Stern
Rhetoric to Defeat
Terrorism
By
Lars-Olof Fredriksson, Major,
Ret, M.Sc.Pol., Äänekoski,
Finland
March 5, 2002
I remember the peace discussions and the marches of
the sixties, with their focus on the Cold war re-armament
and the rapid increase in strategic weapons, especially
in Europe. As a young officer I defended non-alliance and
independent defence, as I do today. In the Finnish
discussions, in many parties and organisations, there
were strong currents from backing the right of the Soviet
Union to re-arm, all in the name of the solidarity and
peace. Does it seem familiar somehow? Do we hear the same
type of rhetoric now rumbling from the West as President
Bush asserts his right to fight a total war against
terrorism, speaks about the "axis of evil" and divides
the world into those who are with the U.S. and those who
are not.
The peace of the Cold war was grounded in the
capabilities of two blocs fighting each other, even --
should deterrence fail -- with nuclear weapons. But no
one dared to challenge the basic assumption and, thus,
the problems were encapsulated. As people broke through
the Berlin Wall, one had the feeling that the "peace/war"
polarisation that lasted for the whole century, would at
last change into co-operation and the gigantic weapon
stores would be reduced.
As we know now, this did not happen. But the
encapsulated crises opened here and there to wars of
dissolution and failed states and the republics of the
dissolved Warsaw Pact started a race aiming to join the
west, the EU as well as NATO. The joint experience of the
small East-European countries to serve as potential
wartime pass-through territories created a felt need to
seek closeness with the West.
USA seemed to be at a loss concerning European
development, not the least when the EU was born and it
began to develop a military pillar, including
co-ordination with NATO. Then came the terrible September
11 that changed everything. It tied the security politics
of Europe more solidly than before to the U.S. in its
attempt to fight a global war against terrorism.
Allegedly, this war is fought for our joint civilisation
and for basic Western values.
In principle, the United States now determines the
conditions of peace in much the same way the Soviet Union
during its time tried to explain it to us: You are with
us or you are against us. This limitless mandate is
reflected in new types of boundaries, in the competition
between civilisations and cultures for the right beliefs
and loyalties.
The U.S. considers Europe militarily toothless and
only useful, perhaps, in the war against terrorism. To
become a real military super power, the EU would have to
embark on re-armament and increase its combined military
expenditures to a much higher level.
The U.S. itself now increases its military equipment
budget with at least 10 %. One wonders for what purposes
it needs to keep a huge arsenal of strategic weapons and
a defence budget, which amounts to more than 10 times the
entire budget of the state of Finland? It is announced
that this effort is necessary to stop the terrorism, to
punish the 'rogue' states and to break the 'axis of
evil'. NATO itself is tasked with defending its member
states if there is an attack on one or more of them, as
is stipulated in Article 5 of the Atlantic Charter.
Seen from my viewpoint as an independent observer, the
situation is changing in the direction of more
instability and risks of war here and there. Isn't it
time, therefore, that we organise new peace marches?
©
TFF and the
author
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
|