| Contributions
TED
DUNN: via email on 03 January 2002 (with acknowledgements to Labour
Action for Peace Publications)
Ted
Dunn, who sadly died in June 2002, sent us this previously published
article as a contribution to our ‘The Future of Europe: Spiritual
Values and Citizenship’ project.
A
Vision of European Security
The
present policy of enlargement of the European Union will make the
EC far too big and unmanageable, will exclude Russia and will take
many decades to fulfil. A Europe of overlapping circles, with each
region being autonomous, but within the OSCE, the Council of Europe
and the UN, could, however, gradually embrace all of Europe from
the Atlantic to the Urals, including Russia. Without Russia there
can be no security or world peace.
To
make this vision a reality, however, each region must be given the
incentive for co-operation internally between ethnic communities
and externally with its neighbours. This will not happen unless
there is money to make it possible. Large sums are already promised
for enlarging the EC for a dream that is economically and politically
unrealistic and which is leading Eastern Europe to probable disillusionment,
poverty and conflict. This money should be redirected for regional
development within a co-operating Europe.
Britain
should also declare its long-term aims and immediately seek to enrol
EC members to help those Eastern European regions willing to reconcile
their ethnic and political differences through co-operation. Eastern
Europe could then consist, for example, of a Baltic region, a Balkan
region and so on. A start to this process could begin with the Balkans.
Large sums have already been allocated for this purpose, under what
the Prime Minister and Chris Patten call a ‘Balkan Marshall
Plan’. The total cost for all the regions would be considerable
but far less than attempting to create a unified enlarged EC and
an armed military European Reaction Force.
Once
the regional idea took root in the regions of Europe, a process
of disarmament would become possible which would finance the vision
still further. If all Europe were involved in regional development
who then would be the enemy? This change could not be accomplished
overnight and therefore, during the changeover state, a UN or EC
Civil, Non-violent Rapid Reaction Force ready to go anywhere and
do anything in the cause of peace (such as is now being advocated
in the European Parliament) could address issues of conflict. The
OSCE would also need to be given the support it so urgently needs
for personnel to be trained in conciliation and reconciliation methods.
The USA, as a member of the OSCE, would be a partner in this venture.
The
UN would also be involved. The UN Economic Council could be given
the same importance as the UN Security Council, as proposed by the
important Commission on Global Governance in 1995. To make it effective
it would need the same economic and political clout. The huge difference
between the world’s expenditure on armaments and on development
demands a sea-change in our priorities. It is a role that Britain
is eminently well placed to initiate. We could then lead the world
by removing the causes of war and promoting the cause of peace,
security and international law, all at far less cost than preparations
for war.
On
the global scale the UN Economic Council could be entrusted with
the work to promote Regional Peace and Development programme, as
provided for in the UN Charter under Chapter VIII. It could work
with the EC to finance regional and sub-regional programmes, not
only for Eastern Europe but for other regions of the world.
There
would be a need for non-combatant service carried out by the armies
of the world. Only they have the expertise, manpower and equipment
to reconstruct the infrastructure of any region in poverty, or after
conflict. They would need to be restrained, however, in non-violent
methods of conflict resolution – a process already becoming
established in Britain.
Such
a vision of security calls for a change of heart by the rich countries,
a change that could be encouraged by giving UNESCO a much more important
role in world affairs. A UN radio and TV service is needed in time
of peace to establish a reputation of trust and confidence so that
in time of conflict it would be able to provide accurate information.
The
Marshall Plan for Western Europe after World War II could be a model
for what is proposed, embodying a philosophy based upo9n the rule
of law. The cost could easily be afforded once the old ‘mindset’
of military security changed. With the USA appearing now to withdraw
into itself the onus is on Europe, and Britain in particular, to
take the lead.
Regional
programmes similar to the Marshall Plan often receive lip service
from politicians but few seem to have grasped the importance of
putting their money where their mouths are. It is imperative to
give generous incentives on the understanding that states involved
agree to co-operate amongst themselves. They would need to formulate
agreed regional plans including a Code of Conduct covering human
rights, good governance, appropriate development and a process of
disarmament. The idea of non-violent humanitarian intervention in
regions of conflict would also need to be implemented in co-operation
with the region involved and in accordance with international agreements
already in force. If we want security for ourselves and others this
must be the next step. We have the technology and know-how and we
could have the funds once arms and defence expenditures are recognised
as a waste of money which prevent constructive peacemaking.
Peace
can only be achieved through co-operation and enlightened self-interest.
An unrecognised revulsion against war is taking place today but
unfortunately it is being replaced by economic competition under
the name of globalisation and free trade, with resulting ethnic
conflicts, refugees and potential for world economic and social
disaster. We can no longer assure victory – consider Vietnam
or Afghanistan – nor can it achieve the aims of security,
peace or prosperity for ourselves. What impoverished both victor
and vanquished alike and sows the seed for further conflict. It
is imperative therefore that we find an alternative to war, based
on moral and ethical principles and international law.
Return
to top of page
Return
to Spiritual Values and Citizenship - Contributions to the project
page
QCEA
gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the European Commission
for this project. This publication reflects the author’s views.
The Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of the
information contained in this publication.
Further
Information on The
Future of Europe
|
