Fremmer EU freden? Analyse, kritik og alternativer

Lille bog fra Ny Agenda

Kommentarer direkte til
tff@transnational.live

Lund, Sverige, 5. august 2005

Originalversionen, der er mere detaljeret end den version NyAgenda har udgivet, downloades her.

NyAgendas trykte, kortere, version.

ANMELDELSER & OMTALE

Poul Smidt i Information 5. september 2005

Staffan Dahllöf i Notat 19. august 2005

Resumé af udredningens hovedkonklusioner

Denne enmands-udredning indeholder en makroanalyse af områderne forsvar, sikkerhed, udenrigspolitik, konflikthåndtering og fred i EU’s politik og i forslaget til forfatning. Den går bevidst ikke i detaljer med enkelte lande eller enkeltstående problemområder, men ser på begreber, værdier og målsætninger på det overordnede plan.

Den opstiller først et teori og analyseapparat. Derefter analyserer den hvad der faktisk siges og gøres i EU-regi og kritiserer det ud fra et antal eksplicitte kriterier. Den gennemgår tillige hvad der ikke står men kunne have stået i forfatningsforslaget. Udredningen arbejder på EU’s egne præmisser i den forstand at den tage tre vigtige fakta om EU alvorligt: at Unionens ledere opfatter sig som fredens forkæmpere, at forfatningen nævner freden som Unionens første mål samt at EU udtrykkeligt ikke kun er et fredsprojekt inden for Europa men også skal skabe en bedre verden for alle, det vil sige også for de 92 procent af menneskeheden, der lever uden for Unionen.

Der findes i hovedsagen to opfattelser af hvorledes man kan skabe mere fred i verden. Den ene giver udtryk for at hver stat og overstatslige enheder først og fremmest har brug for en militært baseret forsvar og sikkerhed; den accepterer således, at der findes en god vold, der i et vist omfang skal balancere eller udrydde en ond vold. Den anden hovedopfattelse hævder at det, der skal til, er mere konfliktkundskab, mere professionel konflikthåndtering og en principiel problematisering af volden som sådan samt at når vi har opnået dét, så vil der være mindre brug for våbenmagt.

I udredningen opereres der med de to nævnte fredsopfattelsers relationer til fire dimensioner, nemlig direkte vold, strukturel vold, kulturel vold og miljømæssig vold. Analysen, kritikken og alternativerne foregår således over otte hovedafsnit.

EU betegnes ofte som et fredsprojekt, dog uden at det klargøres hvad der menes med ordet fred. Denne udredning viser imidlertid entydigt, at forfatningsforslaget og Unionens allerede vedtagne politik og institutioner kun er udtryk for fred i førstnævnte forstand, altså militært domineret forsvar og sikkerhed. Intet tyder på at EU vil bidrage til at den direkte vold i verden reduceres. Forfatningen, der intet siger om nedrustning, menneskelig sikkerhed, dialog eller udfordrer eksistensen af kærnevåben, forpligter direkte medlemsstaterne til at opruste fremover. Meget tyder på at øget våbenmagt og militarisering af politikken kan blive en central del af EU’s fremtid, i øvrigt også selvom Unionen hverken har en gennemarbejdet trusselsanalyse eller europæisk sikkerhedsdoktrin.

Udredningen viser også at EU som fredsprojekt ikke tilnærmelsesvis er så intellektuelt konsistent eller visionært som FN-pagten. Det konstateres faktisk at udkastet til Forfatningen må ses som et alvorligt tilbageskridt i forhold til FN-pagtens normer og værdier.

Under de få temmelig uforpligtende formuleringer om at fred i verden er ønskværdig er det ikke muligt at finde konkrete målsætninger om almindelig voldsreduktion i Europa eller verden, en gennemtænkt principfast og professionel konflikthåndtering med vægt på civile midler eller almen nedrustning – herunder atomnedrustning.

Hvad gælder den strukturelle vold konkluderer udredningen at der i forslaget til EU-Forfatning – udover henvisninger til holdbar udvikling, ulandsbistand, humanitær bistand, handel og markedsmekanismer samt normen om ligestilling for kvinder – ikke synes at være nogen videre forståelse for omfanget af det globale underudviklings- og fattigdomsproblem. Der findes ingen nye normer og tilstræbes ingen politisk kraftanstrengelse, der står i proportion til de globale problemers størrelse og den hurtighed hvormed det burde afhjælpes.

I EU synes man at være ubevidst om Europas egen kolonialistiske og krigeriske historie set gennem andres øjne. Det er ikke faldet forfatterne af Forfatningen ind at Unionen kunne have et historisk medansvar for i det mindste nogle af verdens nødlidende, ikke mindst i Afrika.

Skønt den internationale terrorisme gøres til en hovedtrussel mod EU leder man forgæves efter en overvejelse af den mulighed, at nød og følelsen af magtesløshed kunne være én blandt årsagerne til den terrortrussel, der nu rettes mod vestlige mål. Det er således et usædvanligt traditionelt og uproblematiserende verdensbillede, der træder frem i Forfatningen.

Dernæst analyseres hvad EU’s bidrag til at reducere den kulturelle vold i verden er. Når man betænker i hvor høj grad Europa i dag står over for inter-kulturelle forståelsesproblemer, og betænker at Forfatningsforslaget kommer til beslutning i en periode med voksende potentiale for kulturkonflikter især mellem dele af det kristne vest og dele af den muslimske verden, må hele behandlingen af andre kulturer og EU’s rolle i forhold til dem siges at være passé – ja, som skrevet med en missionerende “colonial mind.”

Det er så meget mere beklageligt som EU har som målsætning at bidrage til fred i verden som helhed og ikke bare i Europa. Uden dialog, respekt for andres måder at definere grundværdier på og uden eksplicit vilje til at lære af hinanden, er det vanskeligt at se hvorledes EU skulle kunne bidrage til at mindske den kulturelle vold i verden.

Endelig er der den miljømæssige vold. Taget for pålydende giver forslaget til EU-forfatning intet håb om en global miljømæssig regenerering og fremtidig bæredygtig udvikling. Den savner en helhedstænkning om forholdet mellem menneske, produktion, forbrug og natur. Forfatningens indbyggede tro på at evig økonomisk vækst og markedsøkonomi automatisk er forenelig med både en reduktion af volden mod naturen og løsning af fattigdomsproblemet modsiges af en lang række seriøse undersøgelser, analyser af det globale systems økonomiske historie samt af scenarier som f.eks. Romklubbens seneste rapport.

Vægtningen mellem de mange sider om markedets funktioner og de yderst beskedne to sider om miljøet, der vel at mærke ikke forpligter medlemsstater til nye tiltag men kun udtrykker bestræbelser, taler sit eget tydelige sprog.

Dette sammenfatter indholdet af de indledende afklaringer og afsnittene 1-4. Derefter følger 25 store og mindre forslag i afsnit 5-8 til hvad EU kunne gøre for at fremme freden i den anden betydning, altså gennem konflikthåndtering og reduktionen af vold, den direkte, den strukturelle, den kulturelle og den miljømæssige. De er hverken et program eller udtømmende men fremsættes som konstruktive illustrationer og støttepunkter for den nødvendige videre folkelige debat.

Udredningen afsluttes med en kort efterskrift og en vejledning til de vigtigste dokumenter og hjemmesider om disse spørgsmål.

Download originalversionen.

NyAgendas trykte, kortere, version.

Peace & future researcher + ‌Art Photographer

Related Posts

LONDON – So far so good, at least on the wider level. While internally Iraq seems on the edge of chaos, the much heralded clash of civilizations between the Muslim and Judaeo-Christian worlds has yet to become apparent. We have anger and despair aplenty in the Arab and Muslim worlds. But very little rushing to the standard and there was no great pilgrimage of warriors to join the fight, as happened when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan twenty years ago, and then, having driven the Red Army out, were left to ferment in that mountainous redoubt. With the armaments supplied by the CIA the mujahidin were transformed into Al Qaeda that became, for a relatively brief moment as these things go, ‘the greatest threat to the homeland that America has ever known.’ Nevertheless a ‘Cold War’ between much of the Muslim world and the West is certainly in full swing. Winston...
The Challenge of Nuclear Weaponsin the Twenty-first CenturyA Path Forward The peoples and governments of the world face an urgent challenge relating to weaponry of mass destruction and particularly to nuclear weaponry.  At the crossroads of technology, terrorism, geopolitical ambition, and policies of preemption are new and potent dangers for humanity. Despite ending the nuclear standoff of the Cold War era, nuclear weaponry is again menacing the peoples of the world with catastrophic possibilities.  We recognize the need for any government to pursue its security interests in accordance with international law; and further, we recognize that distinctive threats to these interests now exist as a result of an active international terrorist network having declared war on the United States and its allies. Nonetheless, we reject the assessment of the current US administration that upgrading a reliance on nuclear weapons is in any sense justified as a response. We find it...
By Karin Wegestal MP, the Social Democratic Partyon behalf of the Swedish Committee for Solidarity with the Yugoslav People During the last decade, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has received more than 500,000 refugees from Croatia and Bosnia, and another 300,000 internally displaced persons, mainly from the province Kosovo and Metohia. For a country with about ten million inhabitants, such an influx of homeless people is obviously a very heavy burden – even under peaceful conditions. But in addition to that, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been the subject to sanctions from the western powers for close to ten years and its infrastructure was badly hurt through Nato’s intense bombardment during 78 days in 1999. The result of all this is that Yugoslavia, once the most developed industrial country in Eastern Europe, is today the poorest country in Europe. In Serbia excluding Kosovo, with about ten million inhabitants and...

Recent Articles

Tony Robinson October 4, 2026 Violence is easy to recognise when someone is being beaten, shot or killed. It becomes more difficult when nobody is holding a weapon. Poverty, discrimination, exploitation and repression can restrict a human life just as effectively, although they do so in very different ways and with very different consequences. Simply adding more categories to an ever-growing list of forms of violence does not really solve the problem. The more interesting question is what all these different situations have in common and why it makes sense to describe them using the same word. Human beings do not simply react to what happens around them. They remember the past, imagine things that do not yet exist, make plans and undertake projects. Workers organise because they imagine different working conditions; people migrate because they imagine another life somewhere else; social movements emerge because people refuse to accept the...
It’s a matter of principles, courage, vision and pulling together – while the militarist world is falling apart… Peter Langille October 3, 2026 “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”The Bertrand Russell—Albert Einstein Manifesto, July 9, 1955 ⁕ The forecast for what’s ahead is worrisome. The sharp rise in armed conflicts over the past three years is adding to what was already the highest level in over seventy years. Genocides, which should be prevented are supported. A shared climate emergency that jeopardises survival is ignored. Diverse polls now suggest that people are war-weary, worried and interested in a more effective United Nations. And, there are viable policy options for a more secure world! Yet governments are doubling-down, betting on more war and investing heavily. If current trends persist,...
Johan Galtung 1930-2024October 2015 Published here on October 3, 2026 Let us focus on Civilization for conflict analysis and remedies. Major forms of disorder use violence; war is state organized violence. The most belligerent states are the United States of America and Israel, both with civilization roots. National Evangelism, the US Protestant Christian civilization– more national than evangelical–justifies US warfare as exceptionalism of a people chosen by God, with a manifest destiny to run the world. Orthodox Judaism justifies Israeli warfare to conquer and expand from Nile to Euphrates as a religious right and duty to the Eternal One. The third most belligerent country, the UK, no longer believes it is God-chosen but chosen by the USA; not quite the same but something. But the root cause of global disorder lies in the Occident–with Islam–seeing itself as the single, universal civilization valid for all at all times, all others being...

TFF on Substack

Discover and subscribe to more peace materials on TFF Substack

Most Popular

Tony Robinson October 4, 2026 Violence is easy to recognise when someone is being beaten, shot or killed. It becomes more difficult when nobody is holding a weapon. Poverty, discrimination, exploitation and repression can restrict a human life just as effectively, although they do so in very different ways and with very different consequences. Simply adding more categories to an ever-growing list of forms of violence does not really solve the problem. The more interesting question is what all these different situations have in common and why it makes sense to describe them using the same word. Human beings do not simply react to what happens around them. They remember the past, imagine things that do not yet exist, make plans and undertake projects. Workers organise because they imagine different working conditions; people migrate because they imagine another life somewhere else; social movements emerge because people refuse to accept the...
It’s a matter of principles, courage, vision and pulling together – while the militarist world is falling apart… Peter Langille October 3, 2026 “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”The Bertrand Russell—Albert Einstein Manifesto, July 9, 1955 ⁕ The forecast for what’s ahead is worrisome. The sharp rise in armed conflicts over the past three years is adding to what was already the highest level in over seventy years. Genocides, which should be prevented are supported. A shared climate emergency that jeopardises survival is ignored. Diverse polls now suggest that people are war-weary, worried and interested in a more effective United Nations. And, there are viable policy options for a more secure world! Yet governments are doubling-down, betting on more war and investing heavily. If current trends persist,...
Johan Galtung 1930-2024October 2015 Published here on October 3, 2026 Let us focus on Civilization for conflict analysis and remedies. Major forms of disorder use violence; war is state organized violence. The most belligerent states are the United States of America and Israel, both with civilization roots. National Evangelism, the US Protestant Christian civilization– more national than evangelical–justifies US warfare as exceptionalism of a people chosen by God, with a manifest destiny to run the world. Orthodox Judaism justifies Israeli warfare to conquer and expand from Nile to Euphrates as a religious right and duty to the Eternal One. The third most belligerent country, the UK, no longer believes it is God-chosen but chosen by the USA; not quite the same but something. But the root cause of global disorder lies in the Occident–with Islam–seeing itself as the single, universal civilization valid for all at all times, all others being...
Read More
Living-Peace-Sign-Budapest-copy
Tony Robinson October 4, 2026 Violence is easy to recognise when someone is being beaten, shot or killed. It becomes more difficult when nobody is holding a weapon. Poverty, discrimination, exploitation and repression can restrict a human life just as effectively, although they do so in very different ways and with very different consequences. Simply adding more categories to an ever-growing list of forms of violence does not really solve the problem. The more interesting question is what all these different situations have in common and why it makes sense to describe them using the same word. Human beings do not simply react to what happens around them. They remember the past, imagine things that do not yet exist, make plans and undertake projects. Workers organise because they imagine different working conditions; people migrate because they imagine another life somewhere else; social movements emerge because people refuse to accept the...
b54a1f10-8c65-4f0b-9dd5-4abc0a7d04cc_2659x2659
It’s a matter of principles, courage, vision and pulling together – while the militarist world is falling apart… Peter Langille October 3, 2026 “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”The Bertrand Russell—Albert Einstein Manifesto, July 9, 1955 ⁕ The forecast for what’s ahead is worrisome. The sharp rise in armed conflicts over the past three years is adding to what was already the highest level in over seventy years. Genocides, which should be prevented are supported. A shared climate emergency that jeopardises survival is ignored. Diverse polls now suggest that people are war-weary, worried and interested in a more effective United Nations. And, there are viable policy options for a more secure world! Yet governments are doubling-down, betting on more war and investing heavily. If current trends persist,...
010
Johan Galtung 1930-2024October 2015 Published here on October 3, 2026 Let us focus on Civilization for conflict analysis and remedies. Major forms of disorder use violence; war is state organized violence. The most belligerent states are the United States of America and Israel, both with civilization roots. National Evangelism, the US Protestant Christian civilization– more national than evangelical–justifies US warfare as exceptionalism of a people chosen by God, with a manifest destiny to run the world. Orthodox Judaism justifies Israeli warfare to conquer and expand from Nile to Euphrates as a religious right and duty to the Eternal One. The third most belligerent country, the UK, no longer believes it is God-chosen but chosen by the USA; not quite the same but something. But the root cause of global disorder lies in the Occident–with Islam–seeing itself as the single, universal civilization valid for all at all times, all others being...
Screenshot 2026-10-02 011738
Jan ObergPhD, director, The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, TFFLund, Sweden October 2, 2026 This is my full original manuscript. The Chinese Academy of Social Science, CASS, makes two publications out if it. 1. China’s Five-year plan emphasized the capabilities of basic research and original innovation. It is regarded as the goal of the future social development, which, as required, should be significantly enhanced. Can you comment on the importance of original innovation in research and academic study? I believe it is easier to define “original innovation” in the natural sciences than in social sciences. The breaking points of what constitutes something new, or innovative, are not quite as sharp in the latter. But in both fields it is about opening up something that was closed, unseen, unexplored before – making manifest what was earlier latent. Innovations come in many forms and shapes – naming something that was not...
arctic-circle-map
The agreement is catastrophic both because of what it says and what it doesn’t mention. It reduces further the major asset of security policies: Freedom of action. Jan Oberg TFF director September 25, 2026 A couple of hours before the agreement was signed on September 22, 2026, I published the following 13 hypotheses about what it would most likely contain on TFF Substack (in English). I was wrong on only the first point. Contrary to what Trump had written on his Truth Social platform, it does not appear to come into force immediately. In fact, it turned out to be worse than even I had anticipated. After these hypotheses now come a number of reflections in light of what the agreement actually contains, and does not contain, as well as the way in which it has generally been presented by major media outlets and by the public-service broadcaster DR. My...
girl-5894831_1280
Below are TFF-related media mentions, comments, videos and social media posts published elsewhere but not on this homepage. We happen to catch and list only a fraction. Regarding video comments and debates, we recommend that you go to the TFF Video Channel on Substack where many of them are reproduced. Jan Oberg is a contributor to China Daily – 52 million daily clicks – and Global Times, CGTN and CCTV (the national television), China Investment, Xinhua News Agency and several others. Articles and videos on these media very often multiply into countless Chinese (and Western media) that re-post them from these main media. Thanks to The China Academy, his analyses, interviews and comments are frequently posted on YouTube channels such as Thinkers Forum and Wave Media. These videos are often re-posted on Bilibili (China’s YouTube), the China Content Center on TikTok, and on the Chinese edition of TikTok, Douyin.com. This means reaching hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide over a year. While there are too many to catch on all these...