Militarisation or Peace

Militarisation or Peace

What Future for Europe?

One huge step in the development of the European Union towards a federation is a common defence. It has ambitious plans to become a military superpower and have its own military-industrial complex. The new EU Constitution will set up a European Defence Agency which will encourage EU members to increase military spending. The Agency has the power to "strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector" and is likely to lobby for more of the EU's research funds to be ploughed into "dual use" military projects.

The EU Member States at the Cologne EU Summit in June 1999 took steps that do not any longer emphasise the important role of the Western European Union (WEU). Instead most of the WEU functions are now to be carried out by the EU and EU is given the role as the military player.

- the European Union shall play its full role on the international stage
- EU shall be given the necessary means and capabilities to assume its responsibilities regarding a common European policy on security and defence
- the Council shall have the ability to take decisions on the full range of conflict prevention and crisis management tasks defined in the Treaty of the European Union as the Petersberg tasks
- EU shall seek further progress in the harmonisation of military requirements and the planning and procurement of arms
- a defence head quarter shall be built up in Brussels with its own military staff, intelligence service, satellite centre, institute for security studies, etc
- a permanent body in Brussels (Political and Security Committee) shall be founded consisting of representatives with both political and military expertise
- a military Committee will be founded consisting of military representatives making recommendations to the Political and Security Committee
- the defence ministers shall have possibilities to attend the Council meetings together with the foreign ministers.

The document stresses that the EU must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and the readiness to do so, in order to respond to international crises without prejudice to actions by NATO. This will, according to the document be done in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter. However, referring to the UN principles is quite different than demanding that operations shall only be possible on a UN mandate. The aim is clearly that the EU shall be able to act independently without the consent of the UN – exactly the way it was done by eleven EU Member States within the framework of NATO in Kosovo. NATO never declared war with Yugoslavia but explained its intervention as a peace making operation.

The Cologne document stresses that the EU shall ensure the development of effective mutual consultation, cooperation and transparency between the European Union and NATO and that a stronger European role will contribute to the vitality of the NATO for the 21st century. Member States must develop further forces without any unnecessary duplication in regards to NATO. The NATO thus becomes the main military supplier of the EU. Also without direct involvement of USA the EU shall be able to lead operations using NATO assets and capabilities. As a conclusion the Cologne document states that the aim of the EU is to take the necessary decisions by the end of the year 2000. The WEU will by then have completed its purpose as an organisation. The different status of Member States with regard to collective defence guarantees are not to be affected since the NATO remains the foundation of the collective defence of its Member States.

EU itself will be the military player, not the WEU. By changing the documents bit by bit, but fast enough to assure that the citizens cannot follow the changes any longer the goal of changing the EU into a military component of the NATO has been achieved without any further debate. Especially the Cologne document shows that concerning EU defence issue “porridge and gruel have been mixed” – an old Finnish way of telling that somebody is mixing up things in order to cheat somebody. Clear defence issues, peace keeping and peace enforcement are all mixed together in order to confuse the debate, and in order to help the EU Member States to keep their citizens calm.

At the EU summit in Helsinki, it was decided that the Union shall within three years create a common military force consisting of 50 000 – 60 000 men. This force shall be available for preventing international crises. The forces shall be used for both peace keeping and peace enforcement. The Heads of States left it open where the forces shall be used. The Finnish Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen did not give any straight answer to the question whether the forces will also be used for crises outside Europe. It was also left open whether the operations shall have UN consent and what the relations to NATO are going to be. – All too delicate question to be dealt with at an EU Summit so they were simply left open or unclear.

When you follow the changing of documents ever since the Maastricht Treaty the trend is absolutely clear. Every new document on security and defence issues takes further steps towards a common defence. A sneaking militarization of Europe is going on and this militarization will definitely not promote peace and understanding but it will start a new arms race and create new iron curtains.

In Russia a new military doctrine was recently adopted to replace the one from 1997. The new doctrine opens up the possibilities to use nuclear weapons to fight an enemy if all other methods to solve the crises have been used or if they have been inefficient. In the doctrine from 1997 nuclear weapons were to used only if the existence of Russia was threatened. The new doctrine clearly defines the West and the enlargement of NATO to the East as possible threats and therefore the use of nuclear weapons has been made easier.

In China the Party Leader Jiang Zemin has required the Military Academy to train many new highly qualified officers as fast as possible. The Chinese government also wants to meet the growing threats by a Star Wars program of their own and by training experts for computer wars. In the nuclear field China is testing a new nuclear driven attack submarine.

China is using its new-found wealth to upgrade its army, but although it has ready supplies of military equipment such as tanks and guns, it cannot obtain high-tech military equipment that only Europe and the US have the knowhow to make. The EU is proposing to replace its arms embargo, which is voluntary and rather porous- it sold E210 million of military equipment to China in 2002- with a legally binding code of conduct, which it insists will afford greater protection. The code of coduct is aimed at restricting arms sales to potential enemies of allies of the EU.

The European Union is promoted as a peace project by the EU elite and by the political elite of the Member States. A peace project that launches a new arms race requiring more money for weapons in a

time when financial resources are badly needed to meet the growing gap between rich and poor and to cope with the huge global and local environmental problems that are threatening the whole mankind. Obviously EU has made a new definition for the word peace – the Orwellian version has been accepted: War is peace and peace is war!

It is important to remember that the effects of higher military expenditure does not simply affect Europe itself, but has dire consequences in Africa and other parts of the world. Small arms are already implicated in more then 30,000 deaths each year, primarily in the world’s poorest regions, such as Africa.

The right of peoples to self-determination and to choose their own government is a fundamental democratic right, which is a basic principle of international law enshrined in the United Nations Charter. However, the new EU constitution violates this right as it makes the proposed new European Union, founded now for the first time on its own State Constitution, into the supreme source of lawful authority for its 25 Member States. The EU becomes the new legal sovereign for EU citizens, who will owe it real allegiance, over and above their own national States. Under the Constitution the sovereign powers of the new EU would be vested in its Council, Commission, Court and Parliament, to which we would all owe loyalty and allegiance.

We would become real citizens of the EU for the first time, with rights and obligations direct to the EU institutions rather than through our national institutions as hitherto. In this EU Federation the laws for 450 million Europeans would be made by what is effectively an oligarchy, a legislative committee, of 25 politicians on the Council of Ministers, who are irremoveable as a group and collectively responsible to nobody.

The current global state of affairs whereby the single most dominant superpower in the world is aggressively brandishing its politico-military hegemony and eroding the basic principles of multilateralism, sovereignty of nations, human rights and even that of liberal democracy should be a concern of Europeans and all citizens of the world. The US in its ‘Vision 2020’ document, it outlines its designs to dominate by sea, air and land power in what it calls ‘Full Spectrum Dominance.’ Europe should break away from this scenario and work towards bringing a world of greater justice, equity and human rights for all as a universal goal.

Under the current precarious politico-military situation, we have an urgent task to work for global peace and security, defend human rights and sovereignty of nations and oppose American- unilateralism and militarism that today poses a grave danger to these principles and values, not to mention that war means loss of human lives and massive destruction.

The new emerging Europe can be a united political voice which can open an enlighten dialogue with the United States which could stop the America-led globalised world. The EU should promote its distinctive form of cooperative governance through international institutions. Such would strongly demonstrate to the world community a non threatening soft power alternative to US excessive dominance in the future.

The EU structures of government are profoundly undemocratic, quite apart from the neo-liberal economic ideology the Constitution requires them to implement. As being committed to peace and democracy, we should reject all association with militarist or extremist elements and defend democracy in face of the proposed EU Constitution.

The European vision of international order is based on support for multilateralism, the rule of international law, global governance through legitimate institutions, solidarity between rich and poor and peaceful diplomacy as a norm.

We would like Europe to work for peace and security program to win heart and minds then making deadlier bombs and faster fighter planes. Europe should be more about securing food, health and the environment of the people who have been left behind. EU soft power offers a much more attractive alternative which should include aid, trade, investment, expertise and the concept of the rule of law based on the respect for human rights and international treaties.

This year, 2005, is a defining year in which many member states will decide whether to ratify the EU constitution. Spain has voted yes but the UK, France and other countries are yet to decide. So we have an opportunity to campaign, influence, and change the course of history.

We should vigorously campaign for scraping NATO and taking out clauses relating to militarisation, development of new missile technology, paving the way forward for a peaceful Europe. By standing firm and saying NO to the ratification of the EU constitution we can save Europe from taking a fundamentally wrong course.