|
NATO
Summit: ‘Not Rational Enough’
BY
ERIC
WALBERG (IDN)
So
NATO’s head berates its foes, as the alliance pursues its own version
of rationality, oblivious to world
pleas for disarmament or its
alarming failure in Afghanistan, says Eric
Walberg.
Just
when there seemed to be a glimmer of real change in US-Russian relations
-- Russia giving
in to the US on START and assuring the continuation
of the Kyrgyz US airbase -- the logic of US empire reasserts itself
with a slap in the Russian face. Even Poland, Russia’s age-old
nemesis, is trying to bury the hatchet, after the shocking aircrash near
Katyn, a tragic, if farcical, repeat of the WWII massacre on Stalin’s
orders.
In another echo of that war -- Hitler’s siege of Leningrad -- NATO
cold-bloodedly chose Tallinn, Estonia, a stone’s throw from St
Petersburg, as the venue of its latest deliberations about expanding
eastward and how best to convince the world and Russia in particular to
comply with its ambitious plans to bring the world to heel.
The two-day NATO foreign ministers meeting on 22-23 April focussed on
the military alliance’s 21st century Strategic Concept and on the war
in Afghanistan. Top on the agenda was putting paid to any notion that
nuclear weapons might be removed from Europe; rather, they would be
integrated into the Pentagon’s pan-European interceptor missile
programme in line with the US Department of Defence’s new Nuclear
Posture Review. Proclaimed NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen:
“Missile defence is no replacement for an effective deterrent. But it
can complement it. Because there are states, or other actors, who might
not be rational enough to be deterred by our nuclear weapons. But they
might be deterred by the realisation that their few missiles might not
get through our defences.”
Fogh seems to be saying: If, say, Iran launches nuclear war against
Europe, we are ready. What he is really saying is: If the US launches a
war against Iran, an interceptor system could prevent effective
retaliation.
Revealing his personal opinion that NATO must embrace the US missile
defence system as its own, Fogh philosophised, “The missile threat to
Europe is clear … which means, to my mind, that we need to take on
Alliance missile defence as a NATO mission. In Lisbon, NATO nations will
decide if missile defence for our European territory and population
should become an Alliance mission. I make no secret that I think it
should.” These NATO meetings, once every three years, are now annual
and even semi-annual events, often hosted by its new members: the Czech
Republic in 2002, Romania in 2008, and now Estonia, with another one in
Portugal in November to finalise the new Strategic Concept and formally
embrace Reagan’s Starwars fantasy as NATO's own.
Just to make sure Russia understands its role in NATO’s plans for
Russia’s “near abroad”, Fogh said, “We need a visible presence
of NATO across the entire territory of our Alliance. And we see a
perfect example here in this region. We have put in place arrangements
to police the Baltic airspace. We also need to guard against new risks
and threats to the security of our nations, such as energy cut-offs or
cyber attacks.” He might as well have come right out and told Russia:
Watch out! Any disputes with your neighbours are now NATO’s business.
In a jab at Germany for suggesting last November that US nuclear weapons
could be removed at long last from Europe, he said, “A credible
Alliance nuclear posture and the demonstration of Alliance solidarity”
requires “peacetime basing of nuclear forces … in Europe. The
Alliance will therefore maintain adequate nuclear forces in Europe.”
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said any reductions should be tied
to a nuclear pullback by Russia. In other words, if Russia meekly joins
NATO Estonia-fashion and gives up its nuclear weapons altogether, NATO
might reconsider its nuclear presence in Europe, another slap in the
Russian face and a violation of the gentleman’s agreement between
Reagan and Gorbachev for the withdrawal of all US and Soviet troops and
nuclear weapons from Europe in the 1980s.
Currently there are from 200-400 US tactical nuclear weapons stored on
air bases in Britain, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and
Turkey. All but Britain are non-nuclear states, and the storage of US
nuclear weapons on their territories means the US not only broke its
promise to Gorbachev, but that it is in violation of the 1968 Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Clinton’s invitation last month for Russia to join in the proposed
NATO missile defence (really just the new public face of the US system)
was of course a ruse or a taunt (does humourless Hillary perhaps have a
sense of humour after all?). Even if Russia took her up on this, the
Pentagon’s new Prompt Global Strike programme “is striving for
fast-strike, first-strike conventional weapons military superiority that
could render Russia’s nuclear forces easy to neutralise, hence
useless,” according to analyst Rick Rozoff. Former head of the Russian
Air Force General Anatoly Kornukov described the recent launching of the
X-37B “mini shuttle” as further evidence of the US weaponisation of
space. “Now the US will be able to deliver a strike in a short time
without due resistance. Aggressors from space could turn Russia into
something like Iraq or Yugoslavia.”
Having no alternative, Russia reluctantly yielded to the US Starwars
project by the signing of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty 8 April.
To mollify superhawks in the Senate, US Missile Defence Agency official
Patrick O’Reilly immediately told a hearing of the House Armed
Services subcommittee on defence appropriations: “The new START treaty
actually reduces constraints on the development of the missile defence
programme,” unconcerned that he was making the Russians look like
fools or even cowards.
But the boasting in Tallinn and Washington is not being met with
silence. Russian officials have warned that START may come to a halt if
US provocations against Russia continue. As the NATO meeting closed, in
Moscow, Russian Foreign Ministry official Andrei Nesterenko said with
exasperation, “It is not clear to us why Patriot anti-aircraft and
anti-missile systems are being deployed near the Russian border. Nor
have we an answer to the question about what threats will be tackled in
the drill which will be held very close to Russia’s Kaliningrad
region.”
The other issue on the NATO agenda that just won’t go away, no matter
how many lives and bombs NATO throws at it, is of course Afghanistan.
Setting the stage for a gradual withdrawal from Afghanistan, the meeting
adopted a plan that sets conditions for removing troops from a lead role
by the end of this year, proposing to transfer security to Afghan police
if there is reconciliation with the Taliban and a durable civilian
government in place. This would allow Obama to meet his deadline for
starting to pull out American troops by July 2011.
The sole “rational” voice at the Tallinn talkfest, NATO chief
civilian representative Mark Sedwill, did not give much succour to
attendees: “To many Afghans, this is essentially us fighting our war
for our reasons on their soil.” He was no doubt thinking of the recent
poll -- conducted by the US in US-occupied areas of Kandahar -- where 85
per cent said they viewed the Taliban as their brothers and want the
occupation troops out immediately. The recent surges have brought only
increased deaths on all sides -- soldiers, insurgents, civilians alike. Afghan
President Hamid Karzai demanded they be called off and threatened to
join the Taliban himself.
Fogh pondered as to how to engage Russia on this issue “to the benefit
of Europe’s security and its political unity”, even as Russia bends
over backwards to accommodate the NATO war effort with its open skies
policy and acceptance of the US base in Kyrgyzstan with nary a murmur of
protest.
As NATO trumpeted its military prowess in the Baltic minnow, Russia
undertook some quiet, “rational” diplomacy with a far more important
neighbour, signing a deal on gas supplies and the future of the Russian
naval base in Sevastopol. In exchange for a 30 per cent discount on
Russian gas deliveries, Ukraine will allow the Russian Black Sea Fleet
to remain in Crimea and will not join NATO until at least 2042, a
“political-strategic” victory, said Volodymyr Fesenko, the head of
the Penta Centre for Applied Political Studies in Kiev. “Russia not
only preserves a military presence in the Black Sea basin and on
Ukrainian territory, but also has a factor of influence on external
security policy and internal affairs in Ukraine.” Ukrainian President
Viktor Yanukovich said that Ukraine would receive from Russia “a real
investment of resources, specifically gas, of around $40 billion
dollars” over the next ten years.
Russia heals wounds while NATO is signing its own death warrant with its
current hubris. The people of Europe, as opposed to their compliant
politicians, want to be nuclear-free, just as they want their troops out
of Afghanistan or wherever, and at some point will have their say. The
Dutch government already collapsed on the issue. Estonians, still in
their honeymoon stage with NATO, fete their Euro-warriors and willingly
send their handful of troops to kill Afghans, but their more blase
cousins the Finns have recently joined the Euro-majority in wanting
their troops out either immediately or within the year. Their mutual
WWII foe, Germany, is even less enthusiastic, with 62 per cent wanting
out. Their mutual WWII ally, Britain, is even less so, with 77 per cent
wanting out.
A recent memo from the CIA -- which has nothing to do with NATO, of
course -- targets France and Germany to shore up public support using
propaganda about drugs, terrorism and women's rights. But the best-laid
plans of mice and men go oft awry.
____________
Eric Walberg is a journalist and writer
specialising in the Middle East, Russia and Central Asia, and a
long-time peace activist. He writes for Al-Ahram Weekly in Cairo, Egypt
and welcomes your comments at www.geocities.com/walberg2002/.
|
