|
Why Not Simply Abolish NATO?
By
Rodrigue Tremblay
[NATO's goal is]
"to keep the
Russians
out, the
Americans in, and the
Germans
down." -
Lord
Ismay, first NATO Secretary-General
"We should immediately call a meeting of the
North Atlantic Council to assess Georgia's security and review
measures NATO can take to contribute to stabilizing this very
dangerous situation." - Sen. John McCain, (August 8, 2008)
"If we would have
preemptively worked with Russia, with Georgia, making sure that
NATO had the kind of ability and the presence and the
engagement, we could have perhaps avoided this” [The
invasion of S. Ossetia by Georgia and the subsequent Russian
response]. - Tom Daschle, former Senate Majority Leader
and adviser to Sen. Barack Obama, (August 17, 2008)
"Of
all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be
dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every
other." - James Madison (1751-1836), fourth American
President
19/08/08 "ICH"
-- - The
North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) is a relic of the
Cold War.
It was created on April 4, 1949 as a defensive alliance of
Western Europe countries plus Canada and the United States to
protect the former countries from encroachments by the
Soviet Union.
But since 1991, the Soviet empire no longer
exists and Russia has been cooperating economically with Western
European countries, supplying them with gas and oil, and all
types of commodities. This has increased European economic
interdependence and thus greatly reduced the need for such a
defensive military alliance above and beyond European countries'
own self-defense military system.
But the U.S. government does not see things
that way. It would prefer keeping its role as Europe's
patronizing protector and as the world's sole superpower. NATO
is a convenient tool to that effect. But maybe the world should
be worried about those who go around the planet with a can of
gasoline in one hand and a box of matches in the other,
pretending to sell fire insurance.
As of now, it is a fact that the U.S.
government and the American foreign affairs nomenklatura see
NATO as an important tool of American foreign policy of
intervention around the world. Since many
American politicians do not anymore support de facto the
United Nations
as the supreme international organization devoted to maintaining
peace in the world, a U.S.-controlled NATO would seem to be, in
their eyes, a most attractive substitute to the United Nations
for providing a legal front for their otherwise illegal
offensive military undertakings around the world. They prefer to
control totally a smaller organization such as NATO, even though
it has become a redundant institution, than to have to make
compromises at the U.N., where the U.S nevertheless has one of
the five vetoes on the Security Council.
That is the
strong rationale behind the proposals to reshape, reorient and
enlarge NATO, in order to transform it into a flexible tool of
American foreign policy. This is another demonstration that
redundant institutions have a life of their own. Indeed, when
the purpose for which they have been initially established no
longer exists, new purposes are invented to keep them going.
Regarding NATO,
the plan is to turn it into an aggrandized offensive
imperial U.S.-dominated political and
military alliance against the rest of the world. According to
plan, NATO would be enlarged in the Central-Eastern European
region to include not only most of the former members of the
Warsaw Pact
(Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania,
Albania and Hungary) and many of the
former republics of the
Soviet Union (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia,
Georgia and Ukraine), but also in Asia to include Japan,
Australia, New Zealand, South Korea,
and possibly admit Israel in the Middle East. Today the
initially 12-member NATO has mushroomed into a 26-member
organization. In the future, if the U.S. has its way, NATO could
be a 40-member organization.
In the United States, both the Republicans
and the Democrats see the old NATO transformed into this new
offensive military alliance as a good (neocon) idea to promote
American interests around the world, as well as those of its
close allies, such as Israel. It is not only an idea actively
promoted by the neocon Bush-Cheney administration, but also by
the neoconservative advisers to both 2008 American presidential
candidates, Sen.
John McCain
and Sen.
Barack Obama.
Indeed, both 2008 presidential candidates are enthusiastic
military interventionists, and this is essentially because both
rely on advisers originating from the same
neocon
camp.
For instance, the rush with which the
Bush-Cheney recklessly promised NATO membership to the former
Soviet republic of
Georgia
and American military support and supply is a good example of
how NATO is viewed in Washington D.C. by both main American
political parties. For one, Republican presidential candidate
John McCain envisages a new world order built around a
neocon-inspired
"League of Democracies"
that would de facto replace the
United Nations
and through which the United States would rule the world.
Secondly, Sen. Barack Obama's position is not that far from Sen.
McCain's foreign policy proposals. Indeed, Sen. Obama
advocates the use of U.S. military force and multilateral
military
interventions
in regional crises, for “humanitarian purposes”, even if by so
doing, the United Nations must be bypassed. Therefore, if he
ever gains power, it is a safe bet that Sen. Obama would not
have any qualms about adopting Sen. McCain's view of the world.
For example, both presidential candidates would probably support
the removal of the no “first strike” clause from the NATO
convention. It can be taken for granted that with either
politician in the White House, the world would be a less lawful
and a less safe place, and would not be more advanced than it
has become under the lawless Bush-Cheney administration.
However, it is difficult to see how this new
offensive role for NATO would be in the interests of European
countries or of Canada. Western Europe in particular has
everything to fear from a resurgence of the Cold War with
Russia, and possibly with China. The transformation of NATO from
a North Atlantic defensive military organization into a U.S.-led
worldwide offensive military organization is going to have
profound international geopolitical consequences around the
world, but especially for Europe. Europe has a strong economic
attraction for Russia. Then why embark upon the aggressive
Bush-Cheney administration's policy of encircling Russia
militarily by expanding NATO right up to Russia's doorstep and
by placing a missile shields right next to Russia? Wouldn't it
be better for Europe to develop harmonious economic and
political relations with Russia? Why prepare the next war?
And as for Canada, under the
neocon minority Harper
government, it has sadly become a de
facto American colony as far as foreign affairs are
concerned, and this, without any serious debate or referendum to
that effect within Canada. The last thing Canada needs is to go
further on that mined road.
In conclusion, it would seem that the
humanist idea of having peace, free trade and international law
as the foundations of the world order is being cast aside in
favor of a return to great power politics and gunboat diplomacy.
This is a 100-year setback.
It is a shame.
Rodrigue Tremblay is professor
emeritus of economics at the University of Montreal and can be
reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com
He is the author of
the book
'The New American Empire'
Visit his blog site
at:
www.thenewamericanempire.com/blog.
Author's Website:
www.thenewamericanempire.com/
Click on
"comments" below to read or post comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary.
Do not include personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our
guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity –
are not permitted.
See our complete Comment
Policy and use this link
to notify us if you have concerns about a
comment. We’ll promptly
review and remove any inappropriate postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research and
educational purposes. Information Clearing House
has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator
of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
