Ingrid Tennert
We in the peace movement are non-aligned people. We are watchdogs. We belong to one fourth of the population which are called the cultural creatives. These people urge for a new world order and they dig where they stand!
We cannot see that a rapid reaction force and a united armament industry within the EU are peace building projects! We cannot find that they are defensive either. They are as offensive as NATO in defending their so called "western values" and "legitimate interests" round the world.
Where is the peacecorps? Where is conflict prevention? Where is an improved UN? We also must struggle against the militarization of the EU and it´s military "war against terrorism". We must struggle for the Civil society, to make their victims of war and sanctions, where 90% are women and children, to make our voices heard!
That´s why we demand for a huge round-table debate later on between NGOs, the institutions and the politicians we want to reach. We have got to find new ways of reaching the broad public and the media. We also think it is of great importance that we challenge the institutions and the politicians we criticise, e.g NATO, the EU, the UN etc.
At first after the war many people within Europe looked upon the European Union (EU) as a peace project, where the economic integration served as a tool to prevent a future war between states in Europe. Today you can hardly find anyone who believes there is a chance of such a war.
Nevertheless the leaders of the EU are now working behind the scenes to implement their military security policy in accordance with the security policy of NATO, with the future aim to adopt a common defence within the EU. However after the US together with the big countries in the EU planned the war in Afghanistan without consulting the smaller countries, the EU socialists urged for a change in the EU treaties. They wanted to include the goals for the EU foreign policy.
EU is now studying the possibility of extending the mandate of the future EU rapid reaction force beyond crisis management and peace keeping and eventually include common defence, with a view to coping with the new security challenges unveiled by the terrorist attacks on the United States, on September 11. A consensus is emerging on the need for the EU to extend its competences on defence, justice and home affairs matters.
The American defence spending will now increase dramatically according to their "war of terrorism", and the US interest in the European crisismanagement missions will therefore decline. The Bush administration is now more positive to the European Union's attempts to develop its own military capacity according to Dr Kori Schake a security adviser to the American president. Now Europe will focus initially on transport, communications and intelligence that are essential for military operations and are scarce even in US forces.
However she found that there are two serious problems which will stop the EU and the US forces from working together: 1)They are developing in fundamentally different ways, so joint military actions will be more difficult. 2) Assured access to NATO and US military assets by the EU when operating on its own is not realistic and can leave the EU with serious problems.
But the chairman of the EU military committee, General Hägglund, has rejected suggestions that the EU force will always take the easier jobs and will do the dirty dishes while leaving the "serious job" to the United States and NATO.
"It was said that the US will make war and the EU will make peace, dealing with civilian and humanitarian jobs: it has been so, and this refers to the past, but it does not refer to the future. After ten years the EU will be able to carry on all peace-keeping and crisis management missions", he said to the EUObserver. Satellite connection would be means of intelligence collection, but in case the EU will not have its own satellites, drones and aircraft may also serve for intelligence gathering.
The high representative for foreign policy Javier Solana was tasked to study the possibility of extending the mandate of the future EU force to include the fight against terrorism. Spain will now push for kicking off a debate on converting the fight against terrorism into a task of the European military force.
We can see a similar trend in the large Trans National Companies (TNC) nowadays. Among other things, a characteristic of the TNC parent companies is their fusions made of mutual interests and strategic benefits, along with the fact that they form cartels instead of struggling for power over the market. The fused parent companies tie up networks of subcontractors, both in the rich and in the poor parts of the world, and these smaller companies have to compete against each other using all means to survive.
This is a trend similar to the security advisor of former president Carter, Brezinskij´s, recipe for preserving the US hegemony in the future. He means that the main thing is to prevent the secret understandings between the other states, to see that they remain dependent on US securitymatters and to prevent the rogue states from ganging up together.
The EU and US military in power today have the same view regarding the defence of what they call "our common western values and legitimate interests" round the world. This means that they agree on how to secure their investments abroad, their access to raw materials and their transport routes. After the September11th the EU and the US have become even united over how to fight terrorism, even if there always are some contradictions.
The question is if in the future the EU and the US will compete with each other, or if they will cooperate during - according to the US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld - the next six years of war against terrorism? The question is, what is the biggest threat to the survival of humanity - one or two superpowers? The question seems irrelevent, as the militaristic way in either case is disastrous for those who have regarded the EU as a peace project.
Could, in the short run, with regard to the military coalition against terrorism, the EU and the US be cooperating militarily out of their mutual interests? The interests particulary in keeping the overrated dollar from depreciating and in securing their future interests in oil. So then, are they also going to defend their mutual global interests against the so called "rogue states"?
Or, in the long run, will the EU compete with the US to become the world military hegemony? If so, will that happen within 10 years when the rapid reaction forces are fit for fight? Or withinin 20 years, when the joint European armament industry can compete with the American one and you cannot find any new global economic markets?
Or, in the long run, will the EU/US act united militarily against the third bloc of China /Russia /India, because the western TNCs will own each other and have mutual economic interests against other blocs?
Some people, and among them peace researchers, argue that the policy of neutrality is out of date today, because it´s valid only in a bipolar and not in this unipolar world, where the US is the hegemony. If the EU is to become a military bloc, then we at least will get a bipolar world. So that´s not a valid argument for not remaining neutral!
It´s not only among the majority of poor people in the world a state can benefit from a good reputation by acting as an equal partner of trade and staying militarily neutral. A policy of early warning systems, conflict preventions, confidence-building and mediation gives all people in the world an opportunity to survive future human catastrophes of starvation, environment, migration and criminality.
Are'nt political solutions preferable to those based on military power? Aren't the strengthened UN, the OSCE, the civilian peacecorps and the work of solidarity within civil society preferable to the military power of the EU and NATO? Most national conflicts are detected years before they burst out into wars, without anything having been done to prevent this.
On the contrary, the most powerful states in the world often intervene and support some fighting parties purely out of self interest. So instead of encouraging the interests of warlords we need an active policy of preventing wars!
Could this policy of these powerful states aimed at ruling by dividing ever become a policy for peace? I´m thinking of the Balkan states and the oil-pipeline through there to the Adriatic Sea. I´m thinking of northern Iran and Caucasus and the oil-pipeline from there through Iran. I´m thinking of Afgahnistan, too, and the oil-pipeline through there to the Indian Ocean.
According to what the former german secretary of defence, von Bulow, said in an interview in das Tageblatt: You can put a map of all the conflicts going on in the world and above that a map of all the oil reserves. You will then realise that they both coincide. If you after that put a map of the global drug-nodes, you will find places where they coincide too. Then you know that the CIA is probably involved as well.
Is it not so, that it´s only we in civil society and not the armament industry who can secure a world in peace? Is it not so that it´s only we in civil society and not the Rapid Reaction Force who, together with the UN, can make the world secure? Is it not so that it´s only we in civil society who have the power of stopping the militarisation of the EU and the American Nuclear Missile Defence? If we in civil society ruled the world, the vision of a wonderful future in peace and prosperity would be quite realistic and feasible to achieve!
It is good that we have our peace conferences, but we also have to reach the media properly and open up our closed circles to institutions and politicians. We demand for a huge round-table debate between NGOs, the institutions and the politicians we want to reach. I think we could easily get some hundreds of organisations to support this round-table idea. We could first do it on a European basis and then on a global scale.
Ingrid Ternert
Women For Peace Sweden
ingrid.t@home.se
supported by Women for Peace - Finland
Lea Launokari and Ulla Klötzer ullaklotzer@yahoo.com