By Jan Oberg
Lund, Sweden, Jun 26 2016 (IPS)

The UK, Europe and the rest of the world will be affected. But there has been no planning for this anywhere.

It’s now all up in the air what this Brexit vote will be the starting point of. All we can safely predict is that we are in for interesting times!

Jan Oberg

Arrogant corporate and other elites continuously enriching themselves against all common social sense and ignoring the legitimate needs and concerns of ordinary citizens, women in particular – so, class and gender.

So too that more highly educated people tended to vote for Remain and older people voting Leave – more interesting sociological analysis here.

Interestingly, the whole art world supported Remain – and now fear for the effects of Brexit on Britain’s cultural development.

An EU that has failed to create a new, better way of doing politics, merely growing its original democratic deficit – so, lack of real democracy.

An EU that has had a woefully inadequate, cynical response to a refugee crisis caused by leading EU member states’ warfare – so, (mis)management and lack of leadership.

Significantly, the leading Muslim Association of Britain, MAB, supported Remain with the argument that ”Exit from the EU runs the risk of perpetuating rifts in British society, which would increase levels of hate crimes against British Muslims.” So, Islamophobia.

A general sense (but sometimes denial) of insecurity about the future all over the Western world, a deep sense of failure, loss, sense of risk of war in Europe and the fact that the rest of the world is moving ahead and will surpass the West; a sense that of the West lead by the the US getting relatively weaker and lacking leadership – so, psycho-political-civilisational insecurity.

A fall-back to ”me and my home” and closing the doors to the wider world world’s problems – nationalism, xenophobia, right-wing, neo-nazism populism and all the things many of us hoped had visited Europe for the last time – so, populism/nationalism/regression.

What could it lead to?

An exit domino effect in a number of countries – referendums and eventually a quite small EU or no EU.

A punishment by Germany and other EU of the UK for leaving, depending somewhat on whether the post-EU Britain will not only move out of the EU but also closer to the US.

It could also, in the best of cases, lead to a re-think throughout the EU and a real effort to do things differently – but unlikely given the EU is already in crisis and lack visionaries in politics.

A referendum in Scotland, further reducing the unitedness of the Kingdom.

A reshuffling in the global economy – London being so much of a global financial centre. Where will the banks and investors go now? What will China do that had London as it’s major hub?

A tumbling of the British £ and turmoil on the financial markets, weakening of the US$?

A Britain in deep economic crisis – or perhaps starting out on a new course with a great future, speeding ahead of the average EU?

A Britain that ties itself (even more) to the US in security political terms and an increasing conflict between those two and EU/NATO countries – spelling the dissolution of NATO.

What does it signify?

That democracy works – and that it doesn’t. The referendum instrument is an utterly democratic method – as Switzerland continues to prove to the world.

But then, is it wise that such an important decision can be made with such a small majority? Wouldn’t it have been reasonable to demand, say, 2/3 majority for Leave?

To ignore now what over 48% wanted isn’t good. But, anyhow, nobody trusts politicians nowadays and perhaps the effects will be smaller than most fear today.

That the – Western centre – doesn’t hold anymore. Such an important country leaving the EU is a blow beyond imagination to the entire idea of that Union.

Basically that the West is getting weaker and while trying to ’divide and rule’ it is fragmenting from inside.

The EU is getting weaker in spite of still being the largest economic bloc in human history. Because of the rise of other economies, the 28 countries accounted for 30% of the world’s total output in 1980 and 16,5% in 2015. With the UK leaving, the EU loses 15% of its GDP.

That the EU construction and Lisbon Treaty, written up by three old men, was wrong and outdated from the outset and lacked every potential to appeal to the diverse citizenry throughout Europe, particularly the younger ones.

That there is no vision and strategy; no one – no one! – seems to have the faintest idea about what will happen now – as Ken Livingstone, London’ former mayor, expressed it on Russia Today the morning after.

Be sure that Brexit on June 23, 2016 will be remembered as a turning point. And be sure that, while we do not know what will happen after Brexit, it’s not a message of good things to come for the already crumbling, vision-losing Western part of our world.

”May you live in interesting times” as the English say, considering it a curse. The Chinese – to whom this phrase is often falsely attributed – expresses it differently: ”Better to be a dog in peaceful time, than to be human in a chaotic (warring) time.”

Both probably meaning that our time is more fraught with insecurity than ever…

 
Jan Oberg’s article was published on 24 June 2016 in: TFF – Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research. Go to Original.

The statments and views expressed in this article are those of the author and do nt necessarily represent those of IPS

Excerpt:

By Jan Oberg
Lund, Sweden, Mar 17 2016 (IPS)

The EUropean Union – a criminal?

The EU that has peace as its top goal and received Nobel’s Peace Prize?

The EU with Schengen and Dublin?

Jan Oberg

The EU with “European” values, humanism and mission civilisatrice that tells others how to live in accordance with international law and in respect for human rights?

We live in times where little shall surprise us anymore. The answer to the question – will EU become a criminal in international law terms? – will be answered on March 17 and 18 when the EU Council meets to decide whether or not to carry through the agreement with Turkey about how to handle refugees.

Amnesty International knows what it is all about. AI uses words such as “alarmingly shortsighted”, “inhumane”, “dehumanising”, “moral and legally flawed” and “EU and Turkish leaders have today sunk to a new low, effectively horse trading away the rights and dignity of some of the world’s most vulnerable people.”

And “By no stretch of imagination can Turkey be considered a ‘safe third country’ that the EU can cosily outsource its obligations to,” says Iverna McGowan, Head of Amnesty International’s European Institutions Office.

When Amnesty International expresses itself this way, we should listen very very carefully. I do and I’ve signed Amnesty’s Open Letter to Swedish prime minister Löfvén protesting that Sweden too may join this inhuman and law-violating agreement with Turkey.

Hurry up, it is tomorrow!

Behind every refugee stands an arms trade, stands militarism.

A huge majority of the refugees have fled the wars conducted by irresponsible and narrow-minded EU leaders who, thereby, have already violated international law.

They continue to do so – Denmark being the latest to join the tragedy.

EU countries combined make up the largest economy in the world.

How bizarre that the EU has the resources to fight one war after the other, has huge military budgets and nuclear weapons and puts unlimited resources into wars against terror (that is, to a large extent, a response to U.S./NATO/EU foreign policies) but cowardly believes it can’t find the resources to care for 1,2 million seeking refuge among its 500 million, i.e. 0,24%!

Precisely because EU countries have caused a major part of the refugees to flee, we have a special moral obligation to a) receive them and b) learn to not start wars just like that on somebody else’s territory.

Where there is a will, there is a way. Will the EU anything good, the time is now.

There is no refugee crisis in the EU. There are several other crises:

1) A crisis caused by years of militarism;

2) A crisis of crisis management;

3) A crisis of leadership – or, with the exception of Chancellor Merkel – no leadership for common policies at all; and

4) A crisis of solidarity, humanity and ethics.

You may add a 5) the Euro-racism expressed as Islamophobia.

I am pretty sure that the EU would have acted differently if there had been a huge natural catastrophe or a nuclear power plant meltdown in Israel and 1,2 million Jews had come to Europe or if an EU country had experienced something like that in its own midst.

If on March 16-17, 2016, the EU decides to implement this immoral and law-violating agreement with increasingly authoritarian, war-fighting, terror-supporting and refugee-unsafe country Turkey, the moral decay of the Western world will be obvious.

If not to itself, then to the 92% of the world’s people living outside it.

And the EU will deserve nothing better than it own dissolution. Because it wasn’t for a better but for a worse world.

And technically – what is left when the asylum right, the Schengen and Dublin conventions etc. will be violated by the Council itself?

Either the EU is for a better world or it’s time for another Europe after it!

Jan Oberg’s article was published on 16 March 2016 in: TFF – Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research. Go to Original.

Excerpt:

By Jan Oberg
LUND, Sweden, Aug 7 2015 (IPS)

It’s absolutely necessary to remember what happened 70 years ago in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, see the movies from then, listen to the survivors, the hibakusa. But it isn’t enough for us to rid the world of these crimes-against-humanity weapons. And that we must.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are history and are also the essence of the age you and I live in – the nuclear age. If the hypothesis is that by showing these films, we create opinion against nuclear weapons, 70 years of ever more nuclearism should be enough to conclude that that hypothesis is plain wrong.

Jan Oberg

There is a need for a frontal attack on not only the weapons but on nuclearism – the thinking/ideology on which they are based and made to look ‘necessary’ for security and peace.

Nuclear weapons – only for terrorists

At its core, terrorism is about harming or killing innocent people and not only combatants. Any country that possesses nukes is aware that nukes can’t be used without killing millions of innocent people – infinitely more lethal than Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and so.

Since 9/11 [attack on the Twin Towers in New York], governments and media have conveniently promoted the idea that terrorism is only about small non-governmental groups and thus tried to make us forget that the nuclear ‘haves’ themselves practise state terrorism and hold humanity hostage to potential civilisational genocide (omnicide).

Dictatorship

No nuclear state has ever dared to hold a referendum and ask its citizens: “Do you or do you not accept to be defended by a nuclear arsenal?” Nuclear weapons with the omnicidal ‘kill all and everything’ characteristics is pure dictatorship, incompatible with both parliamentary and direct democracy. And freedom.

Citizens generally have more, or better, morals than governments and do not wish to see themselves, their neighbours or fellow human beings around the world burn up in a process that would make the Holocaust look like a cosy afternoon tea party. In short, nuclear weapons states either arrange referendums or must accept the label dictatorship.“Citizens generally have more, or better, morals than governments and do not wish to see themselves, their neighbours or fellow human beings around the world burn up in a process that would make the Holocaust look like a cosy afternoon tea party”

The idea that a few hundred politicians and military people in the world’s nuclear states have a self-appointed right to play God and decide whether ‘project humankind’ shall continue or not belongs to the realm of the civilisational perverse or the Theatre of the Absurd. Such people must run on the assumption, deep down, that they are Chosen People with a higher mission. Gandhi rightly called Western civilisation diluted fascism.

Unethical

Why? Because – simply – there can be no political or other goal that justifies the use of this doomsday weapon and the killing of millions of people, or making the earth uninhabitable.

Possession versus proliferation

The trick played on us all since 1945 is that there are some ‘responsible’ – predominantly Christian, Western – countries that can, should, or must have nuclear weapons and then there are some irresponsible governments/leaders elsewhere that must be prevented by all means from acquiring them. In other words, that proliferation rather than possession is the problem.

However, it is built into the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that those who don’t have nuclear weapons shall abstain from acquiring them as a quid pro quo for the nuclear-haves to disarm theirs completely.

That is, the whole world shall become a nuclear-weapons-free zone (NWFZ).

Those who have nuclear weapons provoke others to get them too. Possession leads to proliferation.

The recent negotiations with Iran is a good example of this bizarre world view: the five nuclear terrorist states, sitting on enough nukes to blow up the world several times over and who have systematically violated international law in general and the NPT in particular, tell Iran – which abides by the NPT and doesn’t want nuclear weapons – that it must never obtain nuclear weapons.

Simultaneously, they turn a blind eye to nuclear terrorist state, Israel’s 50+ years’ old nuclear arsenals.

And it is all actively assisted by mainstream media which seem to lack the knowledge and/or intellectual capacity to challenge this whole set-up – including the racist belief structure that “we have a God-given right and are more responsible than everybody else – particularly non-Christians…”

But what about deterrence?

You’ve heard the philosophical nonsense repeatedly over 70 years: nuclear weapons are good to deter everyone from starting the ‘Third World War’. That nukes are here to never be used. That no one would start that war because he/she would know that there would be a mass murder on one’s own population in a second strike, retaliation. But think! Two small, simple counterarguments:

• You cannot deter anyone from doing something unless you are willing to implement your threat, your deterrent. If A knows that B wouldnever use his nukes, A would not be afraid of the retaliation. Thus, every nuclear weapons state is ready to use nukes under some defined circumstance; if not there is no deterrence whatsoever

• The United States has long ago done two things (as the only one on earth): decided on a doctrine in which the use of small nukes in aconventional role is fundamental, thus blurring the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons; and said that its missile defence (which it also wants in Europe) is about preventing a second strike back – shooting down retaliatory missiles – so it can start, fight and win a nuclear war without being harmed itself. Or so it can hope.

Hope

Let’s rid the world of this civilisational mistake. Nuclearism and nuclear deterrence are the world’s most dangerous ideologies comparable to slavery, absolute monarchy and cannibalism that we have decided – because we are humans and civilised and can think and feel – to put behind us.

There is no co-existence possible between nuclear weapons on the one hand and democracy, peace and civilisation on the other.

It’s time to regain hope by looking at all the – civilised – non-nuclear countries and follow their example. Thus, 99 percent of the southern hemisphere landmass is nuclear weapons-free with 60 percent of its 193 states, with 33 percent of the world’s population, included in this free zone.

The West, the United States in particular, which started the terrible Nuclear Age, should now follow the great majority of humanity, apologise for its nuclearism and move to zero.

Edited by Phil Harris   

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS – Inter Press Service. 

Excerpt:

By Jan Oberg
LUND, Sweden, May 6 2014 (Columnist Service)

Over the last 25-30 years Sweden’s military, security and foreign policy elites have changed Sweden’s policy 180 degrees.

These fundamental changes were initiated by the Social Democratic government under Prime Minister Goran Persson (1996–2006) and have been carried out with virtually no public debate.

The rapprochement with interventionism, militarism and the U.S./NATO in all fields has been planned, incremental, furtive and dishonest; in short, unworthy of a democracy.

These elites are more loyal to Brussels and Washington than to the Swedes.

If your image of Sweden is that of a progressive, innovative and peace-promoting country with a global mindset, an advocate of international law, it is – sad to say – outdated.

Sweden is no longer neutral and it is only formally non-aligned; there is no closer ally than the U.S./NATO, although it is not a NATO member. It has stopped developing policies of its own and basically positions itself in the European Union and NATO framework. It no longer produces important new thinking – the last was Olof Palme’s Commission on Common Security (1982).

Jan Oberg

It has no disarmament ambassador and does not consider the United Nations important; there is not a single Swede among the U.N. Blue Helmets.

Nuclear abolition is far down on the agenda, problematic as a NATO-aspiring country. But one thing has not changed: Sweden remains the world’s largest arms exporter per capita.

Sweden no longer contributes to the protection of smaller states through a commitment to international law. Its elite wholeheartedly supported the bombing of Serbia/Kosovo. It thought – also under Social Democratic leadership – that the mass-killing sanctions on Iraq and the occupation were appropriate.

Sweden supported the destruction of Libya – participating with its planes there, although it only carried out reconnaissance, not bombing, missions.

Sweden did not support the planned war on Syria but also did not voice any audible criticism of the West’s support of only the militant opposition, including Al-Qaeda affiliates.

Sweden’s foreign minister Carl Bildt operates mainly as an eminently well-informed international affairs traveler and blogger who doesn’t seem to want to waste too much of his precious time on being a minister. And when he does, he isn’t known for consulting many people around him.

Here follow a few recent events/news which further emphasise the deplorable path Sweden – the elites rather than the people – have decided to follow.

1. Sweden’s security political elite has lately been considering broader alliances with NATO and the EU. How enigmatic! After having been neutral and non-aligned during tough confrontations and tension in the Cold War years, Sweden now needs to join NATO when there is no single analysis anywhere indicating that it is likely that Sweden will be faced with a threat in the foreseeable future.

While the intelligent security and defence discourse is now about human security, the environment and high-tech challenges, Sweden’s elites talk about defence as weapons only.

This is dangerous ”group think” steered by bureaucratic vested interests and paid for by taxpayers who are de facto threatened more by these interests than by Russian President Vladimir Putin. A reality check would lead to a reality shock.

2. Swedish planes shall now, in the light of a conveniently hysterical interpretation of the crisis in Ukraine, equip its planes with cruise missiles.

The security priesthood of the country consists of a handful of researchers on military affairs at huge, well-financed state institutes in close contact with politicians and the military with whom military-loyal journalists have close bonds.

The country that once did something for a better world has joined the militarist world. At a time when both NATO and the U.S. are getting weaker, Sweden’s elites plan to put all Sweden’s eggs in that basket.

It has no policy vis–à–vis, say, the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) countries or any vision of the world in 20 years to navigate towards. It has no ideals, values or commitments, only a ”follow-the-U.S./NATO and EU” flock mentality.

3. The U.S. ambassador to Sweden, Mark Brzezinski, recently told Sweden to join NATO, otherwise it won’t get any help in the event of an attack – in short, blackmailing disguised as deep concern and generous offer to bring (conditional) help. This was revealed by the conservative Swedish daily, Svenska Dagbladet.

The message is based on “fearology2 – because everybody knows that should Russia attack anyone, Sweden would not be the first target and it would be in the interest of NATO to control Swedish territory before any spreading of Russian forces from somewhere else to the Nordic area.

In short, NATO’s interest in Sweden is much greater than Sweden’s in NATO. Whatever one may think of these fantasies, they are just that: No one has thought up a credible scenario for how Sweden would be invaded by Russia and remain defenceless.

But this is the military-fundamentalist propaganda the Swedes are the target of these years: We must join NATO because we have such a weak defence that we can’t defend ourselves!

The liberal party’s defence policy spokesman, Allan Widman, recently stated this in a manner indicative of the low intellectual level of defence discussions here: ”I can only state the fact that Russia has about 140 million people and Sweden nine million. We won’t be able to manage serious challenges from outside on our own…”

Now, if the Swedish military can’t provide any protection for the nine million Swedes with a budget of eight billion dollars (among the 10 percent highest per capita in the world) at its disposal, it’s time to ask how inefficient and cost-maximising it can be without its leadership being fired.

4. Just this week it was decided that AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System), planes can pass through Swedish airspace in connection with NATO’s Ukraine crisis missions.

5. Sweden (like Finland) is discussing how to receive military aid, including troops, from NATO. This goes beyond what NATO members Denmark, Norway and Iceland have ever accepted. And Sweden is not a NATO member!

This must not be Sweden’s future.
(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Jan Oberg and - -
LUND, SWEDEN, Oct 20 2011 (IPS)

It is a safe assumption that people in general neither like nor love war, they prefer peace. There are distinguished prizes for peace, and peace people like Gandhi, Luther King., Dalai Lama and Mandela to name a few are revered by everyone. There is nothing similar for those who bomb, kill and rape. In consequence all wars and security and defence policies are legitimated by noble motives, among them the wish to maintain or create peace.

In the case of Libya surprisingly few have protested compared with, say, the war on Iraq. From right to left, human rights and peace movements as well as scores of intellectuals have -admittedly some of them more or less hesitantly- endorsed NATO countries’ intervention, mainly with reference to there being so little time and that a genocide on thousands of people were immanent. It’s hard to believe that they all love war, isn’t it?

It is! And therefore the assumption is that they accept it more or less reluctantly because they don’t see alternatives to war. Thus, if we all became better at thinking about alternatives to war, there would likely be less wars.The real challenge is to answer this question: If war is unacceptable, what can we do to deal with a conflict? What tools can we use instead of those of violence?

It would be good for the world if decision-makers could reduce the propensity to repeat the mistakes of their predecessors. Drawing at least some lessons from Yugoslavia, Somalia, Georgia, Afghanistan, and Iraq -about the role of propaganda, the character of civil wars, noble motives versus state interests, military intervention in civil wars, No-Fly Zones, etc. would have helped to do better in the case of Libya -and over time move from conflict amateurism to professional international conflict management based on educated expertise.

It is so important to have at least some basic knowledge about the parties -widely defined- and ourselves as participants in most of the conflicts. The West is not a noble mediator, it is a historical participant in virtually all conflict zones. We need to know much more about Libya’s history, social structure, political culture, modern development, Bedouin modes of thinking, local peace and conflict traditions and economy simply to know how the people and its leader are likely to react to what we do. And we need media that can tell us about those things and not only show pictures of war and the faces of leaders they suddenly decide are ‘dictators’.

If truth is the first victim in war, complex understanding is the second. Focussing only on Khaddafi (as media do) and making one man the root cause of everything (as politicians do) is human folly, a dangerous ignorance of complexities in any conflict anywhere. Everything in Iraq is not fine because Saddam is dead. All problems will not be solved if and when Khaddafi goes. So, to believe that everything will be fine if one man goes or comes, is a recipe for wrongheaded policies

Is also necessary to widen the space of the conflict. Don’t think that this is about Libya only. It is about the whole of the Middle East, about the West’s future encounter with the BRIC countries Brazil, Russia, India and, not the least China. It is about the future control of the world’s oil and financial transactions flowing from it, etc., not the least in Africa. It’s about Europe, Africa and the Middle East.

And don’t believe that this is about Libya February 2011. It’s about Libya over a hundred years as it was occupied in 1911 -Italian North Africa that was divided in the Eastern Cyrenaica and the Western Tripolitania, quite similar to today. It is about Libyans fighting for independence and the Italians killing tens of thousands of people in fighting and through starvation in camps. It about the British taking over East and West 1943-51 while the British controlled the southwestern one-third, Fezzan. It is about independence under King Idris 1951-69 and the Khaddafi revolution 1969-2011 that has created a country different from all others.

Look at how non-violent and violent methods of social change are employed. Why did it become violent in Libya? Who armed Khaddafi and made him the “dictator” he suddenly was called by Westerners? Who armed the rebels? Why did the rebels change from nonviolence to violence and from saying ‘No’ to any foreign intervention and to begging for it?

The global system invests billions and billions in military tools but lack the most basic when it comes to civilian conflict-management, peace education, peace and conflict academies, research in the human dimensions of international conflicts etc. We can kill hundreds of millions fellow human beings in well-planned, sophisticated nuclear war, we plan to be able to shoot down missiles with missiles and we can make iPhones.

Frankly, this total mismatch between our military investments and our human investment is not very impressive in terms of civilization.

So, the international “community” is woefully inadequate in terms of norms, decision-making mechanisms, governance, organization, education and civilian conflict-handling. It is totally unbalanced. When conflict happens, we have most of what we need the least and lack what we need the most. To remain civilized.

Omnipotence is a bad navigator and war is an outdated way of handling humanity’s problems. Conflict professionalism and peace-making is the emerging paradigm. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Jan Oberg is director and co-founder of the Transnational Foundation (TFF) in Lund Sweden, PhD, peace and conflict researcher (a longer version of this article is available at http://www.internationalpeaceandconflict.org/profiles/blogs/libya-what-should-have-been-done-part-i).

Excerpt:

By Jan Oberg
LUND, SWEDEN, Oct 10 2011 (IPS)

It is a safe assumption that people in general neither like nor love war, they prefer peace. There are distinguished prizes for peace, and peace people like Gandhi, Luther King., Dalai Lama and Mandela to name a few are revered by everyone. There is nothing similar for those who bomb, kill and rape. In consequence all wars and security and defence policies are legitimated by noble motives, among them the wish to maintain or create peace.

In the case of Libya surprisingly few have protested compared with, say, the war on Iraq. From right to left, human rights and peace movements as well as scores of intellectuals have -admittedly some of them more or less hesitantly- endorsed NATO countries? intervention, mainly with reference to there being so little time and that a genocide on thousands of people were immanent. It’s hard to believe that they all love war, isn’t it?

It is! And therefore the assumption is that they accept it more or less reluctantly because they don’t see alternatives to war. Thus, if we all became better at thinking about alternatives to war, there would likely be less wars.The real challenge is to answer this question: If war is unacceptable, what can we do to deal with a conflict? What tools can we use instead of those of violence?

It would be good for the world if decision-makers could reduce the propensity to repeat the mistakes of their predecessors. Drawing at least some lessons from Yugoslavia, Somalia, Georgia, Afghanistan, and Iraq -about the role of propaganda, the character of civil wars, noble motives versus state interests, military intervention in civil wars, No-Fly Zones, etc. would have helped to do better in the case of Libya -and over time move from conflict amateurism to professional international conflict management based on educated expertise.

It is so important to have at least some basic knowledge about the parties -widely defined- and ourselves as participants in most of the conflicts. The West is not a noble mediator, it is a historical participant in virtually all conflict zones. We need to know much more about Libya?s history, social structure, political culture, modern development, Bedouin modes of thinking, local peace and conflict traditions and economy simply to know how the people and its leader are likely to react to what we do. And we need media that can tell us about those things and not only show pictures of war and the faces of leaders they suddenly decide are ?dictators?.

If truth is the first victim in war, complex understanding is the second. Focussing only on Khaddafi (as media do) and making one man the root cause of everything (as politicians do) is human folly, a dangerous ignorance of complexities in any conflict anywhere. Everything in Iraq is not fine because Saddam is dead. All problems will not be solved if and when Khaddafi goes. So, to believe that everything will be fine if one man goes or comes, is a recipe for wrongheaded policies Is also necessary to widen the space of the conflict. Don’t think that this is about Libya only. It is about the whole of the Middle East, about the West’s future encounter with the BRIC countries Brazil, Russia, India and, not the least China. It is about the future control of the world’s oil and financial transactions flowing from it, etc., not the least in Africa. It’s about Europe, Africa and the Middle East. And don’t believe that this is about Libya February 2011. It’s about Libya over a hundred years as it was occupied in 1911 -Italian North Africa that was divided in the Eastern Cyrenaica and the Western Tripolitania, quite similar to today. It is about Libyans fighting for independence and the Italians killing tens of thousands of people in fighting and through starvation in camps. It about the British taking over East and West 1943-51 while the British controlled the southwestern one-third, Fezzan. It is about independence under King Idris 1951-69 and the Khaddafi revolution 1969-2011 that has created a country different from all others.

Look at how non-violent and violent methods of social change are employed. Why did it become violent in Libya? Who armed Khaddafi and made him the ?dictator? he suddenly was called by Westerners? Who armed the rebels? Why did the rebels change from nonviolence to violence and from saying ‘No’ to any foreign intervention and to begging for it?

The global system invests billions and billions in military tools but lack the most basic when it comes to civilian conflict-management, peace education, peace and conflict academies, research in the human dimensions of international conflicts etc. We can kill hundreds of millions fellow human beings in well-planned, sophisticated nuclear war, we plan to be able to shoot down missiles with missiles and we can make iPhones.

Frankly, this total mismatch between our military investments and our human investment is not very impressive in terms of civilization. So, the international ?community? is woefully inadequate in terms of norms, decision-making mechanisms, governance, organization, education and civilian conflict-handling. It is totally unbalanced. When conflict happens, we have most of what we need the least and lack what we need the most. To remain civilized. Omnipotence is a bad navigator and war is an outdated way of handling humanity?s problems. Conflict professionalism and peace-making is the emerging paradigm. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Jan Oberg is director and co-founder of the Transnational Foundation (TFF) in Lund Sweden, PhD, peace and conflict researcher (a longer version of this article is available at http://www.internationalpeaceandconflict.org/profiles/blogs/libya-what-should-have-been-done-part-i).

Excerpt:

By Jan Oberg and - -
NAGOYA, Dec 17 2007 (IPS)

The real reason for the Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) the US wants to place in Poland and Czech Republic is Washington\’s perverse desire to be able to wage and win a nuclear war, writes Jan Oberg, director and co-founder of the Transnational Foundation (TFF) in Lund, Sweden, and peace and conflict researcher. In this article, Oberg writes that BMD represents a fundamental break with deterrence because it aims to prevent affected countries from successfully retaliating against a hypothetical first nuclear strike by the US, making it possible to fight and win a nuclear war without any harm to itself. Since September 11, 2001, no one uses the word terror in reference to nuclear weapons despite the fact that they dwarf the threats (pretended or real) from today\’s \’\’terrorism\’\’. Humanity\’s main problem is not nuclear proliferation and, thus, not Iraq and Iran, but the very existence of nuclear weapons. What the binding Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) actually says is that proliferation to non-nuke countries shall stop as a quid pro quo for nuclear abolition by the nuclear powers. The US, Russia, France, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, the UK are the problem — not Iran or Iraq or North Korea.

The pretext for the system is the possibility of missile attacks by Iran. Russia opposes the idea because it feels threatened. The real reason for BMD is the United States’ perverse desire to be able to wage and win a nuclear war, formulated as the Nuclear Use Theory (NUT). BMD constitutes a fundamental break with the logic of nuclear deterrence, or Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), that the world has lived with since 1945.

Undoubtedly provocative, the philosophy of MAD and NUT goes like this:

Imagine two nuclear parties, A and B, pitted against each other. Each has its arsenal of nuclear weapons distributed among silos on the ground, planes, and submarines — the so-called ”triad”. Suppose A launches a first nuclear strike. Because it cannot be sure of destroying all of B’s nukes however many weapons it uses, it is taking a calculated risk that B will be able to retaliate with a second strike that could kill millions of A’s citizens and destroy its command centres. Theorising about a third and a fourth strike would be absurd: the first alone amounts to omnicide, the killing of all living creatures.

The psycho-political and philosophical assumption underlying MAD is this: party A will be deterred from starting a nuclear war because it will undoubtedly provoke retaliation by B and thus massive fatalities.

In effect, the launching of even one nuclear weapon is suicide. MAD was also called the Balance of Terror. In the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABMT), Russia and the US agreed to protect only their capitals but leave the rest of their land vulnerable. That was the deterring fact!

There are three important observations to be made here:

First, MAD was built on a series of assumptions about human psychology, existence, and technical capabilities that are highly debatable and whose validity could be tested only in the event of a nuclear war.

Second, MAD amounted to a form of terror in the plainest sense of the word: taking innocent people hostage and harming or killing them.

Third, after September 11, 2001, no one uses the word terror in reference to nuclear weapons despite the fact that they dwarf the threats, pretended or real, from today’s ”terrorism”.

Every state that has nuclear weapons is, by definition, a terrorist state. That’s why even the UN definition of terrorism specifies the violence of small groups against society or the state but not state violence against its own citizens and other states. If there were a real war against terror, nuclear abolition would be its top priority.

BMD represents a fundamental break with deterrence because it aims to prevent B from successfully retaliating against A’s people and territory. If A has the capacity to both destroy B and foil its retaliation, A can assume that it can fight and win a nuclear war without any harm to itself, which lowers the deterrence threshold.

In addition, A might may even be encouraged to launch a first strike and preemptively destroy the other side because the cost to itself looks smaller than under the assumptions of MAD.

BMD would also be likely to stimulate a new arms race. Party B and other secondary nuclear powers would all try to stock up on nuclear weapons to insure that at least some would get through A’s ”shield” in their efforts to retaliate against A’s first strike.

Party A in this hypothetical scenario is, of course, the United States. It is the only country in human history that relies on such a NUT theory, develops the technology for it, and formulates an official doctrine about using nuclear weapons even against non-nuclear countries.

If the US ever implemented this terrorist policy, the result would be worse than what millions of bin Ladens could inflict. It amounts to mega-terrorism.

Citizens and governments around the world are protesting the BMD, Russia, Poland, and the Czech Republic in particular. Greenland is part of the plan (Thule) but the Greenlanders were not informed. Japan is too, but it is a non-issue because Japan isn’t a sovereign state when it comes to foreign policy.

These public protests come despite the fact that the majority of the media, knowingly or not, support the offensive posture and cruelty of the Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex, which wants to avoid a much-needed critical debate about BMD.

Humanity’s main problem is not nuclear proliferation and, thus, not Iraq and Iran. The real problem is the very existence of nuclear weapons. What the binding Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) actually says is that proliferation to non-nuke countries shall stop as a quid pro quo for nuclear abolition by the nuclear powers. The US, Russia, France, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, the UK are the problem — not Iran or Iraq or North Korea.

The only ethical and sustainable response to BMD and every new nuclear weapons system is immediate nuclear abolition. The mainstream media and the scholarly community, which both profess to rely on freedom, must take up that challenge before it is too late. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: