Mai/15th
2012
Towards
Boston and the Chicago Pre-Summit „Retire Nato – Our Future
Nuclear Free“ !
Reflections
presented by Irene Eckert (WILPF/ Working Group for Peace Politics –
Nuclear free Europe, released for Boston May 12th /
Chicago 18th/19th 2012)
Colleagues
and friends,
Dismantle
Foreign Military Bases, cut Military Expenditure!
-
Meet Human Needs !
we,
the people want nothing more dearly than freedom from the burden of
warfare. Its astronomical costs must be redirected to free us from
want, to free us from pollution, to free us from fear. We want to
live without fear that comes with the enemy images and artificially
created dangers. We, the people care dearly for peaceful solutions,
for harmonious coexistence for all inhabitants of this planet. We
care for mutual respect and dignity for all earthlings as foreseen
in the UN-Charter. Foreign military locations are contrary to these
needs. In Büchel and Ramstein in Germany, in Vincenca in Italy, in
Okinawa, Japan and on Jeju island in South Korea, people stand up
and say „No“ to foreign military installations. We, the people
do not want to host nuclear and other ghastly devices in beautiful
spots of nature, nor elsewhere. We want be freed from the
infrastructures for warfare brought in by the US or other NATO
„partners“. Those of us, who live close to such unhealthy and
menacing outposts of warfare say „No“ to the pollution that
comes with them. We say „No“ to the 30 000 starts and landings at
the US-airbase Ramstein, causing noise damage in the neighbourhood
and much more serious damage to the places from where they come
from and to which they go. The more than thousand US-military
bases in the world, over 50% of them densely installed in the South
and South West of Germany must all be dismantled. Military sites
are contrary to security. They provoke aggression and cause unrest
in their respective neighbourhoods. They all bear the same fruit of
destruction. Therefore all countries must get rid of these harmful
installations.
Peace
comes with justice, not by threatening with lethal weaponry. People,
aware of this basic truth still have a dream. It is a common
dream, a dream of a peaceful and joyful nuclear free future.
It is this dream, that will one day help us realize the promises of
the UN-Charter.
We
are, however, not only dreamers, we work hard for this vision to
become reality. In every corner of Mother Earth people are at work.
On all levels of society we bring in our energy and their insight to
rid this beautiful planet of the nuclear threat and the threat that
comes with depleted uranium. People seek refuge in
national and international law, they study agreements, they educate
their communities, they assemble peacefully and protest. Across the
planet they organize marches or bike rallies to express
their yarning for a nuclear free earth. People take their struggle to
their parliamentary representatives, bringing in legal suits. 1
Others work on a national and international scale for a World
Economic Order based on global justice and sustainability, an order
that can easily do without means of mass destruction. Therefore
people the world over demand military expenditures be cut and
redirected to meet human needs.
Whereas
NATO Bears Death - Our Struggle Is For Life!
Our
struggle is for life. People across the planet join in this
struggle for a livable society in which women, the
young and the elderly, can fully participate. These people are
committed to communities that allow for young
people to be creative and develop their personalities in
breadth and depth, to perform
excellently and to do so without drugs. They strive for an economic
order under which nobody will be forced to make harmful choices.
They strive for a world where careers and children are compatible
and both part of a meaningful and humane life. NATO with all its
lethal infrastructure is contrary to such a humane vision and even
its smartest strategy concepts can never end in fulfilling our
human dreams.
NATO
secures only the interests of a tiny handful of oligarchs, a handful
of people who do not want to share the natural riches that Mother
Earth still provides in abundance. We need to challenge those few
on their road to destruction and help one other to understand the
true nature of the NATO – alliance. This being an alliance that
serves the exclusive needs of an over privileged minority, while
others go hungry. Such an antisocial coalition must not be
allowed to govern the world. And history proves that this will not
be the case No Empire has lasted forever. No matter how affluent its
resources and how powerful the military machinery at its disposal, it
all came to an end. And this is the moment of truth for NATO. Its
wisdom has come to a dead end. Whereas the military apparatus
swallows almost everything the serious global economic crisis
encreases conflicting interests within the alliance's rank and file.
And we, the people, need butter not canons. We need jobs, but not
with the war-machine. Therefore NATO and all military bases abroad
and at home must be dismantled. This call is urgent if humanity is
to survive.
We
need to dismantle NATO's true nature!
Since
its beginning in 1949 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has
been an apparatus of coercion, conceived as a protective shield for
the greedy appetite of a few. NATO's main objective is counter
insurgency.
Today
it is obvious, the precious resources of Mother Earth are limited
. The have-nots of today will demand their share tomorrow. This
is why NATO-members continuously conceive new weapons to prevent
this nightmare of theirs from becoming real. But they are bound to
fail. Threating other nations with pre-emptive or preventive nuclear
strikes will not help to suppress the massive social unrest and
strong opposition is bound to grow worldwide. It is NATO
itself with its astronomic costs and its disastrous interventions
into sovereign nations which allows No
Achievements Towards a peaceful society.
This why victimized nations and individuals bravely oppose
this greedy military juggernaut. Whereas NATO's „War Against
Terror“ creates the Terror of War, people
demand an end to this insanity. Strong and firm grassroots
movements the world over, with the support of nations like the
BRIC-states2,
and others like Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, in Latin America and Iran
and Syria in the Middle East, peacefully join hands. Eventually
they will succeed in their endeavors. With the UN Charter as their
backbone, they can create strong support. NATO is NUTS –
Not Useful TO Security!. This alliance has left its
destructive footprints for more than six decades. Their globally
scattered military bases, outposts of the Empire, will accentuate
the fiscal problems of NATO's member states and beyond.
Whereas host nations pay the biggest part of the bill, the donors
invest in encircling peaceful nations and force them into respective
arms build ups. NATO speech is treacherous, its
promises are false. The nasty outposts of the imperial alliance
are seldom called by their true names. They come along as FOLS
(Forward Located Sites) or euphemistically as „Lily Pads“. In
reality they altogether provide the infrastructure for bombing, for
killing by unmanned drones, for spying. These FOLS are foolishly
meant for „Full Spectrum Dominance“3-
for the USA, lead-nation of NATO, including Western Europe and
Canada and their quest for hegemony.
NATO
is a shield for Neoliberalism
Another
approach for the maintenance of the Empire is the neoliberal credo
shared by NATO-“partners“. Disobedience towards this oppressive
economic ideology and its structures will always be punished. Their
leaders are tagged as fanatics, lunatics, terrorists, murderers.
Some will even be condemned to death. The effectiveness of
such defaming depends however on the strength of the opponent
and his alliances. We need a realistic picture of the global state
of affairs. The weaknesses of moribund NATO must be understood.
We must analyze the conflicting
interests of its components. Public awareness must cut through
the effectiveness of its
propaganda, which still is its
strongest weapon. No further tagging of nations as „rogue
states“ and people's resistance movements as terrorists must pass
uncritized. Nato's „Partnership for Peace“- programs must be
understood for what they are. The 22 countries, brought in 1994
in addition to the 28 NATO members are trapped in a sham. The
same is true for the „Mediterranean -“ and other
„Dialogue-Strategies“ equally conceived to bully weaker and
lesser armed nations. The same holds for so called
„Civil-Military-Cooperation-Concepts“. CIMIC aims at harmful
interactions between NATO-led forces and civil actors in alliance-led
„operations“.
The acronym
CIMIC means therefore war business as usual.
The
economically strongest sets the tone
As
usual, the economically strongest „partners“ in business set
the tone. The USA comes first, followed by Germany in the second
place, then by its „European
partners“, the main money and technology providers. The General
Secretary of the alliance, always European, serves as an eloquent
spokesperson , whereas the Chief military commander, an experienced
US general or admiral4
, guides the actions.
NATO'S
weakness – a sign for hope.
NATO's
latest „Smart Defence Strategy “ 5
calling for closer cooperation and for the joint purchase of
the smartest equipment6
with the hottest nuclear,
biological and chemical devices can hardly cover growing rifts
within NATO. Conflicting interests in times of limited resources
will necessarily weaken the alliance. The growing budget problems
are only one aspect of the deepening crisis, under which the US
deficit and the Euro crisis pose serious obstacles for
NATO-strategists.
The
growing aggressiveness of the alliance 7
with the latest devastating and costly war against blooming Libya
with more than 50 000 civilian casualties of a total population
of only 6,5 million can not hide the symptoms of this crisis. This
latest interference in North Africa left behind a war torn country,
torturers in office and a shattered image of the alliance in the
Southern Hemisphere. It has never been more evident. Conflict
raising not solving is NATO's business. The continued threats
against old cultures and better equipped countries like Iran and
Syria with strong allies expose NATO's growing incapacities.
But, whereas being paralyzed in open action, the alliance breeds
other strategies and a phraseology that becomes more and more
Orwellian. „War is Peace“!
Again
- for how long will people be fooled by such euphemisms while their
brothers, partners and sons come back in body bags?
Such
bitter harvest helps to see through tricky language and to uncover
the true nature of disasterous military interventions in other
people's affairs. A global economic order, based on piracy, theft and
disrespect for the sovereignity of other nations cannot be upheld
forever. An interventionist alliance feeding the military machinery
and the oil companies, and in support of the banks cannot be
maintained and bully the world forever. Press releases in sweet
language, twittering in tones of 'peaceful cooperative efforts', of
'crisis management' and 'smart defence' will no longer fulfill their
purpose.
We
must take the future in our hands
Having
all this in mind, we must join forces with the peoples of the
war-ridden nations, nations under occupation. Those people
threatened with „NATO PEACE KEEPING MISSIONS“, mostly in the
southern hemisphere, are the first ones to understand what the
liberation efforts of NATO and its allies are all about. They have
been victimized, because their soil contains precious minerals or
because of their strategic importance. They are victimized because
they want to go their own
ways. Nations in the South are easily marginalised and stigmatised
as „Failed States“, a label that blows in the horn for NATO's
intervention. Due to its internal conflicts NATO often is replaced
now by a „Coalition of the Willing“. This was the case in the
wars against Iraq and Libya. But it is NATO-bomber-fighters that
come in with lethal weaponry. More and more often they come in
under the title „R2P“ , self declared „Responsibility to
Protect“, a label that assumes to protect citizens of other
nations. This presumptuous responsibility comes in blatant
violation of the UN-Charter which guarantees sovereignity to all
member nations small or large. We must learn how do defend such
sovereignity, the very essence of UN-Charter.
Again,
our struggle is for the protection of humanitarian laws, of the full
implementation of the Human Rights Charter, for the protection of
social achievments, for the right to survive in a healthy
environment.
We
must demand that there be
No
more humanitarian wars!
We
must understand that:
The
original enemy colour of NATO was Red. It has been replaced after
the fall of the Berlin Wall by Green, the colour of the Prophet
Mohamed, the colour of Islam. Today NATO claims to have no enemies.
The
enemy hunt has been replaced by „protective and humanitarian
interventions“. This kind of humanitarian warfare started in 1999
against a mostly Orthodox Christian country, where the assumed
victims were a minority of Muslims. It was the illegitimate NATO
war against the former Republic of Yugoslavia8
that re-established war as a means of „conflict solution“ in
post-war Europe. In its aftremath the harmless sounding acronym
„R2P“ was introduced.9
in 2001. Gradually we have since then become used to „bombing
for human rights“ and to the dropping of DU-munition for the
"safeguard of the environment“10.
In
fact the acronym „R2P“ stands for a dangerous blending of the
peace-serving ideals of the United Nations with the NATO war machine.
In fact it re-introduces the outdated and outlawed notion of a „Just
War“. In the meantime civil victims are the fall out of more
NATO interventions called „humanitarian acts“. The victims, if
listed at all, come under the title „collateral damage.“
NATO's
questionable history
Let
us recall:
NATO
as a regional military alliance was baptised only four years after
the Second World War: a monstrous child of the Cold War, conceived in
its hotbed. The Washington Treaty signed by 12 founding members
of the Western World was already then a blatant rebuff to the
UN-charter, meant to outlaw war as a means of conflict resolution
for ever.
The
bitter taste of unacceptable violations of international law
committed by NATO member states since its hour of birth was always
sweetened by humanitarian statements.
After two major slaughters on a world scale, war was no longer
acceptable. The Nuremberg Trials even outlawed wars
of aggression
as a crime against humanity.
Therefore military actions had to be camouflaged under a positive
sounding UN code. Therefore NATO language comes along as a promise
for peace, security and democracy with the UN-Charter as its
referential basis. Let us keep in mind that the precious
UN-Charter even outlaws the mere
threat of violence not to mention open acts of aggression 11.
Furthermore the term
„aggression“ was clearly
defined of December 1974 by UN – General Assembly Resolution 3314,
there is no scope for interpretation.
By
contrast NATO's strategy still implies the threat of even an atomic
first strike against countries which
neither possess the bomb nor the expertise , nor the material to
develop one, nor have the desire to do so. It is
NATO's later lead nation the USA alone, that has used such ghastly
means of mass destruction twice in history, ignoring warnings by
nuclear expert Albert Einstein whose letter to President Roosevelt
remained unopended on his desk. Under his follower in office, Truman,
the unthinkable happened in the early years
of the Cold War. Former ally, ex-partner in the
anti-Hitler - coalition, war-plagued Russia, tired of war with 27
million dead, was accused of planning to overrun Western Europe with
its tanks, whereas the US
had just dropped two nuclear devices over Japan. These two nuclear
devices were mainly meant to „deter“ alleged Soviet
adventures. With such audacious assumption the Soviet
Union their past ally, became the defined enemy of NATO.
The RED-hunt had begun and included all liberation efforts the world
over .
Germany,
the enemy nation of yesterday, was soon to be admitted as NATO
member 12,
at least the Western half of it . Former Nazi generals, who had
been sentenced at the Nurmberg Trials, were chosen as key
personnel for building NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
Its logo – resembling the Star of Mercedes Benz - was well designed
given its hardly hidden aims and principles. Soon after joining
Germany was offered access to nuclear devices through the „dual
use“ concept.13
and through the „nuclear
participation strategy“ 14
. By this strategy Germany violated the Non Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) it had signed in 1969. From the huge
amount of nuclear weapons originally stored on German soil to
counter an assumed Soviet attack, 20 still remain in Büchel, in the
Eifel region. In disrespect of the German government coalition
consensus of 2008 these nuclear devices have not not been
withdrawn.15
The will of the German oligarchy as well as that
of the US stands against it. Furthermore there are plans to
modernise these means of mass destruction. In order to prevent this
and in order to get rid of them altogether we need much stronger
public awareness in the USA, too. We need a more vociferous public
outcry in the region and beyond. This not easy because for a long
period the presence of US nuclear devices in Germany was justified as
unavoidable under occupational status. Only in 1990 when the '2 + 4
Treaty' was signed, did Germany
regain full sovereign rights. These came with the German
guarantee that only peace would come from German soil in the future.
As
German membership for NATO, covers 18% of its annual dues16,
a financial contribution next to that of the USA this guarantee
this was obviously untrue .
In
South Germany near the city of Stuttgart EUCOM and AFRICOM, the
central command units for all Europe and Africa are hosted and in
Ramstein we keep the largest US-military base abroad on a „SOFA“17.
Under the pretext of the obligations guaranteed in the Status Of
Force Agreements (short SOFA) German decision makers provided key
assistance to all major wars since 1999. This is true for the war
against Afghanistan (since 2001), Iraq (2003), against Libya (2011),
twice despite of official abstinence. Germany has played a military
tune in Sudan, in Somalia, at the Horn of Africa and in the
Mediterranian Sea. Military bases secured by Sofas provide key
infrastructure, intelligence and retreat possibilities for
US-military interventions near and far.
Military
Bases are Outpost of Warfare - most of all in Germany
When
the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, the US presence in Germany was
still a stunning 250,000 soldiers with as many civilian employees
and family members. The soldiers and their families worked and
lived in one of 47 major military bases, which were made up by
some 800 separate sites. The predominance of West Germany in
US military planning can be glimpsed from the resources allocated to
the bases there. During the Cold War, 70% of US troops in Europe were
stationed in West Germany and the
country was home to 60% of all U.S. overseas bases. This policy had
the support of all post war governments.
By
1995, troops in Germany had been reduced to 94,000, their
number has now stabilized at 71,000 soldiers, 97,500 dependents
and 10,488 civilian employees. Enough infrastructure to carry
on with the evil conduct of warfare.
People's
movements opposing military bases in Germany
People's
resistance to these evil intentions has seen ups and downs.
The
most successful
struggle my country has seen after the Wall came down was one
that went on for many years and led to the closure of a planned
military training area near Wittstock upon the Dosse, located to
the northwest of Berlin on the motorway to Hamburg. The NATO
bombing site was foreseen in a beautiful holiday area called
Fretzdorf Heath, or casually „Bombodrom“ 18.
After a period when 10 000 participants had followed a call to
this remote region year after year with speakers coming even as
far as Middle America, the site was definitely given up as
military training field in 2011.
The
struggle for a 'Free Heath' near Wittstock, a place that has a
history of warfare dating back centuries, shows how people's
movements can be succesful. The struggle was supported by a wide
range of political parties, it was carried into the German
parliament and it was followed up by law suits. Members of all
social strata participated and support came from all over Germany.
This
year in 2012 the focus of public campaigning goes against the
remaining nuclear weapons on German soil. These US lethal devices
must neither be modernised nor must they remain on our land. The
B16 fighter bomber must be withdrawn in agreement with the
government coalition treaty of 2008 and in compliance with the Non
Proliferation Treaty (NPT.) Together with partners from the
International Campaign ICAN – the German peace coalition
demands the Abolishment of Nuclear Arms . Our future must clearly
be Nuclear Free.19
|
1An
alliance of lawyers in Germany has recently forwarded a law suit
against the the unlawful usage of the airbase Ramstein in
Rheinland-Paletinate. Peace activist Jung from Kaiserslautern has
sued the government arguing that tne biggest power center of
US-NATO, the largest aviation hub of the US army wit h90 % night
flights is supplying the Middleand Far East War scenarios in clear
breach of the German constitution. He also argues that the origin of
excessive warefare as well as the torture flights being handled
from here are incompatible with international law. Article 25/26 of
the German Basic Law as well as all principles of international law
are forbidding the aggression of war. Source : Neues Deutschland
March 24th 2012
2Brasil,
Russia, India, China (evtl. joined by Sotuh Africa)
3
an imperial strategy conceived under US-President Bush junior's
auspices and unchallenged by the North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation,
4tThe
Danish ex-politician, now Nato 's genral secretary, Anders Fogh
Rasmussen (since 2009) called the war against libya „a great
success“ Supreme Allied Commander and Europe Commander (SACEUR)
is US-admiral James Stavridis
5
In Lisbon 2010 „The new Strategic Concept offers partner
countries around the globe more opportunities for dialogue and
cooperation and commits NATO to reinforce cooperation with Russia.
It also keeps the door firmly open to membership in NATO to European
democracies.“ Nato homepage
6
At the 2011 Munic Security
Conference NATO General Secretary Rassmussen „noted that 10 years
ago, the US accounted for a little less than half of NATO members’
total defence spending, whereas “today, the American share is
closer to 75 per cent,” he said, “and it will continue to grow,
even with the new cuts in the Pentagon’s spending that US defence
secretary Bob Gates announced last month”.
Those
‘cuts’ in the Pentagon budget, for example, will at best only
reduce the rate of growth. (Military spending has continued to grow
as a share of the economy under President Obama and for 2012 a
record $670.9bn has been requested for defence - although the real
bill for the total US national security budget has been calculated
at more than $1.2 trillion a year). As Andrew Bacevich points out
“The essential facts remain: US military outlays today equal that
of every other nation on the planet combined, a situation without
precedent in modern history”. The United States presently spends
more in constant dollars than it did at any time during the Cold
War, despite having no real (as opposed to imaginary) ‘peer
competitor’. Nato watch, submitted 03/02/2011
7
February 07th, 2008, ntv „Nicht offen ausgesprochen -
Es kriselt bei der NATO ( ntv, a German tvp-rogram, whichte titeld“
Not pronounced in public – NATO in crisis“
Nichts
ist in Ordnung. In Afghanistan kehrt kein Frieden ein. Die NATO
befürchtet dort ihr eigenes Scheitern. Die Verbündeten ziehen
nicht an einem Strang. Eine Einigung mit dem Iran über seine
Atompolitik ist nicht in Sicht. In Europa, vor der Haustür
Deutschlands, kann man noch nicht von Stabilität auf dem Balkan
sprechen, vom Kosovo ganz zu schweigen. In diese Gemengelage fällt
an diesem Wochenende die internationale Sicherheitskonferenz in
München. Ihr Titel: "Eine Welt in Unordnung - veränderte
Machtverhältnisse - fehlende Strategien".
8The
so called Kosovo-war was illegitimate because it even violated
NATO's founding document, the Washington agreement,
this promises each other's assistance in case of armed aggression.
But Jugoslavia clearly did not attack any NATO- member. A UN-mission
was also out of sight.
9
Whereas it never received the status of an internationally
agreed upon document of law
10„Bombing
for human rights is like fucking for virginity“ a slogan that
frequently has been seen at anti war rallies.
11
See
below literature on how gradually NATO undermined or approached the
UN, beginning with the early 9Oies : Jeffrey Simon, NATO
Enlargement and Central Europe: A Study in Civil-military Relations,
1996
12
Inspite of the strong anti-war sentiment in Germany of Chancellor
ADENAUER promised in an interview with the Cleveland Plain Dealer
to supply German troops for the newly created transatlantic
alliance. This was of course unconstitutional. Germany's new Basic
Law had neither forseen an army nor conscription. Adenauer's promise
was incompatible with the Potsdam Agreement which in 1945 had
also called for Germany's heavy arms industry to be dismantled.
13„Dual-Use“
ist ein Begriff welcher die doppelte Verwendungsmöglichkeit einer
Technologie sowohl für die Gesellschaft als auch für das Militär
beschreiben soll. Er sagt auf der einen Seite, dass zivile Forschung
für militärische Zwecke genutzt werden kann auf der anderen Seite
jedoch auch, dass militärische Forschung Entdeckungen für die
zivile Forschung mit sich bringt. Aber was bedeutet „Dual-Use“
wirklich? Ist es lediglich eine wirtschaftlichere Art der Forschung
oder eine bewusste Entscheidung die Militärtechnologie nach dem
kalten Krieg auf dem neusten Stand zu halten? Asta Uni Köln 2011
14
Nukleare Teilhabe
Unter
"nuklearer Teilhabe" wird verstanden, dass Deutschland und
andere Nato-Staaten, die den Atomwaffensperrvertrag als
Atomwaffenverzichtsstaaten unterschrieben, über Planungsstäbe,
Infrastrukturkooperation an Atomwaffen verbündeter
Atomwaffenstaaten "teilhaben".
Vertragsbruch
Wäre
es tatsächlich "Teilhabe", so wäre es ebenso tatsächlich
ein Bruch des Atomwaffensperrvertrags, den die Bundesrepublik
Deutschland am 28.11.1969 unterschrieben hat. Es wäre ein
Vertragsbruch sowohl der "teilhabenden" als auch der
"teilüberlassenden" Vertragsstaaten.
Vertragsverletzung
Da
sich jedoch die verbündeten Atomwaffenstaaten den alleinigen
Oberbefehl über die Atomwaffen vorbehalten, stellt die "Nukleare
Teilhabe" vielleicht "nur eine Vertragsverletzung"
dar.
Konsequenz
Ob
Vertragsbruch oder Vertragsverletzung - beides müsste sofort
endigen, aber bislang setzte sich keine bundesdeutsche Regierung für
vertragskonformes Verhalten ein, auch nicht die zwischenzeitliche
rot-grüne Regierung unter Schröder und Fischer, sondern fühlen
sich beobachtbar geschmeichelt, an Beratungen beteiligt zu sein -
in der "Nuklearen Planungsgruppe der Nato". Markus
rabanus, 05.04. 2008 netz, siehe auch bits
15No
matter what our foreign minister Guido Westerwelle may have
negotiated again, no matter the wording of latest NATO statements
declaring therir will to check with possible options ( see Der
Spiegel April 30th 2012), or what parliament says.
16The
United States contributes between one-fifth and one-quarter of
NATO's budget. In FY2010 that contribution totaled $711.8 million.
(???) says outgoing US- Defense minister Bill Gates in Brussels in
2011on June 10th according to CBS news, in additon to
that the US pays over 21% to the NATO's civil budget to
international organisations
17SOFAS=
Status of Forces Agreement, giving all kind of privileges on the
troups and free of charge use of the premises
18„Der
Truppenübungsplatz Wittstock („Bombodrom“) war ein
militärischer Übungsplatz in der Kyritz-Ruppiner Heide im Norden
des Landes Brandenburg. Der am 30. Juni 1992 beschlossene Ausbau zu
einem Luft-Boden-Schießplatz wurde 2009 aufgegeben und am 21. April
2010 der endgültige Verzicht der Bundeswehr zur Nutzung des
Geländes bekannt gegeben. Die Kommandantur wurde am 13. Januar 2011
offiziell aufgelöst
19
As our government plays a key role in Nato, we have to continuously
address our decision makers to respect our constitution, to
respect the UN-charter and to the treaties we signed, none of them
allowing for aggression against other countries. Most important
in this context is the NPT.
