Even well dressed people can make dirty wars
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth … makes bloody wars. Call it an ‘intervention force’, call it a ‘just war’, a military intervention has never solved a conflict! Even well dressed people can make dirty wars Today the European ministers of foreign affairs gather with their college’s of defense in the second Capabilities Commitment Conference. With this conference the European Union takes a further step in the development of her security policy. A wrong step according to the Forum of Peace-Action. Building up an intervention army contradicts the founding ideas of the Union, namely: to prevent wars through economic cooperation. The development of a military security policy blocks the development of a real European security policy. The EU: a new military block The European intervention force will be operational by 2003. Th EU should be able to deploy within 60 days 60000 soldiers and sustain this for a year. In november 2000 the member states made first commitments during the first Capabilities Commitment Conference. In the second conference these commitments will be re-evaluated and solutions will be searched for the missing capabilities of the European intervention force. Problems exist for transport, intelligence and C3 (command, control and communication). The EU becomes a military alliance like NATO. The military structures of the EU are almost a perfect copy of NATO. In the EU the Polical and Security Committee is the top level, in NATO it is the North-Atlantic Council. This top level exercises the political control. A level down we have the military structure, called the Military Committee both at NATO and EU, which exists of the chiefs of defence. Underneath we have the Military Staff. The organigram of the EU-military staff looks like its copied from the NATO-handbook. The only difference will be the officially declared aim: collective defense for NATO, humanitarian interventions for the EU. Military intervention: no solution We do not doubt the sincerity of certain politicians when they believe that military interventions done by NATO will be of a higher moral standard than these from the US. In this reasoning Europe is driven by values and the US by interests. But is this not naïve? From the past until now states reacted on the base of their interests, not on the base of human rights or humanitarian moral feelings. This is only retorics. The European intervention force will act in the first place where European interests are threatened. Little confidence is raised when the EU wants to be an arbiter during violent conflicts while its other policies add to the escalation of conflicts. We think about poverty, debt and unjust North-South relations, but of course as well to weapon trade. How credible are ‘humanitarian’ military interventions when the same countries export weapons directly or indirectly on huge scale to countries where massive violations of human rights take place. France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the UK and Belgium deliver weapons to Turkey. The UK delivered weapons and training to the Indonesian army, which made the genocide in East-Timor possible. Even now weapons keep being exported from the EU to countries involved in the conflict in Congo. … A military intervention force blocks the development of a real European security policy The answer to economical backwardness and inequality is not to let the situation escalate followed by a military intervention, but fair trade. The answer to water shortage in the Middle East are no weapon deliveries but water treaties and coöperation. Interference in conflicts must be focussed to make space for political solutions and prevent violent escalation. A military intervention always comes too late: when the conflict has already escalated. It reduces the space for political solutions. With a military intervention the EU pushes with force her idea of a solution and becomes a party in the conflict. To play a mediating role in the conflict becomes difficult. Violence is made into the only evident way in which a party can make itself politically relevant in a conflict. The idea that military intervention can create the conditions for peace is by consequence an illusion. Choosing for a military development is choosing to deal with conflicts in a military way. History showed enough this is the wrong way.
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth … makes bloody wars. Call it an ‘intervention force’, call it a ‘just war’, a military intervention has never solved a conflict! Even well dressed people can make dirty wars Today the European ministers of foreign affairs gather with their college’s of defense in the second Capabilities Commitment Conference. With this conference the European Union takes a further step in the development of her security policy. A wrong step according to the Forum of Peace-Action. Building up an intervention army contradicts the founding ideas of the Union, namely: to prevent wars through economic cooperation. The development of a military security policy blocks the development of a real European security policy. The EU: a new military block The European intervention force will be operational by 2003. Th EU should be able to deploy within 60 days 60000 soldiers and sustain this for a year. In november 2000 the member states made first commitments during the first Capabilities Commitment Conference. In the second conference these commitments will be re-evaluated and solutions will be searched for the missing capabilities of the European intervention force. Problems exist for transport, intelligence and C3 (command, control and communication). The EU becomes a military alliance like NATO. The military structures of the EU are almost a perfect copy of NATO. In the EU the Polical and Security Committee is the top level, in NATO it is the North-Atlantic Council. This top level exercises the political control. A level down we have the military structure, called the Military Committee both at NATO and EU, which exists of the chiefs of defence. Underneath we have the Military Staff. The organigram of the EU-military staff looks like its copied from the NATO-handbook. The only difference will be the officially declared aim: collective defense for NATO, humanitarian interventions for the EU. Military intervention: no solution We do not doubt the sincerity of certain politicians when they believe that military interventions done by NATO will be of a higher moral standard than these from the US. In this reasoning Europe is driven by values and the US by interests. But is this not naïve? From the past until now states reacted on the base of their interests, not on the base of human rights or humanitarian moral feelings. This is only retorics. The European intervention force will act in the first place where European interests are threatened. Little confidence is raised when the EU wants to be an arbiter during violent conflicts while its other policies add to the escalation of conflicts. We think about poverty, debt and unjust North-South relations, but of course as well to weapon trade. How credible are ‘humanitarian’ military interventions when the same countries export weapons directly or indirectly on huge scale to countries where massive violations of human rights take place. France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the UK and Belgium deliver weapons to Turkey. The UK delivered weapons and training to the Indonesian army, which made the genocide in East-Timor possible. Even now weapons keep being exported from the EU to countries involved in the conflict in Congo. … A military intervention force blocks the development of a real European security policy The answer to economical backwardness and inequality is not to let the situation escalate followed by a military intervention, but fair trade. The answer to water shortage in the Middle East are no weapon deliveries but water treaties and coöperation. Interference in conflicts must be focussed to make space for political solutions and prevent violent escalation. A military intervention always comes too late: when the conflict has already escalated. It reduces the space for political solutions. With a military intervention the EU pushes with force her idea of a solution and becomes a party in the conflict. To play a mediating role in the conflict becomes difficult. Violence is made into the only evident way in which a party can make itself politically relevant in a conflict. The idea that military intervention can create the conditions for peace is by consequence an illusion. Choosing for a military development is choosing to deal with conflicts in a military way. History showed enough this is the wrong way.