Roberto
Savio*
San Salvador, September 2013 -- If
ever there was a need to stress the growing gap between the feelings of citizens and
the ruling political class, the latest annual survey of
public opinion on both sides of the Atlantic conducted by the German Marshall
Fund of the United States institute comes up with
overwhelming evidence.
A special focus of this year’s survey was Syria and other events in the Middle
East, and the findings showed clearly that people in Europe and Turkey are
deeply sceptical about any military intervention in Syria. On average, 70% of
respondents in 10 European countries and Turkey expressed
opposition.
The pathetic defeat of British Prime Minister David Cameron’s attempt
to take his country to war inflicted by the refusal of his own parliament to
back him represents an unprecedented rift between Washington and London,
historically united by a "special relationship". The other European ally of the
United States for intervention in Syria, French President
François Hollande, found that 65% of the French are against any kind of
intervention. German leader Angela Merkel (not interested in being a European
leader) was careful to distance herself from the Syrian
issue.
But the German Marshall
Fund survey also points out that, on the other side of the Atlantic, 62%
of Americans oppose military intervention, compared with 55% a year ago.
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s turnaround, to seek a political
not a military solution in Syria, has rehabilitated him as a world leader
despite his dubious qualifications.
We are clearly living in a schizophrenic world, where the vast
majority says one thing and a
tiny minority does another in the name of the first.
The Netherlands, symbol of civility and tolerance, has just
decided to spend 6 billion dollars on 37 F35 fighter jets which will cost 300
million dollars in annual maintenance. And this is happening at a time when the
country is going through an economic crisis which – as current dogma has it –
can be fixed by cutting spending on social welfare. Just take last
week, when in his Prince’s Day
speech to both houses of the Dutch Parliament, King William basically killed the
concept of the welfare state, saying that social security and long-term care are
“unsustainable” and that in the so-called “participation society” people should
be responsible for their own futures.
The idea that, in Europe, security passes by the way of arms is
curious, just as it is difficult to imagine against whom the Netherlands plans
to use its F35s. There is no European army, only a disparate collection of
national armies that are uncoordinated with each other, and which depend
entirely on the United States for any real action. Today it is hard to look at Russia,
whose army is in deep crisis, as a potential aggressor. The internal conflicts
in the Middle East created with the end of dictatorships are no threat to
Europe. The next stage of conflict, which is Asia, does not affect the
internal peace of Europe.
It would be much wiser to question what the concept
of
"security" means today for citizens. It is
obvious that their idea of
security is “human security” not “military security”. For Dutch
citizens – who are preparing themselves to taste the same bitter medicine that
the neoliberal orthodoxy in power has administered so far in southern Europe –
security probably consists of maintaining a decent life with a decent job,
having a network of educational and medical services, and – after
a lifetime of work and taxes – being able to rely on a state that will ensure a
serene and peaceful old age. This is what security means to them,
not the F35s.
Let’s look at the figures and reflect. Let’s say that
for every 100 dollars that goes on military security, ten are
devoted to human security.
This would appear to be a simple obvious proposition that would not meet
any opposition, at first glance. Well, let’s take each national budget and we
would see that in order to do this the amount that would be released would be
higher than the spending on culture and national research; or beyond that of
international cooperation, which ensures peace much more than arms. Let’s not
forget that Costa Rica did away with its army and at the same time removed
illiteracy and ignorance. Or that when Central America was dragged by
U.S. President Ronald Reagan into his war against the Marxist threat in
Nicaragua, Costa Rican President Oscar Arias solved the
conflict with a peace plan that earned him the Nobel Peace
Prize in 1987. The sad legacy of this period of war are the criminal gangs
– maras – which have turned El Salvador and Honduras into the world’s most
violent countries.
The problem is not
with citizens, but with the ruling class. The
five permanent members of the U.N. Security
Council – the guarantors of world peace – produce 82% of the world’s weapons.
If
they devoted this gigantic budget to peace, surely they would fulfil
their task as defenders of security with more concrete results.
Nonetheless, neither of the two existential threats to our planet – climate
change and the nuclear arsenal – is being solved. The subordination of today’s
politics to finance is creating the greatest feeling of insecurity among today’s
citizens. A study by the London School of Economics estimates that
by the year 2030 we will have returned to the levels of inequality under Queen
Victoria. F35s are clearly a senseless response to this
situation.
*
Roberto Savio, founder and president emeritus of the Inter Press Service (IPS)
news agency and publisher of Other News.
Article: courtesy of the OTHER NEWS
Hakuna maoni:
Chapisha Maoni