A
Palestinian-American View Of NATO Strategy Paper
24 November 2010By Mazin Qumsiyeh
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 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 ailing
planet.
The document states innocuously in the beginning 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" [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 (for example
in Egypt) 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, worker's rights, environmental
regulations, 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.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments