The supposed imminent militarisation of the European Union

Dear WSN-readers

Actually - if we translate this piece of Oberg into a different
(non-`radical' sounding) terminology and abstract from (in my view rubbish)
hazy generalisation - like that `Western culture is expansionist and
messianistic', what Oberg advocates has been (in my impression) the policy
of the State Department and (to my knowledge) the policy of the British
Foreign Office all along since at least 1947.

The policy is and was (as the objective of NATO has been since the 1950's)
`to keep the Russians out, to keep the Americans in and keep the Germans
down'. Whitehall's objective since the 1950's (warmly supported by the State
Department) has always been and still is to stave off a possible
militarisation of the EEC/EU by two means:

1.) Keep American armies stationed in Europe.

For (to mention an old truth applying since at least the Romans) no country
which has foreign troops on its own territory can allow itself an
independent foreign policy. And - while the Russians have witdrawn - there
are still American forces with American nuclear weapons on German territory,
And - as I argued on this list before -  the whole objective of the
Kossovo-intervention was that it was US-led, thus not only keeping the
US-forces in Europe - as `peacekeepers' instead of defending against the Red
Menace - but also obviating the need for the EU (make that Germany) to `do
it itself', a possibility the British and Americans (with good reasons)
feared.

2.) Block unilateral European decisions and keep the Europeans involved in
NATO in which the US (and Britain) have the leading role.

This has been British policy from the plan to establish a European army in
the 1950's right unto the debates on a possible intervention in Bosnia which
the British blocked since the US would in that case not have been involved.

I don't really see a good reason why this should change in the forseeable
future.

Oh certainly - the US TALKS a lot about the Europeans taking more
responsibility for their own defense but what that really amounts to is
saying that Europe should fund US-armaments - without of course recieving
the benefits of possible technological spin-offs -

It is not now (and has never been) the American intention that the Europeans
should engage in any military adventure without US-approval - and it has n't
been since the Suez fiasco in 1956. Witness e.g. the history of the
Falkland-war (the only major European military adventure without tacit
previous US-approval since 1956) where the US-support - as is now gradually
beginning to emerge - was bought with a British pledge they would allow the
US-army to mount military operation from British territtory without needing
previous approval from Westminster: thus, in the case of the bombing of
Lybia in 1985.

If that's already true for Britain it's even more true for France, let alone
Germany. Since, basically, while the Royal Navy and the RAF have the
logistic means to act outside of NATO-territory (communication satelites,
aircraft-carriers), the French have it only to a very limited extent (the
French have the new `Charles de Gaulle' aircraft carriers and there are
plans for the production of a naval version of the `Rafaele'-fighters but
they still lack the advanced communication devices available to the RAF and
the Royal Navy and they lack modern bombers: their Etendard is a plane from
the 1950's.) And Germany of course - well Germany doesn't have much of a
navy and its airforce is only able to mount actions outside of NATO-teritory
on American sufferance. The other European countries ? Well - Portugal would
probably have loved to intervene in Timor but the whole idea itself is now
laughable.

Could a European army intervene far from its borders in a major conflict,
say in Saudi-Arabia, then ?

On the moment only the RAF and the Royal Navy can and (as the Falklands
again showed) even the Royal Navy can not mount major operations without
US-support. To mention only one thing: only the British have a worldwide
network of military bases - the French have only a few and Djibouti, say,
lacks an advanced military infrastructure, the Germans have not a single one
of course. The RAF could - very hypothetically - stage such an operation
from its bases in Oman. But in reality of course such an operation is not
possible without logistic support from Diego Garcia and Dahran - both
US-bases. Hence, any `independent' European operation would have to operate
under US-suffrance.

I fear Oberg is an utter military lay - he is simply proposing the military
impossible. - `Europe' can only stage military operations close to its own
territory. For - supposing the European union wanted to mount major military
operations without the US' support far from its borders - it would e.g. need
not one but several super-aircraft carriers, which each cost (note:
1970-rates) about 2 billion dollars and take about 15 years to design and
build. Who's ever going to
fund this ? The EU can't - Germany won't and the French taxpayer ? Not very
likely. And the Royal Navy is too much dependent on US-technology (as again
was proven by the Falklands) to act independent from the US-navy.

So, what we are going to have in the forseeable future is some small
European contribution - financial mainly, and then perhaps some
hospital-personel
from say the Bundeswehr and a stray French brigade - to American/British
military operations. As has been the case since 1956.

And - as before - we're also going very likely to have a cold war between
Russia and China on the one hand, the US and Europe on the other. That's the
real danger not any US-Europe military rivalry. Look closely at two recent
news-items:

1.) Bush names Collin Powel to minister of defence - do we recall Collin
Powel was a ferocious defender of the American space-shield ? To repeat
something I wrote here hunderds of times before: do you REALLY think the
Russians are that naive as to suppose that's directed against `rogue states'
? Happy dreams in that case: for take a close look at news-item two:

2.) Russia announced three days ago - it has designed and is now ready to
taske into production an advanced `stealth'-system based on plasma-fields to
protect aircraft against radar. And remember the missile defense system has
an Achilles' heel: you can't destroy something which you can't see. Connect
1.) and 2.) and the implications are obvious.

So, to put it very unkindly: Jan Oberg is very busy fighting with wind-mills
while he forgets the real threat. While he is fixated on very unlikely
possibilities the military in the USA, in Britain (which is - unlike the
other European armies - in `the know' about US-intentions), in Russia and in
China is already gearing-up for a new cold war and they are very busy
demarcating the zones of inluence for the new Cold War too.

For - while Oberg is still fixated on the threat existing five years' ago
the reality in the Caucasus and in Central Asia is that the Russian army has
moved in again. For that reason `foreign' interventions in the Caucasus are
totally impossible - lest one wants to provoke a World War as US and
European politicians of course recognized in the case of Checnya  They were
silent about violations of human rights since there was basically nothing
they could do about it, although the Russian army had certainly less
scrupples than the Serbian ever had. Thus - I hear the Armenia/Turkey border
is now guarded by Russian forces again.

So too in Central Asia: (for those who have n't heard that yet) two months
ago
general Mahsud invited the Russian army into northern Afghanistan to help in
his operation against the Taliban. Likewise - is it a coincidence China and
Vietnam have just commenced talks on the status of the Spratley-islands (as
most of you are probably aware a bone of content between the two countries
for years). Hardly - since - with a new Cold War - Vietnam would be on the
same side as China . Again, do you think it's a coincidence Putin was in
Cuba a month ago ? Happy dreaming in that case ...

WSN-readers: when talking about the very distant future do not forget the
forseeable future - for the only thing we know for certain about the `long
run' is that `in the long run we're all dead ... -

Happy New Year

R.J. Barendse