A security policy of Europe must be oriented on threats, vital interests and international legal order.

A threat of war against Europe – enlarged EU plus some east European countries and Russia – doesn’t exist although the fermentation process in some of the succession states of the former Socialist Yugoslav confederation is not to brought to an end and vital ethnic as well as territorial questions from Moldavia to the Caucasus are still unsolved. But there is nobody wanting to start a war between states under this pretext.

The illegitimated war of the USA and GB against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was won quickly. No surprise. In 1981 Saddam’s Secret Service was so incompetent or felt so threatened by the dictator that they reported to him an immediate breakdown of the Mullah – regime in Teheran. Asking me about my opinion I told Saddam that according to historical experiences a war will not divide but unite competing groups in Iran.

The concentration of troops and war material of Iraq in the recent war indicates that their standards have not improved during the last 22 years. Open is, in how far they have prepared for the after war time guerrilla and for terrorism.

Vice versa the USA and GB did not expect the dimension of problems arising for an occupation army in an Arab country with different religious and ethnic groups and their responsibilities for the population according to international law, like supply with electricity, water, food, transport, building an administration, home security, etc.

The way to democracy is far. There is no prototype in an Arab country. The first appearance of democracy in the dress of occupation armies takes away any attractivity from it. The majority of Europeans was and is deeply connected with the USA as the founder of democracy in and saver of Europe after World War II. Therefore many of them were hoping that the concentration of US and British troops was only a means of pressure on Saddam Hussein. They were wrong. Meanwhile Lord Dahrendorf rectified the war without UN – mandate and Hans Magnus Enzesberger scolded pacifists because they didn’t identify Hitler in Saddam – as if the value of the “Drittes Reich” of the 1930ies could be compared with Iraq’s ranking in 2003.

Those who have invested in a high tech army of approximately 300 000 people handling Iraq war want to receive their yield. It is only granted if they have better control over crude oil. It’s not so much to safeguard supply. Somebody must buy. It’s more the price. It’s more to weaken OPEC, the price leader. OPEC minus Iraq, minus – if possible Venezuela - means to bring into line lower crude oil prices: end with 22 – 28 $ per barrel by OPEC, 20 – 25 $ by Russia. Costly oil mining will fall out of the market; cheaper sources can substitute them, if oil becomes cheaper. Central Asian Oil can be pumped across Afghanistan to Pakistan and the north Indian Industry. Thereby oil supply of South East Asia will become cheaper. The EU – Oil substituting energy production will be kicked out of the market. Europe’s dependence on crude oil would be extended, the influence of the USA – additionally to NATO – strengthened.

France and Russia saw their Iraqi oil licenses threatened. The EU is netto importer of oil and gas. Russia has, what the EU needs and is not interested in seeing oil prices going down. The recovery of a structurally changed Russian economy can only be financed by a certain price for oil and gas at least 20$ per barrel, close to OPEC price and much above expectations of the big energy wasting US – economy. The Axes France – Germany – Russia therefore corresponded to its joint interests. Their performance in the Security Council of the UN furthermore served the purpose to prevent that the trees of the USA can grow out into heaven. Their recovered consciousness that the UN has the monopoly for using violence is refreshing. It can’t make forget that they joined some years ago a warfare without UN – mandate against Serbia. The subsequent humanitarian rectification didn’t help those killed Serbs – like in Novi Sad – who never did any harm to anybody. The war didn’t shorten but extended the regime of Milosevic. Karadzic is still not caught. It’s silent around Milosevic-trial. Problems in Kosovo remain more than unsolved. The changing explanations of the US-administration for the reasons of war against Iraq are understandable. After the report of the controllers of the UN, the anxiety against use of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam politically could not be used any longer. The slogan to fight an extremely crude dictatorship promised to be much more popular as a political and moral justification for the war – and where planing is done splinters are resulting from it – whether it is UN – mandated or not.

Who could have taken the responsibility for a continued existence of such a crude dictatorship? The limp Europeans didn’t act because they are not able to do so.

There is some truth in it.

Did the EU ever define the Petersberg tasks concretely? This year the European corps should have been come into full function. Experts estimate that it will last until 2015 to become ready for operation in full capacity – manpower as well as material. The present action in Bosnia is just a beginning but stopped by the USA wanting to keep the command.

Why to hurry up if there is no reason? Or should the EU develop an independent prevention strategy securing its commodity demand militarily? What happens if the USA wants the same thing at the same place? The after Iraq war period will teach us.

Before entering new fields the EU has to clarify the consequences. For that you have to start thinking about the political prerequisites. Where is the point to which US – European relations are over stretched, endangering the international legal order and organizational construction like UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc.

By contrast: how much of Europe’s credibility would get lost in Arab States and in countries of the Third World if the EU – in order to secure this commodity supply – would use the same methods as the USA – but carried out by backward military means which must lead to higher collateral damages.

Is there actually a chance for any independent European forces based on NATO – logistic if it is not in the interests of the USA? And an own EU – logistic? For many, especially new European NATO members it would mean destruction of NATO. Out of their national self understanding of security they won’t support it in the near future. Additionally there is a technological gap of more than a decade.

The set up of a NATO – independent European corps I am sure is not wanted by the USA and their allies like Britain either and therefore will be prevented. So if there is no chance to even partially substitute the hegemon what should be an out of area committed European corps good for except working for the UN? Why to take the spot of Neoimperialism?

Even the enlarged EU will stay to be dependent on commodity and oil supports. Is it possible to twist off the European oil pipe? Theoretically yes. In reality producers want to sell and can’t afford it without such a big customer like Europe. The USA has a share in oil producing as well as in oil purchasing companies. Its interests are also represented in those branches of the economy which need these products. The God who makes oil bubbling didn’t want servants but costumers.

If Europe has no means and can’t develop them in foreseeable time in order to secure its commodity demand by force, there is also for those, who still think that war is the continuation of politics by other means, no other choice as to secure supply by political negotiations and commercial contracts. That means: cooperation with Russia and the Arab oil countries. That may result to conflict with the USA, if they continue their smart policy to privatize Arab oil companies. On the other hand USA and Europe are shareholders of industries dependant on energy consumption and therefore a secured oil supply. The Arab could develop a stiffer neck.

US-right wing conservatives even in the worst case scenario will not be able to denounce EU – countries as non-democratic or part of the axes of the evil. There would be no majority for that in the USA. A policy without military threatening or use of violence therefore is quite possible for Europe. It must only wish and be prepared to develop a common trade policy further developed to a common economic strategy. Based on this, sooner or later, a common foreign and defense policy will emerge.

The EU- convent may contribute to it, decisive will be the power of the facts.

It was natural that the former Czech President Vaclav Havel didn’t want to become a new Hacha or Husak when he was criticized by Chirac. Someone who received full freedom just a little while ago don’t want to share it with someone else, but nevertheless supports the EU – membership – at least because he has no other choice. But soon new EU-members will learn that their interests even in other fields than trade policy will lie in the EU. Then their understandable fear towards the east will shrink, the ability to criticize overdone dominance of the USA will grow, the entire relationship will tend to become more balanced.

“The normative authority of America is laid in ruins “said the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who defined the war on Iraq as a revolution of the world order. But this revolution is a counter revolution. She replaces the revolutionary, by the USA introduced achievement of prohibiting preventive wars without mandate of the Security Council.

The former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt recently said in a Maischberger - interview in German N-TV frankly: “the interests of the USA and Europe now are much more different than during the cold war. To disavow these differences would be wrong. They must – like in the past – be democratically discussed in the framework of the United Nations and not tried to be solved on the back of third parties.