Winfried Nachtwei, MdB, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen

Bremer Str. 54; 48155 Münster, TEL 0251 66 22 80, FAX 0251 66 22 96

Email: news@nachtwei.de

Motion

tabled by Members of Parliament Uta Zapf, Brigitte Adler, Rainer Arnold, Ingrid Becker-Inglau, Wolfgang Behrendt, Rudolf Bindig, Dr. Eberhard Brecht, Hans Büttner (Ingolstadt), Ursula Burchardt, Detlef Dzembritzki, Petra Ernstberger, Gabriele Fograscher, Lilo Friedrich (Mettmann), Uwe Göllner, Angelika Graf (Rosenheim), Monika Griefahn, Reinhold Hemker, Frank Hempel, Monika Heubaum, Gerd Höfer, Ingrid Holzhüter, Johannes Kahrs, Hans-Ulrich Klose, Karin Kortmann, Robert Leidinger, Tobias Marhold, Lothar Mark, Heide Mattischeck, Markus Meckel, Ulrike Merten, Ursula Mogg, Christoph Moosbauer, Volker Neumann (Bramsche), Gerhard Neumann (Gotha), Manfred Opel, Kurt Palis, Albrecht Papenroth, Georg Pfannenstein, Johannes Pflug, Reinhold Robbe, Dieter Schloten, Dagmar Schmidt (Meschede), Wilhelm Schmidt (Salzgitter), Regina Schmidt-Zadel, Volkmar Schultz (Cologne), Ilse Schumann, Dr. R. Werner Schuster, Rolf Stöckel, Joachim Tappe, Adelheid Tröscher, Gert Weisskirchen (Wiesloch), Inge Wettig-Danielmeier, Helmut Wieczorek (Duisburg), Verena Wohlleben, Peter Zumkley, Dr. Peter Struck and the SPD parliamentary group,

as well as by Members of Parliament Winfried Nachtwei, Dr. Uschi Eid, Angelika Beer, Rita Griesshaber, Jürgen Trittin, Dr. Angelika Köster-Lossack, Kristin Heyne, Irmingard Schewe-Gerigk, Helmut Wilhelm (Amberg), Christine Scheel, Claudia Roth (Augsburg) Christian Sterzing, Kerstin Müller (Cologne), Rezzo Schlauch and the Bündnis 90/DIE GRÜNEN parliamentary group

Promotion of capabilities for civil crisis prevention, civil conflict settlement and peace consolidation

The Bundestag is requested to adopt the following motion:

Diverse humanitarian and violent crises repeatedly confront the international community with major challenges. In many cases, there is no reaction until the threshold to violence has been well exceeded or until crises and conflicts reach catastrophic dimensions. The chances of successfully preventing humanitarian crises, wars or violent conflicts are the greatest if action is taken at an early stage on the basis of sound and continuous conflict analysis.

As a rule, both the structural causes of crises and the trouble spots are known long before violent escalation occurs. There is so far only an underdeveloped willingness to close the gap in the field of civil crisis prevention between early detection, early warning and early action. Crises need to be put on the international agenda at the earliest possible stage, plans of action for observation and containment developed and appropriate resources made available. Even in the field of international politics, it is true that prevention pays off.

This particularly also relates to long-term, structural prevention by means of promoting development geared to the model of a fair balance of interests. By improving the economic, social, ecological and political conditions in the partner countries, this would contribute to the elimination of the structural causes of conflicts and to the promotion of mechanisms for non-violent conflict handling.

In view of the large number of trouble spots and the complexity of the conflict situations, individual states or organisations are often overtaxed when it comes to settling problems. Civil crisis prevention, peaceful conflict settlement and peace consolidation mainly have the prospect of success if they are of a subsidiary, multilateral and multidimensional nature, and if different players from the state, the economy and society and, above all, conflict-mediating forces from the conflict regions work together. In order to increase their efficacy and efficiency, the activities and programmes must be harmonised and coordinated at the national, regional and international level. This demands the maximum degree of communication, coordination, cooperation and management skills, as well as the elimination of redundant structures, overlaps and institutional rivalry.

I. The German Bundestag

1. Supports the Federal Government in its plans to make a greater contribution to civil crisis prevention, civil conflict settlement and peace consolidation. In this context, it acknowledges and welcomes the numerous programmes and contributions already initiated by the Federal Government in this respect.

These include, among others:

The work on a framework concept for a policy of civil crisis prevention and civil conflict settlement,

The initiative and the contribution to the stability pact in Southeast Europe,

The conflict prevention initiative created by the G8 Foreign Ministers under German presidency,

The establishment of a national training centre for the preparation of personnel for international peace-keeping missions of the United Nations and the OSCE,

The increased orientation of development policy on the elimination of structural economic, social and ecological causes of conflict and the strengthening of mechanisms for non-violent conflict handling,

The corresponding, substantial contributions of development policy to multilateral debt relief, the combating of poverty, the protection of the environment and natural resources, the promotion of regional cooperation and the strengthening of human rights, the civil society and democratic structures,

The measures taken to promote regional cooperation projects, to strengthen the civil society and democratic structures in partner countries, as well as further instruments of development policy for civil crisis prevention,

The membership of the Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development in the Federal Security Council and the emphasis of an expanded concept of security that is also expressed therein,

The establishment of a Civil Peace Service in development cooperation,

The increase in personnel assigned to civil police missions,

The extension of the civil contribution to the stand-by agreement for peace-keeping measures in the framework of the United Nations through the formalisation of the targeted military support contribution,

The support of the efforts of the United Nations regarding an effective system of sanctions,

The resolutions on "peace consolidation through practical disarmament measures" tabled by the Federal Government at the United Nations General Assembly and adopted by consensus every year since 1996,

The promotion of initiatives of the EU, the OSCE and the United Nations concerning the control of the destabilising accumulation and proliferation of small weapons and the commitment to the worldwide stipulation of a minimum age of 18 years for soldiers,

The increased support of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the appointment of a Commissioner for Human Rights at the Federal Foreign Office and the support of the initiative for the establishment of an independent German human rights institute,

The active contribution to, and the decisive role in, the establishment of the International Criminal Court,

The resumption of the state promotion of peace and conflict research,

The embedding of the human rights criterion in the framework of its restrictive arms export policy;

2. Welcomes the initiatives for eliminating the structural causes of violence, and for strengthening operational capabilities for the prevention of civil crises and violence, which have been launched, for example, in the framework of the United Nations, the OSCE, the EU, the Council of Europe and the G8, and expects these to be emphatically implemented and expanded;

3. Welcomes the goal and the initiatives of the Secretary-General of the United Nations for a transition from a policy of reaction to a policy and culture of prevention. It sees the "International Year for Culture of Peace" (2000) and the "International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World" (2001 to 2010) as a welcome opportunity to campaign for substantial contributions to an active culture of peace and non-violence in the Federal Republic of Germany;

4. Thanks the churches, human rights organisations, humanitarian organisations and development organisations and many other non-governmental organisations for their indispensable contributions to crisis prevention and constructive conflict resolution.

II. The German Bundestag calls upon the Federal Government

1. To promote the increased effectiveness and coordination of the measures in this field on the basis of a framework concept for a policy of civil crisis prevention and conflict settlement, to define options for action for the Federal Government and to further develop the capabilities and instruments of the Federal Republic of Germany to be established in the next few years. New forms of cooperation between governmental, non-governmental and intergovernmental players are also to be found in this context;

2. To review without reservation the various national and international approaches for the establishment of rapidly available civil peace-keeping and disaster aid units and to emphatically develop them further in operational terms;

3. To ensure that, in the framework of its foreign, security and development policy, the Federal Republic of Germany has the personnel, institutions and funds to enable it to make a contribution to international civil crisis prevention, conflict settlement and peace consolidation that is commensurate with its political and economic weight. This applies both to the containment and elimination of structural causes of crises and to the field of rapid response capabilities;

4. To continue to advocate the strengthening and reform of the United Nations, including the Security Council, and, in this context, primarily

To ensure that the monopoly of the United Nations for the authorisation of missions pursuant to Chapter VII of the UN Charter is preserved, the role of the Secretary-General is strengthened and the human resources of the responsible department of the United Nations responsible for peace-keeping measures are increased,

To review the increase of the voluntary contributions of the Federal Republic of Germany to the economic and social organisations of the United Nations, particularly to the UN Population Fund and the UN Development Programme,

To advocate more effective, targeted and flexible non-military sanctions;

5. To continue to advocate, intensively and through its own contributions, the comprehensive strengthening of the preventive and operational capabilities of the OSCE and, in this context,

To actively support and prioritise the rapid availability of the new instruments, such as the "Rapid Expert Assistance and Cooperation Teams" (REACT) and the newly established operations centre, and also

6. In the framework of a strengthened Common European Security and Defence Policy,

To continue to actively work towards the accelerated implementation and further development of the resolutions of the European Council, adopted in Helsinki and Feira, concerning the substantial strengthening of non-military crisis management,

7. In the framework of the G8, to continue to play an active role in the formulation of a policy for civil crisis prevention and civil conflict management with the goal, inter alia, of providing accompanying and complementary support of the initiatives of the organisations legitimated for peace-keeping tasks, above all the United Nations;

8. In the establishment of a pool of experts for civil mission personnel,

To promote the international opening of training courses and the participation of persons from crisis regions in the training programme,

To aim for personnel and financial resources for the training programme that are viable in the long term,

To facilitate the release from work or the availability of the potential mission personnel, possibly by means of legal regulations,

To guarantee professional monitoring, follow-up and evaluation of civil peace-keeping missions;

9. In order to strengthen civil security structures in conflict areas,

To advocate the improvement of capabilities for rapidly dispatching international police missions (CIVPOL) for conflict prevention, conflict management and conflict follow-up,

To campaign for balanced participation of the Member States at the United Nations, the OSCE and the EU,

10. To enhance the capabilities of development policy for eliminating structural causes of conflicts and for strengthening mechanisms of non-violent conflict handling, particularly in the following fields:

Promotion of social justice and living conditions fit for humans, combating of poverty,

Promotion of democracy, the rule of law and human rights in the governmental and civil society sector,

Promotion of the demobilisation of soldiers and of the democratic and constitutional integration of the security sector, assistance for former child-soldiers, trauma assistance in post-conflict situations,

Strengthening of internal and regional organisations and alliances for peace,

Expansion and improvement of the interaction of governmental and non-governmental sponsors of crisis prevention in development policy,

Expansion of the integration of peace-keeping services outside traditional development cooperation in the framework of the Civil Peace Service, as well as elimination of deficits in the social security of peace-keeping professionals,

Increased involvement of trade and industry in the development policy commitment to crisis prevention and conflict management,

Strengthening and co-determination of the multilateral and European development cooperation in the field of crisis prevention and civil conflict handling;

11. To firmly establish the political approach of civil crisis prevention and civil conflict settlement in the public eye by way of concerted and continuous education and public relations work, so that the "culture of prevention" is effectively promoted.

Berlin, 7 July 2000

Dr. Peter Struck and the parliamentary group

Kerstin Müller (Cologne), Rezzo Schlauch and the parliamentary group

Reasons

1. Conflicts are a natural and often productive element of social action and social change. What is decisive is that the parties to the conflict make use of civil conflict settlement mechanisms, both internally and also vis-à-vis their neighbour countries. International assistance is required in those cases where the partner countries' own efforts are ineffectual in eliminating the structural causes of conflicts, where internal mechanisms for peaceful conflict settlement cannot be strengthened and where the central players are increasingly refusing to accept civil and non-military conflict settlements. This is particularly true in cases of blatant violation of human rights and the rights of minorities. However, the numerous national and international wars illustrate that the international community has repeatedly been unsuccessful in finding the right time and the right ways and means to prevent critical developments, disasters and violent conflicts at an early stage. There continues to be a great need for action in this context.

2. The fact that the majority of today's armed conflicts are of a national nature and involve systematic violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, the collapse of the state's structures of law and order, political mobilisation of ethnic and religious conflicts and targeted violence against the civilian population, requires new action strategies and action instruments. Experience in dealing with current crises has repeatedly and clearly demonstrated that the traditional political and military instruments of crisis prevention and crisis response are inadequate. A long-term, strategic concept is necessary in order to "win peace". In addition to simple, short-term crisis management, increasing use must more than ever be made of longer-term measures for the development of peace and the prevention of crises, as well as the consolidation of peace. In this context, a dual approach must be taken in post-conflict situations: on the one hand, the disarming of the parties and the destruction of weapons are to be promoted and, on the other hand, the political, social, economic and ecological framework conditions that make life worth living for those affected by the conflict are to be established.

3. Civil crisis prevention, civil conflict settlement and peace consolidation are highly complex, long-term tasks. A policy of crisis and violence prevention may not address individual, current disasters or potential trouble spots alone. It must also deal with the identification, minimisation and elimination of structural causes of violence. Both approaches are important and must be pursued simultaneously and emphatically at numerous political levels and by numerous players. Despite the growing importance of international organisations and non-governmental organisations, governments still play a key role. Even though foreign, development and security policy is of paramount significance in this context, it is the task of all fields of politics to contribute to civil crisis prevention, civil conflict settlement and peace consolidation. Questions relating to disarmament and arms control, as well as to a global economic, financial and environmental policy compatible with development, play a special role in this context. The development of a coherent, interdepartmental overall strategy is indispensable for this purpose.

4. The Member States of the United Nations and the OSCE have recognisable difficulty in providing sufficient numbers of adequately qualified personnel for international peace-keeping missions with the necessary speed. In addition, the logistical and financial resources of these organisations and their missions often meet the requirements only inadequately. For example, the international police mission in Kosovo, which is of decisive importance for the re-establishment of the state monopoly on the use of force, has to operate with far less staff than is considered necessary. Owing to a lack of civil crisis response forces, soldiers thankfully often also take on non-military tasks, e.g. in reconstruction or refugee support. However, this is not acceptable as a permanent solution. There is an urgent need for an improvement in the civil instruments and mechanisms and in civil-military cooperation.

5. Lasting peaceful conflict settlements cannot be enforced from the outside and vicariously. Despite all its good intentions, external intervention may even worsen the crisis situation, particularly if the host of military and civilian aid organisations have a major effect on the economic and social situation. Consequently, it is of primary importance to strengthen internal or regional organisations and alliances for peace. Players who have often been working in the society of the crisis region for many years, or who have specific conflict-settling experience, can make an important contribution to the early recognition, avoidance or reduction of potential violence. Multi-track diplomacy of this kind and the expansion of the public-private partnership are increasingly becoming an integral element of effective civil crisis prevention.

6. The United Nations and its sub-organisations today have experience in the field of crisis prevention and conflict management, sometimes spanning many years. The monopoly of the United Nations as regards the authorisation of the use of force to restore peace pursuant to Chapter VII of the UN Charter must remain inviolable. However, efforts must be undertaken to reform the United Nations, particularly the composition and modus operandi of the Security Council, with the aim of strengthening its ability to act and assert itself. With its "Agenda for Peace" (1992) and the supplement thereto (1995), the United Nations indicated at an early stage that there is an urgent need to comprehensively increase the efficiency of the capabilities for crisis prevention and crisis response. The Department of Peacekeeping Operations has achieved notable success in its efforts to increase the ability of the United Nations to take action. In this context, reference can primarily be made to the progress, but also the urgent need for action, in the field of establishing an effective stand-by system, training and coordination. The support services must be improved in view of the wide range of expectations facing the United Nations in the field of crisis prevention and peace-keeping.

7. On the initiative of the Federal Government, the Foreign Ministers of the G8 countries devoted themselves to the subject of crisis prevention for the first time at their meeting in Berlin in December 1999. In the framework of a comprehensive approach to conflict prevention, they intend to deal, inter alia, with the control of the export of small weapons, the strengthening of the capacities of the civil society, the evil of mercenaries and the promotion of regional cooperation in the field of water and energy. They agreed "to make a more targeted contribution to the creation of a culture of prevention in the future, both by means of political efforts in their own countries and through contributions in the corresponding international organisations (primarily the UN, but also regional organisations ...)". In this context, the G8 countries promised, among other things, to support the United Nations and its regional organisations in the establishment of civil rapid-response capabilities, including the training and provision of civil police.

8. With the Charter for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the OSCE underlined its will at the Istanbul Summit (November 1999) to assume a greater role in the fields of early warning, crisis prevention, conflict management and peace consolidation. The OSCE has the potential to gradually expand into the central organisation for civil crisis prevention and civil conflict management in Europe. Important steps for improving its ability to act have been initiated with the establishment of "Rapid Expert Assistance and Cooperation Teams" (REACT), the crisis centre of the ad-hoc coordination and planning group and the strategy for "acquiring skills through training".

9. The Member States of the European Union have a wealth of instruments and procedures for non-military crisis management at their disposal, which must be put to more efficient use and should be systematically improved and developed. At the Summit Meeting in Helsinki in December 1999, the European Council voted to elaborate a plan of action aimed at making the existing civil resources and instruments available more rapidly in the event of a crisis and using them more efficiently by way of synergistic effects. In order to implement the Helsinki plan of action, a coordination mechanism for civil crisis management was established in the Council Secretariat, and work is in progress on compiling an inventory of civil resources and creating a database. At the meeting of the European Council in Feira, a study on the concrete goals of civil crisis management was adopted, as were targets for international police missions. By the year 2003, the Member States of the EU are to be in a position to provide up to 5,000 police officers for the entire spectrum of international missions, ranging from crisis prevention to crisis management, including up to 1,000 police officers within 30 days.

In order to decisively improve the ability of the EU to cope with crises using civil means, the Foreign Ministers of the EU appointed a committee for civil aspects of crisis management in May 2000. The Commission proposed the establishment of a special facility for crisis missions (Rapid Reaction Facility), in order to be able to respond quickly and flexibly in the event of a crisis by accessing existing EU resources and instruments.

These implemented and initiated measures are an important contribution towards strengthening Europe's foreign, development and security policy. By simultaneously establishing non-military and military crisis management capabilities, the EU will have a broad range of options for civil and military action in the event of a crisis. However, conflict prevention and crisis management continue to be challenges that should primarily be tackled using civil resources. Consequently, the German Bundestag attaches great importance to the further expansion of these capabilities of the EU.

10. A policy with the declared objective of eliminating international causes of violence, supporting the civil resolution of conflicts and creating the framework conditions for a self-supporting, just and stable peace process, can only be successful if the necessary resources are made available step by step. The establishment of an effective infrastructure and the elimination of structural causes of conflicts take not only time, but also manpower, infrastructure facilities and money. Bearing in mind the varied and immense follow-up costs associated with the outbreak of violent conflicts, it is clear that investments in the prevention of war pay off, also from the financial point of view.