A little decency, please. The affair of the depleted uranium must be dealt with with tact and a sense of responsibility. It is indecent that it should be considered in different quarters as an internal political argument, as opportunity to attack some political opponent or other, or as pretext to rail against the Atlantic Alliance that, for half a century, guaranteed peace on our continent when the Soviet threat was real. Young soldiers are dying. There is fear of the risk of contamination of the population in certain regions of Europe. This is no matter for political jousting.
But while awaiting the outcome of the meetings being held on Tuesday and Wednesday, as well as of the scientific the analyses and inquiries, one consideration needs addressing: what is happening confirms and increases the demand that the EU move forward rapidly with the creation of its security and defence policy, demand all the more urgent if the new American Administration should confirm its intention of pulling out of the former Yugoslavia. The EU is assuming the bulk of the weight of reconstruction and quite naturally agrees to conclude agreements with the countries of the region, guaranteeing them large access to its market and permanent support. But these undertakings and the costs that they entail must go hand in hand with an effective and increased role in decisions, all decisions. How long will Europe continue to foot the bill for decisions in which in which it had no part (or almost)? It is not a question of demonising NATO, as - as one of its spokespeople pointed out - NATO does what its member countries tell it to do. The military intervention in Kosovo was doubtless decided by the political authorities, European Governments included. But the escalation that followed the first days of bombing was decided by the military authorities, essentially non-European. Which EU government really decided to destroy the bridges over the Danube? The military machine was on the march and itself decided what it thought necessary to attain the goal conferred upon it, increasing the dosage each time it regarded the previous dosage to have been ineffective.
As early as February of last year, we raised in this same section (bulletin of 28/29 February 2000) the issue of the destruction of the region of the Danube, river that lies at the heart of European civilisation. It is striking to note in what terms the main Italian daily, the "Corriere della sera" is now referring to the situation. It is not in an on-the-spot report, but in an editorial that it refers to "dreadful environmental degradation caused by bombing throughout the Balkan regions that border the Danube". It goes on to explain: "slags of industrial chemicals destroyed, toxic residue, refinery discharges put on fire, gas and fuel leaks have greatly jeopardized the air and farmland". The editorialist then wonders about the "economic and environmental damage caused in countries foreign to the conflict, the strategic reasons for the destruction of infrastructures all along the Danube (…) Today we know that the uranium alert and environmental degradation do not only affect Milosevic's Serbia but also the Kosovar Albanians, Bosnian Muslims, small farmers and fishermen in Hungary and Romania, in addition to soldiers and volunteers engaged in peace missions". The paper does not dispute the need for intervention, if there was no other way of bringing Milosevic to heel and to save hundreds of thousands of people", but it wants an explanation for "the use of certain types of weapon and the reasons for such systematic territorial destruction, which (and this is a well documented truth) only caused minimum damage to Yugoslavia's war potential".
The opponents of CFSP and ESDP should explain to us how they answer the question that this description raises. Don't they believe that Europe should have its word to say and the responsibility for essential decisions on what happens at its borders, in candidate countries (current and future) for EU membership?
------------------
(1) "Corriere della sera" of 3 Hungary 2001, page 1.