EU Military ambitions

and objectives

Imperialists plan to open a new front in Africa

Much is made of the false premise that the EU is in conflict with the US. In reality this does not stand up even to a casual examination. The military bloc NATO consists of most states in the EU plus the dominant USA and Canada. In practice NATO is an alliance between the USA and EU. NATO is now active in Afghanistan and was responsible for the bombing and break up of Yugoslavia. Britain is involved with the US in Iraq along with troops from other EU Member States. EU forces are active in Bosnia and the Republic of Congo. Britain effectively runs Sierra Leone.

The NATO alliance and the EU are not homogeneous as far as foreign policies and vested interests are concerned. Imperialist rivalries remain just below the surface. These policies and interests are backed up or enforced by armed might, especially the military-industrial-complex of the USA.

It is becoming abundantly clear to more people that the public announcement by politicians to “make war against the terrorists for a long time” is a cover for the objectives of corporate capital, especially oil and plunder of raw materials.

Plans

EU Defence Ministers discussed a paper tabled by the European Defence Agency (EDA) in early October. In effect this states that a continuous war will be conducted where the traditional concept of “victory” should be abandoned. Instead, flexible forces should be built which are able to be deployed to trouble spots across the world. In other words any resistance by countries or peoples to corporate capital and imperialism will be put down with armed forces. These are of course the Eurocorps and European Army that the Democrat has long exposed.

The EU Defence Ministers agreed that joint EU operations should be carried out by “Expeditionary, multinational and multi-instrument forces” to achieve “security and stability” more than “victory”. These forces are to be equipped with more technological weapons and rely less on soldiers due to the falling number of young people within the EU.

This is a blatant recipe for “continuous war” to enable the strong to bully and blackmail with the threat of having their infrastructure destroyed or wiped out with small and not so small nuclear weapons, cruise missiles and other munitions fired from miles out at sea or dropped from high in the sky.

Who is next?

One of the next “trouble spots” the “international Community” has said wants dealing with is Darfur in Sudan. The government of Sudan has refused entry to UN forces. These troops would be from NATO wearing blue berets. Things are never as simple as portrayed by the politicians and others who rend their hearts in public about humanity.

Sudan is about the same size as Western Europe and the largest country in Africa with a population of 35 million. Darfur with a population of six million is the western region of Sudan and the size of France.

Recent discoveries of resources have made Sudan of great interest to EU and US corporations. Sudan is believed to have oil reserves rivalling those of Saudi Arabia and has large deposits of natural gas. In addition there have one of the three largest deposits of high-purity uranium in the world, along with the fourth-largest deposits of copper.

Sudan’s independence

Unlike Saudi Arabia, however, the Sudanese government has retained its independence from Washington. Unable to control Sudan’s oil policy, the US imperialist government has made every effort to stop its development of this valuable resource. China, on the other hand, has worked with Sudan in providing the technology for exploration, drilling, pumping and the building of a pipeline and buys much of Sudan’s oil.

Poverty and wealth

In stark contrast to this potential wealth many people, especially children, have died in Sudan from totally preventable and treatable diseases. This is due to a US cruise missile attack, ordered by President Bill Clinton on Aug. 20, 1998, on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum. This plant, which had produced cheap medications for treating malaria and tuberculosis, provided 60 percent of the available medicine in Sudan.

The US claimed Sudan was operating a VX poison gas facility there. It produced no evidence to back up the charge. This simple medical facility, totally destroyed by the 19 missiles, was not rebuilt nor did Sudan receive a penny of compensation.

Sanctions against poor

The US imposed unilateral sanctions against one of the poorest countries in the world. Some 85 percent of the Sudanese population is involved in subsistence agriculture or raising livestock. Who benefits from the conflicts in Darfur? It certainly is not the Government in Khartoum or the peoples in the Darfur. As it has done in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US itself interfered by funding and supporting particular groups and stirring up conflict for its own ends. Then it offers to sort out the trouble it helped to foster in the first place.

US military in exercise

US imperialism is heavily involved in the entire region. Chad, which is directly west of Darfur, last year participated in a US-organised international military exercise that, according to the US Defence Department, was the largest in Africa since World War II. Chad is a former French colony, and both French and US forces are heavily involved in funding, training and equipping the army of its military ruler, Idriss Deby, who has supported rebel groups in Darfur.

Sudan was a British colony occupied for 50 years with raw materials being exploited for the Empire.

Sudan is in a strategic location and has common borders with seven other states. This adds credence to the talk about NATO and EU forces opening up a front in Africa to enable bases to be established for further military adventures in Africa.

What is required is to expose and stop the military expansion of the EU and the EU military-industrial-complex which itself will cost taxpayers dearly and be a constant threat to peace and many lives in Africa and other parts of the world as well as young soldiers.

Website for EDA Document www.eda.europa.eu/ltv/ltv

Footnote

Who organised

Demo’s to invade Sudan?

Outrage has been generated by stories in the media alleging mass murder in Sudan. From this, demonstrations were held in the US and around the world. The US has labelled Sudan as a “terrorist and failed stae”.

It has to be noted that the the leading organisations included the prominent role of right-wing evangelical Christians and major Zionist groups to “Save Darfur.” All these organisations supported the invasion of Iraq.

The mdia covered the demonstration in the US which attracted only 5-7,000 who were mainly white. The media ignored the demo the day before of the anti-war of 300,000 in New York and the million-fold demo for immigrant rights the day after.

Siding with the imperialists, Glenys Kinnock MEP and the knighted Geldorf have also called for the invasion of Sudan. The MEP is 110% in favour of the EU and receives a handsome salary and expences for doing so. Geldorf seems to have forgotten that putting armed forces into a country causes more deaths and destruction and does not save lives.

---

[Return to Democrat index]
[To subscribe to Democrat] (members receive each issue free through the post)
[Membership form]
[Order form for material]
[Details about our Campaign against Euro-federalism]
[Home page] [top]