NATO: Big Money, Big Interests And Global Domination
Voice of Russia
May 22, 2012
NATO: big money, big interests, global domination
By John Robles
$37 million for public relations for a two-day event, and that is just the amount that has been made public. When this amount of money is being spent one has to ask oneself some serious questions. This amount of money is not spent for public relations when you have something positive to say or sell and in this case that completely applies.
What they are in fact trying to sell to the American public is an organization that is, no matter how you package it, a war machine.
It is not one that can be called a very successful one either, nor is it one that is needed or particularly wanted by the American people. If the over-taxed American people realized that of the almost 50% of their salaries that they are paying in taxes, a large part of it, and the over 65 years of debt that is being passed along to their children, is also being spent not only to fund all of the American war machines and US military adventures all over the world, but it is also being used to provide approximately 79% of the funding for an organization that should have been disbanded over 20 years ago and one that it not even really wanted by the people it is supposed to be protecting in Europe…
With the failure of Afghanistan, possibly the fact that more and more people are becoming aware of NATO’s role in supporting the illegal black market organ trade and drug traffickers in the former Yugoslavia, the ongoing provocations against the Russian Federation, a missile defense shield against an enemy (Iran) that no one really believes is a threat, waning public support for the endless “War on Terror,” a euphemism for the global endless killing of members of the Islamic faith (and anyone else for that matter) who are against US interests, and an economic crisis that sees no end in sight soon, Europeans and their countries are beginning to cut their funding for NATO.
$37 million, in the lead-up to the NATO summit in Chicago. This is the amount that corporate sponsors – and they are many – have publicly admitted to having gathered to promote NATO to the American public. Who are these sponsors? Well the list is long but here are a few of the smaller ones and you may be surprised: Chicago Young Republicans, the National Strategy Forum, the Arab-American Business Association, the Turkish-American Chamber of Commerce, Human Rights Watch (yes, the same one), the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and the Chicago Shakespeare Theater (what!?!). The big corporate sponsors include: General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, United Technologies, the Atlantic Richfield Company, Xerox, IBM, Security Pacific Bank and State Farm Insurance.
With an annual budget of what some sources calculate at being close to half a trillion dollars ($500 billion) – from the US side approximately $400 billion – this is a hugely profitable cash cow for all of these companies, never mind that their business is death and destruction that is also useful because there are a slew of American companies waiting in the shadows to make billions on reconstruction and lucrative business deals on the new “democracies’ they install.
And that it what it is all about after all: promoting the US position. Advancing US global domination, securing unfettered access to the world’s oil and natural resources, resources needed desperately by a country that consumes more than 48% of the world’s total.
In a recent statement, the R. Nicholas Burns, former U.S. ambassador to NATO among his other titles, said the following; “NATO is facing new challenges and opportunities in a rapidly changing global economic, political, and security environment,” quoting former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who in 2011 warned of “a dim, if not dismal future” for the transatlantic alliance, unless member states strengthened their cohesion, coordination, and commitments.”
What are the new challenges that he is talking about? Well, in reality, the organization is truly irrelevant as it was originally set up. The changing economics he speaks about are what we have talked about already: Europe is in a crisis and the funding for NATO is not what it used to be, although after 9-11 it has risen to above Cold War levels. Europe does not want to pay for an organization that is clearly failing in Afghanistan and other theaters.
Politically-speaking, NATO should have been disbanded when the Warsaw Pact was dissolved because that was its chief rival, and as for security this is also relevant. The new challenges and opportunities exist more for the US than for NATO as the US seeks to increasingly use NATO to advance its interests: in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Arctic, Africa, the former Soviet area and now, if one follows NATO with even a passing interest, it is clear the US wishes to use its proxy to advance its interests in the Asia–Pacific region and in fact anywhere else where there is oil, in particular, or other resources.
NATO plans to expand globally and is well on its way to doing so. Its vision of a single world military organization able to dominate any country or region in the world and strike any target in the world within minutes is close to becoming a reality. NATO does not answer to the UN nor does it answer to any other international organization. It is not interested in peace or equilibrium in the world. NATO exists to promote and advance the wishes, the policies, the politics, the interests and the position of the US and its subservient allies. It is a US tool of terror, death and destruction and it must be stopped.