And Europe Went to War
Leyla Carrillo Ramírez. Center for
European Studies
http://www.cubasocialista.cu/texto/cs0192.htm
[Cuba Socialista is the theoretical and political journal edited
by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba.]
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
When we were innocent children we used to sing “Mambru went to war” ignoring what war meant to humankind. Europe lived through two world wars with a balance of more than sixty million people dead and countless permanently injured or homeless. Consequently, Europeans vowed to safeguard peace at all costs.
Today, the scourge of war seems more distant and impersonal because, starting at the end of the 20th Century moving on to the beginnings of the 21st., the war experience was transformed into military operations in other continents where Europeans second their main ally: the United States.
Sarajevo and Bosnia were only the prologue to further actions “in the name of peace”, in the so-called antiterrorist war, or in more complex actions promoted by the Transatlantic Alliance. Actors or coauthors? The juridical definition may vary according to its user. What is clear is that Europe supports and takes part in many war scenarios. Twenty European Union States are members of NATO and three more await membership.
If we enumerate the pretexts for waging war, we could imitate the children’s song. But with or without it, European presence is either literal or metaphorical in four continents. Popular opposition to war is of no consequence to European Governments. Their objective is all that matters.
Despite the declaration in the Prologue to the European Union Constitutional Treaty that reads: “Europe wishes to act for peace, justice and solidarity in the world.” Or in the Objectives that read: “the aim of the Union is to promote peace, its values and the welfare of its peoples.” Other peoples seem to be irrelevant. The chapter devoted to Foreign Policy and Common Security omits references to PEACE or the prevention of war.
State terrorism, genocide against the Iraqi and Afghan peoples, or media terrorism carried out by the developed states to incite coercive action against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran or Syria are considered normal and reasonable for Europe. This also applies to Europe’s stand in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its decision to monitor the Gaza Strip border at the request of Israel. The same goes for the endorsement of “humanitarian interventions” such as in Haiti, where the situation of human rights has seriously deteriorated after the arrival of troops under the UN umbrella.
This is due to the fact that neo-globalization of the international juridical illegality has become an everyday affair for most European nations. Evidence of this is the disregard of flagrant US government violations of the human rights of the “illegal detainees” in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo base. The occupation forces in Afghanistan –and that is how they must be named according to International Law – are bound by the Geneva Convention III to protect the Taliban, militia and Al Quaeda suspects, because they are prisoners of war in an international conflict.
For several years now, Europe has kept silent about the real nature of the US made concept of “non-privileged [or "enemy"] combatant”, and has shown little interest in the establishment of a competent court of justice if they are not given prisoner-of-war status. The US does not apply its own 1997 national norm for prisoners of war. Torture perpetrated in Iraq or Afghanistan contravenes eight norms of International Law, five of International Humanitarian Law and three on Human Rights. Furthermore, in the case of Guantanamo, by using the territory as a concentration camp, the United States, with the silent complicity of its allies, violates Article 2 of the Agreement for coaling stations or naval operations. [Translator's Note: This refers to the shameful imposition of the Platt Amendment which secured the right to establish US military bases in Cuba]
Scattered remains of past or present wars represent dangers for Europe, such is the case of landmines, explosive devices, artillery ammo, grenades, missiles and cluster bombs introduced in the war in former Yugoslavia. One cannot forget that trials of detonations with unstable uranium were first made in this territory and would be used a few years later in present war conflicts. Of eighty-two states which have been victimized by such weapons, four are European: Poland which suffered the Nazi invasion; Kosovo, among the most affected with 30,000 unexploded devices; Bosnia-Herzegovina and Chechnya. Afghanistan is next on the list and so is Iraq where disclosing the existence of such artifacts is not yet “convenient”.
Proof of Europe’s fixation on war and its need to honor transatlantic commitments in the last decade is the proliferation of military organizations: EUROCORPS, EUROFOR, EUROMARFOR, SIAF (Spanish-Italian Amphibian Forces), and the European Air Group among others.
The initial French and German reluctance to take part in the invasion of Iraq, and the withdrawal of troops announced by the Spanish Socialist Government have eventually been transformed into advisory or support involvements namely: the recent deployment of a French satellite to detect troop movements in Afghanistan, the “French gendarmerie style” training of Iraqi and Afghan police and the increase of health support in German hospitals for American soldiers.
It is interesting to see that the cost of Spanish armed forces participation in Bosnia between 1992 and 2004 was 1.504,34 million Euros; Operation Afghanistan (euphemistically labeled Enduring Freedom), between 2002 and 2004, cost 194,58 million Euros, and Iraq since 2003 has cost 259,24 million Euros.
The most significant aspect is the increase of a “new type” of British and Italian troops. We must remember the recent London scandal over funds for an invisible regiment which disguised the hiring of military forces that became visible only in Iraq. This military modality is likely to proliferate in the future and might also be used to quench popular refusal to take part in overseas wars. Such is the case in Greece, where the option of hiring armed forces is under study to reduce manifestations from conscientious objectors who refuse to accept the bogus argument of the “need to defend the motherland” in remote places where no defense is required.
Participative modalities are found more frequently today, as happens in the British Army, which imitates the US by employing soldiers from private military or security agencies. This “commercial” terminology tries to cover up the crime of using mercenaries.
An overview brings to mind the fact that Belgium used mercenaries during the last stage of their conflict in Congo. Later on, Savimbi and Mobutu used them in Angola. In South Africa, the son of the then-British Prime Minister used hired mercenaries for an attempted coup d’etat. It is probably for these reasons that Africans were the first to sign an agreement banning the use of mercenaries, defined as soldiers that would cause damage in exchange for money or other favors. In occupied Iraq, with the given name to private security agents, hired ex-soldiers from professional armies - demobilized from Her British Majesty’s Army, act as irregular armies seeking fortune as Private Security Agents with a monthly payment of 15 thousand dollars (several sources indicate that there are 15 thousand hired British soldiers versus 8,700 regular soldiers from the United Kingdom)
After nine years of negotiations, the UN General Assembly approved, without voting, on December 4th 1989, the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, which requires 20 ratifications before coming into force. Guess who is against it?
The United States. Among the 24 States ready to give their consent only 9 were from Europe: Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Cyprus, Croatia, Georgia, Italy, Turkmenistan and Ukraine. The Convention was subscribed, but not ratified by Germany, Poland, Rumania and Yugoslavia.
The use of mercenaries discreetly but efficiently is being integrated into different transnational corporations of trade and services in Europe. Its greatest danger is the spreading of this plague to the war scenes where Europe is present. EUROPE is at war.
November/2005