|
By John Joseph O'Dowd
The question of what has been called the militarisation of Europe is of particular importance to all Europeans, and reveals not only what kind of state is being formed by the European Union, but what are the considerations or interests of that state.
I wish to deal with this very broad question in three contexts.
The first context may be called the regionalisation context. Here I will deal with the question of the supplanting of the United Nations (UN) and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) by the European Union's Foreign and Security Policy.
The second context may be called the Haider context. Here I wish to deal with what I suggest is the first effort by the European Union to impose its will on a member state, Austria, and the consequences in particular for accession states.
The third context is the Kosovo context. The events leading up to the NATO attack on Yugoslavia, the bombing, and its consequences, have profound lessons for the future development of Europe, and call into question the purpose of the new strategy of the EU.
In dealing with the first of these contexts, let us be clear on where the EU is at present. I will only sketch out a few details, as my time is limited.
It is obvious to everyone that the Euro-army is being formed. Even the severest critic would be surprised at how quickly this is happening. The proposal for a rapid reaction force of 60,000 front-line troops does not include the additional 200,000 required for logistical backup.
Javier Solana conveniently occupies the position of General Secretary of the Western European Union and High Representative for the EU Foreign and Security Policy. It is planned that the WEU will become the military arm of the EU, probably by dissolution and reformation, a kind of political card trick.
It is also planned that the EU will co-operate with NATO, effectively becoming the European instrument of NATO policy. This is the concept of "burden sharing", and it is one that is being actively discussed in American security circles.
None of this is new information, and the EU is now quite open about its intentions, Romano Prodi, in an interview with the London 'Independent' in February this year, was refreshingly honest. Asked about this very question of a Euro-army, he replied
"You can call it what you like. You can call it Margaret. You can call it Mary Ann. It is still a European army." The recent European Council of Ministers' meeting in Portugal last month shows how this work is moving forward rapidly.
In creating these new instruments of foreign policy, the EU creates a new instability in Europe. I need not tell anyone here of the history of Europe in recent years.
It is important to note that the primary organisation for promoting peaceful and democratic change within Europe (and here I mean the wider Europe, not the EU club) is the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the OSCE. Its work is diverse. For reasons of time, I will not detail it. I am sure many of you will have some experience of it.
Despite being under-funded and under-supported the OSCE continues its vital work. This is even more important in a period of the formation of new states and of the problems of what has been, inaccurately, called 'ethnic' conflict.
The OSCE is the only recognised regional organisation of the United Nations, itself under continual attack from the US. Yet the alternative that is contained in the programme of the EU is one that a regionalist and hegemonic organisation prepared to intervene where its interests are threatened. It is a policy of attack rather than defence.
Though in a new disguise, this is, in reality, a throwback to the days of 'spheres of influence' and empires. I suggest that the two forms of organisation based on such radically differing principles cannot realistically co-exist in the same space.
One must supplant the other. Already the EU can be seen to be acting as a single entity in foreign policy, and this will develop.
The second context I have called the Haider context. Here I wish to deal only with the role of the EU in creating what could be called an 'internal' foreign policy.
By operating a system of sanctions against Austria, using the pretext of Haider, the EU has established a precedent for those states who wish to join, and possibly also for those states in the EU who might one day wish to leave.
This is effectively a loyalty test. Only those states, and by implication, those political groupings who support the EU will be allowed to participate in its activities. This diminishes national democracy.
It must be noted that, for the moment, this has been done without legal or political authority. This will change, and such powers will be part of the EU state. To have a foreign policy, you must first have a state. This is the kind of state that is being built.
The third context is the Kosovo context. Here again we must not be diverted by other considerations. The facts are quite plain. To facilitate the bombing of Yugoslavia (in reality Serbia) the OSCE monitoring mission was elbowed aside and told to leave the country.
Far from preventing or solving a humanitarian crisis, the bombing precipitated one, with ethnic cleansing of Serbs, Roma and others following that of the Albanians. There are continuing crises, political, humanitarian and economic in the region, and the Stability Pact is worthless. This is not crisis resolution; this is the management of instability.
The lessons for the EU were clear. Javier Solana and others have said so. To be a major force in the region, the EU must have its own foreign policy and its own means of enforcing that foreign policy. That is the context in which we see this rush to make a Euro-army, and the rush to make a foreign policy that can be enforced.
In reality this will only serve the interest of the major states in the EU, those former colonial powers who hope to make the future serve the past. It is the smaller states, the neutral states, and those who are part of the accession process who must bear a greater responsibility. Citizens, through NGOs and political parties must develop greater support for existing international groupings.
We must also develop new initiatives to maintain neutrality as a viable and practical political alternative within the EU and within the wider Europe. We cannot simply rely on the official 'peace' movements. They seem unable, or unwilling, to deal with what is actually happening in Europe.
Conferences such as this can only be a way of spreading information and making new contacts. We must make practical alliances and develop real strategies of counter-attack. Pious declarations and affirmations are not enough. That would be irresponsible on our part.
The militarisation of the EU, and the co-operation with NATO is a process that can do nothing except lead to greater instability and probable catastrophe. It has gained great momentum. We have no choice but to oppose it, and we must do so vigorously.
John Joseph O'Dowd
National Platform –Ireland
European Futures Congress
Bratislava, Slovakia, June 2000
|