Rising opposition in Europe: U.S. plans for NATO run into a wall
by Sara Flounders
Global Research <http://www.globalresearch.ca/> , May 9, 2008
Worker's World <http://workersworld.org/>
<javascript:sendarticle('sendEmailLink',%20'Rising%20opposition%20in%20Europ
e:%20U.S.%20plans%20for%20NATO%20run%20into%20a%20wall%20');> Email this
article to a friend
<javascript:printarticle(8934);> Print this article
Part I
NATO held a three-day meeting in Bucharest, Romania, on April 2 to 4,
attended by George W. Bush and other heads of state. It was a stormy affair.
This alliance of imperialist military powers, long dominated by the U.S.,
was divided on several proposals being pushed by Washington.
One was the proposed further expansion of NATO eastward to include Ukraine
and Georgia, which were once part of the Soviet Union and sit on the border
of Russia. Another was the plan to place a U.S. ballistic missile system in
the Czech Republic and Poland, the heart of Europe. Another was Washington’s
recognition of independence for the Serbian province of Kosovo.
The most immediate problem for Bush, however, was resistance to his call for
NATO to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan. The problem of finding
more youth to be cannon fodder exposed the obvious weakness of this rapidly
expanding military alliance. The U.S. is so bogged down and overstretched in
Iraq that it is twisting the arms of other NATO members to fill the gap as
the Pentagon’s situation in Afghanistan deteriorates.
However, there is mass opposition in Europe to increased military spending
and especially to bailing out the U.S. in Iraq or Afghanistan by sending
troops.
In poll after poll in both Eastern and Western Europe, the overwhelming
majority of the people have opposed deeper military involvement. Politicians
know that agreeing to send troops to either Iraq or Afghanistan is political
suicide.
U.S. imperialism has grand and ominous plans to surround Russia and China
with U.S./NATO bases. The plans look great on paper and in war games. But
putting troops on the ground is becoming more and more difficult.
Demonstrations against this NATO summit and other NATO meetings and
exercises show the deep opposition fermenting among the masses.
In addition, Russia has warned that the eastward expansion of NATO and the
stationing of U.S. missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland pose a grave
threat to its security and could lead to European-wide instability and even
war.
Both the strong Russian opposition and growing resistance at home have led
to disagreements and contention among the European imperialists. At the
Bucharest meeting, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands
and Luxemburg strongly and openly opposed Bush’s demands to include Ukraine
and Georgia in NATO.
The ruling classes of these countries are imperialist plunderers in their
own right. But they are fearful that these aggressive U.S. military advances
may be arousing mass opposition from below. Their continued profits are
based on capitalist stability.
The weak and dependent capitalist regimes of Eastern Europe and the Balkans,
recently added to NATO, voted with the U.S.
U.S. ruling class for expanding NATO
Bush declared in Bucharest that “NATO is no longer a static alliance focused
on defending Europe. ... It is now an expeditionary alliance that is sending
its forces across the world. ...” (New York Times, April 5) The U.S.
president was not just speaking for his increasingly narrow circle. He
carried with him a resolution passed unanimously by the House supporting his
demand that Georgia and Ukraine be accepted into NATO.
In Congress and among the presidential candidates and other leading
political figures of both capitalist parties, there was no debate or
opposition to these dangerous proposals on the future direction of NATO.
Barely reported in the U.S. corporate media was how Bush’s demands became a
source of contention at the usually sedate and scripted NATO dinner. The
political discussion at this state affair lasted two hours past its
scheduled time. Finally Laura Bush and the spouses of other political
leaders withdrew from the gathering as the sharp exchanges continued.
While the U.S. media was focusing on the Dalai Lama and China’s actions in
Tibet, there was no coverage of the total lockdown of the entire population
of Bucharest by 30,000 police and the outlawing of any political gatherings
or protests there.
The unanimity of the U.S. ruling class on NATO’s expansion is reflected even
in the U.S. progressive political movement. While there is overwhelming
opposition to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, there is little discussion of the
long-term cost and dangers of NATO expansion.
Washington’s hopes had been high before the NATO summit. On the eve of the
gathering, Gen. Ray Henault, chairman of the NATO Military Committee, made
the following bragging points: “Less than 20 years ago, NATO consisted of 16
members, counted none as partners, and had conducted no operations or
exercises outside its member state borders. ... Today, NATO counts 26
members and 38 other countries in four Partnership arrangements. ...
“In a few short years, NATO has conducted eight operations on four
continents. NATO has expanded five times since its creation, and further
growth looks inevitable. ... It does not seem that the pace of activity will
lessen any time soon.”
General Henault predicted that the “Bucharest Summit is going to be critical
to the future orientation of the Alliance and its Partners, resulting in key
political decisions on enlargement, enhancements to our military
capabilities, and how we conduct our operations.”
But that is not the way the meeting turned out. The differences could barely
be papered over at the state dinners or in the final press conference. NATO
leaders decided to leave the contentious issue of Ukraine and Georgia to a
meeting of their foreign ministers in December 2008. There was no agreement
on recognition of Kosovo. Each politician tried to avoid firm or sizable
commitments of more troops for Afghanistan.
NATO’s rapid growth
NATO as a U.S.-dominated military alliance was, until the collapse of the
Soviet Union, a bloc of industrialized, prosperous imperialist countries
that had grown wealthy on generations of colonial plunder. It was
essentially an imperialist bloc determined to defend capitalist markets
against the spread of socialist revolutions in Europe through military
might, nuclear blackmail, economic sabotage, espionage and terror.
Now NATO has grown to four times its original number and spread far beyond
its stated North Atlantic area. All the new members and “partners” of this
military bloc are countries from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union
that have become captured ministates, economic colonies of European and U.S.
imperialism. Until 1990 they had far more integrated and planned economies
flowing from public ownership of the means of production. Basic necessities
from food to housing, health care and education were guaranteed and
subsidized by the state.
Membership in this imperialist military alliance is not based on equality or
democracy. It is based on a narrow, privileged elite who have benefited
enormously from the forced privatization of once publicly owned industries.
These elite are anxious to stabilize their new capitalism by tying their
countries securely to the markets of the West. Membership in NATO and in the
European Union is viewed by this narrow grouping as a security barrier
against their own workers.
The process of absorbing these economies has been ruthless. In order to join
NATO, the governments have up to 10 years to bring their formerly socialist
economies into U.S. and Western capitalist “alignment.” NATO calls it the
Membership Action Plan (MAP). It is a roadmap telling the regimes what
increasingly stiff economic and military conditions they must impose in
order to be considered for NATO membership.
Those accepted into the MAP must turn their entire country over to U.S.
planners to ensure that changes are made to integrate them into Western
capitalist markets. The countries must commit to extensive “cooperation”
with the U.S. in political, security and economic fields.
They must develop all military facilities requested of them, contribute
forces to participate in NATO military actions, and ensure that their
military is under the NATO command structure. Political and economic
sovereignty are lost. All long-term planning must be done in coordination
with the U.S. But most onerous is that they must vastly increase their
defense and police spending and fully integrate their intelligence system
with NATO. They must sign for huge new loans and commit to purchases of U.S.
military equipment that mesh with NATO.
Enormous promises were made to these countries about the long-term
prosperity that awaited their total submission. But now they are the first
to feel the brunt of the economic crisis sweeping the capitalist markets.
Demonstrations and mass opposition
Throughout Europe, seething opposition to NATO expansion, U.S. ballistic
missile deployment and the sending of NATO forces to Afghanistan is seen in
both demonstrations and polls.
In the Czech Republic and Poland, polls show up to 70 percent oppose the
missile installations in their countries. Mass rallies, demonstrations and
petition campaigns are demanding the issue be decided by national
referendum. The weak U.S.-backed governments in Prague and Warsaw had hoped
for NATO’s blessing for the missile-basing project.
Three quarters of Russians are against the entry of Ukraine and Georgia into
NATO, a study conducted by sociologists of the Levada Center showed. A
Harris survey reported on March 28 that Europeans, East and West, oppose the
U.S. missile deployment in the Czech Republic and Poland, seeing it as the
beginning of more U.S. missiles in Europe. Those polled saw as far-fetched
the idea that Iran is a nuclear threat, which Washington gives as a reason
for the deployment. Popular understanding across Europe is that Russia would
be the target.
In Germany More than 70 percent of people polled came out against the
deployment. In Spain the opposition was 61 percent and in France 58 percent.
Actual support for the U.S. missiles was very low — 11 to 20 percent.
A 2008 German Marshall Fund poll found that only 30 percent of Europeans
supported committing troops for combat operations in Afghanistan.
In Ukraine, a survey published in February showed 70 percent opposed their
country joining NATO; only 11 percent actually supported NATO membership.
Another poll confirmed that 70 percent of Montenegrins would vote against
joining NATO if given a chance to do so. This popular sentiment is reflected
in growing mass movements in the streets.
On the eve of the Bucharest summit, a bloc of socialists and communists in
Ukraine called for mass demonstrations. Their leaflet read: “Today average
Americans who give a significant part of their family budget for military
operations in Iraq do not want to pay for this operation any more and do not
want their men to die there. Do Ukrainians want this? NATO—NO!”
A demonstration in Ukraine’s capital of Kiev marched on the U.S. Embassy and
blocked the city center for hours. Some stayed into the night and erected
tents for a longer stay. Mass demonstrations also took place in the
Ukrainian cities of Kharkov, Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Luhansk, Odessa,
Zaporizhzhya and Sevastopol.
Three days later, when NATO failed to reach a decision on Ukraine and
Georgia joining the MAP program, tens of thousands across Ukraine took to
the streets celebrating victory.
In Bucharest, where demonstrators were expected from throughout Romania and
across Europe to protest the NATO meeting, 30,000 police, military, snipers
and secret police occupied the central city.
They made mass arrests at the legally rented anti-NATO convergence center.
All protest permits were denied, making anti-NATO demonstrations illegal.
Residents were encouraged to leave the city. Schools and workplaces were
closed for the duration of the summit. Bucharest’s police chief publicly
warned that protests would not be tolerated.
Activists attempting to enter Romania from other European Union countries
were denied entry, with no cause given. Hundreds rallied in northern Poland
on March 29 against U.S. plans to build a missile-defense base in the
region. The demonstrators carried banners reading, “We don’t want to be your
missile shield” and “Not one step more in the arms race.”
Part II Iraq, Afghanistan and NATO
Washington tries to scrounge up troops
On the eve of the NATO summit, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chair of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, said an additional 7,500 soldiers and 3,000 military
trainers needed to be sent immediately to Afghanistan.
Some 59,000 troops from 39 countries are occupying Afghanistan at the
present, including 19,000 U.S. soldiers. Of this number, 47,500 are under
NATO command.
As their mission has faltered and Afghan resistance has grown, internal
rifts in the NATO alliance are being aired publicly. Disagreements over
burden sharing, coordination and strategic direction are plaguing the
alliance. Canada threatened to pull out of Afghanistan if other countries
did not send substantially more troops. Germany has refused to expand its
existing force of 3,200.
The Bush administration had no realistic hope of getting the NATO allies to
send large additional numbers. Yet the Pentagon is so over-stretched in Iraq
that it cannot provide them itself. Bush’s message—“We expect our NATO
allies to shoulder the burden necessary to succeed”—was hardly popular or
winning.
Under pressure during the meetings, President Nicholas Sarkozy grandly said
France would deploy an additional 1,000 troops. The French Parliament
immediately cut this number down to 700. Poland agreed to send another 400
troops. Romania, Spain and Britain pledged to boost their numbers by a few
hundred each. But the immediate goal of 10,000 additional troops was not
even close.
Shrinking coalition in Iraq
Former prime ministers Tony Blair of Britain, John Howard of Australia, Jose
Maria Aznar of Spain and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy lost their elected
positions due to the enormously unpopular commitment of troops to Iraq and
their support of the war. It is now considered political suicide in Western
Europe for politicians to increase their troop commitment in Afghanistan or
Iraq.
The small, dependent new members of NATO being pressed on every side to send
ever more soldiers as cannon fodder to Afghanistan, Iraq and other missions,
get confused on the command structures. Romanian President Traian Basescu
referred to his country’s troops in Iraq as NATO forces at a press
conference on April 8. He was publicly corrected with the explanation that
NATO does not have a mission in Iraq, where Romanian troops are part of the
“International Coalition.” The mission is the same–securing an imperialist
occupation. Only the name is different.
As other imperialist forces–such as Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia and
Japan—withdraw from Iraq, the shrinking “International Coalition” is carried
by ground forces from poorer countries like El Salvador and Tonga, as well
as many once part of or allied to the Soviet Union, like Romania, Bulgaria,
Czech Republic, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Moldova, Lithuania,
Estonia, Latvia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Albania, Kazakhstan and Mongolia.
The number of non-U.S. troops in Iraq is down from 23,000 in 2003 to less
than 10,000 today, and shrinking.
The costs incurred by 20 of the poorer countries are paid by U.S. taxpayers.
The cost of more than 160,000 U.S. troops and 100,000 private contractors in
Iraq is also paid by the taxes and budget cuts plaguing poor and working
people in the U.S.
Seeds of NATO’s defeat
NATO is first and foremost a military alliance. Therein lie the seeds of its
defeat. Every battle in both Iraq and Afghanistan confirms that while the
U.S./NATO forces may prevail over local resistance forces by the use of
overwhelming military power and indiscriminate bombing, they succeed only in
increasing the size of the resistance and recruiting more insurgents.
Sending more troops only exacerbates the problem.
U.S. imperialism is facing an unsolvable contradiction. The political
movement must be on the alert. These contradictions can make the billionaire
rulers more desperate and more dangerous. As their world economic position
slips, along with the almighty U.S. dollar, they are increasingly attracted
to military solutions. But maintaining the weapons, bases and troops sucks
up an ever-greater share of resources. Militarism is both a life-sustaining
corporate subsidy and an endless drain on the economy as a whole.
With each passing day the cost of endless wars of occupation is becoming
clearer and less acceptable to millions of poor and working people in the
U.S. and across Europe. Increasing economic hardships, budget cuts and
military casualties are undermining this grand military alliance. NATO is
crumbling from below, even as it expands numerically and geographically.
Sara Flounders is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=Sar
a&authorName=Flounders> Global Research Articles by Sara Flounders
<<attachment: image001.gif>>
<<attachment: image002.gif>>
