In spite of a recent softening of language on nuclear issues, and gestures towards a nuclear-free vision - particularly from Obama - NATO continues to assert its need to retain nuclear weapons. As the new Strategic Concept states: "The supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces." It rejects a policy of "no first use" of nuclear weapons. In other words, NATO would be prepared to use nuclear weapons in a first strike.
Quote from: Time for NATO to face new realities
NATO's Core Function is to Advance US Global Interests and Foreign Policy Goals. By Kate Hudson London, UK, May 21, 2012
Chicago Police violent reaction to peaceful trapped protesters at NATO Summit
NATO Chicago - Police Block and Attack Protesters - 5-19-2012
Much of the mainstream Corporate media ignored possibly the most notable protest to take place at the Chicago NATO Summit which was that of American veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and occupations.
In Chicago, Afghanistan and Iraq Veterans Put NATO's Endless War on Trial by Robert Naiman at truthout, May 21, 2012
...in Chicago yesterday, veterans who served in Afghanistan and Iraq told their stories when they threw back their service medals in protest at NATO leaders, echoing a famous protestagainst the Vietnam War.
A lot of media coming out of Chicago last night focused on street skirmishes between a handful of apolitical adventurists and the Chicago police. But some media got the real story.
Zach LaPorte, a 28-year-old mechanical engineer from Milwaukee, who served in Iraq in 2005 and 2006, said, "I witnessed civilian casualties and civilians being arrested in what I consider an illegal occupation of a sovereign nation," Reuters reported. Former US Army Sgt. Alejandro Villatoro of Chicago, who served during the Iraq 2003 invasion and in Afghanistan in 2011, said: "There's no honor in these wars ... There's just shame."
The local ABC news affiliate in Chicago produced an exemplary story, which highlighted the ceremony in which Afghanistan and Iraq veterans threw back their medals, giving veterans the center stage they deserved for telling their stories.
Afghanistan to Top NATO Agenda-Al Jazeera
The NATO Summit in Chicago highlights NATO's fear mongering and pro-war propaganda all as a means to justify it's own
existence .
NATO has become essentially a tool to be used by the USA to advance America's global interests.
NATO should have been disbanded once the Soviet Union fell and was no longer a major threat to the West.
NATO still refuses to give up its Nuclear First Strike position.
Time for NATO to face new realities
NATO's Core Function is to Advance US Global Interests and Foreign Policy Goals. By Kate Hudson London, UK, May 21, 2012
...From its ostensible origins as a defensive alliance facing off against the Soviet Union in 1949, it has seamlessly morphed into an openly aggressive, globe-straddling operation, whipping recalcitrant states into line in its self-appointed capacity as the righter of international wrongs. Vigilante-style, it can ride roughshod over the qualms of the United Nations - and often the restrictions of international law - to assert or impose its own view of peace and freedom. Occasionally it presents a softer face, protecting aid or pursuing humanitarian goals, yet no one is in any real doubt that NATO is all about hard power.
... The fact is that while the US has declined in many respects, it has increasingly used NATO to support and advance its global power projection. But one big question is whether NATO states will continue to foot the bill.
A cursory glance at NATO's recent history shows that whatever its changing rationale, or the nature of its supposed enemies in the post-Cold War period, its core function has remained to advance US global interests and foreign policy goals. This became apparent at the end of the Cold War, when the Warsaw Pact was dissolved but NATO wasn't. Rather than scaling back its military presence, the US moved to fill the positions vacated by its previous rival. As the countries of eastern Europe embraced free-market economics and multiparty democracy, the US moved rapidly to integrate them into its sphere of influence via NATO expansion - faster than western Europe embraced eastern Europe via the European Union.
This was an effective strategy - indicated by the "new Europe" issue at the time of the war on Iraq - with Poland vigorously backing the US, against the "old Europe" of Germany and France. At NATO's 50th anniversary in Washington in April 1999, a new "Strategic Concept" was adopted. This moved beyond NATO's previous defensive role to include "out of area" - in other words, offensive - operations. The geographical area for action was now defined as the entire Eurasian landmass and the war on Afghanistan started soon after.
NATO's last leaders' summit in Portugal in November 2010 took the NATO vision beyond Eurasia, releasing a new Strategic Concept entitled "Active Engagement, Modern Defence". It recommitted to an expansive and interventionist military agenda with a projected global reach. This included an expansion of its area of work to "counter-terrorism, cyber-security, and the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons" and, in the words of British Prime Minister David Cameron, "securing failed states on the other side of the world".
It's an open question whether Cameron was referring to Afghanistan or whether he had a vision of new interventions, but it is certainly the case that the US will face problems over the Afghanistan intervention at this summit. This has been a NATO-led war since 2003, when it assumed control of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) established in 2002. Currently, there are almost 130,000 troops from 50 countries in Afghanistan under the auspices of ISAF, with NATO members providing most of the force. Most of these - about 99,000 - are US troops, 22,000 of which are due to return home this year. Clearly there is a strong drive within Washington itself to get the whole thing wound up. Earlier this year US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta said that the administration wanted to wind up combat operations before the withdrawal deadline.
...NATO's nuclear policies conflict with the legal obligations of the signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Articles 1 and 2 of the NPT forbid the transfer of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear weapon states, and US/NATO nuclear weapons in Europe are located in non-nuclear weapons states. In spite of a recent softening of language on nuclear issues, and gestures towards a nuclear-free vision - particularly from Obama - NATO continues to assert its need to retain nuclear weapons. As the new Strategic Concept states: "The supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces." It rejects a policy of "no first use" of nuclear weapons. In other words, NATO would be prepared to use nuclear weapons in a first strike.
...The decision at the 2010 NATO summit to integrate the US missile defence system with a European theatre missile defence programme under the auspices of NATO has caused major problems in relations with Russia. Concerns remain that missile defence will enable the US to attack another country without fear of retaliation and US adherence to missile defence continues to threaten the survival of the new START Treaty on bilateral US/Russia nuclear reductions.
No comments:
Post a Comment