Monthly Archives: May 2015

Nye kampfly – irrelevant og dyrt slag i luften

Utilstedeligt at vi endnu ikke har skyggen af en ordentlig, informeret debat om sikkerhedspolitikken og økonomien forud for beslutningen. Årsagen er at der ikke findes nogle for samfundet gode argumenter for dem.

Alle partier med undtagelse af Enhedslisten mener at Danmark bør anskaffe nye kampfly – der i bedste fald vil være i funktion om 5 år. Dagens pris – afhængig af antallet fly – er på 30 milliarder kroner – godt 5000 kroner per mand, kvinde og barn i vort land – og mindst 100 milliarder kroner til brugsomkostninger frem til 2045. I dagens tal kostede Storebæltsbroen 37 milliarder.

Debatten har hidtil ikke handlet om hvad i alverden vi skal med disse maskiner, kun om valget mellem tre typer. Fakta og problemer holdes helt bevidst i det dunkle og skal skydes ud til efter valget for derpå at træffe beslutningen hurtgit så ingen opdager gigantinvesteringen – i en tid hvor der skæres ned på alt andet.

Hvorfor mon? Fordi der ikke findes nogle for samfundet gode argumenter for kampfly!

En seriøs diskussion blandt politikere, medier og befolkning burde omfatte mindst disse punkter:

Prisen
Der findes ingen eksempler på at tilbudspris på den slags maskiner ligner slutprisen. Fordyrelser er indbygget i alle store militærindustrielle projekter – slag på tasken 25% fordyrelse mellem beslutning og leverance.

Hvad skal de bruges til?
Fly af denne type har intet med forsvar af dansk territorium at gøre. Dertil kræves defensive systemer som helikoptere, minering, kystovervågning, kortrækkende raketter. Disse fly skal erhverves af to sagen uvedkommende grunde:

a) for at i fremtiden kunne deltage i internationale interventioner à la besættelsen af Irak og ødelæggelsen af Libyen – altså den slags, der strider imod folkeretten, er fiaskoer på egne præmisser, øger had og terrortrusler mod Danmark, skaber enorme menneskelige lidelser og flygtningestrømme – kort sagt, gør os og verden mindre sikker;

b) for at tækkes USA. Havde vi ikke været medlem af det USA-ledede NATO ville ingen have fundet på noget så modproduktivt, dumt og dyrt som dette.

Hvordan ser fremtidens verden ud? Trusler?
Projektet bygger på myten om den evige trussel fra Rusland – skræmme- og ikke trusselsbillede. Hver eneste gang et ny militært projekt skal bokses igennem henvises der til truslen fra Øst. Men hvornår var det Rusland forsøgte at besætte et lande i Vesteuropa (NATO)? Ruslands militære udgifter er i dag er 8% af NATOs og at kun en klinisk sindssyg eller suicidal russisk leder – og dét er Putin ikke – ville starte en Tredje Verdenskrig i dag. Der findes kort og godt ingen militær trussel mod danske territorium, der kan motivere nye kampfly.

Verdens virkelige problemer
Der findes derimod mængder af andre trusler hvis man ser på lang sigt – såsom den globale opvarmning, cyberkrig, fascisme/underminering af demokrati, terrorisme samt resourceproblemer (vand og vedvarende energi) der kræver gigantiske investeringer. Og der findes et stort behov for virkeligt humanitære interventioner – til løsning af problemer som underudvikling, sygdomme, fattigdom, sult, etc.

Økonomi og arbejdspladser
Men er arbejdspladser så ikke et godt argument for disse nye kampfly? Overhovedet ikke! Hvis du investerer 100 kroner i våbenproduktion så går langt det meste til superavanceret teknik, udstyr og kapitalintensiv forskning og en brøkdel til at ansætte mennesker. Continue reading

The decay of The Economist

If an article like this can pass the editorial board of The Economist – there is no way the West can talk credibly about Russian media propaganda.
The amazing thing is that so many still believe it is meaningful to read The Economist – and seem to believe it is an authority on international affairs.

This one, at least, is pure propaganda, not worthy of the the designation “journalism” or “commentary”.

Is the US suddenly slightly more reconciliatory in tone?

My comment to Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria “Fuck the EU” Nuland’s visit to Kiev

Burundi’s crisis: Complacency, inaction or racism – or all of it?

There is no end, it seems, to diplomats and government representatives who “express concern”, appeal, urge the parties to show restraint, warn, condemn etc. All words, no deeds.

European leaders reaction is basically silence – while 16 Europeans killed in the office of Charlie Hebdo made them walk arms in arm in Paris.

When I think of Burundi today, all these words by Martin Luther King, Jr on complacency and inaction fit the international so-called community.

There never was a truly human concern behind all the interventions in oil-rich, or otherwise strategically important, countries.

If the Responsibility to Protect meant anything but self-interested, geopolitical interventionism, governments and diplomats would stop talking and wringing their hands now and get their planning tools in place – with the aim to save every Burundian, the region and the world from yet another – preventable – catastrophe.

If Burundi’s crisis had happened in or closer to Europe, would European leaders not have reacted?

If your answer is “I think so” then we are talking about structural racism – whether intended or not, whether conscious or not. It means a system of thought, or a paradigm, embedded in our culture that builds on the tacit, collective assumption that black people are unworthy of the concern, compassion and solidarity that we automatically apply – indeed find natural to apply – to white people in crisis.

Libya, “migrants” and EU military action

E.U. Seeks U.N. Backing for Military Action to Stop Wave of Migrants Fleeing Horrific Abuse in Libya | Democracy Now!
I’ve been around for a long time but I can still get both surprised and angry when I see things like this and try to connect the dots:

1) NATO bombs the hell out of Libya and kills its head of state and many others.
2) Predictably the country falls apart – chaos and cruelty follow.
3) Then refugees – not “migrants”, Democracy Now! – flee and traffickers profit.
4) Now more money and more warfare to “solve” the problem.
5) They don’t even seem to see that this proposal would put refugees at the firing line between EU military/police and armed traffickers.

Excuse me but what about learning just one little thing: War and “humanitarian” intervention only and repeatedly make things worse!
What about arresting all arms traffickers – then you would have less problems with human traffickers.
But the only thing these EU Nobel Peace Prize winners will never dare to do is to challenge and change their own perverse militarism.

Today’s V-Day as a lost opportunity for peace-making

This is TFF PressInfo # 321. It’s about the lack of wisdom and compassion of the Western leaders who are staying away from today’s commemoration/Celebration in Moscow of the victory over Nazi Germany. The different nationalities of the then Soviet Union lost between 20 and 27 million people. Why is it that all European countries remember their own sacrifies but ignore the largest sacrifice of all? In addition, this would have been a natura occasion to meet with the citizens (veterans), political and military leaders and, with the latter, have discussed how to calm down the Ukraine situation and avoid a New Cold War. Lost!

Burundi – Denying or hoping just won’t do

I’ve worked in Burundi with various organisations and issues between 1999 and 2012.
I am deeply concerned and thought it is important to keep on creating awareness of what is happening and what it could mean for the future.
This is TFF PressInfo # 320 – and you may subcribe get these important and topical analyses – much different from the mainstream media – winging into your e-mailbox before they are made public by sending you e-address to PressInfo@transnational.org