Lisbon and military fairytales - Ben Tonra's gift to the No campaign

[blacbloc]

Madam Editor, still furious at the children for not drinking up their Lisbon cabbage water as she ordered them to, has obviously not spotted the wonderfully satirical nature of the latest salvo in the Irish Times' drive to secure a yes vote for Lisbon.

Dr Ben Tonra is an EU funded Jean Monnet Professor of European Foreign Security & Defence Policy and therefore speaking from deep within the Yes side of the pro Lisbon trenches. He makes an earnest appeal to the Irish not to opt out of our place in the European Defence Agency - trying his hardest in today's Irish Times to argue that increased militarisation of Europe isn't increased militarisation at all:

Its purpose is clear. It is designed to improve the military capacities of participating states so that they can better support “humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking”. These are the treaty-defined functions of the EU’s security and defence policy.

The critical words in what Tonra says are 'improve the military capacity of participating states'. What he is describing is increasing militarisation of the EU and nothing anyone says can make it different - though they will work themselves into paroxysms of dissembling outrage to say otherwise. Tonra may try as hard as he likes to dress his improved military capacity in the clothes of Florence Nightingale but not only does it not work, he has comprehensively exposed the rear flanks of his arguments for the bare faced cheeks they are. We couldn't have done it better ourselves.

Of course his 'improved military capacity' is contextualised immediately in the seductively flowery language of some of the text to make us believe that if we were to arm and deploy increasing numbers of military personnel, we would be participating in some sort of pacifist picnic replete with flower children and 'Atom power, nein danke' symbols. 'Humanitarian' is a word that has proved to have surprisingly flexible usage and meaning in recent times. The language of Tonra's quote from the proposed treaty is the deceitful US government-style euphemism that characterises much of the text - the drafters were obviously keen students of Bush/Cheney/Blair meaning inversion.

For example, when it's borne in mind that the vicious thuggery and theft visited on Iraq, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 1.2 million people was also described as 'humanitarian' intervention and 'bringing democracy' it's plain to see where all this flannelling is really taking us. Ireland's 'neutral' role in that slaughter was to relieve the armies of other non-neutral countries in other conflict zones, such as Liberia*, so that they could make their way to Iraq to bomb them peacefully back to the dark ages. Imagine how much more 'neutral' we could be if we 'improved our capacity'. Other EU countries had no such principled obstacles to overcome and sent what capacity they could afford. The Iraqis have been 'rescued' by the US and its allies who have been 'peacemaking' their way into ownership of the territory's oil and other resources. The more than 90 humungous permanent US military bases there are, presumably, viewed gratefully by the Iraqis as proof positive of the autonomy and 'freedom' so generously dontaed to them by the US.

The EU has shown itself to be impotent at best and craven at worst to murderous US/Israeli military aggression - in particular the savagery it has visited on Palestine. Germany, Britain and other EU countries offer assistance to it, they praise it and talk about the nigh on defencless victims of this 'peacemaking' as 'terrorists'. The same twisted meaning inversion is manifestly poisoning all EU thinking, rhetoric and action on military matters. The very last thing we want or need is 'increased military capacity' to give any further material expression to this brand of vicious humanitarianism. Just one more of the thousands of reasons to reject this disgraceful EU con trick.

Dr Tonra is one of the very many starry-eyed pro EU intellectuals, academics and pundits who still haven't clicked about the EU, its true nature and long term objectives. Comfortably and safely situated in the halls of academe, I believe he believes every word of what he says. That is exactly what makes such people so dangerous and there are far too many of them obediently and somewhat dimly palying their part in herlading this monumental lie as a benign and innocent piece of legislation.

(*Western altruism and 'crisis management' in Liberia not being in any way related to Liberia Oil and Gas Reserves. Isn't it a truly astounding coincidence how so many of these countries in need of our 'humanitarian rescue' backed up with military capacity turn out to have stuff that we desperately want? And even funnier again how other places in conflict but with nothing much to offer must have their sovereignty solemnly respected, the killing and suffering proving strangely of a lesser order than if they had something we could usefully take from them? And watch the Chinese/Western standoff over Burma's oil while thousands of pro democracy protestors are murdered by their government.)

Irish taste for 'opting out' is bad politics - The Irish Times - Sat, Mar 21, 2009

[Horace Horse]

Hear hear.

[He3]

''Paroxysms of dissembling outrage.''

Brilliant description.

[Fergalino]

Yawn.


You know quite well that "participating states" are those states that CHOOSE to participate. The improvement that is referred to relates the improvements that come from better coordination.

Whats the big deal. Where exactly is your problem? What exactly has this go to do with Ireland, which can choose not to participate?

Very tiresome.

[blacbloc]

Yawn.


You know quite well that "participating states" are those states that CHOOSE to participate. The improvement that is referred to relates the improvements that come from better coordination.

Whats the big deal. Where exactly is your problem? What exactly has this go to do with Ireland, which can choose not to participate?

Very tiresome.

So much for the affected boredom. Yawn. Interested you enough to put a post up here, didn't it?

You obviously haven't read Tonra's article. He is calling for Ireland not to opt out and trying to sell military expansion as a form of humanitarianism.

[ibis]

So much for the affected boredom. Yawn. Interested you enough to put a post up here, didn't it?

You obviously haven't read Tonra's article. He is calling for Ireland not to opt out and trying to sell military expansion as a form of humanitarianism.

Some might say that he is making the point that the 'military expansion' is nothing of the sort, since the EU only has military capabilities by way of protection for humanitarian activities. The member states, on the other hand, would agree by Lisbon to make their militaries more compatible with each other, which is a different thing from EU militarisation. The member states of the EU are already military powers, and the aim and intent of most anti-militarisation campaigners appears to be to conflate that with their membership of the EU.

[McDave]

I personally wouldn't be Tonra's biggest fan. However, were I in the position to be writing for the IT on the EU, defence and Ireland's role therein, I think I'd be much more straightforward - and something along these lines:

- a core EU military is basic common sense;
- an efficient EU military industry is a no-brainer;
- Ireland should be getting its share of EU military business.

Whether Ireland is to commit Irish bodies to an EU army is another matter. Personally I think we should. However, if the Irish people don't want to go down that route on neutrality grounds, I would be full square behind that decision.

What I can't stomach though is intolerant Hippy-speak along the lines that love is all you need and, not only should Ireland not be involved in any EU military capacity, but the EU shouldn't have any unified military capacity either.

I don't see any obligation on us towards military engagement by taking our place in the EDA, so IMO we shouldn't seek any knee-jerk opt-out which might compromise our ability to do future business in the EU armaments market.

[blacbloc]

I personally wouldn't be Tonra's biggest fan. However, were I in the position to be writing for the IT on the EU, defence and Ireland's role therein, I think I'd be much more straightforward - and something along these lines:

- a core EU military is basic common sense;
- an efficient EU military industry is a no-brainer;
- Ireland should be getting its share of EU military business.

Whether Ireland is to commit Irish bodies to an EU army is another matter. Personally I think we should. However, if the Irish people don't want to go down that route on neutrality grounds, I would be full square behind that decision.

What I can't stomach though is intolerant Hippy-speak along the lines that love is all you need and, not only should Ireland not be involved in any EU military capacity, but the EU shouldn't have any unified military capacity either.

I don't see any obligation on us towards military engagement by taking our place in the EDA, so IMO we shouldn't seek any knee-jerk opt-out which might compromise our ability to do future business in the EU armaments market.

And there we have it - bs stripped away. Yours is the same position Tonra is selling with fluffy pink stuff all over it. You make no bones at all about not giving a sh1t about the murder, illegal war and theft of other nation's resources - which is what the EU's military 'humanitariansim' has all been about. Thank you for being candid about that, at least. 1.2 million dead in Iraq alone. Must make you happy at night to think of all that 'business' you could be making money out of, if only there were even more people to kill for no good reason. That's it, isn't it? Inventing reasons to kill so you can generate more 'business'.

'Intolerant hippy-speak'? Come off it. If you're not going to take an intelligent look at where all this is going - which clearly from your 'military business' perspective you don't give a fig about, then we can only hope that it all doesnt come home to roost on you personally. Meanwhile the grown-ups in the equation will have to work around you as best they can for your and our benefit. You'll be glad of us yet when your beloved military business chews you up and spits you out too.

[evercloserunion]

Where has the EU been involved in any negative military campaign?

[marmurr1916]

On a not entirely unrelated note, Hillary Clinton has said in an interview that the proposed EU Foreign Representative would be welcomed by the US:

“I think there would be advantages in having an interlocutor who represented decisions taken by the EU. It wouldn’t in any way eliminate the bilateral relations which the United States pursues with individual countries but on a number of matters, the EU being organised in that way could facilitate decisions,” she said.

Let's hope that she (and Bill) visits Ireland later this year with the same message.