STOP NATO: ¡NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --------------------------- ListBot Sponsor -------------------------- Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [Wishful thinking. Or rather, in this case. premature moaning and gnashing of teeth. Only an establishment scholar with a vested interest in the Great Game could utter such statements as NATO's - alleged - raison d'etre having disappeared, it chose not to dissolve itself but expand, and still portray it as a defensive alliance. And did you know that the WWI Allies "fell out" with each other, leading to WWII? History books will confirm that the four major allies - Britain, France, Russia and the United States - fought on the same side in both wars. Preceding from uniformly false premises, the writer was bound to arrive at the wrong conclusion. But that's what his type is paid to do.] The Globe And Mail (Toronto) June 18, 2001 NATO's days are numbered As last week's alliance meeting showed, Europe and the U.S. are headed in different directions, says ANDRÉ GEROLYMATOS ANDRÉ GEROLYMATOS Monday, June 18, 2001 For half a century, the NATO alliance has been the cornerstone of European and North American security and defence. Its nuclear umbrella offered a credible deterrent against the numerically superior forces of the former Soviet Union and its allies. Under this shield, the Europeans states, unshackled from large military expenditures, developed prosperous economies, created the European Union, and are on the threshold of establishing an integrated tariff-free market, along with a common currency. Then came the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the communist system. It seemed that the days of the NATO alliance were over: Without a formidable nuclear-armed enemy, what was its raison d'être? The alliance reacted on two fronts. Strategically, NATO chose to expand its membership, rather than dissolve it, viewing expansion as a mechanism to assist the former communist states to achieve stability and pave their way to the EU and economic prosperity, while checkmating a future Russian empire. At the same time, the Balkan crises of the 1990s gave the alliance a tactical opportunity, letting its forces play a role by replacing the beleaguered UN peacekeeping troops in the former Yugoslavia. Ironically, this military role in the Balkans may prove to be NATO's undoing. For the past 200 years, international relations have revolved around the making and breaking of alliance systems. It was the Concert of Europe that safeguarded the continent from war throughout much of the 19th century after the defeat of Napoleon, until the rise of ultranationalism divided the great powers into rival alliances. The First World War failed to produce a new concert as the victorious allies fell apart almost as soon as the war was over, each deciding to pursue narrow policy interests. This, in turn, led to the Second World War and, only after that, to thoughts of a new arrangement. It was the 1946 civil war in Greece that forced the United States to abandon any thoughts of isolation. Fear of Soviet expansion and the decline of British power cast Washington as the protector of the West. Indeed, NATO, established in 1949, was the rationalization of a common North American-European security system. In the nuclear-war potential of the period, America's first line of defence was Europe. A nuclear attack against Berlin or London meant instant retaliation against Soviet targets. Yet, these Cold War scenarios have little meaning in the 21st century. NATO expansion (in 1999, the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary joined the alliance) not only moved the goal posts eastward but rendered the organization incapable of providing collective security. It is no longer credible that an American-led NATO would go to war over Hungary or Poland. In fact, as the alliance expands, it will continue to loose its efficacy. The U.S. initiative to create a North American antiballistic missile system not only underlines this fact but clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration no longer considers Europe as America's first line of defence and is drifting back to isolation. This policy will receive greater impetus when the Americans pull their troops from the Balkans. This will not happen overnight -- under strong pressure from its allies, the United States has agreed to only withdraw 500 troops at this time -- but this may well be the beginning of a pullout from the area. In that event, the Europeans will have to accelerate their plans for a European defence force to patrol the Balkans, and the post Cold War alliance system will come to an end. Eventually, international security will gravitate around four power centres: North America, Europe, Asia led by China, and Russia. Whether this will evolve into an international concert of powers that will contain conflict or degenerate into hostile camps is anyone's guess. What is certain is that Canada, the other half of the transatlantic NATO alliance, will have to choose between an American and a European alliance. The choice would seem to be simple: The United States is big and close; Europe is getting farther away. André Gerolymatos, who holds the Hellenic Studies Chair at Simon Fraser University, is author of The Balkan Wars. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/ ______________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
