December 17, 2005 18:06 |
by Rae
Street
looking at the weapons industry's key role in formulating EU military
policy.
The militaristic heart of the European Union was revealed in all
its ugly glory last month by European Commissioner for external
relations Dr Benita Ferrero-Waldner. During a debate on arms exports,
nuclear non-proliferation and defence procurement in the European
Parliament, he set out the European Commission's aims to boost the
military-industrial complex.
"The ultimate objective of the commission is to open up defence
markets, which are today highly fragmented and to increase the efficiency
of public spending by encouraging competition and transparency in
these markets. This should be of benefit to both buyers and taxpayers
but also to the European defence industry, which is suffering from
a market structure which prevents it competing in the global marketplace."
Ferrero-Waldner also stated the need to press on with the European
Defence Agency (EDA). Its title might sound innocuous, but the EDA
is a central component in the development of a common European foreign
and defence policy.
The impetus for common policy in this area has been growing since
the early 1990s. It began to be formulated in the 1992 Maastricht
Treaty and appears within the proposed EU constitution so roundly
rejected by the French and Dutch. The document urges member states
"to progressively improve their military capabilities."
It is lying dormant but could be resurrected at any time.
However, much of the policy laid down in the proposed constitution
is going on apace regardless of its rejection by ordinary people.
The EDA is key to this. It first met in September 2004 and exists
to support member states in their effort to "improve European
defence capabilities." What this means in plain English is
more arms sales, more trade in weapons and research into more effective
killing machines.
But what is fuelling this drive to spend taxpayers' money on rearming
Europe? Weapons are big business. Basically, the EDA is an arms
agency. Defence manufacturers are scrambling to get a slice of the
military budget.
At the moment, the market is dominated by the big three US corporate
manufacturers - Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman. But
they are closely followed by the European big three - BAE Systems,
Thales and EADS. The last of these took out full-page newspaper
adverts in 2004 to coincide with European foreign ministers' approval
of the EDA. They urged the EU to boost military spending.
George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have encouraged greater
military spending following September 11 2001 and "intervention
in Afghanistan and Iraq." This begs the question, whose agenda
is EU militarisation serving?
The Group of Personalities is an advisory body to the European
Commission that was brought together in the wake of the September
11 2001 attacks and the Madrid bombings. Its brief was to advise
on the European security research programme. Eight of its 25 members
came directly from big arms companies. Several others came from
defence-related research institutes and ministries of defence.
The people missing were representatives of civil society or those
working on non-military solutions to conflict.
Dutch Campaign Against the Arms Trade activist Frank Slipker has
produced a comprehensive pamphlet entitled The
Emerging EU Military Industrial Complex. He points out that
the Group of Personalities' 2004 report Research
for a Secure Europe has major failings.
"A shortcoming of the report is its almost exclusive focus
on technocratic and technical solutions to a problem the complexity
of which requires far more than technological (and often repressive)
measures."
War, military bases and weapons of mass destruction are all good
for the defence industry. But throwing more and more money at weapons
and repressive technologies will not bring security to Europeans
or the wider world.
These issues need to be raised with our elected representatives.
The policy of allowing corporate defence contractors to virtually
formulate European defence strategy must be challenged.
Rae Street is vice-chairwoman of the UK Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
See also
http://www.spectrezine.org/europe/Hudson.htm