In an unusual event, several members of the European Union’s administration amassed on a pedestrian island in Brussels, between two EU headquarters, to voice their opposition to the crisis in Gaza. The self-organised demonstration featured a homemade banner declaring the EU administration’s demand for an immediate cessation of conflict in Gaza.
This occurrence reflects the growing discontent among Western state officials regarding their leadership’s stance on Israel’s incursion into Gaza. The escalating civilian casualty rate and the worsening humanitarian crisis have provoked an uncommon wave of public dissent among these officials.
A collaborative statement was released last month by personnel from EU, Netherlands, and the United States. Titled “It is our Responsibility to Voice Out Against Erroneous Policies of our Governments”, it bore the signatures of approximately 800 state officers from 16 countries across Europe and North America.
Opinion is split over whether or not public officers should voice their disagreement. Some argue that it goes against global norms that stipulate neutrality and political passivity for civil servants, and as such, they should abstain from public discourse. Conversely, others see such expression of disagreements as a moral obligation that corresponds with their overall duty to uphold the law. These civil servants view public protest as the ultimate course of action when their direct appeals to their superiors fall on deaf ears.
This transatlantic proclamation forefronts this rationale, asserting civil servants’ duty to “respect, preserve, and uphold our constitutions and the international and national legal obligations to which our democratically-elected representatives have bound us.” It also emphasises their role in “respecting and upholding the law”.
The document asserts that the public officers’ professional anxieties were dismissed due to political and ideological motivations, and thus it becomes their duty to alert the public as per the recent instruction of the International Court of Justice to Israel, urging the prevention of acts of genocide.
The statement suggested a valid risk of our governments’ policies leading to severe transgressions of international humanitarian law, warfare crimes, and even acts of ethnic cleansing or genocide. This recent assertion adds to numerous other letters signed by EU civil servants, stating their opposition to their superiors’ policies, including hundreds who signed a letter to Ursula von der Leyen, European Commission President, in October. The following month, 2,200 signatures were collected via an internal EU staff platform, protesting to heads of EU institutions.
In January, when Belgium took over the EU presidency, its prime minister, Alexander de Croo, received letters from EU civil servants encouraging him to ensure the EU meets its legal commitments. One EU official instrumental in drafting the letters and organising protests highlighted the main point – legal uniformity. The official underscored the lack of political agenda, emphasising that whoever they serve must uphold the same principles.
According to the official, leaders are failing to adhere to treaty obligations. As EU civil servants, their role necessitates the upholding of the rule of law, whether dealing with the governments of Hungary, Sudan, or others. The inability to hold Israel accountable to the rule of law, as per the official, complicates their work as civil servants and they believe it’s their moral and professional duty to voice their concerns.
Civil servants in the Netherlands openly protested against the invasion of Gaza, and major resignations of diplomats in Europe and the US have ignited public discourse surrounding the concept of civil servant neutrality. The lack of clear definition of what’s permissible varies depending on the nation and issue concerned.
Ireland’s Public Office Commission’s behaviour code defines specific rules for varying civil servant levels. It states that traditional restrictions have been placed on civil servants engaging in political activity to maintain public faith in the Civil Service’s political neutrality.
EU civil servants gathered for a protest outside the headquarters following a call to action, ensuring those contemplating attendance that no rules would be violated. As anticipated, the EU civil servant argument was meticulously structured, supported by comprehensive annexes. They highlighted the employees’ right to freedom of speech under staff regulations and cited EU guidelines for adhering to international humanitarian law (approved by the member states in 2009). The core message in the email was a request for the EU to implement the International Court of Justice’s orders.