Security Politics Is a Threat
Christer Nylander
On http://www.transnational.org from May 9, 2000
Please forward this to someone you think would like to receive the TFF
PressInfos;
to subscribe send a request to <T...@transnational.org>
T F F P r e s s I n f o # 9 2
*********************
S E C U R I T Y P O L I T I C S I S A T H R E A T
Lund, Sweden - May 9, 2000
"What does it mean to defend modern society? What does security mean?
99 per cent of the public information and debate as well as research on
defence and security policies omit every philosophical problematic and
plunge directly into the issues of what weapons or military budget a
country should have. The only armament the world needs, it seems to
me," says TFF director Jan Oberg, "is a philosophical and intellectual
armament in academia, in politics and in the media."
OF COURSE THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"If we need military defence, that military must be fundamentally
different from the one we see around today. But more importantly, the
world - 'we, the peoples' - needs something the militarist elites and
the military-industrial-bureaucratic complexes can't deliver:
innovative, comprehensive models with mixed civilian and military
components and structured according to each country's and region's
needs, not to the needs of these elites, complexes or to the needs of
NATO.
Just look at how different the world's countries and cultures are: is
it realistic to believe that, irrespective of their different history,
culture and security problems, NATO-like high-tech military defence is
the remedy for them all? It resembles giving all patients, no matter
their health problems, the same medicine - which, of course, the
medical-industrial complex (white uniforms instead of green) may find a
charming idea."
INTELLECTUAL POVERTY
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"We hear the word BALANCE but it is used subjectively; those who are
ahead feel that there is a balance. If all parties in a system agreed
that there was an objective balance and each had only peaceful motives,
there would be no arms races. In addition, the real arms race is one of
quality (i.e. on whose technology is most sophisticated), not quantity
(i.e. on how many pieces you have). Further, we hear the word STABILITY
again and again. I remember having a long conversation years ago with a
high-level American diplomat in the Balkans who told me, in response to
any question I raised, that U.S. policy aimed to create stability. But
the Balkans is not stable.
We are always told that our country needs MORE, AND MORE SOPHISTICATED,
WEAPONS even when there is no threat; we never hear leaders say that
now we can do with less. We hear that there are always NEW THREATS we
have to adapt to provide security for future generations; however, the
lesson we should learn is that most threats are constructed to fit the
military-industrial complexes, not the other way around.
We have been told time and again that weapons serve to DETER enemies
and AVOID war, that if we want peace, we should prepare for war. So
weapons are there NOT to be used? Wrong! Deterrence theory assumes a
willingness to USE weapons: if the other side knows that I will under
no circumstance ever use my arsenals, he is not deterred. So every
single weapon is there to be used if/when deemed necessary. If
decision-making elites really understood and wanted peace, they would
prepare for that together with others.
We are told that "we" have weapons for purely DEFENSIVE purposes while
"they" have expansionist motives and offensive weapons; the fact is
that the West has been expansive and projected its military, political
and military power around the world. It is not Iraq or Serbia or other
designated 'rogue states' that have attacked the West. We are told that
military research and development has so many CIVILIAN SPINOFFS, but
military researchers and engineers make up the largest single group in
the world of research, some 400.000. If most of them were put to find
solutions directly useful for humankind's welfare, health, environment,
technology, infrastructure, transport - if they devoted all their
creativity to close the gap between rich and poor worldwide - isn't it
quite likely that we would see some marvellous products coming out of
that without the de-tour around the weapons laboratories, and that the
world would be more peaceful? I believe so," says Dr. Oberg.
DEMOCRACY IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH NUCLEARISM AND OTHER TYPES OF MILITARISM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^
"I have worked with these issues for more than 20 years and I think we
are being taken for a ride. And we are paying, first as tax payers and,
in the worst of cases, as victims. Imagine that a global opinion poll
was made and people were asked whether they would like to have nuclear
weapons, i.e. having the enemy using them against their own territory
or letting their governments or allies use on their own territory to
defend them and to fight back an enemy. Ask them whether there is any
thinkable value, any political goal, that could ever justify killing
millions of people. Ask them whether it is compatible with the values
of human rights, humanitarian intervention and democratisation to even
plan for such an eventuality.
Until I see such a poll, I shall believe only a few per cent would vote
"Yes". I am not aware that so-called democracies have ever asked their
citizens whether they wanted nuclear or other mass destructive weapons
as part of their governments' arsenals to 'defend' them. When will
democratic governments turn to their constituencies and say: 'Look,
here you have three different models of defence - a) high-tech,
offensive, b) a mix of defensive military and civilian components and
c) one with exclusively civilian, non-violent components. Which would
you like our country to have?' Only in Switzerland were the citizens
once asked whether they wanted an army at all - and surprisingly many
wanted it to be abolished altogether!
Ultimately, what is at stake is humankind's survival in an ever more
turbulent, fast-changing world system. Alas, the dominant security
discourse and debate is devoid of new thinking and trivialised to
banality. It runs on good old fear. Whenever some security high-priests
state that "our security is at stake and weapons system X will restore
the balance and create stability", some kind of paralysing group-think
enters.
The West fights one-party systems and calls them dictatorships. What
should we call the ongoing Western triumphalist promotion of
one-economy and one-defence and one-peacemaking systems? I think it is
time for some pluralism in the field of security, to restore democracy
and self-determination to that sector," continues Jan Oberg.
LOOK AT THE OPPORTUNITY COSTS
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"What a world we are going to see if each and every new state, former
Warsaw Pact member and the South, has no better idea than just
importing a NATO replica defence irrespective of its social, economic
and other problems - and paying for this military sophistication
through their noses.
Imagine the opportunity costs, i.e. how much welfare, environmental
security and cultural growth the former Warsaw Pact countries and new
Balkan republics could buy for what a future high-tech military adapted
to NATO membership will cost! NATO and its defence philosophy looks
like a smiling crocodile. What a tragedy that countries which fought
for independence will have to pay for generations only to become
clients and submit to the wishes of new masters. And what a dangerous
world with ever more countries with ever more arms and soldiers."
A DRUG-LIKE NEED FOR ARMS, THE UNITED STATES A MAJOR PUSHER
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Every time one actor gets more arms, others may argue that they feel
more insecure. So, they acquire more arms and make yet others more
insecure. If it wasn't so absurd, it would be a joke. It isn't. It's
human folly. It has, year by year, caused more human suffering -
directly in war, indirectly by diverting trillions of dollars away from
basic human need satisfaction. World inequalities have risen
tremendously the last four-five decades, the period in human history
with the highest economic growth rate, in what was also the most
violent century ever.
The facts of global poverty in the year 2000 are an indictment of the
Western-dominated global political, economic and social order. The
overall picture suggests that absolute poverty is likely to have risen
to 1.5 billion people - one quarter of the world's population - at the
eve of the new millennium. Samir Amin, a world economist, tells that
'The ratio used to measure inequality in the capitalist world (1 to 20
toward 1900; 1 to 30 in 1954-48; 1 to 60 at the end of the post-war
growth spurt) increased sharply: the wealthiest 20 per cent of humanity
increased their share of the global product from 60 to 80 per cent
during the two last decades of this century.'
To protect themselves from that structural violence - from the 'damned
of the earth' domestically and worldwide - elites need the arms, the
means of direct violence. The more you possess and control, the more
you need means to guard it. And to legitimise and finance this world
disorder and civilisational paranoia, citizens must be made to believe
that threats are lurking around every corner: pay and trust us and we
will protect you!
Something is madly wrong. It's a perpetuum mobile unless we stop and
begin to think.
One country, the United States, accounts for more than 40 per cent of
the whole world's military expenditures. US defence for 2000 will be
more than three times greater than the combined military spending of
China, Russia, and the 'rogue states' Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North
Korea and Cuba. A social body needing that much security 'medicine' is
not healthy.
We need disarmament plus alternative security (= transarmament). But it
will remain a dream if we do not address and criticise American
economic, foreign and security politics. As Der Spiegel wrote in 1997:
'Never before in modern history has a country dominated the earth so
totally as the United States does today. America is now the
Schwarzenegger of international politics: showing off muscles,
obtrusive, intimidating. The Americans, in the absence of limits put to
them by anybody or anything, act as if they own a kind of blank check
in their McWorld.' NATO allies and EU partners are the closest to help
the United States out of its overconsumption. If not, world
confrontation - civilisational clashes or wars between the over- and
the underprivileged - seem unavoidable," predicts Jan Oberg.
"Security elites tell us that they produce security and peace. But
after all these years of production, the world is still full of
violence. More people than ever feel insecure. Behind almost every
refugee is a weapons trader. Under almost every 'ethnic' war, we find
socio-economic disparities. Behind almost every fundamentalist or
terrorist movement, we find people who once were allied with Western
arms and intelligence agencies.
There is no evidence that the world is a safer place because of the
last fifty years of armament. If Europe today is more safe within its
walls (which is debatable), it is because of people like Willy Brandt,
detente, Olof Palme, the peace, women's and environmental movements,
economic development, general education, folk-highschools, cultural
growth, dissidents in the West and East, Mikhail Gorbachev - NOT
because of NATO, the Warsaw Pact, nuclear weapons or Realpolitik.
Miraculously, it survived in spite of them. If militarism did not
exist, if we had been forced to learn to deal intelligently with our
conflicts in less violent ways since, say, 1945, then the world would
have been a safer place."
DISARMAMENT AND ARMS CONTROL MEANS MORE EFFECTIVE ARMAMENT
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"But what about arms control and disarmament negotiations? I think this
is a dead-end. Peace-minded people begin to recognise that the last 50
years of peace and disarmament activism, although successful in many
ways - not the least in putting an end to the Cold War and the bloc
system - has failed abominably in one sense: it was never able to
develop and agree upon constructive alternatives. The history of
'disarmament' talks can be easily summarised: the parties got rid of
what was outdated, not military-technologically or defence-economically
interesting and could thus free resources to develop new weapons.
Think of all the disarmament appeals, demonstrations and resolutions.
Listen to all the pleas and urgent calls made now during the
Non-Proliferation Review conference in New York. 'We urge the nuclear
powers to...' - and all feel good and nothing happens. Schwarzenegger
and his brothers feel perfectly safe when, for instance, the Swedish
minister of foreign affairs appeals to them. Like most other countries,
Sweden believes in the primacy of the military in security affairs (not
in civil defence or non-violence) and, like everybody else, is willing
to disarm only when someone else has taken the first step. Sweden's
former disarmament ambassador, Ms. Inga Thorsson, was completely
marginalised when advocating studies of worldwide conversion from
military to civilian industry - and directed such a study of Sweden's
military industry in 1984 - well-timed given the end of the pact system
five years later.
The only surprise about these summit rituals or performances of absurd
theatre (Waiting for Disarmament à la Samuel Beckett) is that they are
not the focus of worldwide protests. They are reported by the media
without critical - several media corporations affiliated one way or the
other with the military-industrial complex. And, after all, reporters
are citizens like everybody else, having heard and seen that the world
is a dangerous place. How could we really be safer without all these
weapons?
Peace movements in a broad sense HAVE alerted people worldwide, but no
strategies exist to undermine militarism everywhere it rears its ugly
head. And in its indirect and direct consequences it is as ugly as,
say, Nazism, Stalinism and ethnic cleansing. Weapons kill people, even
when not fired.
Disarmament and arms control has led to virtually nothing except
regulating the arms race more smoothly and pacifying mass fears about
the long-term consequences of the ongoing arms race. When citizens
around the world have been told for years that they are threatened and
that 'we need more or more sophisticated arms to be secure' - it
convinces only a few peace intellectuals or pacifists when we argue for
dis-armament. The vast majority equate the thought of disarming their
country with being "defenceless" because of the systematic militarist
propaganda and war-oriented media coverage they are exposed daily.
Happiness/security is a "warm gun." And we are taught to believe
authorities.
We need a new kind of discussion about what defence, security and peace
could be. It is legitimate, indeed very human, to want security and
feeling protected. But it is pure deception to maintain that the
present global military armament culture is the only possible, or the
best way to meet that very legitimate human need. This is where the
ideas and principles of TRANS-ARMAMENT should appear. It is not a
question of more or less of this dangerous system, we need a
fundamentally DIFFERENT system."
WE NEED A NONVIOLENT CONFRONTATION, BETTER IDEAS BEING THE MAIN WEAPON
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^
"We need a worldwide, nonviolent confrontation with these elites who
operate outside every democratic order, often in collusion with
intelligence services and other psychological warfare agencies churning
out absurd enemy "assessment." We need to discuss how psychological
warfare is targeted on millions of citizens to make them fearful of the
world and thus receptive to new deadly, expensive arsenals. We need
someone to say that the truth is the opposite: that today's 'security'
is a major threat to us all, to 'we, the peoples...'
A beautiful world could begin to emerge the moment we redefine -
through democratic open, critical and creative dialogue also with the
military, of course - how to change towards a security for the common
good, for all humankind. Some twenty years ago, peace researchers
including myself predicted that if the Soviet Union fell out of the
world today, NATO would continue its armament and rapidly find new
threats and enemies to legitimate this madness with tomorrow. That's
exactly what happened, the arms race is driven by internal forces,
almost autistically.
The confrontation should start not with shouting or throwing stones but
with better ideas about what defence, security and peace means.
Citizens must reach and challenge the numerically tiny group that are
the real decisionmakers in the world military system. It means
attacking a huge problem and duelling on ideas, it does not mean
attacking people. It means helping them getting off their favourite
drug, relax, let go of their obsession with physical power and do
things useful for all - toward a true globalism that permits us to rid
ourselves from artificial, self-created fears and projections of these
fears onto the "Evil" others."
Ends Jan Oberg: "I feel quite convinced that people around the world
have enough ideas and common sense to revolutionise this whole deadly
structure, although it is getting late. If people can see a better
alternative, they'll work for it. The global arms system is sick, a
little less isn't our goal. The goal is a healthy system that embodies
the values it is supposed to defend such a democracy, dialogue, and
development and common global governance. A good defence system engages
women and men alike and meets our legitimate needs for safety and
protection, it puts and end to the armament culture and opens a road to
a Culture of Peace and the abolition of war.
In the next PressInfo we'll offer some thoughts and models in that
direction. Unrealistic, you may think. But it is not half as
unrealistic as it is to assume that the present global arms system and
humankind can co-exist much longer."
© TFF 2000
Please reprint, copy, archive, quote or re-post this item, but please
retain the source.^
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Dr. Jan Oberg
Director, head of the TFF Conflict-Mitigation team
to the Balkans and Georgia
T F F
Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research
Vegagatan 25, S - 224 57 Lund, Sweden
Phone +46-46-145909 (0900-1100)
Fax +46-46-144512
Email
t...@transnational.org
http://www.transnational.org
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
End of quotation.
--
____________________________________________________________
Independent peace researcher give more important information about conflicts
on: http://www.transnational.org/ Galthung: http://www.transcend.org/
Christer
T.Liljeberg
What a load of BS.
Naive, blue-eyed idealism unfortunately only works if all the players are
fair and pacifistic.
Tom
Christer Nylander <cny...@hem.passagen.se> wrote in message
news:150520002028287856%cny...@hem.passagen.se...
> quotation:
>
> On http://www.transnational.org from May 9, 2000
>
> Please forward this to someone you think would like to receive the TFF
> PressInfos;
> to subscribe send a request to <T...@transnational.org>
>
>
>
> T F F P r e s s I n f o # 9 2
> *********************
>
>
> S E C U R I T Y P O L I T I C S I S A T H R E A T
>
>
[snip]