OPINION EUROPE
To Secure Peace, Be Ready for Battle
To remain true to its nature, the EU needs the capabilities to protect its values in its neighborhood and beyond.
Catherine Ashton
Dec. 18, 2013
Off the coast of Somalia, men and women from across Europe are proving the old adage that no news can be good news. Stories of piracy used to make front pages around the world. Today they don't. That is because attacks over the past year have dropped by 95%.
This is no accident. National frigates are working together under the EU's Operation Atalanta to protect the shipping lanes needed for so much of Europe's trade with the rest of the world, and for vital food aid to Somalia. We are also tackling the underlying problems, not just the symptoms. The EU is training the Somalian army, supporting the rebuilding of its shattered institutions and providing development aid to lay the foundations for long-term prosperity.
Somalia provides an example of a wider truth. An effective and coherent security and defense policy is a necessity, not a luxury, for Europe. Possessing the capacities for crisis prevention and peacekeeping are vital if we are to build a more peaceful world order.
Of course, NATO has been the lynchpin of Europe's security for 60 years. But times are changing. Earlier this year the last American battle tank left our continent. It is necessary, as well as right, for Europe to do more. That is why since 2003, the European Union has successfully kept peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina, trained policemen in Palestine and Afghanistan, and fought piracy in the Indian Ocean.
We must now go further. If Europe is to remain a global player in the 21st century, Europeans will need to cooperate even more closely. The rationale for a stronger European defense policy is threefold: political, ensuring that the EU can live up to its global ambitions; operational, giving Europe the capacity to act on the ground; and economic, securing jobs and driving innovation in times of austerity.
Even if Europe has been at peace since World War II, war and conflict are never far away. Whether it is the civil war in Syria or cyber attacks targeting our airports or energy grids, we face clear and present threats. Poverty and social and ethnic tensions are important drivers of conflict.
This is why we need a comprehensive approach to foreign policy, employing the broad spectrum of tools the EU has at its disposal. It combines our civilian and military missions with diplomacy and dialogue, as well as development policy to address the symptoms and causes of conflict, as in Somalia.
Terrorism, cyber threats and piracy cannot be countered without modern technology and highly professional and well-equipped forces. Closer cooperation on defense will ensure that Europe can act more rapidly. When European fighter jets flew over Libya in 2011, U.S. air tankers had to refuel them in 80% of the cases. We know which capabilities Europe lacks and we know that we need to invest to develop them.
If European armies are equipped with modern air tankers and cyber-defense capabilities, it will make them more reliable NATO partners too. What the EU calls "Pooling and Sharing" and what NATO calls "Smart Defense" are complementary and mutually reinforcing. Defense markets are still too fragmented and decisions are still made in 28 national contexts.
As a result, new capabilities are purchased on a purely national basis, often giving preference to national industries, and often resulting in duplication in some areas and a lack of capacity in others. By successfully "pooling and sharing," EU countries could better focus the €200 billion they spend every year on defense.
In times of austerity, it would be unreasonable to expect bigger defense budgets. Instead, we need pragmatic solutions: more cooperation between our governments by pooling, sharing and specializing; more convergence of military planning among member states and between EU and NATO; and consolidation of European defense industries.
Cooperating on defense—a field that lies at the very core of national sovereignty—requires trust both between governments and from our citizens. This is why we need to be clear that it is essential to safeguard jobs and increase economic prosperity.
One immediate challenge is to enable our forces to react faster to a crisis. Closer cooperation on defense can achieve just that. Research conducted by the European Defence Agency and the European Commission shows that it could also save up to €130 million per year. European defense companies such as EADS or BAE employ 400,000 people, and twice as many are working throughout the whole value chain, including in countless small and medium-size enterprises.
Europe has come a long way, from being a consumer of security to becoming a provider of security. The meeting of EU leaders in Brussels this week sends a clear signal that defense is now top of the agenda in Europe. Three topics will be at the center of our discussions: first, the priorities for future development of capabilities; second, building a competitive and innovative defense industry; and third, the preparation and availability of our forces.
The new emphasis on defense does not mean that the EU has abandoned its identity as a peace project in favor of more bellicose ambitions. On the contrary: Europe is aware that to remain true to its nature as a peace project, it needs the capabilities to protect and uphold its values in its neighborhood and beyond.
Ms. Ashton is high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy and vice president of the European Commission.
Patrick T. Hiller Special to Salem-News.com
A response to Catherine Ashton's "To Secure Peace, Be Ready for Battle".
blogtrot.com
(PORTLAND, OR) - “The War to End all Wars” never achieved what H.G. Wells implied with this term. On the contrary, World War I not only resulted in the death of more than 16 million humans, it also resulted in a victor’s peace directly setting the stage for World War 2 where an estimated 60 to 100 million people died. I like to believe that no World War is on the horizon, but I was quite surprised to read the headline of a Wall Street Journal opinion piece “To Secure Peace, Be Ready for Battle.
The surprise not so much was the title itself. This language—promoting ‘peace’ by amassing more military—has been all-too-familiar and all-too-common in the twenty-first century perpetual ineffective and counterproductive war on terror and other misguided relics like humanly insane nuclear deterrence or the offensive, war-waging North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
My surprise with this opinion piece came after the headline when it I realized it was not one of our usual media “experts” whose insights supporting the military status quo are abundantly available in major corporate media. The article is authored by Catherine Ashton, high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy and vice president of the European Commission. Wait, didn’t the European Union receive the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize? And was it not the will of Alfred Nobel to recognize “the person who shall have done most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”? The answer to both questions is yes.
Previous Nobel Peace Laureates Desmond Tutu, Adolfo Perez Esquivel and Mairead Maguire co-authored a letter stating that the EU was “clearly not one of the ‘champions of peace’ Alfred Nobel had in mind,” adding that the EU condones “security based on military force and waging wars rather than insisting on the need for an alternative approach.”
The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama also caused considerable controversy as he admitted himself. In his acceptance speech Obama noted: “So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.” No Mr. President, and no Ms. Ashton. This is not what Alfred Nobel had in mind with when he wrote his will.
The entire article by Ashton is so misguided that it is hard to focus on one part. Should we talk about the immorality of Western global power projection, the ineffectiveness of military versus nonviolent alternatives, the myth of the “defense” sector as a job creator or corporate interests in building “defense” machinery? Apparently it would have been nice from Ashton’s European Union perspective to have more of their own air tankers refuel the fighter jets while bombing the country of Libya to get rid of a dictator. It is troubling that Ms. Ashton seriously is using the Libyan example as a success story. All alarm bells should be ringing by now.
Unfortunately Catherine Ashton, a diplomat at the highest level of the European Union, merges the need for international law enforcement and the prosecution of war criminals with the need for military power and domination. Unfortunately she proposes to treat the symptoms while at the same time projecting military power. Unfortunately she considers strengthened military capacities as vital to build a more peaceful world. Unfortunately she is telling us that the EU has not abandoned its identity as a peace project while promoting peace through military strength.
We need to eradicate this skewed defense and security paradigm built upon the belief that peace and security should be pursued through military force. Security of the European Union unfortunately is defined in relation to military power and its global projection – does this sound familiar? This view is created and maintained by those who benefit from legitimizing direct or structural violence - violence which kills or social structures which prevent people from fulfilling their basic needs.
Author and peace studies professor Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer helps us move toward a more authentic concept of security. He distinguishes between protection of interests and authentic security. The first one is supported by offensive militarism. Nelson-Pallmeyer writes: “Militarism is not defense. Defending interests isn’t the same thing as defending legitimate security needs.” The second one based on the idea that leaders “take steps to keep families, homes, neighborhoods, and nation safe and secure.” Which one would you chose?
Or let us look at human security as another concept which outweighs Ashton’s EU proposal. Jody Williams, who received the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for her work to ban landmines believes that peace is defined by human and not national security and that is must be achieved through sustainable development, environmental justice and meeting people’s basic needs (2011 Ted Talk). Mairead Maguire, who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1976 for her to action to help end the violence in Northern Ireland continues to speak out against the institutions of militarism and war. Both those extraordinary women know violent conflict and its consequences.
A Nobel Peace Prize is not necessarily a Nobel Peace Prize. Jody Williams, Mairead Maguire, Desmond Tutu and Adolfo Perez Esquivel have the moral and intellectual authority to inform us what about the necessary steps toward peace and security. They certainly do not involve instruments of war as President Obama suggests or preparing for battles as Catherine Ashton suggests.Patrick. T. Hiller, Ph.D., Hood River, OR, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is a Conflict Transformation scholar, professor, on the Governing Council of the International Peace Research Association, and Director of the War Prevention Initiative of the Jubitz Family Foundation.
--
Yours for a nonviolent future,
Tom H. Hastings, Ed.D.
Director, PeaceVoice Program,
Oregon Peace Institute
http://www.peacevoice.info/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
member,
Whitefeather Peace House
3315 N Russet Portland OR 97217
503 327 8250
peace education notification list sign-up:
https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/peacejusticeportland
http://www.whitefeatherpeace.org/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
faculty
PSU Conflict Resolution MA/MS Program
724 SW Harrison Neuberger 221
Portland OR 97201
503 725 9173
fax 503 725 9174
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://hastingsnonviolence.blogspot.com/
Patrick T. Hiller Special to Salem-News.com
A response to Catherine Ashton's "To Secure Peace, Be Ready for Battle".
blogtrot.com
(PORTLAND, OR) - “The War to End all Wars” never achieved what H.G. Wells implied with this term. On the contrary, World War I not only resulted in the death of more than 16 million humans, it also resulted in a victor’s peace directly setting the stage for World War 2 where an estimated 60 to 100 million people died. I like to believe that no World War is on the horizon, but I was quite surprised to read the headline of a Wall Street Journal opinion piece “To Secure Peace, Be Ready for Battle. The surprise not so much was the title itself. This language—promoting ‘peace’ by amassing more military—has been all-too-familiar and all-too-common in the twenty-first century perpetual ineffective and counterproductive war on terror and other misguided relics like humanly insane nuclear deterrence or the offensive, war-waging North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
My surprise with this opinion piece came after the headline when it I realized it was not one of our usual media “experts” whose insights supporting the military status quo are abundantly available in major corporate media. The article is authored by Catherine Ashton, high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy and vice president of the European Commission. Wait, didn’t the European Union receive the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize? And was it not the will of Alfred Nobel to recognize “the person who shall have done most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”? The answer to both questions is yes. Previous Nobel Peace Laureates Desmond Tutu, Adolfo Perez Esquivel and Mairead Maguire co-authored a letter stating that the EU was “clearly not one of the ‘champions of peace’ Alfred Nobel had in mind,” adding that the EU condones “security based on military force and waging wars rather than insisting on the need for an alternative approach.” The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama also caused considerable controversy as he admitted himself. In his acceptance speech Obama noted: “So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.” No Mr. President, and no Ms. Ashton. This is not what Alfred Nobel had in mind with when he wrote his will.
The entire article by Ashton is so misguided that it is hard to focus on one part. Should we talk about the immorality of Western global power projection, the ineffectiveness of military versus nonviolent alternatives, the myth of the “defense” sector as a job creator or corporate interests in building “defense” machinery? Apparently it would have been nice from Ashton’s European Union perspective to have more of their own air tankers refuel the fighter jets while bombing the country of Libya to get rid of a dictator. It is troubling that Ms. Ashton seriously is using the Libyan example as a success story. All alarm bells should be ringing by now.
Unfortunately Catherine Ashton, a diplomat at the highest level of the European Union, merges the need for international law enforcement and the prosecution of war criminals with the need for military power and domination. Unfortunately she proposes to treat the symptoms while at the same time projecting military power. Unfortunately she considers strengthened military capacities as vital to build a more peaceful world. Unfortunately she is telling us that the EU has not abandoned its identity as a peace project while promoting peace through military strength.
We need to eradicate this skewed defense and security paradigm built upon the belief that peace and security should be pursued through military force. Security of the European Union unfortunately is defined in relation to military power and its global projection – does this sound familiar? This view is created and maintained by those who benefit from legitimizing direct or structural violence - violence which kills or social structures which prevent people from fulfilling their basic needs.
Author and peace studies professor Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer helps us move toward a more authentic concept of security. He distinguishes between protection of interests and authentic security. The first one is supported by offensive militarism. Nelson-Pallmeyer writes: “Militarism is not defense. Defending interests isn’t the same thing as defending legitimate security needs.” The second one based on the idea that leaders “take steps to keep families, homes, neighborhoods, and nation safe and secure.” Which one would you chose?
Or let us look at human security as another concept which outweighs Ashton’s EU proposal. Jody Williams, who received the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for her work to ban landmines believes that peace is defined by human and not national security and that is must be achieved through sustainable development, environmental justice and meeting people’s basic needs (2011 Ted Talk). Mairead Maguire, who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1976 for her to action to help end the violence in Northern Ireland continues to speak out against the institutions of militarism and war. Both those extraordinary women know violent conflict and its consequences.
A Nobel Peace Prize is not necessarily a Nobel Peace Prize. Jody Williams, Mairead Maguire, Desmond Tutu and Adolfo Perez Esquivel have the moral and intellectual authority to inform us what about the necessary steps toward peace and security. They certainly do not involve instruments of war as President Obama suggests or preparing for battles as Catherine Ashton suggests.Patrick. T. Hiller, Ph.D., Hood River, OR, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is a Conflict Transformation scholar, professor, on the Governing Council of the International Peace Research Association, and Director of the War Prevention Initiative of the Jubitz Family Foundation.
--
Yours for a nonviolent future,
Tom H. Hastings, Ed.D.
Director, PeaceVoice Program,
Oregon Peace Institute
http://www.peacevoice.info/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
member,
Whitefeather Peace House
3315 N Russet Portland OR 97217
503 327 8250
peace education notification list sign-up:
https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/peacejusticeportland
http://www.whitefeatherpeace.org/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
faculty
PSU Conflict Resolution MA/MS Program
724 SW Harrison Neuberger 221
Portland OR 97201
503 725 9173
fax 503 725 9174
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://hastingsnonviolence.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment