Modern Roots of European Anti-Zionism

January 7, 2021

Antisemitism has a long history – 2600-3200 years depending on source – and has its influence on the political outcome of the Arab–Israeli conflict even today. Anti-Zionism is a cover for modern-day antisemitism. Israel, Northern America and (Western) Europe have shared ideals of democracy, human rights and freedom. However their views about Arab-Israeli conflict differ regularly more or less so my question is which are the roots of modern anti-Zionism and bias against Israel.

In my opinion disinformation and the power of international media coverage are the main aspects in today’s anti-Zionism. Earlier in the 1960s and 1970s Western powers were influenced by the “oil weapon”. This combination creates the roots of antisemitism and/or anti-Zionism especially in present day Europe.

Oil weapon

In the 1967 Six Day War, when Israel’s existence was threatened, France’s President Charles de Gaulle took a pro-Arab direction and instituted a weapons embargo on the Middle East. Verbal attacks against Israel were sometimes accompanied by anti-Semitic statements. However shortly after the Six-Day-War, the United States replaced France and became Israel’s unfailing ally. In his press conference on 27 November of that year de Gaulle included a much-publicized remark, calling the Jews “an elitist and domineering people.”

The 1967 Six-Days-War marked a turning point in the global oil market. In reaction to the June 1967 war, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Libya, and Algeria banned oil shipments to the United States, United Kingdom, and West Germany. But oil was abundant and cheap during this time and newly deployed “supertankers” conveyed oil to markets that needed it. The United States was the primary source of spare oil production capacity at the time. The United States increased production by about 1 mbd and Venezuela and Iran (under the Shah) were able to make up the rest, ameliorating the shortage. After the initial shock, a maximum of 1.5 million barrels per day (mbd) of oil was removed from the market from June through August 1967. In conclusion the “oil weapon” largely failed in 1967, it was ineffective and was most harmful to the oil producing countries that gave up substantial revenue during the embargo.

The Yom Kippur War 1973 gave a new understanding of the role oil could play in geopolitics. After the 1967 War there was a rapid demand growth consumed U.S. spare oil production capacity, and by 1970 net oil imports to the United States were rising rapidly; there was no longer the source of spare capacity and “security margin” in the oil market. At the same time, oil production in the Middle East was also growing quickly, meeting two-thirds of global demand growth between 1960 and 1970. The net loss of supply was 4.4 mbd by December 1973, representing 14 percent of internationally traded oil. There was simply not enough oil available to meet the shortfall.

On October 6, 1973, Egypt attacked the Bar Lev Line in the Sinai Peninsula and Syria launched an offensive in the Golan Heights, both of which had been occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War. On October 12, 1973, US president Richard Nixon authorized Operation Nickel Grass, a strategic airlift to deliver weapons and supplies to Israel in order to replace its materiel losses, after the Soviet Union began sending arms to Syria and Egypt.

The Arab oil embargo created a specific oil ban on the Netherlands, because the Netherlands supported Israel and Rotterdam was the main port for Northern Europe. The impact of the embargo was thus multiplied. As a result, oil prices in Europe rose sharply. Indeed the price rises had a much greater impact in Europe than the embargo. Europe realized how dependent it was on the Arab world.

Israel was one of the few countries unaffected by the embargo, since it could extract sufficient oil from the Sinai. But to supplement Israel’s over-taxed power grid, Harry Zvi Tabor, the father of Israel’s solar industry, developed the prototype for a solar water heater now used in over 90% of Israeli homes.

Due the “first oil shock” Western Europe began switching from pro-Israel to more pro-Arab policies. This change strained the Western alliance. The US, which imported only 12% of its oil from the Middle East (compared with 80% for the Europeans and over 90% for Japan), remained staunchly committed to Israel. Some European nations and Japan sought to disassociate themselves from United States foreign policy in the Middle East to avoid being targeted by the boycott. With the embargo in place, many developed countries altered their policies regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. These included the UK, which refused to allow the United States to use British bases and Cyprus to airlift resupplies to Israel, along with the rest of the members of the European Community.

France supplied Mirage planes Israel had already bought to Libya; they were subsequently transferred to Egypt and used in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. French Foreign Minister Jean Sauvagnargues was the first Western official to meet Yasser Arafat, doing so in 1974 in Beirut. A year later the PLO opened its first European diplomatic office in Paris, while its charter was calling for the elimination of IsraelFrance also supplied the Osirak nuclear reactor to Iraq. Eventually, Israel had to take exceptional military action to destroy it. This led to Iraqi Scuds being launched against Israel in the first Gulf War. Also Canada shifted towards a more pro-Arab position after displeasure was expressed towards Canada’s mostly neutral position.

On November 7, 1973, the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments declared Japan an unfriendly” country to encourage it to change its non involvement policy. It received a 5% production cut in December, causing a panic. On November 22, Japan issued a statement “asserting that Israel should withdraw from all of the 1967 territories, advocating Palestinian self-determination, and threatening to reconsider its policy toward Israel if Israel refused to accept these preconditions”. By December 25, Japan was considered an Arab-friendly state..

The percentage of US oil which comes from the nations bordering the Persian Gulf remained steady over the decades, with a figure of a little more than 10% in 2008. During last four decades the ”oil weapon” has lost most part of its influence, for example in 1974, seven of the 15 top Fortune 500 companies were oil companies, falling to four in 2014.

Palestinians as KGB project

Zionism is the main threat to the USSR and to the Soviet bloc.” (Vladimir Kryuchkov, KGB:n päällikkö 1988)

We have only to keep repeating our themes that the United States and Israel are fascists, Imperial-Zionist countries bankrolled by rich Jews” (Yuri Andropov, as KGB chairman)

In 1948, as Israel declared independence, the armies of five Arab nations attacked the new nation. The USSR’s Joseph Stalin, hopeful that Israel’s socialist roots would lead it to join the Communist bloc, instructed a country it controlled, Czechoslovakia, to provide Israel with the arms needed for defense. However, upon later learning of Stalin’s murder of 20 million people, Israeli society rejected communism. The idea of Zionism as a hostile ideology began to solidify in the post-World War II USSR in the late 1940s, once it became clear that Israel was aligning itself with the ‘imperialist camp’ rather than the Soviet Union. As a result, Moscow shifted its support to Arab dictatorships. After the Six-Day War, all members of the Warsaw Pact (apart from Romania) severed their ties with Israel.

A massive Soviet anti-Zionist campaign entered a particularly active stage in 1967.  Operation SIG (1967-1988) is the KGB operation to sow worldwide disapproval for the US and Israel. SIG is the Russian acronym for Sionistskiye Gosudarstva, or “Jewish (or Zionist) Government.” The operation started shortly after 1967, when the drive for Arab unity collapsed along with the economies of the armies that attacked Israel. The core idea of SIG was rhat Palestine is not just the name for a geographic region, but the home for a distinct and indigenous people, the Palestinian Arabs. Its Jewish citizens are colonizers from some unidentified foreign country. (More about this disinformation project in “The KGB’s Middle East Files” a which brings to light information mined from some 6,000 KGB documents smuggled to the West in the early 1990s).

KGB had trained Yasser Arafat at its Balashikha special-ops school east of Moscow and in the mid-1960s decided to groom him as the future PLO leader. First, the KGB destroyed the official records of Arafat’s birth in Cairo, replacing them with fictitious documents saying that he had been born in Jerusalem and was therefore a Palestinian by birth. The KGB’s disinformation department then went to work on Arafat’s four-page tract called “Falastinuna” (Our Palestine), turning it into a 48-page monthly magazine for the Palestinian terrorist organization al-Fatah. Jordan’s claims to represent the Palestinians were then permanently undercut by the Arab League’s declaration at the Rabat Conference that the PLO was the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

V. Judah Khaykin on Twitter: "Here are some Soviet political cartoons promoting all the ideas we find today on the anti-Zionist Left: “Zionism is racism”, Israel perpetrating genocide, Zionism is Nazism, ZionismClassified KGB documents reveal how the Soviet spy agency transformed Arab terrorists to freedom fighters. The justification for the war on terror required a framework report on Israel, on the one hand, as a racist illegal genocide, and, of course, its indigenous people. The PLO named this oppressed people the Palestinian people. The irony is that during the British Mandate in Palestine, Jews living mainly in the area were understood as distinct from the Arabs living there, whose own characterization of the area was balad esh-sham – the province of Damascus – because at that time they considered themselves South Syrians.

(More about KGB and its anti-Israel propaganda operations in publication of Informing Science Institute )

On the bottom end The West Bank has never collectively belonged to the Palestinian Arabs, to the so-called Palestinians. They only own private plots there like Jews. UN Resolution 242 of 1967 also does not recognize the “Palestinian Arab people” from whom a country would have been deported that should be returned to them. This imaginary nation was not invented until 1967.

An analysis Soviet Anti-Zionism and Contemporary Left Antisemitism by Izabella Tabarovsky gives very good backgroud USSR’s antisemitism/-Zionism campaign. She concludes her analysis as follows:

The messaging emanating from today’s far-left anti-Zionist camp is strikingly similar to the messaging of the Soviet anti-Zionist campaigns. From the claims of Zionist collaboration with the Nazis in the Holocaust, to the idea of Zionism as an inherently racist and oppressive ideology, to the concept of Israel as a settler-colonialist state that engages in genocidal behavior and apartheid – all of these ideas were part and parcel of the Soviet anti-Zionist narrative.

Anti-Zionism

“When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism.” ( Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 1969)

Anti-Zionism is a cover for modern-day antisemitism, it may be motivated by prejudices against Jewish people, or that it creates a climate where anti-semitism is viewed as acceptable. The roots of modern antisemitism are quite well concluded by Jerome Chanes who identifies six stages in the historical development of antisemitism:

  1. Pre-Christian anti-Judaism in ancient Greece and Rome which was primarily ethnic in nature

  2. Christian antisemitism in antiquity and the Middle Ages which was religious in nature and has extended into modern times

  3. Traditional Muslim antisemitism which was—at least, in its classical form—nuanced in that Jews were a protected class

  4. Political, social and economic antisemitism of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment Europe which laid the groundwork for racial antisemitism

  5. Racial antisemitism that arose in the 19th century and culminated in Nazism in the 20th century, and

  6. Contemporary antisemitism which has been labeled by some as the New Antisemitism

Chanes suggests that these six stages could be merged into three categories: “ancient antisemitism, which was primarily ethnic in nature; Christian antisemitism, which was religious; and the racial antisemitism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.”

One should note that there is also Jewish anti-Zionism which enjoyed support in the Jewish community especially before WWII; for esxample some Orthodox Jews opposed the creation of a Jewish state and the Jewish section (Yevsektsiya) of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, targeted the Zionist movement. The full knowledge of the Holocaust altered the views of many anti-Zionists as many saw Israel’s establishment as a historic necessity to provide a refuge for the surviving Jews of Europe.

Complete list of Jewish expulsions (1,043 total) can be found from Judaism.is .

From the right-wing side especially in USA the most modern version of antisemitism is “Qanon”. It is a baseless internet conspiracy theory whose followers believe that a cabal of Satan-worshipping Democrats, Hollywood celebrities and billionaires runs the world while engaging in pedophilia, human trafficking and the harvesting of a supposedly life-extending chemical from the blood of abused children. QAnon followers believe that Donald Trump is waging a secret battle against this cabal and its “deep state” collaborators to expose the malefactors and send them all to Guantánamo Bay.

QAnon also has its roots in much older antisemitic conspiracy theories. The idea of the all-powerful, world-ruling cabal comes straight out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a fake document purporting to expose a Jewish plot to control the world that was used throughout the 20th century to justify antisemitism.

From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free” – or “Palestine is ours from the river to the sea,” or “Palestine is Islamic from the river to the sea,” – is and forms part of, a popular political slogan used by Palestinian nationalists as well by anti-Zionist left-wing groups in Europe. It contains the notion that the land which lies between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea be entirely placed under Arab rule at the cost of the State of Israel. The slogan describes quite well modern Palestinian nationalism and its anti-Zionist aim.

Anti-Zionism has a long history of being supported right-wing and fascist (or “neo-fascist”) political views as well various Aryan / White-supremacist groups. In these instances, anti-Zionism is usually also deeply anti-Semitic, and often revolves around popular conspiracy theories even today.

Overall, Muslim antisemitism is dominant, but in Germany, right-wing antisemitism is more prevalent. The latter is also increasing overall. Left-wing antisemitism largely expresses itself in extreme hatred of Israel.

A number of sources link anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Campus research in 2016 in the United States by the AMCHA Initiative has also reported close geographical correlation between the two phenomena, accompanying a recent upsurge in anti-Semitism. Unsurprisingly, recent research has shown a close correlation between anti-Israeli views and anti-Semitic views based on a survey of citizens in ten European countries. “Anti-Zionism has become the most dangerous and effective form of anti-Semitism in our time, through its systematic delegitimization, defamation, and demonization of Israel.” (More about this e.g. in Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism: The Dynamics of Delegitimization edited by Alvin H. Rosenfeld)

 

My view

Historically, the Palestinian ‘desire for statehood’ and ‘need for liberation’ was invented in large part by the Soviet Union,” … “Palestinian nationalism is, therefore, a historical fabrication born out of a communist thirst for expansion and an Arab resentment of the existence of Israel.”( Christopher Fish writing in the Stanford Review, 2008)

Why did the Jordanian-dominated Arabs of the West Bank not demand a state or the like for their people on July 4, 1967, but began to do so a week later? I think the answer is a political and tactical need and not so much a sudden national awakening. After the leadership of the Arab countries around Israel had tried in vain to destroy Israel militarily, they concluded that terror against colonialism under disguise of freedom fight and disinformation campaign to support this idea was the only way to achieve the goal. During last years situation has dramatically changed as the MidEast conservative monarchies had grown dependent on Western support to ensure their continued survival against e.g. thread from Iran.

Palenstina GNOThe end of the Cold War eliminated a major source of financial and political support for the Palestinian cause. The PLO’s financial problems did not reach crisis proportions, however, until the Gulf War 1990/91, when Arafat’s decision to support Iraq alienated its benefactors in the Gulf, notably Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. However aid from then more pro-Palestinian Western countries has helped to cover these shortages.

Antisemitism and anti-Zionism have still wide support in Western Europe. It has deep roots in history; its modern follow-up – anti-Zionism – was based on Soviet disinformation campaign which succeeded at emptying Zionism of its meaning as a national liberation movement of the Jewish people and associating it instead with racism, fascism, Nazism, genocide, imperialism, colonialism, militarism and apartheid. After Cold War more and part of more and more increasing Muslim population in Europe is keeping this campaign alive. It remains to see how negatively will European left-wing parties campaign against Israel so as to win domestic Muslim votes and can the right-wing parties take more neutral position to conflict as the “oil weapon” does not have its previous power anymore.


This article first appeared in Conflicts by Ariel Rusila blog


Devaluation of Nobel Peace Prize Continues But EU Could Show Way For Better Crisis Management

October 18, 2012

The stabilizing part played by the E.U. has helped to transform most of Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace,” (Thorbjorn Jagland, chair of awarding committee)

The leader of the E.U. is Germany, which is in an economic war with southern Europe, I consider this war equal to a real war. (Comment of Mr. Polychronopoulos, Greece)

The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded its 2012 peace prize to the European Union, lauding its role over six decades in building peace and reconciliation among enemies who fought Europe’s bloodiest wars. So far I have noticed this selection described as scandalous, parody, joke, sarcastic and bizarre act and late April fool. Also timing has been seen wrong as Europe is facing “increasing violence and division, the EU now appears to critics impotent amid a debt crisis that has widened north-south divisions.

I can agree that the origins of peace in Europe lie in the alliance made between France and Germany it gave birth to the European Coal and Steel Community, a forerunner of the EU. However in my opinion it is questioned whether the EU’s track record in the Balkan wars of the 1990s justified a Prize for spreading peace. However I hope that Peace Prize will give some self-confidence to EU to develop this content so that the block could increase its role in relation of conflict prevention and crisis management.

There are hundreds of worthwhile grass roots organisations and individuals for whom the award of the Nobel Peace Prize would have made a huge difference. For EU the Prize probably will be only one lucky event and photo-opportunity. Interesting but trivial alltough describing detail will be which EU president should collect the prize – Mr Barroso, Mr Van Rompuy or Martin Schulz as none of them or their institutions during their time has done nothing to solve conflicts or build peace. In my opinion the right address of this years Nobel award in EU would be ”spiritual father” of EU, Mr. Robert Schuman, for creating peace by making former Nazi Germany a “member of the family,” in the European Community.

Nobel’s Will questioned

There probably never was a finer gift donated to ‘the greatest benefit of mankind’ than the prize that the Swedish inventor and tycoon Alfred Nobel (1833-96) established for ‘the champions of peace’. When, on November 27th, 1895, Nobel signed his last will he had concluded that his desire for global peace required global disarmament founded on global law. He intended his prize to promote a systemic change in international relations.

Many years there has been debate are peace laureates reflecting Nobel’s last will. Norwegian lawyer and Nobel historian Fredrik S. Heffermehl claims the Norwegian Nobel Committee isn’t following Alfred Nobel’s wishes. His interview in The Local (Swedish news in English) highlights the orginal idea of Alfred Nobel.

Nobel’s will states that the prize should be given to “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”. According Heffermehl the reason might be that ”the military sector in Norway is a strong sector and the reality today is that a majority politicians favoring a strong military defense are in control of a prize, which was initially meant for their opponents.”

There is justified doubt that the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s decision does not comply with Alfred Nobel’s mission statement, which sets out to reward peace activists’ efforts throughout the preceding year. Nobel did not meant the prize to be a reward or recognition of civil right movements, social reforms and taming of ethnic conflict, but precisely and exclusively for substantial achievements on behalf of demilitarization in the world. This and nothing else was – and is – the exclusive intention of the prize.

EU has sadly done little for the demilitarization of Europe. Whilst the EU imposes severe austerity measures upon many EU countries, it simultaneously supports the growing militarization of Europe through support for US/NATO (guilty of war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.). It continues to support the policies of American nuclear weapons deployed to six EU States.


Degradation of Nobel Peace Prize

“Ahtisaari does not solve conflicts but drives through a short-term solutions that please western countries”. (Johan Galtung)

The best example of Nobel peace prize degradation during last decade could be President Obama who has ordered hundreds assassinations with drones, has accepted serious war crimes and human right violations e.g. in Guantamo, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen … and who has continued promoting interests of Military-Industrial-Complex.

Because Obama is too obvious choice in ”worst selections category” I would take other example which is No 119 peace laureate Mr. Ahtisaari. Personally I lost my respect to Nobel Peace Prize after his selection as laureate. No doubt that formally he has worked with many conflicts – Namibia, Yugoslavia(Bosnia and Kosovo), Indonesia – as ”peace broker”.

My critique is based first to his record and second to his methods and values behind them.

  • Ahtisaari, after consulting South African Foreign Minister Pik Botha and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, agreed to a South African Defence Force “hunt and destroy” mission, which led to the deaths of some 300 SWAPO fighters. SWAPO leader Sam Nujoma condemned the massacre saying, “At this crucial and critical hour for Namibia’s freedom, [Ahtisaari’s] action betrayed our cause and resulted in the deaths of many civilians.” Despite calling Ahtisaari “very much a collaborator with the US and pro-British [and] more concerned with his career at the United Nations than with his responsibilities to the oppressed people of Namibia”. Now Namibia keeps white landownership and black misery.
  • The role of Ahtisaari in Bosnia was insignificant; anyway after him the bloodiest war since WWII started. The compromise solution in Dayton can be described as temporary one as it never respected the Croat wish to join Croatia and the Serb wish for independence (also of Beograd).
  • In 1999 he was the envoy who persuaded the Serb state to give in after NATO’s 78 days of bombing, the most brutal event in Europe since 1945, which also lacked a UN Security Council mandate. .He then was appointed as the “architect” of the plan behind the separation of now “quasi-independent” Kosovo which, following this bombing, broke off from Serbia. Kosovo bypassed the Security Council and set a dangerous precedent.
  • Aceh was one lucky strike due to a tsunami washing the arms into the ocean. Ahtisaari himself recalled how the 2004 tsunami in South Asia was one factor that came to help open talks he facilitated between the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and Indonesia resulting in the August 2005 deal.

About peace broking methods of Mr. Ahtisaari the following quote gives good idea from2nd June 1999 when it was the task of Ahtisaari and Chernomyrdin visited President Milosevic to deliver NATO’s final terms to end bombings against Yugoslavia:

Ahtisaari opened the meeting by declaring, “We are not here to discuss or negotiate,” after which Chernomyrdin read aloud the text of the plan. Ahtisaari says that Milosevic asked about the possibility of modifying the plan, to which he replied, “No.” Milosevic took the papers and asked, “What will happen if I do not sign?” In answer, “Ahtisaari made a gesture on the table,” and then moved aside the flower centerpiece. Then Ahtisaari said, “Belgrade will be like this table. We will immediately begin carpet-bombing Belgrade.” Repeating the gesture of sweeping the table, Ahtisaari threatened, “This is what we will do to Belgrade.” A moment of silence passed, and then he added, “There will be half a million dead within a week. (Source How the Nobel Peace Prize Was Won by Gregory Elich at CounterPunch)

The result with Kosovo I have summarized following: Kosovo … a Serbian province, occupied and international protectorate, as quasi-independent pseudo-state has good change to become next “failed” or “captured” state; today’s Kosovo is already safe-heaven for war criminals, drug traffickers and international money laundry”. When Kosovo unilatarally declared intependence only less than half UN memberstates recognized it many of them after some pressure from U.S. Ahtisaari was not worried, describing to his values is following comment: “It really doesn’t matter if Paraguay hasn’t recognized,” Ahtisaari said. “Well over 65 percent of the wealth of the world has recognized. That matters.” This is in line with Ahtisaari’s role as messenger boy of U.S., if one doesn’t have money that opinion doesn’t matter.

I agree with Johan Galtung, who noted that “Ahtisaari does not solve conflicts but drives through a short-term solutions that please western countries”. My conclusion: Mr. Ahtisaari – an unofficial spokesperson of U.S. State Department and Nato who repeatedly functioned as “peace fixer” for Western power elites – good example of degradation of Nobel Peace Prize.


EU’s role with crisis management now and hopefully in the future

Putting Mr. Nobel and his Will aside, taking creative interpretation of peace award criteria of Nobel Committee as such I like to put focus on EU’s role with crisis management. The arguments given by the Norwegian Nobel Committee are not entirely false. I agree that “The stabilizing part played by the E.U. has helped to transform most of Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace,” The EU has played the historical role that it describes. Degradation of Peace Prize described above might have a positive follow-up; to avoid total devaluation of Prize the further selections should have more original content. I hope that Peace Prize will give some self-confidence to EU to develop this content so that the block could increase its role in relation of conflict prevention and crisis management.

Earlier The League of Nations and then The United Nations were created to prevent one nation-state from invading another nation-state and going to war with that other nation-state. Today most wars are intrastate ethnic conflicts. Current peacemaking, peace-building or crisis management structures are not designed to cope with this type of conflict.

U.S. itself has experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, that old military strategy is not effective. The integrated counterinsurgency, or COIN, strategy was strategic development from military alone approach. COIN has been applied last years in Afghanistan and it has many components: protecting Afghan civilians, rapidly expanding the Afghan army and police, reforming government, providing economic development assistance, weaning Taliban fighters and leaders away from Mullah Omar and al-Qaeda, reconciling them into the new government, and targeting those who refuse. This makes it a demanding strategy, maybe too demanding for U.S. However the good idea of COIN is that it emphasises a “population-centric” over an “enemy-centric” approach.

The events on Arab Street are reflecting also another problem with U.S. Strategies for dominating the rest of world. For similar reasons as the failure of COIN strategy in Afghanistan in Arab Street the strategy might be good in Theory but the Americans can not implement them. It seems that the Americans don’t understand deeply the operational theatre, they are unfamiliar in another cultural environment, in this case with Muslim world.

Hard vs. Soft Power
Hard Power Soft Power
Spectrum of behaviors Command, coercion and inducement Agenda-setting, attraction and co-opt
Most likely resources Force, sanctions and payments Institutions, values, culture and policies

EU has applied a bit similar approach. At theoretical level the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), launched in 1999, exemplifies the EU’s commitment to the so-called “comprehensive approach” – a strategy that emphasises the importance of combining civilian and military tools when dealing with external security challenges.

Crisis management in the future -by EU hopefully

I think that the conflict resolution by peacemakers is an ad hock fire department activity, important but secondary question. The primary issue from my viewpoint is prevention of problems and their causes, or at least awareness of them. Also important is to put single conflicts in wider context such as game between great powers, struggle over global energy resources and their supply routes, economic profits of military-industrial-complex etc. So in my view peace mediation is one part of handling conflicts.

The new approach should in my opinion cover the whole crisis cycle, from prevention to crisis management to post-crisis stabilization and capacity-building measures. The European Union prides itself on being able to deal with fragile and failing states outside its borders, from Kosovo to Kabul, through what it believes to be its distinctive combination of “hard” power – coercion by military or other means – and “soft” power – persuasion through trade, diplomacy, aid and the spread of values.

The key question is how to replace U.S. hard power with EU soft power. In Eastern Europe U.S. controls crucial foreign and/or domestic policies of another nation through ties with its military and intelligence institutions. EU’s military, political, and corporate elites have already increasingly become dependents or confederates of the US military-industrial complex. To take step forward EU must work to establish its own security structure in order to free itself from tactics which are now used under the current US-dominated Alliance. EU should stop outsourcing its strategical planning to U.S. The key question is focusing on EU civilian capabilities.

EU already has remarkable financial resources for capacity building measures. The EU accounts for half of all global aid. Last year, it donated €53.1bn (£42.8bn). The European commission by itself is the world’s second largest bilateral donor after the US, providing €12.3bn of external aid in 2011. Aid constitutes about 9% of the EU budget. EU is a formidable player in global development.

Replacing U.S. Cowboy policy by EU’s soft power in conflicts and crisis management is possible, if EU can find a common vision, strategy and position with its external relations. Even better would be if the OSCE could make this. It can be argued that the OSCE has a much better claim to represent all the states of Europe, (and possibly a better candidate for Peace Prize) since it has 56 States from Europe, Central Asia and North America – compared to the EU’s 27 — a “Europe with the windows open” rather than the “Fortress Europe” image associated with the EU. Ihope that Nobel Peace Prize can help with this even in EU.

More e.g. in my related articles:

Civil Crisis Management: Filling the Gaps Between the Aims and on the Ground Effectiveness of a Mission

Nobel: Do you hear Mr. Nobel rolling in his grave” – and more specific about Ahtisaari’s mediator tactics in my article500.000 bodies or sign” –headlines are describing quite well the content and my shock after his selection

Interventions in general: R2P vs Facades of Interventions, Multifaceted Intervention Practices , Is Peace more than absence of the War? , Could EU lead the 3rd Way out from Confrontation? , Quality Peace? and Peacemaking – How about solving Conflicts too?

About U.S. strategy in Afghanistan: Will COIN work in Afghanistan? andAfghanistan – to be or not?

U.S. practising intervention first in the Bosnian War 1992-95 and selecting terrorist/OC-groups to U.S. alliese.g. Srebrenica again – Hoax or Massacre? and Krajina – Victory with Ethnic Cleansing and the outcome Bosnia on the road to the EU, sorry to Dissolution

Racak fabrication and “humanitarian intervention” aka since WWII first ever full scale bombing operation in center of Europe 1999 High pressure to fabricate Racak reports and 10th anniversary of Nato’s attack on Serbia

Other related articles: Libya Intervention is creating problems instead of solving them and Some framework to Syrian crisis

Article (short version) first published as Devaluation of Nobel Peace Prize to be Continued on Technorati.

How Do Americans Really Feel About the Bin Laden Mission? – Infographic

May 10, 2011

A joint USA Today/Gallup poll asked the American public how they feel about the U.S. mission to kill elusive Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The infographic below, from ColumnFive and GOOD, illustrates the poll results (right click to enlarge or click HERE to see full image):

Infographic made by Jeff Rutherford and republished with his permission.


How Do Americans Really Feel About the Bin Laden Mission? – Infographic

May 10, 2011

A joint USA Today/Gallup poll asked the American public how they feel about the U.S. mission to kill elusive Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The infographic below, from ColumnFive and GOOD, illustrates the poll results (right click to enlarge or click HERE to see full image):

Infographic made by Jeff Rutherford and republished with his permission.


How Do Americans Really Feel About the Bin Laden Mission? – Infographic

May 10, 2011

A joint USA Today/Gallup poll asked the American public how they feel about the U.S. mission to kill elusive Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The infographic below, from ColumnFive and GOOD, illustrates the poll results (right click to enlarge or click HERE to see full image):

Infographic made by Jeff Rutherford and republished with his permission.


How Do Americans Really Feel About the Bin Laden Mission? – Infographic

May 10, 2011

A joint USA Today/Gallup poll asked the American public how they feel about the U.S. mission to kill elusive Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The infographic below, from ColumnFive and GOOD, illustrates the poll results (right click to enlarge or click HERE to see full image):

Infographic made by Jeff Rutherford and republished with his permission.


How Do Americans Really Feel About the Bin Laden Mission? – Infographic

May 10, 2011

A joint USA Today/Gallup poll asked the American public how they feel about the U.S. mission to kill elusive Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The infographic below, from ColumnFive and GOOD, illustrates the poll results (right click to enlarge or click HERE to see full image):

Infographic made by Jeff Rutherford and republished with his permission.


How Do Americans Really Feel About the Bin Laden Mission? – Infographic

May 10, 2011

A joint USA Today/Gallup poll asked the American public how they feel about the U.S. mission to kill elusive Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The infographic below, from ColumnFive and GOOD, illustrates the poll results (right click to enlarge or click HERE to see full image):

Infographic made by Jeff Rutherford and republished with his permission.


How Do Americans Really Feel About the Bin Laden Mission? – Infographic

May 10, 2011

A joint USA Today/Gallup poll asked the American public how they feel about the U.S. mission to kill elusive Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The infographic below, from ColumnFive and GOOD, illustrates the poll results (right click to enlarge or click HERE to see full image):

Infographic made by Jeff Rutherford and republished with his permission.


How Do Americans Really Feel About the Bin Laden Mission? – Infographic

May 10, 2011

A joint USA Today/Gallup poll asked the American public how they feel about the U.S. mission to kill elusive Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The infographic below, from ColumnFive and GOOD, illustrates the poll results (right click to enlarge or click HERE to see full image):

Infographic made by Jeff Rutherford and republished with his permission.