Am 3. und 4. 12. 2007 herrscht in Österreichs Medien Aufregung über eine Studie zum geplanten EUFOR-Tschad-Einsatz im Rahmen des Security Studies Program des Massachusetts Institute of Technology, die Wasser auf den Mühlen der Gegner darstellt. Man kann es ja freundlich, geradezu humanitär finden, dass eine amerikanische Universität eine Studie erstellt, die uns davon abhält, weitere Risiken einzugehen. Allerdings ist es nicht so besonders humanitär gegenüber den Flüchtlingen, aber wir wissen ja, dass "die Amerikaner" (grob verallgemeinert, da es auch ein anderes Amerika gibt) unter humanitär etwas anderes verstehen als wir. Interessant wird es, wenn man sich die Hintergründe der involvierten Personen ansieht, denn da entdecken wir rechte Think-Tanks, Strategen und handfeste Interessen.
Zunächst die Webangaben zur Studie:
"SSP is pleased to announce the publication of 'African Adventure? Assessing the European Union's Military Intervention in Chad and the Central African Republic,' by Bjoern H. Seibert, MALD candidate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, in our working paper series. Mr. Seibert started this paper in the SSP course 17.482 - U.S. Military Power, taught by Professor Posen. Since the end of the Cold War many papers from this course have been written on operational and tactical military problems related to humanitarian intervention and stability operations. Some have been published as articles or books. Mr. Seibert's paper makes an important and timely contribution to public understanding of the demands of military operations to address security problems arising from the tragic situations in Darfur and Chad."
Wir sind nun sehr erfreut, den Background von Mr. Seibert bieten zu können:
"Bjoern H. Seibert, Senior Editor
Bjoern focuses on security studies. He has worked as an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) in Washington, DC, and he is a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Bjoern has studied at and graduated from Erfurt University and Georgetown University."
Als International Institute for Strategic Studies gilt ein dem britischen Geheimdienst sehr nahestehendes Institut in London, das auch Zweigstellen in anderen Ländern hat.
Zum American Enterprise Institute finden wir einige Basisinfos, die eine Entstehungsgeschichte als rechter Think-Tank aufweisen sowie diese Infos:
"The names of key AEI operatives include people like John Bolton, Richard Perle, John Yoo, Newt Gingrich, Paul Wolfowitz, Joshua Muravcik, Michael Rubin, Lynne Cheney (wife of the VP), Michael Ledeen, Frederick W. Kagan, and Irving Kristol. The first six of these people have been CFR members at one time or another. Former AEI trustees include Vice President Dick Cheney, who is a long-time CFR member who has also served as a CFR director. At an AEI dinner in January 2003 celebrating Irving Kristol, the neoconservative godfather, President George W. Bush underscored the institute’s impact. After commending AEI for having 'some of the finest minds in our nation,' the president said: 'You do such good work that my Administration has borrowed 20 such minds.' "
Mit anderen Worten: unter anderem Neocons, Project for a New American Century (das sich 2000 ein "zweites Pearl Harbour" wünschte), heutige Regierende und auch CIA. (@ Neocons siehe "The Power of Nightmares")
Der erwähnte Professor Posen, bei dem Seifert seine Arbeit schrieb, ist ebenfalls recht interessant:
"Barry R.Posen, Ford International Professor of Political Science, MIT, Executive Committee of Seminar XXI, a program for senior military officers, government officials, and business people. He was most recently the Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States."
Zum German Marshall Fund gibt es kritische Anmerkungen beim französischen Voltairenet:
"The German Marshall Fund has become, according to what we are told, in a purely philanthropic association...Maybe...But its administration board is still made up by personalities who, most of them, are involved in secret actions undertaken by the United States."
Professor Posen scheint ein wichtiger Stratege zu sein, bei dem also wohl kaum etwas ganz und gar zweckfrei verfasst wird. Einiges von dem, was Posen schreibt, wirkt akzeptabel, doch andererseits erkennt man auch direkte Unterstützung für die Ziele der US-Politik, da er auch sehr einbezogen wird. In Sachen EU und Sicherheitspolitik schreibt er etwa in der Analyse des Documents "A Secure Europe in A Better World":
"It is also concerned about threats to safety in the form of cross border crime. Finally, uncontrolled flows of refugees seem to be viewed as a potential threat - though the nature of this threat is not entirely clear. Much of the language throughout the document is global, but it is not difficult to infer that peace and order on Europe's periphery is the number one security priority for the EU. It is there that Europeans find terrorism and weapons of mass destruction most disturbing. And it is there that civil wars can produce refugee flows and criminal activity that Europeans will experience. This identification of priorities serves the goals of deterrence and
coercion reasonably well-but largely in Eastern Europe, the Middle East/Persian Gulf and North Africa. Both non-state and state actors in these regions should infer from the document that their security business is the EU's business."
"The European Security Strategy: Practical Implications denly find ourselves in desperate need of so called 'high demand, low density' units-military intelligence, military police, and civil affairs. Of course, the density of these units is low in the US military as a consequence of policy choices. Maybe European militaries should make different choices. The EU strategy document is an important achievement. Europeans are starting to develop a distinct conception of their collective strategic interests, and some sense of what they need to pursue those interests. But this is a transitional document. All the pieces are there-identification of threats, a discussion of political and military means and ends, and a hint of prioritisation. The document nevertheless reflects a basic fact of life in Europe. Most European states still seek their security in a NATO or a national context, and do not want the EU to do anything that seriously irritates the US. That said, the outlines of an independent vision, and an autonomous capability to achieve it, are discernible."
Und genau das könnte sich ändern.....
Alexandra Bader
Nachts im Parlament (zum Misstrauensantrag gegen Verteidigungsminister Norbert Darabos)
INFOS:
Das Bundesheer zum Tschad-Einsatz
Kommentar von Minister Darabos im "Falter"
Mein
Feedback-Beitrag zu diesem Artikel |
|
