Wither NATO?
Pakistan Observer
May 14, 2012
Wither NATO?
Khalid Bin Wakil
====
NATO…not only survived but was actually nurtured through a process akin to genetic modification…Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia took their seats in 2004, alongside Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, which had become the first three former Warsaw Pact states to join NATO in 1999. The alliance, thereby, extended its sphere from the Baltic to the Black Sea.
It may be recalled that the leaders had also approved a 20,000 strong “NATO response force” to combat “perceived threats around the world”. It will be noted that the scope of NATO military intervention was thereby expanded from Europe to “around the world”.
====
With the hullabaloo about the NATO containers passing – or not passing – through Pakistan’s territory, would it not be relevant to briefly look back at NATO, what it stood for and what it is up to in Afghanistan and elsewhere at this point in time? The end of the Cold War (remember?) signaled the demise of several of its manifestations. To cut a long story short: the Berlin Wall fell; the Warsaw Pact disappeared into thin air; the United States and the Russian Federation (remnant of the erstwhile USSR) embraced each other like long lost friends. The whole world order, in short, was turned on its head. There was a significant exception, though. One significant offspring of the Cold War – NATO – was not allowed to wither on the vine!
NATO, that had come into being essentially for confronting the threat to Western Europe posed by the formidable war machine of the Soviet Union and its East European allies, not only survived but was actually nurtured through a process akin to genetic modification. In one significant development, NATO leaders threw open the doors of the US-led alliance to seven former communist East European countries. The defense pact, spawned by the Cold War, thus made deep inroads into what was once regarded as ‘enemy territory’ as part of the Soviet sphere of influence. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia took their seats in 2004, alongside Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, which had become the first three former Warsaw Pact states to join NATO in 1999. The alliance, thereby, extended its sphere from the Baltic to the Black Sea.
The then US President, George W. Bush, was reported to have informed his fellow leaders at the Prague Summit that, “By welcoming seven members, we shall not only add to our military capabilities we will refresh the spirit of this great democratic alliance”. The NATO Secretary General went on to clarify that the ‘door would remain open’ to more aspirants from the Balkan region. It may be recalled that the leaders had also approved a 20,000 strong “NATO response force” to combat “perceived threats around the world”. It will be noted that the scope of NATO military intervention was thereby expanded from Europe to “around the world”.
The aforementioned gave rise to a most pertinent question: if the perceived enemy did not lie in Europe, where was it envisaged to be? And what ‘perceived threat’ was it that was goading ‘this great democratic alliance’ to hone its offensive capability in such a blatant manner in an era of relative peace and calm in Europe? Evidence shows that US was making a determined attempt to win allied backing for its projected war against Iraq. But, then, this also presented no more than a restricted vision, since that alone could hardly be put down as the raison d’etre of a militarily rejuvenated NATO.
Subsequent events and the meandering course of the War on Terror have partially lifted the veil from the US and NATO ambitions. Makes an observer wonder, though, why all the ‘perceived threats around the world’ as viewed by ‘this great democratic alliance’ are confined to the Muslim world alone. After all, there are other regions of the world, where ‘perceived threats’ could also be discerned if only the powers that be were to discard their rose-coloured glasses. And what about the threats posed by blatant human rights violations by states in more than one regions of the world? Are these to be ignored just because ‘this great democratic alliance’ prefers to look the other way?
