DOCSLIB.ORG

The EU As a Driving Force of Armament

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Information on politics and society News, reports, and analyses from the European Parliament Edited by Sabine Lösing, MEP No. 8, November 2012 Jürgen Wagner Jürgen Europe Power World the for andaMilitary-Industrial Complex Chests, War Arms Build-Up, of Terms In Pressure Armament of As aDrivingForce The EU TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword 3 4.4 Space armament by means of civilian budget items 27 1. Introduction 4 4.5 Security and armament research 31 2. Empire of Europe: Political and Economic Interests in the Militarization of the European Union 7 4.6 Militarization of development aid and disaster relief 33 2.1 Claim to world power and economic expansion agenda 7 4.7 EEAS: Institutionalized militarization of civilian budgets and capacities 36 2.2 Imperial geostrategy 8 5. Europe’s Military-Industrial Complex 41 2.3 Return of the great power conflicts 11 5.1 EU MIC: Political and industrial interests 41 2.4 Neoliberalism, poverty, and war 12 5.2 Eurochampions: Concentration processes 2.5 Lobby for war and profit 14 in the EU arms industry 43 3. Pressure in Terms of Armaments Build-Up 5.3 Defence Package: An EU armaments On The Part of Brussels 16 market for the EU MIC 45 3.1 EU militarization – an interim appraisal 16 5.4 Europeanization of military policy 47 3.2 Pressure in terms of armament build up by 5.5 „Arms exports are essential for survival!“ 49 way of a Permanent Structured Cooperation 18 5.6 Europeanization of military policy – crisis 3.3 An agency for armament build-up 19 as a chance? 50 3.4 The myth of rapidly declining military budgets 22 6. EU MIC: Risks and side effects 52 4. Open and Hidden Military Budgets and Instrumentalization of Civilian Foreign Policy 26 Cover photo: Personal graphic 4.1 The CFSP budget and the financing of created by using, among others, “civilian“ EU operations 26 photographic material of the European Council; Helicopter 4.2 Athena: Hidden war chest 26 photography © Matthias-Kabel, 4.3 Start-up fund: Nucleus of a military budget CC license via Wikimedia of the EU? 27 The EU As a Driving Force of Armament Editors of the brochure are Sabine Lösing, MEP, and the Parliamentary Group GUE/NGL in the European Parliament. Editing by: Informationsstelle Militarisierung (IMI) e.V. , Hechinger Str. 203, 72072 Tübingen www.imi-online.de English Translation Anni Pott; proofreading Dr. Paula Niemietz Publication date: November 2012 (Layout: Andreas Seifert) Circulation: 500 Büro Brüssel: Bürgerbüro: Verbindungsbüro Deutscher Bundestag: Europäisches Parlament Abgeordnetenbüro Sabine Lösing Europabüro Berlin Sabine Lösing Lange Geismarstraße 2 Sabine Lösing, MdEP Rue Wiertz ASP 06F255 37073 Göttingen Unter den Linden 50 B-1047 Brüssel Tel.: 0551-50766823 10178 Berlin Tel.: 0032-2-284 7894 Fax: 0551-50766838 Tel.: 030-227 71405 Fax: 0032-2-284 9894 Mail: [email protected] Fax: 030-227 76819 Mail: [email protected] Mitarbeiter: Dr. Fritz Hellmer Mail: [email protected] Mail: [email protected] Mitarbeiter: Arne Brix Mitarbeiterin: Ota Jaksch www.sabine-loesing.de Foreword Many still see the European Union as a civilian power Unfortunately, this development is also being ad- which has little to do with war and armament. Yet, a “ci- vanced, in particular, by almost all of my colleagues in the vilian power Europe” would not need any huge military European Parliament. For example, the “Report on the im- apparatus; a world power Europe which, in case of need, pact of the financial crisis on the defence sector in the EU is ready to pursue its interests through violence, however, Member States“, submitted to the Committee on Foreign would. And it is actually almost impossible to close one’s Affairs (AFET) of the European Parliament, of which I am eyes to the militarization of the European Union which has a member, in November 2011, symptomatically reflects been taking place for the past few years and which is virtu- the attitude of the large majority of the Members of the Eu- ally impossible to overlook. Still, it has been maintained ropean Parliament (MEPs). It warns that “defence budget again and again that the European Union would be a good cuts could result in the complete loss of certain military ca- thing, above all for those who would like to save money in pabilities in Europe“. To prevent this, the Report requests the military sector. But by means of trite catchphrases such that armament research should also be financed from the as “efficiency enhancement“, “economies of scale“, and EU budget and that the cross-financing of military actions ”savings potential”, reality is being whitewashed. While or acquisitions of the European Union should be extended social spending is in free fall in almost every country of via the so-called ATHENA mechanism. In addition, there the European Union, military budgets are left almost un- would be “the need to progress in the consolidation of scathed: In the year 2011, the Member States spent only the European defence technological and industrial base”. unsignificantly less than in the previous years: $ 281 bil- These are all proposals which ensure that the armament lion! sector will get more money, and also promote the develop- But this is only the gloomy tip of the iceberg. Even ment of a military-industrial complex. well informed and critical observers of the EU’s foreign At the same time, it is pretended that there are no funds and security policy should be frightened by the magnitude, to address misery and poverty of countless people inside comprehensively highlighted in this study, with which the but in particular also outside the European Union. A frac- European Union is currently promoting numerous milita- tional part of the armament spending worldwide would, rization processes. The omnipresent alliance between poli- however, be enough to be able to achieve the Millennium tics and industry responsible for this, which I also continu- Development Goals for fighting poverty. But the big al- ously encounter in the European Parliament, unfortunately liance for war and profit prefers to continue to feed up has proven extremely effective in this respect. Largely un- a giant military apparatus, whose very task is mainly to noticed, this military lobby has succeeded in building up maintain the existing structures of exploitation around the an enormous armament pressure, in establishing ever more world and to secure them by violence. The fact that all official, but in particular also inofficial military budgets, this is currently also even justified by an alleged need to and in forcing the development of a European military- economize which in reality does not exist in such a form industrial complex. All this is the result of a combination for the military sector, caps it all off. The alternative is between the world power ambitions of the European Un- readily at hand: Because whoever really wants to econo- ion or its politicians and the profit interests of the arma- mize disarms! ment industry. This combination is responsible for the fact that the European Union has become a downright driving force of armament. 3 1. Introduction In the course of the serious economic and financial cri- association, AeroSpace and Defence Industries Associa- sis currently being experienced by the EU Member States, tion of Europe (ASD): “If today’s situation doesn’t evolve budgets are being in part radically cut across the continent. significantly in the coming years, Europe is at risk of los- In this connection, the large majority of the European1 ing key capabilities in the field of defence. [...] When Eu- population is arguing for rigorous cuts in the military bud- rope wakes up, it will be too late! Once lost or significantly gets instead of continual reductions in social spending – in eroded, high-tech capabilities cannot be easily re-created. a survey in Germany it was an overwhelming majority of The time for action is now.”6 In this way the impression is about 82 percent.2 In France and other European countries, conveyed, consciously and successfully, that the industry there is a similar mood3: “If faced with a tradeoff between is battling for its existence. Headlines such as “Rüstung- funding entitlements, such as pensions, health care, and skonzerne wie EADS gehen schweren Zeiten entgegen” social welfare payments versus defense, the choice would [Armament Corporations Such As EADS Are Heading be obvious. In Europe, ’abstract notions of national secu- Into Rough Times] or Budgetkürzungen zwingen Rüs- rity and defence mean little when fundamental issues of tungsindustrie zum Sparen [Budget Cuts Are Forcing social existence are at stake.’”4 Nevertheless, there is only Armament Industry to Economize] are the order of the day a slight decrease in the EU’s military spending compared in mass media.7 to previous years, and almost unvaryingly high budgets are But before someone is moved to too much pity for the unfortunately also anticipated in the forthcoming years (cf. seemingly distressed armament industry: Such prophecies Chapter 3.4). of doom have nothing to do with reality. For example, a Against this background it is all the more outrageous study published by the Center for Strategic and Interna- that politicians of almost all persuasions successfully con- tional Studies (CSIS) in May 2011 concluded: “European tinue to convey the impression that military spending is defense and security companies have performed well in in free fall all over Europe. Symptomatic of the creative recent years, both in absolute terms and compared to their way of dealing with reality is, for instance, a resolution peers in the commercial sector.“8 While revenues dropped passed by the EU Members of Parliament which states: in the 1990s, the business with armament goods has, how- “The European Parliament […] notes with concern the ever, been highly profitable in the last ten years.
Recommended publications
  • From the Commission on Cyprus's Progress

    From the Commission on Cyprus's Progress

    FROM THE COMMISSION ON CYPRUS’S PROGRESS TOWARDS ACCESSION *********************** 8 November 2000 Table of contents A. Introduction.............................................................................. 5 a) Preface .............................................................................................................5 b) Relations between the European Union and Cyprus ...................................7 Recent developments under the Association Agreement (including bilateral trade) ........................................................................................................................... 7 Accession Partnership................................................................................................. 8 Community Aid .......................................................................................................... 8 Twinning..................................................................................................................... 9 Negotiations ................................................................................................................ 9 B. Criteria for membership ....................................................... 10 1. Political criteria.................................................................................... 10 Introduction............................................................................................................... 10 Recent developments ...............................................................................................
  • EN Council Conclusions on EU Relations with EFTA Countries

    EN Council Conclusions on EU Relations with EFTA Countries

    COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION EN Council conclusions on EU relations with EFTA countries 3060th GENERAL AFFAIRS Council meeting Brussels, 14 December 2010 The Council adopted the following conclusions: "1. The Council has assessed the development of relations between the EU and the four Member States of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) since the adoption of its last conclusions on the subject in December 2008. Generally, EU relations with the EFTA countries, which were already considered to be very good and close in 2008, have further intensified in the past two years (details on developments are set out below in country- specific paragraphs). The Council is looking forward to continue the positive relationship with the EFTA countries and to deepen it in the future. It will reassess the state of relations between the EU and the EFTA countries in two years. 2. The Council appreciates the financial contributions of the EFTA countries to the economic and social cohesion in the European Economic Area (EEA). Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland (the "EEA EFTA States") recently committed themselves to a substantial increase of their continued contributions. The EU is looking forward to a constructive dialogue with Switzerland on the review of the current mechanism, expiring in June 2012. The Council hopes that a mutually acceptable solution will be found with the aim of reducing economic and social disparities in the EU. 3. Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway are integrated in the internal market through the EEA Agreement of 1994. This Agreement functions properly so long as all Contracting Parties incorporate the full body of the relevant EU acquis relating to the internal market into their national law.
  • EU Defence: the White Book Implementation Process

    EU Defence: the White Book Implementation Process

    STUDY Requested by the SEDE Subcommittee EU Defence: The White Book implementation process Policy Department for External Relations Directorate General for External Policies of the Union PE 603.871 - December 2018 EN DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EXTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT STUDY EU Defence: The White Book implementation process ABSTRACT The question of a defence White Book at European level has been under discussion for some time. Many voices, particularly in the European Parliament, are pushing for such an initiative, while others consider that it is not only unnecessary, but could even dangerously divide Europeans. Concretely, the question cannot be tackled separately from that of defence planning and processes which underpin the development of military capabilities, as White Books are often the starting point for these. Within the European Union, however, there is not just one, but three types defence planning: the national planning of each of the Member States; planning within the framework of NATO (the NATO Defence Planning Process) and, finally, the European Union’s planning, which has developed in stages since the Helsinki summit of 1999 and comprises many elements. Its best-known component - but by no means not the only one - is the capability development plan established by the European Defence Agency. How do all these different planning systems coexist? What are their strengths and weaknesses? Answering these preliminary questions is essential in mapping the path to a White Book. This is what this study sets out to do. EP/EXPO/B/SEDE/FWC/2013-08/Lot6/23 EN December 2018 - PE 603.871 © European Union, 2018 Policy Department, Directorate-General for External Policies This document was requested by the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE) on 7 July 2018 Manuscript was completed on 12 December 2018.
  • Nato and Eu: Towards a Constructive Relationship?

    Nato and Eu: Towards a Constructive Relationship?

    between the two organisations on the ground. The question that has to be asked, therefore, is if it is really the case that the establishment of a constructive relationship between NATO and the COMMON SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY EU is in effect being held hostage to the long-standing disagreements about Cyprus. NATO and EU: Two planets in the same city Towards a Constructive Relationship? Trine Flockhart Senior Researcher, DIIS The relationship between NATO and the EU has never been a close one as the two organisa- tions have historically tended to focus on different agendas and different policy areas, roughly divided between a focus on economic and development issues and a focus on military and security issues. However, after a rather unconstructive and competitive relationship during most of the 1990s, the first decade of the 21st century has witnessed convergence between the two organisations. Through the successful establishment of the European Security and he security challenges of the 21st century are likely to be both multifaceted, highly complex Defence Policy (ESDP) in 1999, the EU has taken on a much greater role as a security actor, and of an increasingly interdependent and global nature. The international community whereas NATO’s experience in the Balkans and Afghanistan has clearly revealed that military T is therefore faced with problems that cannot easily fit into traditional boxes and which solutions alone cannot bring peace and prosperity to post-conflict societies. require a so-called comprehensive approach, with emphasis on cooperation between different international actors and between different agencies across the traditional divides that separate Convergence between the two organisations in policy areas has been accompanied by geo- civilian and military approaches.
  • The Gordian Knot: American and British Policy Concerning the Cyprus Issue: 1952-1974

    The Gordian Knot: American and British Policy Concerning the Cyprus Issue: 1952-1974

    THE GORDIAN KNOT: AMERICAN AND BRITISH POLICY CONCERNING THE CYPRUS ISSUE: 1952-1974 Michael M. Carver A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of The requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS May 2006 Committee: Dr. Douglas J. Forsyth, Advisor Dr. Gary R. Hess ii ABSTRACT Douglas J. Forsyth, Advisor This study examines the role of both the United States and Great Britain during a series of crises that plagued Cyprus from the mid 1950s until the 1974 invasion by Turkey that led to the takeover of approximately one-third of the island and its partition. Initially an ancient Greek colony, Cyprus was conquered by the Ottoman Empire in the late 16th century, which allowed the native peoples to take part in the island’s governance. But the idea of Cyprus’ reunification with the Greek mainland, known as enosis, remained a significant tenet to most Greek-Cypriots. The movement to make enosis a reality gained strength following the island’s occupation in 1878 by Great Britain. Cyprus was integrated into the British imperialist agenda until the end of the Second World War when American and Soviet hegemony supplanted European colonialism. Beginning in 1955, Cyprus became a battleground between British officials and terrorists of the pro-enosis EOKA group until 1959 when the independence of Cyprus was negotiated between Britain and the governments of Greece and Turkey. The United States remained largely absent during this period, but during the 1960s and 1970s came to play an increasingly assertive role whenever intercommunal fighting between the Greek and Turkish-Cypriot populations threatened to spill over into Greece and Turkey, and endanger the southeastern flank of NATO.
  • Death of an Institution: the End for Western European Union, a Future

    Death of an Institution: the End for Western European Union, a Future

    DEATH OF AN INSTITUTION The end for Western European Union, a future for European defence? EGMONT PAPER 46 DEATH OF AN INSTITUTION The end for Western European Union, a future for European defence? ALYSON JK BAILES AND GRAHAM MESSERVY-WHITING May 2011 The Egmont Papers are published by Academia Press for Egmont – The Royal Institute for International Relations. Founded in 1947 by eminent Belgian political leaders, Egmont is an independent think-tank based in Brussels. Its interdisciplinary research is conducted in a spirit of total academic freedom. A platform of quality information, a forum for debate and analysis, a melting pot of ideas in the field of international politics, Egmont’s ambition – through its publications, seminars and recommendations – is to make a useful contribution to the decision- making process. *** President: Viscount Etienne DAVIGNON Director-General: Marc TRENTESEAU Series Editor: Prof. Dr. Sven BISCOP *** Egmont – The Royal Institute for International Relations Address Naamsestraat / Rue de Namur 69, 1000 Brussels, Belgium Phone 00-32-(0)2.223.41.14 Fax 00-32-(0)2.223.41.16 E-mail [email protected] Website: www.egmontinstitute.be © Academia Press Eekhout 2 9000 Gent Tel. 09/233 80 88 Fax 09/233 14 09 [email protected] www.academiapress.be J. Story-Scientia NV Wetenschappelijke Boekhandel Sint-Kwintensberg 87 B-9000 Gent Tel. 09/225 57 57 Fax 09/233 14 09 [email protected] www.story.be All authors write in a personal capacity. Lay-out: proxess.be ISBN 978 90 382 1785 7 D/2011/4804/136 U 1612 NUR1 754 All rights reserved.
  • The European Union Challenge As an Actor in Crisis and Conflict Management

    The European Union Challenge As an Actor in Crisis and Conflict Management

    AIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL en Español 4th Trimester 2018 The European Union Challenge as an Actor in Crisis and Conflict Management MAJOR MANUEL LOPEZ-LAGO, SPANISH AIR FORCE fter an apparently easy victory in the Afghan war by American troops in October 2001, Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) had reached a crossroad by the time Obama en- tered office. In his campaign for the presidency during 2008, he had claimed that Ame- rican Armed Forces were losing the war in Afghanistan. Regretfully, the International ASecurity Assistance Force in Afghanistan (ISAF) mission, led by NATO, had failed to fulfill the political goal of stabilizing the country, “the graveyard of the empires,” and the European Union (EU) itself did not actively fight. To make things worse, NATO troops had to work within a lot of caveats, which kept them from implementing many military operations. Consequently, nations less burdened with caveats like theUnited States, the United Kingdom and Australia, had to take most of the burden of the military operations. On December 1, 2009, President Barack Obama announced in a national televised address at the Military Academy in West Point that he was ordering a surge of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan. Despite Obama’s decision, the process to approve the surge required a great deal of “pulling and hauling” by the major actors who had access to and influence on the president.1 Consequently, the plan for the surge included a date of withdrawal, which gave a clear message to military com- manders that the time to achieve political ends had a deadline.
  • Norway: Defence 2008

    Norway: Defence 2008

    Norwegian Defence 2008 Norwegian Defence 2008 2 CONTENT NORWEGIAN SECURITY And DEFEncE POLICY 4 1. Security Policy Objectives 5 Defence Policy Objectives 5 2. Defence Tasks 6 3. Areas of Government Focus 7 4. International Cooperation 8 UN 8 NATO 9 EU 10 Nordic cooperation 11 5. National Cooperation 12 DEFEncE STRUCTURE And AcTIVITIES 14 1. Constitutional Division of Responsibility in Norway 15 2. The Strategic Leadership of the Armed Forces 15 The Ministry Of Defence 16 3. The Defence Agencies 17 The Norwegian Armed Forces 17 4. The Norwegian Armed Forces 18 5. The Service Branches 19 The Norwegian Army 19 The Royal Norwegian Navy 20 Royal Norwegian Air Force 21 Home Guard 22 6. Personnel Policy 23 7. National Service 23 8. Materiel and Investments 24 Overview of Forces Engaged in International Operations 25 SUppLEMENt – THE FACTS 26 1. The Defence Budget 27 2. International Operations 27 3. Ranks and Insignia 28 4. Non-Governmental Organisations 29 5. Addresses 32 Norwegian Security and Defence Policy 4 1. SECURITY POLICY OBJECTIVES The principal objective of Norwegian security policy is to safeguard and promote national security policy interests. This is best achieved by contributing to peace, security and stability both in areas adjacent to Norway and in the wider world. Nationally Norway must be in a position to uphold its sovereignty and sove- reign rights and to exercise authority in order to safeguard our interests. At the same time, the progress of globalisation means that geo- graphical distance is no longer a determining factor for potential threats to our security.
  • Finnish Defence Forces International Centre the Many Faces of Military

    Finnish Defence Forces International Centre the Many Faces of Military

    Finnish Defence Forces International Finnish Defence Forces Centre 2 The Many Faces of Military Crisis Management Lessons from the Field Edited by Mikaeli Langinvainio Finnish Defence Forces FINCENT Publication Series International Centre 1:2011 1 FINNISH DEFENCE FORCES INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FINCENT PUBLICATION SERIES 1:2011 The Many Faces of Military Crisis Management Lessons from the Field EDITED BY MIKAELI LANGINVAINIO FINNISH DEFENCE FORCES INTERNATIONAL CENTRE TUUSULA 2011 2 Mikaeli Langinvainio (ed.): The Many Faces of Military Crisis Management Lessons from the Field Finnish Defence Forces International Centre FINCENT Publication Series 1:2011 Cover design: Harri Larinen Layout: Heidi Paananen/TKKK Copyright: Puolustusvoimat, Puolustusvoimien Kansainvälinen Keskus ISBN 978–951–25–2257–6 ISBN 978–951–25–2258–3 (PDF) ISSN 1797–8629 Printed in Finland Juvenens Print Oy Tampere 2011 3 Contents Jukka Tuononen Preface .............................................................................................5 Mikaeli Langinvainio Introduction .....................................................................................8 Mikko Laakkonen Military Crisis Management in the Next Decade (2020–2030) ..............................................................12 Antti Häikiö New Military and Civilian Training - What can they learn from each other? What should they learn together? And what must both learn? .....................................................................................20 Petteri Kurkinen Concept for the PfP Training
  • The Future of the Benelux Defence Cooperation

    The Future of the Benelux Defence Cooperation

    The Future of the Benelux Defence Cooperation Sven Biscop Jo Coelmont Margriet Drent Dick Zandee About the authors Prof Dr Sven Biscop is Director of the Europe in the World Programme at the Egmont Institute. Brigadier General (Ret.) Jo Coelmont is Senior Associate Fellow at the Egmont Institute and Senior Fellow Royal High Institute for Defence Dr Margriet Drent is a Senior Research Fellow at the Research Department of the Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’. Dick Zandee, MA, is a Senior Research Fellow at the Research Department of the Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’. About the report This report is based on input for a seminar on Benelux Defence Cooperation which took place on 9 April 2013 in Brussels. The seminar was jointly organised by the Egmont Institute and the Netherlands Institute for International Relations ‘Clingendael’. Civilian and military representatives from the three Benelux countries and armed forces plus representatives from the Belgian Federal Parliament, the European Defence Agency, the EU Military Staff and several think tanks participated in the seminar. Clingendael / Egmont Report – April 2013 Introduction The close cooperation between the Belgian and Netherlands Navies with an integrated command, common training and maintenance facilities for frigates and mine hunters (Benesam) has existed for quite some time. It has been promoted as a model for other countries. In the Benelux Declaration of the three Ministers of Defence signed in Brussels in April 2012 Benesam was also mentioned as the example for broadening and deepening defence cooperation. The growing gap between capability needs and available budgets was considered as the driving factor behind the Benelux Declaration.
  • Re Energising Europe S Security and Defence Policy

    Re Energising Europe S Security and Defence Policy

    ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������ ������������������������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������� ���������������������������� ����������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������ ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������� ���������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������
  • Britain and the Greek Security Battalions, 1943-1944

    Britain and the Greek Security Battalions, 1943-1944

    VOL. XV, Nos. 1 & 2 SPRING-SUMMER 1988 Publisher: LEANDROS PAPATHANASIOU Editorial Board: MARIOS L. EVRIVIADES ALEXANDROS KITROEFF PETER PAPPAS YIANNIS P. ROUBATIS Managing Eidtor: SUSAN ANASTASAKOS Advisory Board: MARGARET ALEXIOU KOSTIS MOSKOFF Harvard University Thessaloniki, Greece SPYROS I. ASDRACHAS Nlcos MOUZELIS University of Paris I London School of Economics LOUKAS AXELOS JAMES PETRAS Athens, Greece S.U.N.Y. at Binghamton HAGEN FLEISCHER OLE L. SMITH University of Crete University of Copenhagen ANGELIKI E. LAIOU STAVROS B. THOMADAKIS Harvard University Baruch College, C.U.N.Y. CONSTANTINE TSOUCALAS University of Athens The Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora is a quarterly review published by Pella Publishing Company, Inc., 337 West 36th Street, New York, NY 10018-6401, U.S.A., in March, June, September, and December. Copyright © 1988 by Pella Publishing Company. ISSN 0364-2976 NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS DAVID GILMORE is professor of anthropology at the State Uni- versity of New York at Stony Brook . MOLLY GREENE is a doc- toral candidate at Princeton University . CLIFFORD P. HACKETT is a former aide to U.S. Representative Benjamin Rosenthal and Senator Paul Sarbanes. He is currently administering an exchange program between the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament and is also executive director of the American Council for Jean Monnet Studies . JOHN LOUIS HONDROS is professor of history at the College of Wooster, Ohio ... ADAMANTIA POLLIS is professor of political science at the Graduate Faculty of the New School for Social Re- search . JOHN E. REXINE is Charles A. Dana Professor of the Classics and director of the division of the humanities at Colgate Uni- versity .