The Militarization of the Alliance of Civilizations

Over the months that followed the cartoon crisis, I paid very close attention to the Alliance of Civilizations’ web site. Daily search engine inquiries and AoC web visits had become routine. July and August yielded more than enough reading material. One such report, the OSCE contribution to the Alliance of Civilizations initiative, was released in June. The OSCE originated from the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 (also known as the Helsinki Process) and changed its official name to the Organization for Security and Co-operation of Europe in 1994. To this day, the Helsinki Process remains active working to implement a one world government. What I found was that the OSCE had been particularly impressed with how the EU’s High Representative Javier Solana and the Alliance of Civilizations had turned the cartoon crisis into opportunity. Now they were on board and had written of their unique position to contribute to the implementation of the AoC initiative. Although I found aspects of the report somewhat troublesome, it wasn’t until I read the Alliance’s July 17 Report of the Hearing with the International Community and Civil Society that I decided to give the OSCE a second in-depth look. The International Hearings report contains the following:

“The Military Staff Committee, instead of being abolished, should be revived so that meetings of military leaders at different levels could be introduced for the international practice.” (page 26)

It appeared that the defunct Committee was about to be revived! I also read: “On the national level, constitutional democracy does not entail the existence of a police state or military watchdog, but implies observation of the laws that have been worked out by the elected representatives, as well as the adherence to the value system.” (page 26)

This reminded me of a statement in the OSCE report that I found puzzling. They said that the OSCE is the world’s largest regional security organization, comprising of 56 participating states and that “decisions are based on consensus and are politically but not legally binding”. What did that mean? I found my answer in the Helsinki Process Papers--Building Democracy From Manila to Doha: The Evolution of the Movement of New or Restored Democracies as follows:

“Under its human dimension objectives, the OSCE has adopted instruments, created norms and initiated activities for the promotion of democracy and governance. The OSCE instruments are "politically binding commitments" for the participating states, and become effective upon adoption and implementable without having to wait for subsequent domestic approval or ratification. This process allows also the OSCE to react quickly to new needs.” (page 67)

Now I really had much more reason for concern considering:

• The United States is one of those participating states politically bound to OSCE decisions.
• The OSCE, which is connected to the European Union, sets mandates in crisis management situations (note that it was the OSCE that justified the relentless bombing campaign against Kosovo).

But exactly who enforces OSCE’s decisions? Before answering that let’s take a second look at NATO’s Working Together for Peace and Security chart.The circles so accurately portray the words of the Helsinki Summit Declaration of 1992. Page 5, section number 10 of the declaration establishes the OSCE as a crisis management organization which derives its power from:

• The Council of Europe
• The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
• The European Community (European Union)
• The Western European Union (WEU)

Isn’t it interesting that’s exactly the arrangement of the circles? Also stipulated in the Helsinki document is that a “peacekeeping operation, according to its mandate, will involve civilian and/or military personnel…and may assume a variety of forms including observer and monitor missions and large deployment of forces”. (See second section--Helsinki Decisions, page 19).

Notice how the Alliance of Civilizations is embedded into each circle. The outermost circle, the United Nations, is the administrator of the initiative. Moving inward, the OSCE has adopted the Alliance and, by treaty, politically binds its member states to the initiative.

The next circle, the Council of Europe, is administrator of the social dimension of the Barcelona Process. The Barcelona Process, established in 1995, set among its goals the responsibility of straightening out the clash of civilizations as well as combating religious fundamentalism worldwide. The Alliance of Civilizations intends to start operations within the framework of the Barcelona Process and then amplify the AoC initiative globally.

Next is NATO and the AoC. NATO is also on board with the Alliance of Civilizations and, unknown to most Americans, has split under the Berlin-Plus Agreement. In the event of a crisis situation, NATO assets are transferred to the European Union’s Political and Security Committee presently presided over by EU High Representative Javier Solana. Crisis management drills have already been conducted to test the Berlin-Plus arrangement.

Moving in we have the European Union which has at its disposal the crisis management Battle Groups which can simultaneously sustain multiple offensive operations. These battle groups are intended for rapid deployment while awaiting reinforcements from member states’ militaries and NATO assets. The European Security Strategy has committed to strengthening the United Nations so that it may fulfill its role in global governance. Anything that undermines global governance is considered by Solana to be a threat. Statewatch’s report, Arming Big Brother, provides an excellent analysis of the EU’s militarization. The EU is fully committed to the Alliance of Civilizations as it has appointed the Anna Lindh Foundation to oversee its implementation.

Finally, the innermost interesting circle, that of the Western European Union (WEU). The WEU is the 10-nation military alliance of the European Union. The Assembly of the WEU has in place crisis management Recommendation 666 which provides that military authority be granted to EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy in the event of an emergency. As noted above, this position is presently held by Javier Solana.

The Assembly of the WEU also adopted Recommendation 735, on a European initiative to strengthen the role of the United Nations in promoting peace and security. This recommendation is designed to strengthen the UN militarily in the event of a crisis situation. The WEU, having recognized that:

“The only common structure envisaged to assist the Security Council on military matters has never actually functioned: this is the Military Staff Committee composed of the chiefs of staffs of the permanent members of the Security Council.”

has committed to changing that situation as such:

“…The proposed provisions on tasks outside the European Union should state that the Union is ready to make its military capabilities available to the United Nations for the purpose of taking coercive action in the event of a threat to peace…”

Every organization represented by a circle on this chart has committed to the implementation of the Alliance of Civilizations initiative. That ought to debunk the myth that the United Nations is “insignificant” in world affairs. Incidentally, with all of these measures for crisis management in place, does anyone else detect another crisis in the very near future?

Daniel 8:25 “And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.”

1 Thessalonians 5:3 “For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them…”