May 31, 2010
|The release of the NATO 2020 Report on the 17th of May could be regarded as a disappointment by European military and political experts. The sages that put it together could not logically explain why we should continue to keep a military and political organisation designed to defend the Euro-Atlantic world from the threats posed by the Soviet Union.
The Alliance is trying to identify the threats to its members in order to justify its existence beyond the Cold War and the 1990s, citing terrorist organisations, cyber-attacks, missile strikes, global warming and financial crises. Still, Hamas and Hezbollah are a non-NATO problem, they mostly concern Israel. Cyber-attacks could be dealt with by the countries affected, one does not need F-16s or missile shields to counter them. As for financial crises, the US has repeatedly created the problem for the rest of the world, not the other way around. We should not forget that Wall Street speculators did more to propel Hitler to power in Germany than anybody else. These days, communist extremism is again on the rise in Europe, again courtesy of the new breed of Wall Street moneyworshippers.
My former history teacher was a captain in the Romanian Army during WWII. In the summer of 1941 at a special officers’ meeting, marshall Antonescu ordered the Romanian army to cross the Dniester into the Soviet Union along with German troops. As known, Romanians only accepted to fight alongside the Germans in order to re-take Bessarabia, a territory lost through the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. Romanian officers present at the meeting questioned the order, but they were told that Bessarabia can only be defended “far away from its borders”, from deep inside the Soviet Union. This, of course, was Hitler’s trick to get his allies to accompany him in this mad venture against Moscow, which brought the Red Army into the heart of Europe.
Now, according to the Report, the Alliance has to be defended far away from its borders. The same argument Hitler used to convince Romanians to participate in the invasion of Russia thus becomes central to the NATO 2020 Report, as if Madeleine Albright and her colleagues have collapsed to Hitler’s reasoning and are unwittingly doing a nazi job on the Alliance’s military doctrine. Already, NATO allies have been duped into participating to the new “expeditionary missions” envisioned by the Americans in Irak, in a flawed interpretation of Articles 4 and 5 of the NATO Treaty. Recently, Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa and twenty other Central European opinion leaders have written a lengthy letter to President Obama, oddly pushing the same argument. What next ?
On the de-nuclearisation of Europe, the Report recommends keeping the US nuclear bombs on European soil, against the wishes of its main allies, such as Germany. Although it recognizes that there are no identifiable conventional military threats to its members, the Report recommends keeping NATO alive, with no limit in time or geographical boundaries to its military or political reach.
Far from being an exercise in the “renewal of vows” process, the document simply proves the need to dismantle NATO and build regional security organisations better able to deal with regional threats, such as piracy, terrorism or cyber-attacks.