As I write this a conference in Brussels is putting shape to the 'Rapid Reaction Force' (R.R.F.) - the military wing of the European Union. The R.R.F. is a combination of air , sea and land military forces from all E.U. states ( with the exception of Denmark ) , as its name suggests it is intended have a fast global reach ( their 'war games' exercises would suggest at least as far as Southern Africa and South East Asia) . Already the national governments have pledged over 60,000 troops (half of the forces intended strength) , 400 aircraft and 100 ships - including 5 aircraft carriers, with the bulk coming from Britain , France and Germany and 850 to 1,000 from the still supposedly neutral Republic of Ireland , which as well as being "neutral" is also renowned as the home of moving statues , the blarney stone and leprechauns.
The European Union traces it's ancestry back to the Organisation of European Economic Co-operation which was formed in 1947 at a time when"our European partners" the British and French states ,with the blood barely dry from the Second World War , were busy starting into a new series of war.
In fact it could be said that one mass killing ran seamlessly into the next mass killing . Since 1947 Britain and France have fought wars across the globe - Palestine , Madagascar , Algeria , Kenya , Aden , Egypt , Malaysia , Rwanda , Somalia , Falkland islands , the Persian Gulf . 80,000 slaughtered in Madagascar , a further 45,000 in Algeria and 10,000 in Kenya while the Gulf war claimed as many as half a million victims with many more dying since it's 'end' due to trade sanctions coupled with war damage.
The question is which if any of these conflicts would the current political leadership of the Irish state have participated in and if none why should the future wars of "our European partners" be any different and if they are likely not to be then why participate in the R.R.F. . I was tempted to write such to the representatives of the political parties which support E.U. militarisation but I know I would get only the depressingly all too familiar mantra of 'peace keeping' and 'humanitarianism' .
It is claimed again and again that involvement in the R.R.F. will mean only a continuation of U.N. peacekeeping and that it doesn't change in the slightest the neutrality which was the policy of successive governments from the 1920's to the 1980's (the Irish state has been involved in no external war and no military alliances prior to P.F.P. and the R.R.F.) and which in reality has been whittled away since then. There is the occasional departure from this script such as when a couple of years ago Dessie O'Malley the then Foreign Affairs spokesman of the Progressive Democrats announced that "Irish troops should be prepared to fight to defend North Sea oil" (2) - poor Dessie seems to be unaware that Braveheart is a historical drama and the 'Wallace threat' no longer features in British 'defence' planning it's a pity that the R.R.F. will be controlled by bureaucrats rather than politicians as the sight of the navies of Europe patrolling about North Sea oil rigs looking for what ? Norwegian pirates ? would be priceless. (1)
The lie that participation in the R.R.F. is just a continuation of 'U.N. peacekeeping' was inadvertently knocked on the head by the chief of the Irish defence forces, Lieutenant General Colm Managan, while he addressed the annual meeting of RACO the officers association . He said " We are at a watershed in the evolution of the defence forces. We are moving from a garrison-based organisation , dominated by ATCP (Aid to The Civil Power i.e. strike breaking and digging up the countryside looking for I.R.A. arms dumps) and security duties (i.e. guarding securicor vans) to having a significant part of the defence forces prepared to deploy with a rapid reaction force for European operations." (3). Now how can a 'watershed' mean anything but something new and a departure from previous policies, in other words it is not a continuation of 'U.N. peacekeeping' .
The main thrust of the 'it doesn't make any difference to neutrality' line is that the other E.U. neutrals - Finland , Sweden and Austria are part of the R.R.F. , yes these states were neutral (2) , that is to say not part of military alliances , during the Cold War and in that context they were neutral but just in case nobody noticed the Cold War is over , the context has changed and they are now , along with the Irish Republic, part of a military alliance. A companion of this falsehood is that as the R.R.F. does not involve a mutual defence pact like N.A.T.O. i.e. a commitment to go to war on behalf of your ally if they are attacked therefore Ireland remains neutral as the final decision as to war or peace rests with the Irish government , apart from the fact that the mutual defence aspects of N.A.T.O. were always merely decorative ( there never was a Soviet threat to the N.A.T.O. states ) neutrality means non-involvement in wars and all variety of military alliance for what is the point of such an alliance other than to make war.
The extent of such subterfuge reveals the extent to which our nominal rulers are afraid of public opinion and public debate - there is nearly total parliamentary consensus on this issue so they are not scoring points against one another but rather building a wall of illusion around a unpopular decision. Preparation for war always takes this course , just look at the U.S. with the world's largest defence budget presumably intended to defend against Canadian invasion ( their proposed move to a 'two war' strategy , to prepare to fight and win two major wars at the same time, is presumably intended to prevent being caught between Canada and Mexico).
If this is true of the preparation it is doubly so of war itself and when the war of the future begins , that war in which for the first time ever soldiers of the Irish state will be involved in , it will be a war for principle like the Gulf war the principle being that in the Middle East only Israel is permitted to occupy in flagrant disregard to U.N. resolutions , it will be a war to save some people just as poisonous defoliants which continue to maim and kill were poured over South Vietnam along with a weekly average of bombs with altogether twice the explosive power of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs in order to save the Vietnamese from communism ,
it will be a war for human rights - the human rights of all except the right to life of those torn into shreds , it will be a war against fascism such as that led by Prime Ministers Chamberlain and Churchill - both admirers of fascism , it will be a war for anything but the shareholder's profit margin .
Yes the last century had so many wars it's a wonder that we have any problems left . When that future war comes it will most likely be against either some 'rouge state' or nationalist movement in the so-called developing world for example ( I should stress at this point that I'm giving examples of rouge states and nationalist movements not necessarily potential E.U. targets ) the Islamic fundamentalists rebels of Algeria whose opponents are supported by French aid , the Marxist guerrillas of Columbia fighting against a government backed by both the U.S. and E.U. , Cuba or Sudan . Now I would suspect that some of the readers of this article would have some sympathy for half that list ( wrongly in my opinion but that's another story ) while the other half would be regarded with contempt by all - but that's not the issue . The issue is not what you think of the 'enemies' politics nor not what you think of the 'enemies' atrocities - unless that is you subscribe to the view that the solution to one government killing a bunch of people is for another to do likewise , often it seems to the same people. The issue is do you support or oppose the destruction of human life and the environment for the sake of corporate interests, do you support or oppose the destruction of human life and the environment so the few can enrich and empower themselves at the expense of the many - irrespective of whether it is carried out by 'our boys' or the 'enemy'.
Supporting , for instance , the warfare of N.A.T.O. because of the warfare of the Serbian government is standing logic on it's head , the lesser of two evils is still an evil and usually turns out to be not a lesser at all . We need to jettison the notion of war as a division between nations , Iraq or the U.S.A. , Chechnya or Russia , - the capitalist taste challenge , a choice between states when all are unfit for human consumption and uphold the class and political divisions of war , class division between order givers and order takers , between profiteers and sufferers and the political division between opponents of war and supporters of war. The quote I opened with I found in an article dating from the time of the last international war in which the entire island of Ireland was involved in , that article was a eulogy written by James Connolly for a German socialist he had believed to have been executed by the German state for his actions against war - that's the internationalist spirit we need to arm ourselves with for the wars of the future.
(1) Although I've just mocked Dessie I perhaps should point out that in the 1970's the British Army actually did run training exercises for the defence of North Sea oil from Scottish nationalist revolution . This happened at a time when the Scottish Nationalist Party was running a campaign called 'It's Scotland's Oil' and the 'Tartan Army' was sabotaging oil pipelines. Well it's the only sense I can make of his statement and it doesn't seem like an immediate prospect does it?
(2) At least publicly neutral they all had covert links with N.A.T.O. .
(1) Quoted in ' James Connolly Collected Works Volume 2' page 45.
(2) Quoted in Socialist Worker 'Vote No to a military alliance'May 1st - May 14th 1998.
(3) Quoted in The Irish Times 'Army chief sets deadline of 2003' November 15th 2000.