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 soci