Al-Jazeerah History
Archives
Mission & Name
Conflict Terminology
Editorials
Gaza Holocaust
Gulf War
Isdood
Islam
News
News Photos
Opinion
Editorials
US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)
www.aljazeerah.info
|
|
A Palestinian-American view of NATO strategy
paper: More Wars for Israel
By Mazin Qumsiyeh
Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, November 22, 2010
The new NATO Strategy was adopted last week at a meeting in
Portugal by heads of state of the 28-member NATO alliance while outside the
meeting over 10,000 marchers shouted "no to war, no to NATO". Internally, I
heard that career officers of NATO were not happy either. I am a citizen of
the USA as well as Palestinian who lives under occupation. The US, the only
remaining superpower (although declining rapidly) played the key role in
forming the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and still largely
shapes its policies. Thus, as a US citizen, I am entitled to question the
document and examine it in detail. But as a human being we should all care
what politicians plan for our dying planet.
The document states
innocuously that "NATO member states form a unique community of values,
committed to the principles of individual liberty, democracy, human rights
and the rule of law" and then delves in further statements about common
defense, deterrence, threats (e.g. "terrorism", ballistic missiles etc) (1).
Many citizens of NATO countries wondered where were these lofty ideals of
individual liberties, human rights, and democracy in the past 10
years. Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, secret CIA torture camps around
the world, kidnapping, extrajudicial executions and more were practiced by
our countries. All the data are now available for anyone to confirm
these. If these were aberrations and mistakes, why has no high officials
(Bush, Blair, others) paid for them? And why the strategy paper does not
state that member countries are committed to these liberal principles both
inside and outside their borders? Why do many NATO countries fund and
support dictators if they are sincere about democracy?
The new
strategy affirms that "the Alliance is firmly committed to the purposes and
principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and to the Washington
Treaty, which affirms the primary responsibility of the Security Council for
the maintenance of international peace and security." So how come NATO
member countries have not pushed for implementation of any of the passed 35
UN Security council resolutions that deal with Israel? And how come they
allowed one member state of NATO to veto dozens of other security council
resolutions that attempt to secure international peace? Israel regularly
violates the UN charter and even its own commitments when it was allowed
into the UN (e.g. to accept UN resolutions including the right of return to
Palestinian refugees). So if NATO is committed to this charter why not ask
the US (the chief sponsor of the rogue state of Israel) to insist that
Israel complies with International law? But then again, the US was forced by
Israel's lobby to invade Iraq, an act clearly in violation of the charter of
the UN (2).
The new strategic concept paper adopted states that
"NATO will actively employ an appropriate mix of those political and
military tools to help manage developing crises that have the potential to
affect Alliance security, before they escalate into conflicts; to stop
ongoing conflicts where they affect Alliance security; and to help
consolidate stability in post-conflict situations where that contributes to
Euro-Atlantic security." I kept thinking of one word not mentioned anywhere
in the document but clearly in the minds of those drafting it:
Afghanistan. Any rational reading of the role of NATO in Afghanistan would
have to conclude that it decreased not increased stability. The war on this
impoverished country was ill-advised from the beginning. The rulers of
Afghanistan had simply demanded from the US proof that Osama Bin Laden was
involved in the 9/11 attacks. The US refused to put-out any evidence and
chose to occupy the country. Here we are, nearly 10 years later and Osama
Bin Laden is supposedly now in Pakistan (itself destabilized by the NATO
actions) and the Taliban insurgency is stronger than ever. Some 2/3rd of
Afghanistan is actually now under the rule of the resurgent Taliban. The
puppet government of Karzai in Kabul is corrupt and is maintained only by
Western support and by bribes to corrupt war lords. Heroin trade, nearly
decimated by 2001 under the Taliban rule, is now flourishing. NATO forces
regularly use unmanned aircraft to bomb civilians and hatred of all Western
countries increased round the Middle East. Now copy-cat "Al-Qaeda" cells
are sprouting like mushrooms in places like Somalia, Yemen, Morocco,
Algeria, and sub-Saharan Africa. An average citizen like me asks the
question: is this the employing of "an appropriate mix of those political
and military tools to help manage developing crises" or is it what creates
crisis?
Then the strategy paper gets even more bizarre by noting
that "Terrorism poses a direct threat to the security of the citizens of
NATO countries, and to international stability and prosperity more broadly."
It is bizarre because it does not bother to define what "terrorism" is. One
can only deduce that terrorism is left to those with big sticks to
define. State terrorism seems excluded. Freedom fighters or even
non-violent resisters to occupation and colonization can be labeled as
terrorists. International law that guarantees rights of resistance can be
dismissed. NATO leaders add that "Extremist groups continue to spread to,
and in, areas of strategic importance to the Alliance, and modern technology
increases the threat and potential impact of terrorist attacks, in
particular if terrorists were to acquire nuclear, chemical, biological or
radiological capabilities." But the paper does not explain WHY "extremist
groups continue to spread". There are really only two scenarios, the one
promoted by the Zionist media around the West (that Islam is the cause) and
the one academic researchers and strategists showed that it had to do with
western policies (pressured by the Zionists themselves). If Islam is the
cause of extremism spreading, then NATO should
explain why now (not 400 years ago) and what they plan to do about it other
than follow the script prepared for them in Tel
Aviv.
Later in the document it states NATO will work to
"enhance the capacity to detect and defend against international terrorism,
including through enhanced analysis of the threat, more consultations with
our partners, and the development of appropriate military capabilities,
including to help train local forces to fight terrorism themselves." But
this is what NATO has been doing for 10 years and it does not seem to be
working. Is it not time to dig a little deeper in the analysis for example
by examining the role of the Western implanted state of Israel and the World
Zionist Organization in fostering hatred and anger in the Arab and Islamic
world and in false-flag operations that are then blamed in Muslims?
Then we see these even more vague assertions: "Instability or conflict
beyond NATO borders can directly threaten Alliance security, including by
fostering extremism, terrorism, and trans-national illegal activities such
as trafficking in arms, narcotics and people" and "Crises and conflicts
beyond NATO’s borders can pose a direct threat to the security of Alliance
territory and populations. NATO will therefore engage, where possible and
when necessary, to prevent crises, manage crises, stabilize post-conflict
situations and support reconstruction." Indeed, but why does NATO chose to
get involved in Afghanistan and its key members (US, Britain etc) choose to
get involved in Iraq? Why not get involved in Israel? Will NATO
strategists objectively examine these interventions to decide what could
have happened if alternative strategies were pursued? Will they objectively
examine why most people see the hypocrisy of causing the death of over 1
million civilians in Iraq for alleged violations of a couple of UN Security
Council resolutions while giving billions to Israel (a habitual violator of
International law)?
Need anyone comment on this next pearl of wisdom
from NATO other than to say "show me how, where, and when": "The best way to
manage conflicts is to prevent them from happening. NATO will continually
monitor and analyse the international environment to anticipate crises and,
where appropriate, take active steps to prevent them from becoming larger
conflicts." But wait, they maybe giving us a hint: "Where conflict
prevention proves unsuccessful, NATO will be prepared and capable to manage
ongoing hostilities. NATO has unique conflict management capacities,
including the unparalleled capability to deploy and sustain robust military
forces in the field. NATO-led operations have demonstrated the indispensable
contribution the Alliance can make to international conflict management
efforts." If all you have is a hammer, surely everything looks like a
nail. Is NATO thinking of intervening in Iran and Venezuela instead of
Israel and Columbia? How many areas in the world will NATO be willing to
send troops to? And if NATO keeps misdiagnosing the etiology of the problems
they are facing (minor symptoms of a more systemic disease), then how can
they design effective therapies or even give people a hope of a reasonably
decent prognosis?
More ominous statements are included in the new
strategy that is revealing: "All countries are increasingly reliant on the
vital communication, transport and transit routes on which international
trade, energy security and prosperity depend. They require greater
international efforts to ensure their resilience against attack or
disruption. Some NATO countries will become more dependent on foreign energy
suppliers and in some cases, on foreign energy supply and distribution
networks for their energy needs. As a larger share of world consumption is
transported across the globe, energy supplies are increasingly exposed to
disruption."
One wonders what does this mean. Who will determine
"threats" to "supplies"? Where is the mention here of free trade and supply
and demand? Will these NATO countries dependent on getting natural resources
from other countries be entitled to NATO defense to ensure their supply is
not disrupted if sellers get better offers from other buyers?
The
NATO document vagueness gets rather scary:
"Deterrence, based on an
appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities, remains a core
element of our overall strategy. The circumstances in which any use of
nuclear weapons might have to be contemplated are extremely remote. As long
as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance." and NATO
will work to "sustain the necessary levels of defense spending, so that our
armed forces are sufficiently resourced".
Madness is indeed
continuing on a path that produced more destabilization, doubled the number
of countries with nuclear weapons since 1950, and increased global
insecurity. With the economies in Europe and North America struggling, one
wonders what is going on in the heads of these politicians as they promise
to keep pumping more resources into the bloated military budgets. Even
seasoned NATO officers (many retired) are questioning this logic. The US
spends half its discretionary budget on its military, a military that
already has enough weapons to obliterate life on earth many times over. The
Nonproliferation Treaty that all these countries signed stated that they
would work to reduce and then completely eliminate nuclear weapons. Yet,
they proliferate them to their client states (Israel, then India and
Pakistan as examples). And what does it mean that "as long as nuclear
weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance"? How will they cease to
exist if those with the biggest stockpiles write such bizarre statements?
The document also claims that the alliance will work to foil "cyber
attacks". But will this include such cyber attacks as clearly carried out
by US and Israeli intelligence agents against Iran's civilian nuclear
facilities (facilities regularly inspected by the IAEA and certified
annually to be in compliance with international treaties)? And what message
is sent to any country (friendly or not-so-friendly to the US and Israel if
the rules of the game do not apply to powerful countries and the rules are
discarded to punish smaller countries on the whim of the powerful?
Other issues seemed positive but again vague:
-"increased cooperation with UN": Does this mean NATO member states like
the US will now obey the UN charter and stop invading and undermining
sovereignty of other countries -" fully strengthen the strategic
partnership with the EU, in the spirit of full mutual openness,
transparency, complementarity and respect for the autonomy and institutional
integrity of both organisations": The EU has human rights and other treaties
central to its operations but NATO does not do that. What is the way to
reconcile the differences?
The document ends by reiterating that "Our
Alliance thrives as a source of hope because it is based on common values of
individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and because
our common essential and enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and
security of its members. These values and objectives are universal and
perpetual, and we are determined to defend them through unity, solidarity,
strength and resolve."
And what about the most egregious violations
of these principles by the fifth strongest army in the world (an army with a
state called Israel)? Where is the insistence on individual liberty,
democracy, human rights and the rule of law? Why is a key NATO country
giving this rogue nation 20 of the most advanced jet aircraft?(3). As a
colonial apartheid regime, the Israeli violations of all these principles
indeed foster instability that affects NATO member state security at every
conceivable level. Further, the presence of strong
Zionist lobbies in NATO key members has pushed these states (e.g. Britain
and the US) to engage in elective and costly wars (e.g. on Iraq) that
undermined global security. And most significantly, where is the
honesty about how the misplaced priority of NATO governments makes the rich
richer and the poor poorer in these countries? Where is the discussion of
people's rights to economic security? Isn't the job of government to ensure
people have a future worth living or is the job of governments to secure
corporations and wealthy aristocrats in their endless greed that is already
destroying our planet? Isn't global warming a more important threat to our
survival than some manufactured threat from a bearded man in Afghanistan (or
is it Pakistan or is it Langley base)?
I ask these questions since I
am a US citizen (a NATO country). What of non-NATO countries? I am also a
Palestinian citizen and thus can equally criticize the Palestinian
government which like many non-NATO countries is intimidated into silence
about issues that affect the welfare of people around the world. Our
representatives (whose tenure had ended but still remain in office without
elections) are not even allowing a discussion of options going forward
(4). But the more I look into machinations of politicians in this new world
order, the more convinced I am of my life long persistence in trying to
effect change at the grass-root level. After all, that is how real change
happens in society not because of political leaders but in spite of them
(see women's rights, civil rights, ending the war on Vietnam, ending
apartheid South Africa etc). Thus I felt friendship to those 10,000 people
on the streets in Lisbon and I felt sorry for those politicians with the
body guards and the shiny suits shaking hands in well guarded
buildings. History will show indeed that we, the people, hold the answers.
1)
http://www.nato.int/lisbon2010/strategic-concept-2010-eng.pdf
2)
See Connecting the dots: IRAQ & PALESTINE by Mazin Qumsiyeh
http://www.qumsiyeh.org/connectingthedotsiraqpalestine/ and read the book by
Mearsheimer and Walt "The Israel Lobby"
3) see
http://www.mondoweiss.net/?s=virginia+tilley
4) see for
example of good analysis Palestine at the UN: An alternative strategy By
Mouin Rabbani
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/130145-palestine-at-the-un-an-alternative-strategy
See the Special Formatting Guide at the bottom of the page for
more formatting that can be used.
http://www.qumsiyeh.org/apalestinianamericanviewofnatostrategypaper/
See also
NATO planning 'integral' role in enforcing Mideast peace deal, Haaretz,
21/11/2010
|
|
|