition, the waters of baptism are a powerful image of unity, as well as a sign of equality in God’s reign.

In many debates on sustainable development, water is called merely an "economic good". The use of this concept ("economic good") is ambiguous and therefore, troubling. The term "good" may denote a commodity or else a virtue. As a necessity, water should be recognized as a fundamental right in the context of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Water is an indispensable element in the global commons which we are called to responsibly administer and preserve.

Economic valuation of the water used for all basic needs, posed as the only solution to providing incentives for the sustainable management of water resources, in reality amounts to denial of life to humankind. If enough political will can be mustered, it is possible to quench the thirst of all of the 1.2 billion people of this world who (according to the UN Development Programme) do not have access to safe drinking water. Mahatma Gandhi, the spiritual leader of India, was wont to say that there was enough on this earth for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed.

Indeed, is it moral and ethical for the world to first plunder the resources of nature, and then when it becomes scarce, to make a costly commodity out of it? In this context, we are seriously concerned that the Declaration of the Paris Conference calls for private funding in the financing of water and sanitation projects and for the progressive recovery of direct service costs and overheads.

Essential water should not be privatized. It is the duty of all governments to provide water as a social right for their people. It must be available freely at least as far as being utilized to maintain the health and well being of all people. Any degree of economic valuation placed on water must be subordinated to the primordial aim of meeting basic human needs. Moreover, the commercialization of water would lead to the further impoverishment of women everywhere as they are universally the principal users of water.

Whether in agriculture or industry, effective management and efficient use of water resources is critical. Conservation of fresh water eco-systems is necessary to maintain the balance within watersheds. Indigenous Peoples have centuries-long traditions of conserving water. An integrated strategy at the local, national, regional, and international levels, must seek to maximize benefits for both people and eco-systems. In this context, water cannot be considered a "national" right, but a human right, involving people across borders. The development of participatory fresh water management systems that link conservation with human needs and which allow communities, Women, Indigenous Peoples and all stakeholders a role in the decision making process is vital. These systems must take into account the views, rights and basic needs of the marginalized. In the mountains of Peru, local communities have organized themselves to manage scarce water for their basic needs, including subsistence agriculture. They have constructed and continue to maintain sluices and water tanks using locally available materials.

Water must not be distributed on a discriminatory basis. In the Occupied West Bank Palestinians pay four times as much as Israelis do for water. Additionally, Israelis have 24-hour-a-day access to water while Palestinians have access to it only two days a week.

Furthermore, justice – likened in the Bible to an ever-flowing stream – is symbolized in the nature of water. It is not only a matter of right but of justice.

• propose that specific local, national and regional policies concerning fresh water be established for discussion at Earth Summit III;
• call on the Member States to establish independent, democratic and participatory water councils at all levels to provide for an integrated strategy for the protection and use of all fresh water systems;
• urge that Industry diverts a percentage of all investments to support and sustain the eco-systems which their operations affect;
• include a gender disaggregated analysis on the impact of the commercialization of water as well as of the participatory processes related to water management; and
• take steps to promote indigenous and ecologically appropriate technologies for the conservation and equitable use of water for sustainable communities.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General Elect:

We have received the news of your election as Secretary-General of the United Nations with great satisfaction. We extend to you our warmest congratulations.

The World Council of Churches has followed your distinguished career as a diplomat in the service of your country, and as an international civil servant since your time as a student here in Geneva. We know how well received your nomination to this high post has been among the diplomatic corps and the staff of the United Nations agencies with whom we maintain close contact. We are convinced that the international community has rightly recognized in you a leader of exceptional quality, competence and vision.

You come into your new high office at one of the most difficult moments in the life of the United Nations Organization and in a time of almost unprecedented complexity in world affairs. The expectations of the role you will play are great indeed, and often contradictory. I wish to assure you of our support and prayers.

It would be an honor for me to extend to you in person our congratulations and to exchange views about how the World Council of Churches and its more than 300 member churches can assist and support you in your new responsibilities. My colleagues in our Commission of the Churches on International Affairs will be in contact with your office early in the new year to consult with respect to such an opportunity, either at United Nations Headquarters, or possibly on the occasion of an early visit by you to Geneva.

May God bless, guide and sustain you.

Dear Madam,

We are delighted by the news of your assumption of office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. We avail ourselves of this opportunity to offer you our warm congratulations.

The World Council of Churches and its more than 300 member churches have over the years contributed greatly to the work of promotion and protection of human rights. At the international level, this has been done through the various agencies of the United Nations, particularly with the Commission on Human Rights, with which we have a long history of collaborative relationship. At the local and national levels, in different regions of the world, our member churches have, on a regular basis, undertaken training and awareness-building programmes for human rights defenders.

The Council, in the first year after its foundation, actively participated in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly in respect of the provisions relating to religious freedom and liberty. As we approach the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration, the Council reiterates its support for the principles enunciated in the Vienna Declaration and the Programme of Action that "the universal nature of these rights and freedoms is beyond question."

You assume responsibilities of the office of the High Commissioner at a time when the human rights debate at the inter-governmental level is not only highly politicized but also sharply polarized. As we enter the next millennium and confront the myriad challenges and issues that face human rights advocates - globalization, right to development, rights of uprooted and indigenous peoples, violence against women, impunity, growing ethno-centrism and religious and racial intolerance - there is an urgent need to listen to the diverse voices emerging from different regions and sectors in order to build a consensus that can further strengthen and undergird the principles of universality. This is a daunting task for which you will need the support, not only of governments, but also of NGOs, churches and civil society as well. We are certain, under your able leadership and with the background and experience you bring to your new job, these challenges will be adequately met.

Given the churches’ commitment and involvement in concerns for justice, human rights and peace, it will be an honour for me to extend to you in person our congratulations and to share and exchange views on how the World Council of Churches and its members can assist and support you in your new responsibilities. I have requested my staff to be in contact with your office, to explore such an opportunity at your convenience.

May our Lord’s blessings be with you, to guide and sustain you as you begin to discharge your new responsibilities.

On every continent, people are being torn from their homes by violence and despair. Millions of people have been displaced and wait for a chance to go home. As wars drag on, economies deteriorate and environments become more fragile, solutions for the uprooted are becoming more elusive. Governments in every region are closing their borders. Too many churches are also turning away from the strangers arriving on their doorsteps.

Behind the massive global dimensions of today's uprooting are individual stories of pain, of families being torn apart, of despair and suffering. More than one in every fifty human beings is now a refugee or international migrant. Most are women, youth, and children. The vast majority leaves countries in the South and remains in the South.

People leave their communities for many reasons and are called by different names – refugees, internally displaced, asylum-seekers, economic migrants. As churches, we lift up all those who are compelled by severe political, economic and social conditions to leave their land and their culture -- regardless of the labels they are given by others. Uprooted people are those forced to leave their communities: those who flee because of persecution and war, those who are forcibly displaced because of environmental devastation and those who are compelled to seek sustenance in a city or abroad because they cannot survive at home. The focus of this statement is on the uprooted, acknowledging that many others remain in extraordinarily difficult situations.

Although it has accelerated in recent years, the movement of people has been a permanent feature of human history. The reality is that we all live in multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-lingual societies -- though sometimes we don't see the strangers as Christ among us. When churches close themselves to the strangers in their midst, when they no longer strive for an inclusive community as a sign and foretaste of the Kingdom to come, they lose their reason to be.

We challenge the churches worldwide to rediscover their identity, their integrity and their vocation as the church of the stranger. Service to uprooted people has always been recognized as diaconia -- although it has been peripheral to the life of many churches. But we affirm that it is also an ecclesial matter. We are a church of the Stranger - the Church of Jesus Christ the Stranger. (Matthew 25:31-46)

As government policies become more restrictive and public hostility against foreigners intensifies in every region, churches are challenged as never before to make a choice: will they choose to be the church of the stranger and take the side of the uprooted or will they choose to turn away or ignore the problem? Will they just refer questions about uprooted to their program for refugees or will they be the expression of the universality of the Gospel and home to those who seek to claim their human dignity?

Koinonia is costly and challenges us to risk the consequences of giving of ourselves for others. In some countries, to work with the uprooted is dangerous. In many places, to respond to the uprooted is not popular with local congregations who are concerned with the many pressing problems 'among our own people.' When we challenge the causes of injustice that uproot people, the church must be prepared to pay the price of confronting established powers and privilege.

This statement is directed to churches. As a Christian household, we must acknowledge and confess our failings. And we must move on to conversion and renewal. The credibility of our witness and advocacy must be based on our experience and engagement as well as on our convictions.

Uprooted people remind us that ours is an unjust world. The deterioration of social, political and human rights conditions makes it imperative that we confront the sinfulness of unjust systems and structures.

1. War, civil conflict, human rights violations, colonial domination and persecution for political, religious, ethnic or social reasons characterize every region and are major causes of forced human displacement today.

Previously suppressed ethnic and national conflicts have exploded into open warfare over the past decade. Religion and ethnicity are used to uphold narrow nationalistic goals and divide pluralistic societies. Civilians are increasingly the victims of the violence -- due in part to the widespread availability of weapons and anti-personnel mines. Millions have been uprooted by the violence: 30 million are internally displaced within their countries' borders while another 19.5 million have become refugees in other countries.

Violence directed at persons, communities and entire peoples often involves destruction of the social fabric, the economic infrastructure and the natural environments of nations. This destruction of community is the most dramatic cause for forced migration.

In war and conflict situations sexual violence against women and girls becomes a strategy of warfare in which rape of women and girls is used to further political agendas, to humiliate men as well as women, and to displace and destroy community life.

Widespread violations of human rights remain a powerful motivation for seeking asylum. In many countries, women, men and children are denied fair trial, tortured, abducted, and assassinated. Women and girls are often sexually abused and violated.

The deliberate displacement of indigenous and colonized peoples in order to expropriate their lands and resources continues to be a brutal form of forced uprooting of people.

2. Severe breakdown of economic and social conditions that once provided people with the means to survive in their traditional communities and in their own countries is accelerating the movement of people.

Underlying this breakdown in conditions is the globalization of the world economy. This process continues to reproduce great and growing inequalities in wealth and incomes within and among countries. Emerging trade relations are working to the disadvantage of economically weaker countries.

Major technological innovations are making production and services more "efficient" but contribute to jobless growth. Permanent unemployment is increasing in all regions, leading to increased marginalization, exclusion and movement of people. Capital intensive investment provides too few job opportunities for the growing number of working-age people.

Burgeoning debt, coupled with externally imposed structural adjustment measures and restrictive fiscal policies are making it difficult for people to survive. At the same time many governments are divesting themselves of responsibility for social programs. The choice by governments to reduce expenditures on social needs such as health and education while maintaining or expanding military spending contributes to impoverishment and, ultimately, to destabilization.

The human impact of structural adjustment programs is particularly evidenced by the rise in infant mortality and malnutrition, preventable diseases and illiteracy among the "developing" world's children. The major burden is placed on women – the main providers of food – who struggle to make ends meet to feed their families. More and more people have no option but to leave their communities in search of work and food.

Some 10 million people are displaced each year as a result of intentional "development" schemes, which include flooding of large areas by dams and replacement of subsistence farming by mechanized agribusinesses.

3. Environmental devastation has emerged as a powerful motivation for large-scale human displacement.

Destruction of our natural environment – including deforestation, loss of top soil, desertification – and degradation of agricultural land beyond restoration are making traditional environments unlivable. Estimates indicate that today, there are 10 to 25 million people who have been displaced for environmental reasons.

Manufacturing, testing and deployment of weaponry in both "peacetime" military exercises and in war have serious effects on the environment and make sustainable land use for agriculture and human survival impossible. Renewed nuclear testing continues to threaten survival of communities and produce permanent displacement of people.

Rising sea levels and increased intensity of storms, cyclones, tidal waves and earthquakes forecast greater displacement in the near future. These anticipated results of global warming, if not arrested, will lead to the disappearance of island nations and other densely populated lowlands within the next decades.

Depletion of natural resources, coupled with economic degradation not only forces people to leave their communities, but also contributes to conflicts over increasingly scarce resources.

As the numbers of uprooted people increase worldwide, the will to provide protection for them is declining sharply. Governments in all regions, led by those in countries of the industrialized North, are imposing restrictive immigration controls and draconian "deterrence measures" to prevent the arrival of asylum-seekers and migrants. As a result, people in need of protection for their lives and human rights are being formally excluded and stigmatized by governments.

There is a global trend of turning away from taking responsibility to address both the causes and consequences of forced human displacement. While societies ultimately cannot cope with unlimited numbers of displaced people, too little attention and too few resources are directed to preventing and resolving the conditions which uproot people in the first place.

In all regions of the globe, public solidarity with those fleeing violence and poverty is eroding. A dangerous rise in racist and xenophobic hostility is often expressed in violence against refugees and immigrants. They frequently become scapegoats for many social and economic tensions in society and targets for growing hatred.

In many countries, the combination of public hostility and restrictive governmental measures is posing a threat to democratic values and jurisprudence. Measures proposed or implemented to control access by foreigners usually also restrict civil and human rights of citizens and residents.

International legal standards are not upheld with regard to the particular needs of uprooted women and children for protection.

Today, some religious leaders either avoid or choose not to take stands against community violence towards foreigners or "others". Too many religious institutions, including churches, remain indifferent. Too few congregations welcome or include newcomers of different racial, ethnic, national origins. Numerous churches and individual Christians remain associated with structures that exclude and oppress people.

For those uprooted from their communities, the loss of human dignity is an overpowering consequence of displacement, regardless of class or gender. This loss of dignity is often exacerbated by paternalistic attitudes on the part of those trying to help.

Uprooted people experience multiple losses: of family, friends and community; of familiar spiritual, religious and cultural structures that nurture and define basic human identity; of social status; of property, employment and economic resources. They usually have to deal with many consequences of displacement all at once. For rural and indigenous people, loss of land results in loss of economic power, cultural and spiritual identity.

Violence, rejection and racist hostility against uprooted people compound traumas of forced migration by restricting mobility, participation in society and the ability to obtain employment and services in places of transit or refuge. This violence and injustice is a part of the rising tide of racism and xenophobia worldwide which determines the privilege and security for some but consigns others to insecurity and exclusion.

The disruptions facing people fleeing persecution and warfare are especially severe. Women and children are the most affected. The threat and effects of sexual violence against uprooted women and girls violates their human dignity and integrity and undermines their participation in society. Their physical, emotional and psychological well-being is undermined.

The organized trafficking of men, women and children is a renewed form of slavery, with the attendant destruction of the dignity and well-being of individuals and families.

The forceful separation of children from family and community support systems makes them particularly vulnerable to threats to life and security. Interruption in education results in gaps of knowledge when children remain in refugee camps and in war or conflict situations. This has long term consequences for children and their societies.

The violence and injustice which uproots people and the resultant human suffering challenge us to restate our convictions as the basis for Christian response.

All people are made in the image of God. Respect for the human dignity and the worth of every person regardless of age, abilities, ethnicity, gender, class, nationality, race and religion is foundational to our faith. Our faith compels us to ensure that human life, physical security and personal safety are upheld in law and institutions.

No society can live in peace with itself or with the world without a full awareness of the worth and dignity of every human person and of the sacredness of human life.

With the gift of the resources of the earth goes the responsibility to safeguard and nurture creation. When creation is not nurtured, people are displaced.

Christians are encouraged by the prophetic tradition and by Revelation chapter 21 which gives us an image of a God who is continually "making all things new", and who summons us to participate in His work of renewal.

The realm of God is a vision of a just and united world. The challenge of prophesy and of Jesus’ teachings is to liberate and equip Christians to have the courage to work for alternative community, to work for peace and justice which is to address the causes which uproot people.

At the heart of Jesus teaching is the commandment to love God and to love one’s neighbor as oneself. Christians are called to respond to the Good News of God’s option for the marginalized and excluded. Jesus’ love is unconditional. Jesus did not hesitate to pay the price of self-giving love.

The prophet Micah (6:8) summons the faithful to do justice, to love kindness and to walk humbly with God. There is no peace without justice or full justice without peace. (Amos 5:24) Our faith compels us to struggle for justice and peace for all; to work for a world where economic, political and social institutions serve people rather than the other way around.

In the jubilee tradition (Leviticus 25, Deuteronomy 15, Isaiah 61:1-2), compassion is linked to recommitment to justice and peace. The jubilee is a new beginning, a starting point for a process of reconciliation and rebuilding community, giving birth to new hope.

Jesus himself was rejected by many of his own people, because he identified with the marginalized and excluded. The Gospel tells us that Jesus made the love for strangers and enemies a hallmark of the inclusive community of the children of God. In this, He followed the Old Testament tradition of receiving the stranger. (Exodus 23:9; Leviticus 19:33-34; Deuteronomy 24:14-19; Jeremiah 5-7)

Christians are called to be with the oppressed, the persecuted, the marginalized and the excluded in their suffering, their struggles and their hopes. A ministry of accompaniment and advocacy with uprooted people upholds the principles of prophetic witness and service - diaconia. We cannot desert the "needy" or set boundaries to compassion. (Hebrews 13:2, Luke 10:25-37, Romans 12:13)

While God’s people chose to sojourn to pursue their call to mission, service and promise, the faith journeys of people who suffer uprooting are a heritage of the whole church. As our understanding of God’s love has been illustrated throughout the history of the church by Old Testament stories of exile, so too must the church today receive the word of God through the witness of uprooted people.

Proclaiming the Gospel of hope for all people and remembering the communion in Jesus Christ, through his death and resurrection, churches live their vocation as viable and inclusive communities, accompanying people, sharing their hope and suffering, and providing space for them.

Our Christian convictions compel a renewal of church action to uphold life and dignity, to work for justice and peace, and to create community with uprooted people.

Action begins with a self-critical review of the successes and failures and a renewal of churches’ responses to uprooted people and the causes of their displacement. Renewal requires bringing theological and Biblical reflection on the causes of displacement and needs of uprooted people into the centre of the life of the church. Issues of uprooted people must be brought to policy and decision-making bodies and to groups which allocate resources. Church bodies and programs addressing these concerns must be established or strengthened.

The task is ecumenical and global. Churches must work together and in partnership with other sectors of civil society. Many different organizations are deeply engaged in solidarity with uprooted people; no one sector can respond alone to the systemic causes of uprooting.

Seeking viable solutions to the causes and consequences of uprooted people means also to engage with governments. This requires that churches examine how they can maintain their convictions while negotiating compromise, which is part of national and international policy debates.

We challenge ourselves, the member churches of the World Council of Churches and related ecumenical organizations to join in campaigns to uphold life and dignity, promote justice and peace in our world, and accompany uprooted people.

The actions which Christians and churches can take will vary across the different national and regional contexts and will differ according to the capacity of churches. We ask churches to support each other and work together.

1. Upholding life and human dignity of uprooted people

A. Protecting lives and safety

• Offer shelter or refuge for uprooted people.
• Provide sponsorship for refugee settlement.
• Extend sanctuary to people in danger.
• Ensure protection of uprooted women and girls against all forms of violence.
• Advocate for full legal protection of uprooted children and children in armed conflict.
• Challenge government policies which seek to limit protection of uprooted people.

B. Defending legality and human rights

• Assist individuals and families to pursue legal procedures to claim asylum or safe haven.
• Advocate at borders, airports, refugee camps where uprooted people are at risk of abuse.
• Support migrants and displaced persons to claim their rights as human beings according to national and international standards.
• Engage with governments to provide protection by using relevant international instruments.
• Speak out, make declarations, and adopt resolutions to condemn and delegitimize violence against foreigners.

C. Promoting international standards

• Promote ratification and full implementation of the UN Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
• Promote ratification and implementation of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.
• Utilize the International Convention on the Rights of the Child in ministry and advocacy with uprooted children.
• Participate in efforts to develop international and national mechanisms to provide protection for uprooted people --those internally displaced or who cannot be voluntarily repatriated-- not included under existing standards.

• Listen to and understand stories of uprooted people about the reasons they left and their hopes for return.
• Examine the role of governments in creating situations which uproot people.
• Assess the churches’ possibilities to confront root causes.

B. Engaging fully in peacemaking and conflict resolution

• Conduct education on peace and global responsibility in churches.
• Work with trained practitioners of conflict resolution, mediation and negotiation to create safe social spaces for humanitarian relief, in refugee camps and for the reconstruction of civil society.
• Establish "communities of peace".
• Build alliances with community-based groups, organizations, and trade unions active in human rights, economic justice, racial and ethnic justice and peace.
• Advocate for responsible international action, particularly through the United Nations, to prevent and to resolve conflicts so as to enable people to stay or return to their home communities.

C. Working for economic and social fullness of life

• Support local alternatives for economic self-reliance.
• Promote respect for the rights and full participation of women as part of building viable communities.
• Establish dialogue with environmental concerns groups and legal experts to consider ways of addressing environmental causes of displacement.

• Urge that trade, aid and investment policies support creating sustainable conditions for people to remain.
• Advocate for the rights of indigenous and colonized peoples to remain on or return to their lands.

A. Accompanying uprooted people in decisions to remain, leave and return

• Maintain an active presence with people who choose to remain in or leave their homeland.
• Advocate and monitor the safety of return and reintegration in sustainable communities, including accompanying uprooted people back to their homelands and reporting on that process.

B. Providing services to respond to material, social and spiritual needs.

• Ensure the full participation of uprooted people in planning, implementation and evaluation of programs and services and ecumenical initiatives.
• Provide pastoral care and crisis intervention services to individuals and families.
• Promote the availability of programs meeting the specific needs of uprooted women, and empower their participation in community.
• Advocate that children separated from their families remain in family-like situations.
• Encourage the availability of programs essential for the spiritual, emotional, physical and educational development of uprooted children.
• Advocate with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Organization for Migration and other international organizations for adequate provisions of material assistance and promotion of human dignity of uprooted people.

C. Supporting initiatives of uprooted people.

• Provide community development opportunities to enable uprooted people to become self-reliant.
• Empower individuals and organizations of uprooted people to define and respond to their own needs and issues.
• Support uprooted people from different faiths to practice their religious beliefs.
• Build alliances with organizations and communities of uprooted people.

D. Being church together with uprooted Christians

• Take the necessary steps to welcome and encourage uprooted Christians to participate fully in the life of the church - from the congregational level to national leadership.
• Embrace the diversity of Christian traditions.
• Facilitate uprooted Christian communities to re-establish their congregations.
• Work with other churches in developing initiatives with uprooted people.
• Receive the spiritual gifts of uprooted people.

E. Engaging in living in diversity

• Convene and participate in encounters between host and uprooted people to break down prejudices, fears and myths.
• Organize campaigns to counter and prevent racism, xenophobia and hostility towards uprooted people.
• Promote international exchanges of church personnel with and between regions.

F. Restoring public solidarity

• Promote establishment of "Refugee Day/week" and/or "Migrant week" in churches, communities and countries.
• Hold inter-faith dialogue and where possible, services and prayers.
• Develop educational and awareness-building activities on uprooted people for the whole life of the church.

Even as many in our societies turn away or ignore the strangers in their midst, some Christians and some churches are choosing to be on the side of uprooted people. Some churches have identified themselves with strangers and exiles for centuries.

Signs of hope are emerging in community and church initiatives around the world to create new ministries, new vehicles of ecumenical cooperation, and new ways of upholding human dignity and creating sustainable community:

• In numerous risky situations, Christians and churches are taking stands to be on the side of the uprooted. Some have opened their church buildings and their homes to uprooted people.
• A number of Christians and churches have assumed great risks by acting in civil disobedience to protect the uprooted.
• Many churches and community groups are seeking to aid and protect those whose lives and safety are at risk because of forced repatriation or abuse.
• Some churches are daring to confront the racism and xenophobia among their own membership.
• Survival strategies of uprooted women and men point to their ability to resist assaults to their dignity and to mobilize themselves to address their concerns.

North and the South, religious institutions, grassroots organizations, neighborhood groups and families are struggling to create alternate ways of living based on life-giving values.

We affirm that the churches’ place is on the side of the uprooted. We call on member churches through witness and service at all levels of the life of the churches to rediscover their identity as the Church of the Stranger...

Monseigneur, Cher Frère en Christ,

L'image de policiers fracturant une église á Paris pour en déloger par la force des étrangers sans papiers a causé un choc considérable dans le monde entier.

Le Conseil œcuménique des Eglises partage le sentiment de consternation et d'indignation exprimée par de larges secteurs de l'opinion publique française face au choix du gouvernement de privilégier l'usage de la force au mépris d'une médiation qui était en cours et sur le point d'aboutir.

Sachant le rôle joué par le Conseil d’Eglises Chrétiennes en France dans la campagne œcuménique «accueillir l'étranger », nous voulons vous faire part de l'inquiétude du mouvement œcuménique international devant le message que les dirigeants d'un pays qui s'honorait de défendre les Droits de l'Homme est en train de donner au monde : mépris de la dignité et des droits fondamentaux des étrangers les plus vulnérables, soumission néfaste aux pressions de secteurs xénophobes et nationalistes.

A l'heure où le visage hideux du racisme et des enfermements ethniques réapparaît dans de nombreux pays, en particulier dans le monde occidental, l'impact symbolique des événements qui se produisent en France a des conséquences éthiques et politiques qui nous semblent très lourdes de dangers pour l'avenir.

Plus que jamais, la question posée par l'existence de millions de personnes déracinées dans le monde impose une prise de conscience et un engagement des églises et des sociétés civiles pour aborder ce défi avec lucidité, sur la base de valeurs de solidarité.

C'est dans cet esprit que le Conseil œcuménique appelle ses membres à faire de l'années l997 une année de solidarité avec les déracinés.

Profondément convaincus, comme vous l'êtes vous-même, que les réactions de rejet á l'égard des étrangers se développent sur le terrain de la désinformation et des peurs manipulées, nous voulons vous apporter tous nos encouragements pour poursuivre avec vigueur le travail indispensable de réflexion collective et de propositions constructives, au niveau local comme au niveau national. En France, comme en Europe, la responsabilité des églises, aux côtés des différentes composantes de la société civile attachées au respect des Droits de l'Homme, est aujourd'hui très grande pour favoriser la réalisation d'un véritable débat démocratique sur l'immigration dans toutes ses dimensions nationales et internationales.

Comme l'a souligné la consultation œcuménique internationale d'Addis Abeba en novembre l995, les églises sont appelées à exercer une «mission prophétique » face aux problèmes des déracinés dans notre monde contemporain. Que la force de l'Esprit vous accompagne dans cette Mission!

[Translation]

Monsignor, dear Brother in Christ,

The sight of police breaking into a church in Paris to forcibly dislodge foreigners without residence papers has shocked the entire world.

The World Council of Churches shares the feeling of consternation and indignation expressed by large sectors of French public opinion about the choice of the government to favor the use of force over the mediation efforts that were apparently near to succeeding.

Knowing the role that the Council of Christian Churches in France has played in the ecumenical campaign, "Welcome the Stranger," we wish to convey to you the concern of the international ecumenical movement about the message being given by the leaders of a country that takes pride in its defense of human rights when they act in contempt of the dignity and fundamental rights of the most vulnerable among the foreign population, ceding to the pressures of xenophobic and nationalist quarters.

At a time when the hideous face of racism and ethnic superiority reappears in numerous countries, especially in the western world, the symbolic impact of these events in France has weighty and dangerous ethical and political implications for the future.

More than ever, the question posed by the existence of millions of uprooted persons around the world requires a building of awareness and the engagement of churches and civil societies to confront this challenge clearly on the basis of the value of solidarity.

It is in this spirit that the World Council of Churches has called its member churches to celebrate together the year 1997 as the "Year of Solidarity with Uprooted People."

Deeply convinced, as you are, that the reactions of rejection of foreigners feeds on misinformation and manipulated fears, we offer you encouragement in your efforts to continue and strengthen the indispensable work of joint reflection and the elaboration of concrete alternatives at local and national levels. In France as in the rest of Europe, the churches together with others in civil society devoted to respect for human rights have a weighty responsibility today to stimulate a true democratic debate on immigration and its manifold national and international dimensions.

As the international ecumenical consultation in Addis Ababa said in November 1995, the churches are called to a "prophetic mission" in view of the problems of the uprooted in today’s world. May the Spirit accompany you in this mission!

Mr Chairman,

Humanitarian, pastoral and legal action taken by Christians and church-related organizations to attend to refugees, displaced persons and migrants – uprooted people – has often preceded action by governments and intergovernmental agencies.

Since the dissolution of the former Soviet Union, church-related organizations have been increasingly concerned with the population movements within and to the Republics of the Commonwealth of Independent States and neighbouring countries. For example, we note the recent positive experience of church-related responses to uprooted people in Central Europe.

We welcome the convening of the CIS Conference and the efforts to elaborate common principles, policy and an operational framework for the entire region.

We believe that this conference and its programme of action represent a milestone in elaborating principles and guidelines for international co-operation in dealing with a major concern of our time.

We wish to emphasise our support for the extensive references to international human rights standards and instruments as basic principles underlying the programme of action, especially paragraph 10. We also underline the importance of ensuring protection of the rights of migrants and to promote mutual respect, understanding and co-operation between them and the populations of host countries, as stated in paragraph 18.

We are particularly pleased to note in paragraph 19 that states fully recognise the freedom of association and that they aim to develop comprehensive co-operation with non-governmental organizations.

We further endorse the elaboration of detailed policy guidelines covering refugees and internally displaced persons (paragraphs 32 and 34). We emphatically urge that concrete measures be implemented to ensure international protection for those needing it.

We recognise that this conference addresses some of the main elements of the dilemma of international migration today. However, it is clear that further elaboration of an overall migration policy framework is required. Unfortunately, the only definition offered for a migrant category in the annex is of "illegal migrants." Similarly, only this category and that of ecological migrants are addressed in the section on policy, although paragraphs 26 through 30 do speak of the need to formulate national migration policies. We believe that reference should also have been retained in paragraph 47, regarding relevant instruments, to the 1990 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

The experience in other regions is that international migration continues to have many positive aspects and benefits. The migration phenomenon is and must be identified as distinct from such issues as drugs, crime and terrorism; these exist and must be combated irrespective of migration.

We welcome the positive references to development of conditions, modalities, rights and obligations in national immigration legislation. We appreciate inclusion of reference to providing for protection of basic human rights and legal due process in the procedures and mechanisms of border control.

We strongly support the emphasis given to prevention of involuntary human displacement by inclusion of an entire section dedicated to concerns of early warning, protective measures and, especially, conflict resolution. We urge that particular attention be given to the special needs of uprooted women and children in the implementation of the programme of action.

We welcome the inclusion of the section on co-operation with non-governmental organizations (NGOs). We appreciate recognition of the benefits of co-operation with NGOs, and support the particular recommendations calling for involvement of NGOs in policy and program activity, allocation of resources, capacity building and encouragement by governments of NGO involvement.

The international Christian organizations are committed to continuing support for uprooted people in the CIS region, through programs for training social workers, personnel exchanges, provision of material assistance and other activities, as recommended in paragraph 25. They also expect to continue to play a role in monitoring the rights and responsibilities of uprooted people, in connection with the Steering Group to monitor the follow-up process. In this we expect that the respective states and international organizations will also solicit involvement from representatives of other religions.

We believe that NGOs can continue to make a significant contribution to the solution of the problems created by population movements within and to the region.

Throughout the assembly we have been reminded of the significance of our meeting in Africa. We have enjoyed, and responded to, the hospitality and courtesy of the churches and people of Zimbabwe. We have heard much of the range of problems and challenges facing the governments, people and churches at this time throughout this vast continent.

The holding of the World Council of Churches’ eighth assembly on African soil gives us the opportunity to rededicate ourselves to the African dream and agenda for the twenty-first century. It is imperative that effective change should occur on the African continent towards the attainment of lasting peace, the enabling of people to participate in making the decisions that affect their lives, and respect for the integrity of the human person and community.

We were deeply impressed by the presentation of Africa through drama of past and present hopes and traumas in the life of Africa’s nations, including our host nation. We express our deep respect for the prophetic courage of this presentation.

Through its "Reconstructing Africa" program of dialogue and study, culminating in the event held in May 1997 in Johannesburg with the theme "Jubilee and the African Kairos", the WCC has already sought to engage creatively and in solidarity with Africa and to stimulate a new way of looking at Africa. This has already generated renewed hope in the African church that change is possible. Participants at the Johannesburg meeting expressed their conviction about the future of Africa along the following lines:

This is a vision that

• calls us to work together and creatively to be in solidarity with one another, to accompany those among us with burdens too heavy to carry alone;
• compels us to work towards the elimination of the barriers and walls that divide and enslave us;
• provides us with instruments to reconcile broken relationships and heal wounds inflicted by violent ways of resolving misunderstandings and conflict;
• can be realized if Africans agree to work together in the spirit of pan-Africanism, and manage their human and natural resources responsibly and ethically, together and in partnership with one another and with nature.

In the padare there were many opportunities to share and exchange stories about issues of social change relating to Africa. In the plenary session that focused specifically on Africa, we heard, in striking and powerful form, the voices of the people of Africa, including not only cries of pain and suffering, but also testimonies of struggle, faith and hope. We listened to accounts of Africa’s twin legacies of oppression and resistance and of the current opportunity to determine her own future. Through music, drama and discussion the dilemmas and challenges were presented and explored -- the liberation from colonialism; the struggle to overcome poverty; the progress towards good government and participatory civil society; issues concerning justice, human rights, the rule of law, fragmentation and exclusion, and the moral regeneration of society.

We heard about the huge challenges facing Africa, many resulting from the economics of "war and manna" that have resulted in the phenomenon known as globalization. Global pressures mean that nations and individuals battle against overwhelming socio-economic odds arising from the debt crisis, structural adjustment programs, and in some cases bribery, corruption and the misuse of resources. Half of Africa is at present at war in their own countries and we were vividly reminded of the suffering that continues in southern Sudan as a result of 50 years of protracted civil war. Conflict in some parts of Africa, such as the Great Lakes Region, has been continuing for many years. Issues of indigenization are not as clear cut in Africa as in other places, but are being addressed in the WCC through the Indigenous Peoples Program. There is widespread concern about health issues, particularly about the spread of HIV/AIDS. Overarching all else, there is an urgent need to carry forward the process of moral regeneration, a process to which the churches have an important contribution to make, through the development of both a new ecumenical vision with a coherent prophetic voice and the capacity to explore and articulate ecumenical social thinking.

In relation to the priority of human rights and the integrity and dignity of the person, church leadership in Africa must secure the full participation of women, youth and lay persons in the definition, articulation and implementation of the African agenda at all levels. This will ensure the development of common initiatives and actions that would guarantee the survival and success of the agenda. The role and place of the family, and distinctive Christian qualities such as integrity, generosity and, above all, hope in Christ, also need to be explored and clarified in the context of the emerging civil society.

It is important that the emphasis should be positive, leaving behind the notes of fatalism, despair and helplessness which tend to characterize some attitudes and responses. There are clear signs within Africa, alongside the vibrant Christian faith and spiritual vitality, of the emergence of a new spirit of patriotism, a sense of pride in identity ("ubuntu") and a desire to construct a different image of the continent. In responding to all that we have heard, we wish therefore to celebrate the heritage and culture of Africa and to reflect on the assembly theme "Turn to God – Rejoice in Hope". With a sense of repentance we recognize that governments and churches from out of Africa bear no little responsibility for policies and decisions that have contributed to the present difficulties; but we see a situation at present that is full of promise and hope. Reiterating the action with which our plenary session on Africa ended, we commit ourselves in mutual solidarity to the reconstruction of Africa. In the case of those of us from Africa this represents a commitment to work with and through our churches for a better future and to seek to ensure that never again will Africa suffer such humiliation as has been experienced previously. In the case of those of us who belong elsewhere this represents a commitment to work with and through our churches in accompanying our African brothers and sisters in their journey of hope.

The eighth assembly of the World Council of Churches:

affirms the African agenda and commits the World Council of Churches’ structures and constituencies to supporting, accompanying and helping with the realization of this agenda by placing a special focus on Africa during the beginning of the 21st century;

supports wholeheartedly the commitment, undertaken before God by the leaders and representatives of member churches of Africa at the assembly, to

3. work towards the establishment of appropriate ethical values in work, governance and management, and good stewardship;
4. do everything in their means to help contain and overcome the scourge of HIV/AIDS;
5. affirm the right of African children to hope for a bright future which, with all strength and ability, they will help to create.

instructs the Central Committee to carry forward the work already started through the Reconstructing Africa Programme of dialogue and study, with an emphasis on capacity-building and information-sharing so as to develop solidarity within the ecumenical family and enable Africa to make the unique contribution it has to offer to the world ecumenical movement;

encourages councils of churches in Africa, and the All Africa Conference of Churches, to seek new ways, within the limits of available resources, of working together with the churches in their areas, and in partnership with civil society organizations in Africa, so as to provide moral leadership, articulate a new vision for Africa, and motivate and mobilize Africans to participate in the building of just and sustainable communities;

urges all member churches to engage in dialogue with their respective governments and make representations with a view to the governments, United Nations organizations and other international bodies playing whatever part they can in the process of reconstruction and reconciliation within Africa through, for example, respect for human rights, the promotion of an alternative economic order, debt relief, reductions in the arms trade, and urgent measures to bring about peace with justice in the Sudan, the Great Lakes Region and other areas of conflict in Africa in particular and the world at large.

Le Comité Exécutif du Conseil œcuménique des Eglises, réuni à Genève du 17 au 20 février 1998, profondément bouleversé par la violence qui a coûté tant de vies humaines en Algérie, veut assurer le peuple de ce pays bien-aimé de sa profonde sympathie et de sa compassion en ces temps de peine et d’épreuve.

Le mouvement œcuménique s’est tenu à vos côtés pendant votre lutte d’indépendance, cherchant à répondre aux besoins des victimes de la violence et des personnes déplacées par la guerre. Il est resté avec vous alors que vous vous efforciez de récupérer des séquelles de la violence et de la guerre, de rebâtir votre pays et de jeter les bases d’une nation en paix et prospère pour tous. Il s’est réjoui de la remarquable contribution que vous avez apporté à la communauté internationale dans la lutte mondiale pour le développement, pour l’autodétermination des peuples colonisés, pour la justice économique et la paix.

Nous pleurons, une fois encore, avec vous pour ceux et celles qui sont tombés victimes de la violence et d’actes atroces. Mais nous voulons aussi rendre grâce à Dieu pour les hommes et les femmes qui, parmi vous, sont porteurs d’espoir au cœur de cette tragédie, pour ceux et celles qui résistent à la terreur et continuent de travailler pour la paix, malgré tout. Nous sommes très touchés par le témoignage de ceux qui, au nom de leur foi, s’engagent dans de courageuses actions de miséricorde.

Nous sommes conscients que les troubles actuels ont de profondes origines historiques et des causes complexes. Les sentiments religieux, parfois exagérés, n’en sont qu’un aspect. Il existe aussi des raisons économiques, politiques et culturelles qui ont contribué à diviser la population et à conduire à une rupture du dialogue social et du processus démocratique, à une fragmentation sociale et à l’extrémisme. Toute approche conflictive, qu’elle vienne de l’intérieur ou de l’extérieur du pays, risque d’exacerber les tensions plutôt que d’encourager les forces de modération et de dialogue.

Ce n’est pas le moment d’isoler l’Algérie et son peuple. La communauté internationale a besoin de discernement que seuls les Algériens eux-mêmes peuvent fournir. Tout au long de ces années douloureuses, les Algériens qui rejettent la violence ont entrepris un dialogue et se sont réunis pour renforcer la démocratie et le respect des droits de l’homme. Nous espérons que les nations sauront vous ouvrir leurs bras, vous accompagner, et chercheront à favoriser des lieux de liberté pour un tel dialogue, tant en Algérie qu’à l’extérieur.

Bien souvent, nous nous sommes sentis impuissants pour vous venir en aide. Mais nous n’avons jamais cessé de prier Dieu pour qu’il vous conduise hors de cette vallée de mort et de désespoir. Restant à vos côtés, nous nous mettons à votre disposition pour tout ce qui permettra de surmonter la violence et de soutenir l’espérance dans un avenir meilleur, don de Dieu.

Que le Dieu de la miséricorde et de la paix soit votre soutien en ces temps d’épreuve.

[Translation]

The Executive Committee of the World Council of Churches, meeting in Geneva, 17-20 February 1998, deeply saddened by the violence in Algeria which has claimed a terrible toll of human lives, assures the people of this beloved land of its sincere sympathy and compassion in this time of pain and trial.

The ecumenical movement stood alongside you during your struggle for independence, seeking to minister to the victims of violence and those displaced by the war. It remained with you as you labored to recover from the effects of war and violence, to rebuild your land, and to lay the foundations for peace and prosperity for all the people. It rejoiced in the enlightened leadership you provided the international community in the global struggle for development, self-determination for colonized peoples, for economic justice and for peace.

Now, once again, we mourn with you those who have fallen victim to violence and horrifying acts of inhumanity. At the same time we give thanks to God for those among you who embody hope in the midst of tragedy, who resist terror and labor for peace against all odds. We are moved by those whose faith has led them to perform courageous acts of mercy.

We are aware that the troubles of this moment have deep historical roots, and complex causes. Religious sentiments, at times exaggerated, are only one factor. Economic, political, and cultural elements also combine to divide people, leading to a breakdown in dialogue and democratic processes, to social isolation and extremism. Confrontational approaches, either at home or abroad, are more likely to exacerbate tensions than to encourage forces of moderation and restoration of dialogue.

This is not a time to isolate Algeria or its people. The international community needs the discernment that only Algerians themselves can offer. During these painful years, Algerians who reject violence have engaged in dialogue and joined to strengthen democracy and respect for human rights. We hope that the nations will open their arms to you, accompany you, and seek to provide free spaces for such dialogue both in Algeria and abroad.

We have often felt powerless to help you, but we have never ceased praying that God will lead you out of this valley of death and despair. We remain with you, and offer ourselves to you in the cause of overcoming violence and sustaining the hope for a better future given by God.

May the God of mercy and of peace sustain you in these days.

The World Council of Churches condemns in the strongest terms the continuing massacres in Burundi. The recent killings of another three hundred persons in Bugendana Camp in the Gitega region represent an escalation of the murders which have now claimed some 150,000 persons since 1993. Once again, the victims have been principally children, women and aged persons. We join in the urgent appeal of the United Nations’ Special Delegate to Burundi for urgent international action to prevent this violence in the Great Lakes region from reaching fully genocidal proportions yet again.

Since the genocide in Rwanda, the WCC, its member churches and related church agencies, in cooperation with the All Africa Council of Churches (AACC), have engaged in intensive programs through ACT International to provide urgently needed humanitarian assistance and pastoral support to the victims of this tragedy. We have also sought to support the churches in the region, especially those in Burundi and Rwanda, in their efforts to bring peace and healing to their societies.

We appeal insistently to the Governments of Rwanda and Burundi, their military, and all armed groups in the region for an immediate end to these killings, and to stop now the vicious cycle of retributive violence.

We call upon the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, and the Organization of African Unity to speed up their efforts to provide protection for vulnerable populations and to demand and help enforce a cease-fire and a negotiated solution to this conflict.

We commend the peacemaking efforts of former Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere, and urge governments to provide political support and needed resources for his initiatives. We believe that a lasting solution depends on African efforts such as this.

We commend the proposals made to church and government officials of Burundi and Rwanda by the AACC President, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, during his pastoral visit last year. We urge them to redouble their efforts, and reiterate our commitment of continuing support in the pursuit of peace and reconciliation.

The failure up to now to take effective steps against impunity for the perpetrators of horrendous crimes in the Great Lakes region contributes to the present violence. We urge the International Tribunal; the Governments of the region, especially Burundi and Rwanda; and civic and religious leaders to cooperate in bringing those responsible for atrocities to justice without further delay.

Finally, we appeal insistently to the Governments of Burundi and Rwanda not to block, but to facilitate the efforts of international humanitarian aid agencies to provide assistance to those in urgent need, particularly to the most vulnerable populations.

These governments and the world as a whole have no legitimate excuse to stand helplessly by as this new tragedy unfolds. May God help us all, especially the people of Burundi, to find the wisdom, spiritual and moral strength, and the perseverance to stop the bloodshed now before it is too late, yet again.

The situation in Burundi has steadily deteriorated following the October 1993 assassination of President Melchior Ndadaye. An estimated 100,000 people have been killed during the last three years as a result of violence between the majority Hutus and the Tutsi minority that dominates the army. Due to the conflict over 200,000 refugees from Burundi have sought shelter in Zaire and Tanzania. In Burundi itself over 200,000 people have been internally displaced. The cycle of violence continues unabated making the future of the people of Burundi insecure and uncertain.

The ongoing conflict has led to the breakdown of civil administration and the justice system in the country. During the last three years Burundi has experienced virtual anarchy. The erosion of the power and authority of the State has made it possible for the perpetrators of grave and serious human rights violations to carry on their acts with complete impunity. The July 1996 massacre of over three hundred civilians, mostly women, children and the aged, at Camp Bugendana in the Gitega region was one in a series of such killings that have become a matter of routine.

The military coup d’état that took place in the wake of the Camp Bugendana massacre has seriously jeopardised the efforts to restore peace in the country by the United Nations, the Organization of African Unity, the East African Heads of State, and the former Tanzanian President Mwalimu Julius Nyerere. However, the widespread condemnation of the Coup, the refusal to recognize the military regime of President Pierre Buyoya, and the imposition of sanctions by neighbouring states are indications that the African countries and the international community are no longer prepared to remain silent spectators to the ghastly events in Burundi.

The World Council of Churches together with the All Africa Conference of Churches since the beginning of the present crisis in 1993 have continued to monitor the events and have accompanied the churches as they have passed through this turbulent period, undertaking pastoral visits, holding meetings and consultations with the leadership of the churches in Burundi. The member churches have sought to provide humanitarian relief assistance to the victims of the conflict, initially through Church World Action-Burundi, and subsequently through Action of Churches Together (ACT).

The developments in Burundi are a challenge to the churches. They negate the basis of our Christian faith and experience. The Gospel of our Lord teaches that life should be nourished and defended against the forces of darkness and death.

Accordingly, the Central Committee meeting in Geneva, September 1996:

offers its profound condolences to the Roman Catholic faithful of Burundi, and laments with them the tragic assassination of Archbishop Joachim Ruhuna on the eve of our meeting;

condemns the continued use of violence by the armed groups and the military in Burundi to destroy innocent civilian life and property in the country;

deplores the military coup staged by the Burundian army that has jeopardized the fragile peace process initiated