In envisioning a new Europe for the new millennium, we must grapple with the need for a reinvigorated civil society. Truly, any vision of a unified Europe must draw on a broader spirit of humanism and international solidarity. The financial and technological innovations that bring us together in a "global community" must be accompanied by a change in consciousness - an embrace of our human obligations.

I believe our shared hope is that the coming era will not be another thousand years of violence and strife, but rather a new age characterized by just and lasting peace. And I believe that we all hope that the peoples in Europe can work together to build this peace. While the current moment offers unprecedented possibilities for progress, there is a tremendous amount of work that needs to be done. Moreover, the opportunities presented by our times create responsibilities: We are bound to see that these humanizing potentials are realized. Governments are responsible for educating their citizens and forming just social policy; businesses are responsible for conducting commerce with conscience, making sure that our economics are responsive to human needs; and religious institutions are responsible for giving people the hope and moral vision they need to contribute to social progress.

But perhaps the greatest responsibility falls upon civil society. The civic groups and voluntary associations that comprise this sphere of life are uniquely positioned to work for ethical progress in the coming years. Unlike those representing a particular political constituency, or those immersed in the pursuit of profit, freely formed groups in civil society can advocate for the populations which too often are left without a voice in the public arena. In the manifold areas of women's empowerment, anti-racism, consumer advocacy, demilitarization, worker's rights, environmental protection, child safety, and public health these groups can stand to speak for the common good, challenging the more entrenched or self-interested parties who defend privilege and injustice. Coming together voluntarily, individuals working in civil society provide a crucial service to democracy, showing that self-government is not merely a matter of periodic elections, but an engaging daily endeavor of great personal significance. Groups in civil society can not only pressure governments to act responsibly, but can be independent forces for progress.

I have already claimed that the movement to create a thorough-going peace should be a central component of the renewed sense of European social commitment. It is clear that war is the greatest violator of human rights that the world has ever known. The torture and imprisonment of dissidents, the massacre of civilians, and the imposition of totalitarian rule are among the hoirrible acts that become norms when armed conflict erupts. But I want to emphasize another aspect of our struggle for peace and human rights. Education, fair work, and health care are also human rights. They are rights constantly violated by governments who choose to invest millions in weaponry rather than in humanitarian development. They are rights disregarded by countries who sell weapons to impoverished or authoritarian governments, knowing that these weapons will result in further poverty and deprivation.

Traditionally, war and peace have been discussed with reference to the demands of national security. The United Nations Human Development Program, however, stresses the need for us instead to think of peace in terms of human security. This distinction bears frequent repetition. Human security goes beyond concern with weapons - it is a concern with human life -and dignity. In order to understand the true human cost of conflict, as well as the true extent of human rights violations in the world today, we must understand that war is not just an evil act of destruction, it is a missed opportunity for humanitarian investment. For every dollar spent on guns and fighters, life-giving food and vaccines could instead be purchased.

If civil society croups are to commit themselves to tackling the frill scope of the problems posed by armed conflict, they must address these threats to human security as vigorously as they address violations of national security. This means satisfying the basic human needs of all people - a goal which could be accomplished if only a fraction of the worlds annual military spending were redirected towards human development. We must not allow ourselves to forget that human security is consistently threatened not only by the military, but by the entire process of militarization. Recognizing this, we must examine our own national policies which perpetuate this insecurity. One obvious policy area which must be responsibly addressed is the global trade in armaments.

It may come as a surprise to many to learn that of the top ten exporting nations of conventional weaponry worldwide, six are European. Or that in the last ten years, weapons transfers from the developed world have resulted in a 19% increase in military spending by the poorest nations on Earth. Or that all too often, known human right violators have found willing arms suppliers among the very nations where the idea of universal rights first gained currency. Civil society groups should come forward to speak for the silent victims of this worldwide trade in death -- for the amputees of Cambodia and Chad whose bodies have been mutilated by imported weapons; for the malnourished of Turkey and India, who lack access to basic services and at the same time see their governments spend millions on arms acquisition programs.

Thankfully these voices have begun to be heard and heeded in recent years. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines was instigated and propelled by a coalition of civil society organizations. The recent European Code of Conduct on the Arms Trade benefited enormously from the unfailing support and dedication of a huge number of groups from across Europe and beyond. These successes prove that civil groups can be independent and positive forces for change, and that inhumanity of our present system can be overcome by concerted action. We should not, however, allow them to foster in us a sense of complacency, for much important work remains to be done.

The European Code of Conduct, for example, needs to be strengthened with stronger democratic and humanitarian provisions, as well as supplemented by a more comprehensive international arms control regime which would ensure that similar standards are upheld worldwide. To this latter end, I am proud to support an International Code of Conduct proposed by a Commission of eighteen Nobel Peace Laureates, which would provide the strong moral benchmarks which are so conspicuously absent from the present, market-driven trade.

The International Code of Conduct would prevent undemocratic governments from building sophisticated arsenals. Governments which systematically abuse internationally recognized human rights through practices such as torture or arbitrary executions would not receive military training. Countries who commit genocide would not be able to buy munitions. Governments engaged in armed aggression against other countries or peoples could not buy missiles. States that support terrorism would be prevented from acquiring weapons. In addition, all nations would be required to report their arms purchases to the United Nations.

Like those that have gone before it, the International Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers is an important human security initiative that needs to benefit from a myriad of civil society groups if it is to capture the attention of the world. In recommending steps for the renewed social commitment of civil society, in devising strategies for the promotion of human rights, and in forgiving a new moral consciousness for Europe, it is my hope that the Vienna Peace Summit will embrace the Code effort, putting demilitarization and human development at the fore of our ambitions.

Biography

Oscar Arias Sanchez is a political scientist, a former President of Costa Rica and 1987 Nobel Peace Laureate. He was born in Heredia, Costa Rica, in 1941.

Oscar Arias Sanchez studied law and economics in Costa Rica and received a doctoral degree in Political Science from the University of Essex, GB, in 1974. He then taught Political Science at the University of Costa Rica.

Having long been a member of the National Liberation Party, he served as Planning Minister from 1972 to 1977. In 1978 he won a Congress seat. He was elected secretary-general of his party in 1981, a post he left to prepare for elections: He took over as Costa Rica’s youngest ever President in May 1986.

He presented a peace plan for Central America to end the regional crisis (the ‘Arias Peace Plan’) in February 1987. His initiative led to the signing of the Esquipulas II Accords - the Procedure to Establish a Firm and Lasting Peace in Central America - by all Central American presidents on 7th of August 1987. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize that same year for his peacemaking initiative.

Since the end of his presidency in 1990 Oscar Arias Sanchez has committedly worked to curtail the global arms trade. To this and other humanitarian purposes, he is active in a numer of international organizations. He has received numerous international awards and honorary degrees.

Oscar Arias is Patron of the Society of Founders of the International Peace Universtity.