(Who show a delightful talent for turning a phrase, by the way. "Quiver
of escalation!" Fine stuff indeed, capturing both the minatory image of
weapons at the ready – and the psychosexual thrill that all militarists
feel at the thought of a good surge.)
In order to "prevail" over the dusky hordes, the brass also call for:
"an overhaul of NATO decision-making methods;" eliminating consensus
votes and national vetoes; doing away with the right of member nations
to restrict how their troops will be used in an operation; "the use of
force without UN Security Council authorization," and setting up a "new
directorate" of leaders who can bypass "EU obstructions" (i.e.,
objections to America's will) and "respond rapidly" when Washington
whistles.
Our poetic chieftains don't phrase the latter point quite so crudely,
of course, but it is obviously one of the main objects of the exercise.
A "streamlined" NATO, operating without the need for broad consensus
among members – and free of even the pretense of seeking UN approval –
will inevitably be an even more pliable instrument for its most
overwhelmingly dominant member, the United States. And with "imperial
overreach" badly straining U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and around
the world, a "reformed" NATO would be a very handy tool for extending
the Pentagon's scope.
The great and good behind the manifesto are Gen. John Shalikashvili,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Bill Clinton; Lord Inge (Peter Inge,
as was), former chief of the UK's general staff; Gen. Klaus Naumann,
former chief of staff of the German military; Admiral Jacques Lanxade,
former French chief of staff; and Gen. Henk van den Breemen, former
Dutch chief of staff (whom the Guardian rather irrelevantly informs us
is "an accomplished organist"). They have already handed in their
homework to the honchos in the Pentagon; the 150-page "blueprint for
urgent reform of Western military strategy and structures" will likely
be taken up at the NATO summit in April, the newspaper reports.
And what are the dangers to "the West's values and way of life" that
the war chiefs want to aim nuclear missiles at? Well, "political
fanaticism and religious fundamentalism," for a start. (Reckon NATO
will nuke the next GOP presidential debate?) The "dark side of
globalization" is another; this apparently covers organized crime,
terrorism and proliferation of WMD. Then there's "climate change and
energy security," which will entail "a contest for resources and
potential 'environmental' migration on a mass scale," as the Guardian
puts it. Another danger worth nuking over is "the weakening of the
nation-state, as well as of organizations such as the UN, Nato and the
EU."
But how do the manifesto's "reforms" actually address these problems?
For example, as we have seen over the years, unilateral, unsanctioned
military action by the West only exacerbates "political fanaticism and
religious fundamentalism." What's more, the mass slaughter of innocent
civilians in these interventions – not to mention the repression, chaos
and corruption they inevitably leave in their wake – only discredit the
"values of the West" in the eyes of the world, which sees the assaults,
quite rightly, as brutal grabs for loot and domination behind a
smokescreen of pious, hypocritical blather.
And if NATO unlimbers its nukes and tanks on the "dark side of
globalization" –mafias, terrorists, weapons-peddlers, etc. – it will
certainly hit many of the prized assets of the West's own security and
military forces, who have long created, coopted, penetrated and
manipulated these darkmaterials. (A tale we have oft told here: see
this and
this for examples). So this is not a serious objective either.
As for the weakening of the nation-state, it is hard to see how
creating a super-NATO that can override a member nation's wishes on how
their troops should be used – and even override a nation's rejection of
a given foreign adventure decided upon in Washington – will somehow
strengthen the role of the nation-state. (Well, it might strengthen one
nation-state.) And the idea that openly championing the right to launch
military actions without UN Security Council approval bolsters the
effectiveness of the United Nations is also a pretty good joke.
But when the Manifesters come to "energy security," and the "contest
for resources" on an overwarmed, overpopulated globe, they are getting
down to the heart of the matter. They know that the "values" that NATO
has actually promoted over the years – not democracy, law or freedom,
but keeping the Lords of the West in clover – are indeed under threat
by the vast, crushing and ever-increasing economic and social
disparities (at home and abroad) engendered by rapacious elites. And
they aim to defend those values to the last drop of someone else's
blood.
What is envisioned here is a gated community writ large; or perhaps
more accurately a feudal castle bristling with modern technology: a
Fortress West, where a priviliged few (supported by loyal courtiers and
a cowed and distracted local peasantry) enjoy the bounty of the earth
and leave the rest squabbling for scraps outside. If the others come
too close or try to grab too much from the master's table – well then,
it's the "quiver of escalation" for them.
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
