NO means NO - Stop the Lisbon Treaty!

OUR CRITICISM

SIGN PETITION

GET ACTIVE

MORE INFO

BOOKS

ABOUT US

HOME

<< back

4. Armament obligation and combat groups instead of peace project.

The underlying idea of the EU at the time of its foundation was to ensure lasting peace within and outside its borders. The Lisbon Treaty is breaking with this tradition: It obliges all member states to take part in armament, it envisages EU combat groups and it allows military action abroad without a UN mandate.

Armament instead of disarmarment:

The underlying idea of the European Union is the preservation of peace within its borders and outside them. A real peace project ought to commit itself to disarmament, also internationally and unilaterally!

In the above-mentioned 22-page short Spinelli Treaty, the aim of disarmament is even mentioned three times!

In contrast, the Lisbon Treaty „the member states shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities“(sect. 42, par. 3 VEU). The Treaty also does not provide for a peace agency, but instead it proposes a „Defence Agency” which shall „identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities.” (Sect. 42, par. 3 VEU). The peace project is turned into an armament project. This is a betrayal of the idea of its founders!

Military core Europe:

The Lisbon Treaty is also making provisions for „those Member States whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria” and for „the most demanding missions”
to „establish permanent structured cooperation within the Union framework”.

The treaty thus provides the basis for a military core Europe outside the control of the European Parliament and able to act against the will of uninvolved (as in not fulfilling the higher criteria) EU member states.

In the last few years, a number of EU member states have taken part in an aggressive war contravening international law (Iraq). Given the extreme international dependency of the EU on mineral oil and natural gas as well as their expected shortages and/or massive price increases, it would not be entirely implausible that a core of military „high-criteria” and more aggressive EU member states might agree as part of their „structured cooperation” to launch further aggressive wars to secure raw materials in order to preserve their level of consumption of resources and the ensuing life-style.

Military interventions abroad without UN mandate:

A further innovation of the Lisbon Treaty, and a hair-raising one considering the above: It does not provide for a UN mandate for military missions outside the EU; it just makes reference to the principles of the United Nations Charta.

What would be necessary, however, is this:

tying all military interventions outside the EU to UN mandates
the recognition of the UN’s global monopoly on the use of force by the EU, and
the – resulting – disentanglement from NATO. Instead, the Lisbon Treaty further upgrades NATO compared to the Treaty of Nice which is currently in force.

Neutrality at stake:

„If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power.” (Sect. 42, par. 7 VEU)

While this obligation of military assistance and the ensuing defence union leaves the „specific character“ of certain member states untouched, public discussion has failed to clarify what exactly this means for neutral states. It is also unclear whether the members of the „continuing structured cooperation” will operate in the name of the EU in which case military counterstrokes against all EU member states, including neutral ones, must be feared.

No say for Parliament:

EU Parliament and the national parliaments have no right to say concerning questions of foreign and safety policy. This means that one of the most sensitive policy fields is the least tied into the democratic process.