The Swiss journal Current Concerns deserves wider readership in North America. Endorsed by the Voltaire Network, a progressive information organization of the highest order founded by Thierry Meyssan, Concerns offers a wide range of discussion about pressing issues from the perspective of European thinkers and politicians. We run these materials on TGP to push back a bit against the suffocatingly parochial atmosphere that obtains in the United States, and to make Americans aware that at least some influential Europeans see the present danger for what it is, and are trying hard to raise awareness about them. Not a few of them can be found in Germany itself.
THOMAS KAISER
Current Concerns No. 15/16 / 16 June 2015
4,000 soldiers were deployed and exercised as the DDPS (Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport) informs in a press release, “the deepening of multinational cooperation in current crisis scenarios […], the deepening of operational, technical and logistical interoperability”. In addition to the fighter planes Switzerland is on the spot with 16 pilots and 45 ground crew men. As the legal basis for the deployment the DDPS refers to the “Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)”, which has been concluded with the Kingdom of Sweden in June 2002. It is only annoying that it is not Sweden but the NATO country Norway that holds the supreme command of this exercise. Officially it is a field exercise for a “peace mission”, however, even the conservative German newspaper Welt Online writes on 25 May “the military presence has especially geological reasons […].
The major manoeuvres are taking place against the background of increasing tensions with Russia and the rivalry for natural resources in the polar region”. Two weeks ago on Monday at six, the early risers had to take in the news – much to their surprise – that the Swiss Air Force fighter planes were involved in international manoeuvres in Sweden, Norway and Finland, close to the border with Russia. Particularly annoying: Besides Norway five other NATO countries took part in this manoeuvre, which Russia perceived as a provocation. The evocative name of this manoeuvre is “Arctic Challenge Exercise”, and it has euphemistically been declared a “multinational defence exercise”.
The fictitious scenario was to establish a UN-imposed no-fly zone above the Arctic, similar to the one the UN had established over Libya in 2011, with devastating consequences for the country and its people. The effects of the no-fly zone imposed at the time are perceptible to this day. The country is shattered, a functioning government does no longer exist, and the people are fleeing to Europe in shoals. The goal of this no-fly zone was to gain air superiority over Libya in order to get the country under control and carry out a regime change. There was far and wide no track of civilians’ protection to be seen which before had been pointed out as a reason for establishing the zone. On the contrary, the country was bombed back to the Middle Ages and tens of thousands of innocent civilians were killed. Today no one speaks of that any longer, except the affected people themselves. But who cares? No-fly zone over Russia? So that is what a no-fly zone à la NATO looks like. And it was in such an exercise that eight combat aircraft of the Swiss Air Force participated, together with the NATO member states Norway, Holland, Germany, France, Great Britain and the USA. All of them states who were involved in wars in recent years, partly contrary to international law, namely in the most shameful war in terms of violating international law, the aggression against Serbia in 1999.
[dropcap]T[/dropcap]hose who have dealt with the new NATO doctrine from 1999 know that the protection of natural resources may be a reason for military intervention. Those who actually believe that this is about a “peace mission”, close their eyes to reality and risk to be in for a shock. Criticism of the Swiss participation comes from all sides. In the Swiss parliament there is little approval of the Swiss commitment to a NATO manoeuvre on the Russian border.[/su_column] Jakob Büchler, CVP (Christian People’s Party), security policy-maker and former president of the Defence Commission initially understands that the Swiss Air Force needs to train abroad, as it is no longer possible in the country itself. However, the public’s acceptance of such exercises is very small. He has concerns about NATO: “We need such training opportunities, but not necessarily with NATO. NATO is an offensive and defensive alliance, something unknown in Switzerland as a neutral country.” Roland Rino Büchel of the SVP (Swiss People’s Party) St. Gallen, Vice Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the National Council, prefers not to comment on this issue at length, but finds a manoeuvre of this scale problematic: “All joint operations with NATO are questionable, this one in particular.” “NATO is rehearsing Arctic defense against Russia” The President of the Foreign Affairs Committee Carlo Sommaruga (SP/GE) is not opposed to international assignments if they are bilateral or take place according to a UN mandate: “That Switzerland is participating in international manoeuvres with countries such as Austria, Sweden or other Nordic countries, is not new. It is, however, very problematic to integrate Switzerland into a NATO exercise. Because in that case it is not an exercise in a bilateral partnership. Switzerland can only participate in with an UN mandate or in a bilateral exercise. With NATO, it is problematic. That would require a political decision.” The point is that the whole thing has increased political sensitivity, as well, since it takes place in a very tense situation in Europe at the gates of Russia, although he regards the latter as a geographical inevitability: “The fact that it happens near Russia, depends on the geographical situation of Sweden.”
But participation in a NATO-manoeuvre is clearly going too far for him. “The problem is, first, that it is a NATO exercise and secondly, that this exercise is not aimed at defense, but targeted at Russia.” The fact that it is an exercise of NATO, is obvious, even though three non-members are taking part. “
The Welt Online Magazine titled “NATO rehearses Arctic defense against Russia”, apparently a formulation very much to the point. For the Member of the National Council Oskar Freysinger (SVP/VS) the whole process is totally unacceptable: “They justify the whole thing by pointing to the UN. But that is absurd. They are conducting a security exercise under the pretext of the UN Security Council against a member of the UN Security Council. Above the Arctic Circle there is only Russia. That cannot be against the Fiji Islands. To organize a manoeuvre against a member of the Security Council under the pretext of the UN – this is the most absurd thing I have ever experienced. They always want to please NATO and they want to please the Americans. We are de facto putting ourselves under the control of the Americans. If Switzerland has a contract with Italy to carry out air combat exercises above the sea, because you cannot exercise in the Valais Alps, it would not bother me, in case it is a neutral manoeuvre to practise with aircrafts. But this exercise here takes place in an explosive political context. This is no longer neutral.” “NATO carried out several aggressive wars, already” National Councillor Geri Müller, responsible for the Green Party’s Foreign Policy, found clear words to comment on the use of the Swiss Air Force in conjunction with NATO. “Flight training with NATO is not possible for the Swiss Air Force. NATO is an alliance of states, which already waged several wars of aggression, including the war against Serbia. And now showing off in front of Russia’s gates? This may enormously damage our relationship with Russia.”
To Russian diplomatic circles it is disconcerting that Switzerland participates in these manoeuvres as a neutral country. It is understood that the Swiss Air Force has to train outside the country and that it must do so with other countries, but to practice a war scenario before the gates of Russia together with NATO countries, is something altogether different. It seems that the relationship and trust that has been built up during its OSCE presidency is being endangered and inconsiderately squandered. Oskar Freysinger therefore demands that Switzerland should seek a better relationship with Russia: “We should make a free trade agreement with Russia. We should be a privileged partner of Russia. We could foster and support many economic interests that way, but we are always afraid. It is said that the United States is our friend, yet since the 90’s they have given us one rotten egg after the other. The Russians have never done that. Now we should set on free trade agreements, in the multilateral world, and that includes the Russians. We are a free country.” • ”
APPENDIX
A future for Europe – not without Russia
Appeal at the 75th anniversary of the illegitimate German invasion of the Soviet Union
On 22 June 1941 – 75 years ago – Germa- ny invaded the Soviet Union. More than 20 million citizens of the Soviet Union lost their lives fighting to defend their country and during the extermination operations of German SS and Wehrmacht units. The war ended with the occupation of Berlin by the Red Army. Not only was the entire European part of the Soviet Union devastated, but Germany, too, was almost total- ly destroyed. Conclusions from the war experience were drawn only insufficiently in Europe after 1945. The Cold War divided Europe into West and East. It took decades for the policies of détente to open ways to co-operation and dialogue. At last borders that had emerged from World War II were agreed upon in legally binding international treaties. After the German Reunification in 1990 the end of the conflict between East and West was solemnly pro-claimed in the “Charter of Paris for a New Europe”.
However, today – 75 years after Hitler Germany ́s invasion of the Soviet Union – we live through times of confrontation and arms races yet again. Therefore this 75th anniversary of 22 June 1941 is a day of current challenges.**
We urge Europeans to draw conclusions from the most devastating war in their history at last: for a new quality of German-Russian relations. Economic relations between Germany and Russia are of utmost importance to both countries. Russian art, literature, music and ballet are pillars of European culture as well as their German counterparts. This may constitute the basis for friendly relations, open to discuss different political concepts and compete in the best sense of discourse. This has to include mutual critique of erroneous societal developments and measures. All relations and formats where talks are still possible have to be utilised in order to prevent another armed conflict between Germany and Russia for all future.
Nuclear and conventional disarmament
Disarmament is necessary, in order to meet social challenges and contribute to solving the global problems of the 21st century. A total ban of nuclear weapons is a crucial pre-condition for the survival of human- kind. Instead of building rocket launch- ing bases in Eastern Europe and deploying German troops to the borders of Russia – as in the currently planned formation of four NATO battalions in Poland and the Bal- tic states, one of them in Lithuania under German command – we need to strength- en institutions of collective security like the OSCE. In the Paris NATO-Russia agreement of 27 May 1997 NATO explicitly refrained from permanently stationing fighting troops in Eastern Europe. All parties of the treaty had declared that they are not enemies and that security of all states in the Euro-Atlantic commonwealth is indivisible. It is necessary to return to those commitments and insights in the near future and stop the policies of mutual economic sanctions. Helmut Schmidt was right to emphasise in his open letter to Helmut Kohl on 18 December 2014, that the West, just like Russia and Ukraine, should be careful not to jeopardise all that had been gained in decades of hard work.
On this historic anniversary of 22 June 2016 we appeal to Federal Chancellor Dr Angela Merkel and the German Federal Government: Only a policy of détente with Russia and commitment to international law, with efforts to solve problems as well as conflicting interests, will provide perspectives of a peaceful future in Europe.
We know for sure: In order to achieve this goal, it will take the commitment of the peace movement as well as all citizens who believe in a peaceful future of our Common European Home.
(Signers) Otto Jäckel, chairman IALANA Germany* Dr Peter Becker, vice-president IALANA International Katja Keul, council member IALANA Germany Norman Paech, member of the scienti c advisory board IALANA Germany Reiner Braun, CEO IALANA Germany and more than 250 signatories More information at www.ialana.de
* * The appeal published here is the text of an announcement, initiated by the International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms (IALANA). IALANA was founded as an international association of lawyers against nuclear arms in April 1988. The German section was founded in Bonn, June 1989, as a non-profit association. Later, IALANA has expanded its scope of action to include biological and chemical weapons and non-violent peace measures.
(Translation Current Concerns)
The materials in this page were excerpted from Current Concerns, June, 2015.
Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com
We apologize for this inconvenience.
=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable
Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?
Send a donation to
The Greanville Post–or
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?
Ours in the US is a Sophie’s choice, war with Hillary or war with Donald. If we go with the first one we continue foreign policies in effect since 1945, the shifts from extreme aggression to the methodical undermining of other sovereign nations by stealth and the co-optation of local reactionary elements. This aggressive creep that obtains to turn all antagonists (born from resistance to outside interference) into abject servants to the one large military entity in the world is a chief neo-liberal modus operandi, hiding behind ‘humanitarian’ lies. The other will be a mad dr. Strangelovian and headlong surge… Read more »