NATO-Time To Go The Way Of The Dodo Bird

Correction-Renegade Eye has just informed me that this post is not from a Marxist perspective, an assumption I made based on the title of the publication-Dissident Voice-in which it appeared, as much as to Ren's own Trotskyist leanings. He sent it to me based on his awareness of my opposition to the continuance of NATO as an international body and my objections to its role in the current Russian/Georgian/South Ossetian/European dispute. Or, more concisely, my objections to the leadership role of the US in the matter via NATO.

The following article is courtesy of Renegade Eye. It is written from a socialist perspective, by Canadian economist Rodrique Tremblay. I do not agree with every detail, but I am in agreement with the overall theme, the need to disband NATO. He seems to think NATO is a tool by which the US can get its way in the world. This is one big area in which I disagree with his assessment. I think he is putting the cart before the horse. If anything, Europe is the master of the house and the US is the little lapdog who falsely assumes that he is the center of the known and unknown universe.

Also, Tremblay seems to regard the UN as the proper vehicle for world affairs. I think both bodies should be disbanded. At any rate, and with the preceding caveats in mind, I thought I would present the article for consideration. Anybody that wants to end NATO deserves a hearing.

Nevertheless, I also disagree with his conclusion, in which he states that-

"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."

If I thought he was right about that, I would be NATO's biggest cheerleader.


Why Not Simply Abolish NATO?
by Rodrigue Tremblay
August 19th, 2008
Dissident Voice

[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

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 a Canadian economist who lives in Montreal; he can be
reached at: rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com. Check Dr. Tremblay's coming book
The Code for Global Ethics. Read other articles by Rodrigue, or visit
Rodrigue's website.