We
want an EU Constitution
for the 21st century,
not for the 20th !
By
Erni
& Ola Friholt, TFF Advisers
Awarded the
Swedish Peace Council's Annual Award 2005
Denna artikel finns
också på svenska
Stocken, Orust, Sweden - December
3, 2005
The now suspended constitution for
the European Union is bound to reappear more or less in
the same form as before. There are some good ideas in it,
such as those about gender equality and equal salary
levels for men and women. Also, the Christian
fundamentalists had to accept that the religious values
are mentioned only along with the humanistic and other
components in our culture, all on an equal
level.
However, the important introductory
text or preamble is rather deficient when it comes to the
historical perspective on Europe's relations with its
former colonies and its ongoing dominance and power over
them, albeit in new ways. It is evident from the military
aspects of this constitution that Europe has no intention
to create equal rights for its former colonies but rather
continue its dominance by military means, if
necessary.
A
short criticism of the Articles on security and defence
policies
Article I-40:1-3 outline a common
(joint) European military defence, intensified armaments
and common development of new weapon systems. It will all
be adjusted to co-
operating with Nato.
Article I-40:7 states that defence
against attack in Europe is a common obligation, and all
available means are to be used. But what military threat
could there be against the EU in
Europe? This article only seemingly
offers a reason for intensified armaments. The real enemy
may well be those third world and other non-European
countries which have demanded equal rights since 30
years, i.e. through a New International Economic Order
(1974 and onwards). Their demands may become more
frequent and militant at some point in the near future.
The statement that all available
means shall be used evidently also includes the French
and the British nuclear arms, and considering the ever
closer EU-Nato co-ordination process, it might also one
day include the American nuclear arsenal.
Article III-194 delivers obscure
and ambiguous statements about the strategic security
interests of the union. European history gives us bad
feelings. The contents here do not fit in with the
preceding Article III-193:2 about … international
co-operation in order to (c) keep the peace, prevent
conflicts etc. It is definitely a cause for worry that
"peace and prevention of conflicts" is mentioned in a few
contexts and without even mentioning notions such as
"peaceful conflict resolution" or supporting the UN
Charter norm of making "peace by peaceful means."
Consequently, one must conclude that the Treaty does not
provide for the opportunity that structures, measures and
methods in support of peaceful conflict resolution will
play a dominant role in the EU.
Similarly word like crisis
management, conflict and violence prevention,
disarmament, keeping the peace are occurring a few times
but only in the most general sense of these words. (Words
like non-violence, reconciliation or, say, nuclear
disarmament and nuclear-free zones don't appear at all).
The European leaders do not seem to be interested in any
practical and precise use of these concepts, goals and
strategies.
Indeed, the difference between this
fact on the one hand and the many pages filled with
detailed rules regulating economic activity and
competition is very striking. Practical details are
numbered faithfully in Articles 50 to 58 although these
rules are already well known throughout the world society
and could easily have been given a generalised
description in just a few lines.
Disarmament
- for whom?
In the light of what is said about
intensified armaments and arms production in Article 40-3
it seems strange and mysteriously unconnected to find the
following in Article III-210: "The tasks mentioned in
Article I-40:1 … shall include efforts for
disarmament." Whose disarmament is intended? It is
abundantly clear from the text that disarmament within
the European Union is not in question. The Treaty even
binds member states to increase their (military) efforts
and capacities!
Measures
against terrorism
Military means shall be used for
fighting terrorism. The European leaders seem to still
believe that terrorism is an unprovoked outburst of evil
against our peaceful democratic societies. It is quite
shocking that the European leaders choose to suppress the
evident and declared linking of terrorism to the ever
ongoing European and American exploitation of the peoples
of the Third World and the siding of some European
countries with the Nato and the US attacks on countries
like Serbia/Montenegro, Afghanistan and Iraq and its
unreserved support to the Israeli occupation and
colonization of Palestine.
The leaders of Europe seem to be of
the opinion that they can make their citizens believe in
any one-sided image of Europe, in any half truth or whole
lie, they tell. There is not a word of self-criticism of
how the Union has handled recent conflicts and no attempt
to learn from mistakes such as the conflict
(mis)management in the Balkans.
The overall assumption that
military means could beat terrorism is as shocking as
revealing of the intellectual level employed in writing
this text. Hence the conspicuous absence of even the
slightest hint that the EU will, de facto, struggle hard
to become an actor that promotes real international
economic and social justice - which would be the only way
to bring terrorism to a halt.
No
mention of nuclear arms
There is &endash; literally - not a
single word stated about the nuclear weapons piled up
within the EU. The more closely its military system is
knit, the more involved the member states will be in
handling weapons of mass destruction. The majority of
states that have actually distanced themselves from such
weapons may soon become unwilling hosts of such weapons
and thereby also become targets of possible counter
strikes. Why is this suggested constitution omitting this
very important aspect of military defence or
aggression?
And
the patriarchy?
One may quite easily understand
that a patriarchal socio-economic structure like the EU
is not able to define its own deepest character. The work
of the Treaty text was presided over by three men with
the average age of 70. Would it not have been reasonable
to include in the introductory paragraphs just a few
words such as "that Europe reunited after bitter
experiences of the patriarchal culture of violence will
continue its way into civilization, equality, progress
and well being." And in the short passage of equality
between women and men the following should be added: "The
patriarchal social structure shall be analyzed and a far
reaching transformation shall be carried out in order to
create a new and richer culture of equality, which will
substitute the obsolete patriarchal culture."
What
else should be included in a Constitution for the 21st
Century?
Given the uniquely long text of the
Constitution Treaty, it is difficult to keep it all in
mind. It can be foreseen that further mentioning of the
patriarchate could fit into several articles beyond those
mentioned above.
The articles we have criticised
should be changed, added to or replaced by fitting
alternative writings.
In what follows we now limit our
suggestions to the articles pertaining to security,
defence and peace. We wish to add the essential concepts,
values and principles that are so obviously missing in
the existing constitution text, such as "peaceful
conflict resolution", "peace by peaceful means",
"negotiation strategies", "peace conferences" etc.
"Disarmament" is treated below under "The Goals of the
Union".
The
great peace project
In Western mainstream media,
politicians, editorial writers and others participating
in the debates about the EU are always repeating the
importance of the EU as a peace project. But it is
equally justified from the facts presented in this
constitution to describe the EU as a joint effort of the
old colonial powers to keep and strengthen their dominant
positions after the formal decolonization.
The evident need of EU countries
for a strong military power in order to support their
negotiating power is radiating through the veil of
pronounced defensive strategies and their pronounced but
blurred "interests". Their great considerations for Nato
co-operation make this real intention more probable,
since Nato has extended its field of operations to the
whole world and not just to the original North Atlantic
area.
However, we would very much
appreciate and wish to see Europe as a peace promoting
power in the world, a power which by peaceful means
creates economic and social justice via open discussions,
truthful media information, consensus, analysis,
compromise in pleasant contrast to the ultimatums,
military operations, occupation and the dictated
agreements of the World Trade Organization, the World
Bank, IMF, etc.
It should be beyond every doubt
that the EU could become a new kind of power in the world
system &endash; had its leaders had the necessary vision.
Indeed, with the animosity - even hatred - rising against
U.S. foreign policy worldwide, the situation speaks for
an alternative to Washington in the West. But it seems
like the EU doesn't see the potentials...
The
goals of the Union
In Article I-3:1-4 about the goals
of the union the following could be inserted:
"In every national and
international conflict the member states shall exercise
strict impartiality and carry out carefully analyzed,
practically trained and prepared efforts for peaceful
conflict resolution." (Thereby one-sided military and
power oriented policies are prevented or
hampered.)
Instead of the existing point 5 in
the same article, we suggest the following:
"The Union shall fulfil these goals
with the non violent methods that are listed by peace
research and that have been practiced in many countries
and have successfully abolished tyranny and injustice.
The experiences and lessons learnt from peaceful popular
social change
and conflict resolution shall be
systematically taken into consideration and applied to
the maximum extent."
And to this we add a 6th point
(=Article I-3:6) as follows:
"The military power which has
traditionally been retained by the EU member states shall
gradually be reduced and the resources that are thereby
released shall be made available for the development of
wide-ranging civil activities." (This is a clear message
that the EU is not aiming at traditional competitive
power status, which always creates tensions.)
The
common security and defence policy
The exclusively military contents
of Article I-40 should be replaced by the
following:
"Historical experience shows that
the exercise of military power never solves a conflict
but instead creates new conflicts with still more
sufferings. The background of many European countries as
colonial masters implies a special obligation to make
civil efforts in the fields of trade and commerce
policies and promote peaceful conflict-resolution in
order to compensate the social and economic damage done
to the former colonies, a damage that constitutes the
dominant single reason for their present
problems.
In order to improve the competence
of the EU in this regard, education in colonial history
and in methods of conflict-resolution and reconciliation
shall be imparted to all EU institutions. During this
time-consuming process of reorientation the military
forces of the union member states shall be given the same
education in order to be able to intervene in favour of
early listening and action and thereby prevent violence
whenever such action is demanded by independent
international humanitarian organizations.
Further, in order to abolish the
frequent misuse of power inherent in the ongoing economic
and political globalization process, the EU shall
collectively apply boycotts and refuse purchasing any
goods or services from those governments or enterprises
that are held responsible for such misuse from time to
time.
At the same time a solidarity-based
and fair trade shall be developed in agreement with the
criteria that have been adopted by the international Fair
Trade organizations (ATO:s)"
The
Constitution of a real peace project
Peaceful conflict resolution is the
most important part of a constitution for any true peace
project. In the existing constitution text there is not a
single hint in this regard. So we have to create a
special section for this important aspect. Let us call it
Article I-40 A. The text will be as follows (I-40
A:1-2,a-i):
A 1. The actions of the member
states in situations of conflict shall be characterised
by an explicit distancing from violent conflict
management of the type regularly shown by Atlantic power
constellations like Nato and similar alliances:
diplomatic pressure, followed by ultimatum, which implies
threat of violence within a set time limit, thereafter
gradual fulfilment of the threats up to a level of
massive bombings of military as well as civil society,
which weakens resistance by making the losses of lives
and material values unbearable and thus resulting in a
forced, comprehensive submission.
This pattern of action - know for
several centuries - aims at annihilating the other party
of the conflict, and in the long run has shown to create
more problems than it solves. Systematic violence applied
by a cynical, overwhelming power is also dehumanizing for
the culture of the victorious power itself.
A 2. After five hundred years of
excessive violence exercised by the great powers of
Western Europe, the EU now proclaims a doctrine of
conflict-resolution which excludes the use of violence,
as follows:
a. The member states are obliged to
abolish the ongoing praxis of trade by providing the
small farmers of the third world their rightful
opportunity to practise self sufficiency and trade freely
their excess production. This shall be realized by
abolishing price subsidies to the European farmers and
middlemen who hitherto have sold their products at an
unfair, low price under the false pretext of free
competition while de facto destroying the competitive
options for the said farmers.
This and other related measures
will liberate both parties, since the oppressors too will
learn thereby to stand on their own legs.
b. In order to facilitate progress
in the areas of trade, the member states are advised to
improve the competence and skills of the media in
presenting a full picture of facts and figures, so that
also controversial and disturbing facts about prevalent
injustices, e.g. in the monopoly trade and price cartels,
achieve the necessary publicity and attention in the
direction of objective understanding of the root causes
of various conflicts. This would provide possibilities
for mutual understanding, for just day-to-day as well as
long-term solutions.
c. The member states shall, at
their earliest, individually and collectively abolish
their arms trade to conflict areas and to countries at
war, and they shall thereafter gradually abolish their
remaining arms trade. Through these measures the creation
of artificial tensions can be avoided, since even the
existence of armaments is understood as threats by other
parties.
d. The member states shall initiate
every conflict management through early warning
mechanisms and early action, open discussions and
negotiations involving all parties involved in the
particular conflict. Every and all parties must be made
sure that they will be heard and paid attention to and
get a fair hearing in a process aimed to lead to genuine
solutions and consensus.
e. The member states shall extend
economic and moral support as well as advice and
consultations and thereby strengthen peaceful popular
protests and demands directed against dictators and other
abusers of power and shall also co-operate with popular
boycott actions when demanded by genuinely popular
movements.
f. The European Council shall
organize and finance international conferences in order
to penetrate conflicts and their causes together with all
involved parties. The process shall be allowed to
continue until a stage of maturity and consensus for
peaceful and rightful solutions are reached.
g. Relying on the results of peace
research and on the experiences of non-violent actions
and methods the member states shall work for reducing
conflicts and for their long term resolutions, e.g. by
establishing massive civil presence in a conflict area,
or by organizing permanent civil escort to persons who
are threatened by violent attacks in public
places.
h. To the above mentioned measures
shall be generally added that in the past patriarchal
values and approaches have to a great extent directed all
efforts and processes in this field. The member states
are therefore obliged to fulfil UN Resolution 1325, which
demands 50% representation of women in all these
contexts. Thereby the inherited self appreciation of the
patriarchate will be questioned, which constitutes a
precondition for the desired and necessary
transformation.
i. The member states shall organize
material and psychological support in each single case of
oppression of women and violence against women. The
member states shall also prescribe individual, intensive
treatment to rehabilitate and make oppressors and
aggressors behave in a way that is socially desirable and
acceptable.
With these and other similar
additions to the existing constitution it may become
acceptable to the peoples of Europe as a real peace
project.
Erni Friholt & Ola
Friholt
Stocken, Orust, Sweden
December 3, 2005
The original article was written in
Swedish. In this translated version we have limited
quotations from the Treaty text to a minimum and they are
our translations from the Swedish edition of the Treaty
text. You may find a copy of the
EU Constitution in English
here:
Get
free articles &
updates
©
TFF & the author 2005
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
|