[E-rundbrief] Info 1362 - No to war and NATO report NATO summit 2014
Matthias Reichl
info at begegnungszentrum.at
Mi Sep 17 15:52:37 CEST 2014
E-Rundbrief - Info 1362 - No to war – no to NATO: Disbanding NATO
would be the alternative. Report from NATO Summit in Newport, Wales,
4-5 Sept 2014.
Bad Ischl, 17.9.2014
Begegnungszentrum für aktive Gewaltlosigkeit
www.begegnungszentrum.at
================================================
Disbanding NATO would be the alternative
Report from NATO Summit in Newport, Wales, 4-5 Sept 2014
Veröffentlicht am 16. September 2014 von Pascal
On September 4-5 in the normally peaceful little Welsh city of
Newport, the latest NATO Summit took place, more than two years after
the last summit in Chicago in May 2012.
Once again we saw the same images: vast areas sealed off, no-traffic
and no-fly zones, and schools and shops being forced to shut. Safely
shielded in their 5-star Celtic Manor Hotel resort, the “old and new
warriors” held their meetings in surroundings far removed from the
living and working realities of the region’s inhabitants – and far
removed from any protests, too. In fact, the reality was better
described as a “state of emergency”, with security measures costing
some 70 million euros.
Despite the familiar scenes, there were actually new aspects to be
greeted. The local population were obviously sympathetic to the cause
of the protests. One of the main slogans attracted particular support
– “Welfare instead of warfare” – since it resonates strongly with the
wishes of many in a region characterised by unemployment and lack of
future perspectives.
Another unusual and remarkable aspect was the committed, cooperative
and non-aggressive behaviour of the police. With no signs of tension
and, in fact, with a friendly approach, they accompanied a protest
right up to the conference hotel and helped make it possible for a
delegation of demonstrators to hand over to the “NATO bureaucrats” a
large package of protest notes.
Agenda of the NATO Summit
According to the invitation letter from the outgoing NATO General
Secretary Rasmussen, the following issues were priorities during the
discussions:
the situation in Afghanistan after the end of the ISAF mandate
and NATO’s continued support for the developments in the country
the future role and mission of NATO
the crisis in Ukraine and the relationship with Russia
the current situation in Iraq.
The crisis in and around the Ukraine, which would better be described
as finalising the details of a new collision course with Russia, had
become the clear focal point during the run-up to the summit, since
NATO sees this as an opportunity to justify its continued existence
and resume a “leading role”. A debate on the strategies and the
relations to Russia, including the whole issue of “smart defence”,
thus culminated in a debate on the consequences to be drawn from the
Ukraine crisis.
Eastern Europe, Ukraine and Russia
During the summit this led to the approval of an action plan to
increase security relating to the crisis in the Ukraine. An Eastern
Europe “very high readiness force” or “spearhead” of some 3-5,000
troops will be formed, which will be deployable within a few days. If
Britain and Poland get their way, the force’s HQ will be in Szczecin,
Poland. As outgoing NATO General Secretary Rasmussen put it: “And it
sends a clear message to any potential aggressor: should you even
think of attacking one Ally, you will be facing the whole Alliance.”
The forces will have several bases, including several in the Baltic
countries, with permanent detachments of 300-600 soldiers. This is
surely a breach of the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation
and Security which NATO and Russia signed in 1997.
According to Rasmussen, the crisis in Ukraine is a “crucial point” in
the history of NATO, which is now 65 years old. “As we remember the
devastation of World War One, our peace and security are once again
being tested, now by Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.” … “And the
criminal downing of Flight MH17 has made clear that a conflict in one
part of Europe can have tragic consequences around the world.”
Some NATO countries, especially new members from Eastern Europe, were
pleading for the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Treaty to be cancelled on
the grounds that Russia has breached it. This was rejected by other
members.
The UK and USA want to station hundreds of soldiers in eastern Europe.
Even before the summit, the British Times reported that troops and
armoured divisions are to be sent “frequently” on exercises to Poland
and the Baltic countries during the coming year.The newspaper saw this
as a sign of NATO’s determination not to be “intimidated” by the
annexation of Crimea and destabilisation of Ukraine. The plan of
action which was decided upon foresees more combat force exercises in
various countries and the creation of new permanent military bases in
eastern Europe. These manoeuvres will prepare the alliance’s
“spearhead” (Rasmussen) for its new tasks. The next “rapid trident” is
planned for September 15-26, 2014, in the western part of Ukraine.
Participants will be NATO countries, Ukraine, Moldavia and Georgia.
The bases needed for the action plan will probably be in the three
Baltic countries, Poland and Romania.
Ukraine, whose President Poroshenko took part in some of the summit,
will also receive further support to modernise their army with regards
to logistics and its command structure. Decisions as to support in the
form of direct arms deliveries were left to individual NATO members.
The building up of a “missile defence system” will also be continued.
More money for armament
Implementing these plans costs money. In the run-up to the summit, the
NATO General Secretary declared, “I urge every Ally to give increased
priority to defence. As European economies recover from the economic
crisis, so too should our investment in defence.” The (old) benchmark
of having each NATO member invest 2% of its GDP in armaments was
revived. Or at least, as Chancellor Merkel remarked, military
expenditure should not be reduced.
With a view to the crisis in eastern Europe, NATO warned of the risks
associated with further cuts and insisted that Germany increase its
spending. According to the German current affairs magazine Der
Spiegel,a confidential NATO document for the member states’ defence
ministers reports that “entire areas of capability [would have to be]
abandoned or substantially reduced” if defence spending is cut any
further, since years of cuts have led to a dramatic thinning out in
the armed forces. Without the contribution of the USA, the paper
continues, the alliance would have a considerably restricted capacity
to carry out operations.
So now the pressure is increasing, particularly on Germany, to
increase defence expenditure. According to internal NATO rankings, in
2014 Germany will be in 14th place with its military expenditure at
1.29 per cent of its GDP. Economically speaking, Germany is the second
strongest country in the alliance after the USA.
Since Germany has announced its intention to enact a more active
foreign and security policy, this also needs to find its expression in
financial terms, according to NATO commanders. “There will be
increasing pressure to do more to protect the eastern European NATO
members,” said the defence policy spokesperson of the CDU/CDU fraction
in Germany, Henning Otte. “This can also mean we have to adapt our
defence budget to meet the new political developments,” he continued.
This new round of arms spending will have more social victims. The
fact that Chancellor Merkel very cautiously avoided any specific
promises on behalf of the German government was certainly due to the
domestic political situation. In spite of the recent beating of the
war drums, the German population has remained decidedly resistant to
the idea of further armament and more military manoeuvres.
According to SIPRI figures, in 2014 the ratio of NATO military
expenditure to Russian is still 9:1.
An ever more military way of thinking
During the summit, a noticeably (even frighteningly) aggressive tone
and wording could be heard when it came to Russia, who has been
declared an “enemy” again. This image was created by the polarisation
and cheap accusations characterising the summit. The political leaders
present could constantly be heard asserting that “Russia is to blame
for the crisis in Ukraine”, contrary to the facts that even they know
about. There was a complete lack of criticism, or even reflective
consideration. And the press attending also gave their almost
unanimous support, regardless which country they were from.
Terms such as “common security” or “détente” were not welcome; it was
a summit of confrontation setting a course for war. This approach
seemed to completely ignore any possible easing of the situation with
a ceasefire or the restart of negotiations in the Ukraine. There was
only one possible strategy: confrontation.
Iraq
Another important role at the summit was played by the crisis in Iraq.
During the gathering, President Obama declared that several NATO
states were forming a “new coalition of the willing” to combat the IS
in Iraq. According to the US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, these
are the USA, UK, Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy,
Poland and Turkey. They are hoping to be joined by further members.
The deployment of ground troops is still being ruled out for the
current situation, but there will be expanded use of airstrikes using
both manned aircraft and drones as well as arms deliveries to local
allies. A comprehensive plan to combat the IS is due to be proposed to
the UN General Assembly meeting later in September. Exports of weapons
and other arms are to be continued.
Here, too, pressure on Germany is increasing for it to take part in
the intervention with its own planes (modernised Tornados with GBU 54
weapons).
The NATO leaders exhibited a military way of thinking in which there
is no place for any of the alternative ways to combat the IS currently
being suggested by peace researchers or the peace movement.
NATO expansion
Another point on the agenda was the long-term ambition to admit new
members, especially Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. Promises were made
to them, as well as to Jordan and provisionally also Libya, to provide
support for the “reform of the defence and security sector”.
For Georgia, a “substantial package of measures” was agreed which
should lead the country towards NATO membership.
Regarding Ukraine, Prime Minister Yatsenyuk had proposed immediate
admission but this was not agreed. It seems that NATO still considers
the risks to be too high. There is another country that has a tangible
hope of becoming a member: Montenegro. A decision will be made in 2015
regarding its admission.
Another interesting development was the expansion of cooperation with
two neutral nations: Finland and Sweden. They are to be integrated
even more closely into NATO’s structures regarding infrastructure and
command. An agreement called “Host NATO Support” allows NATO to
include both countries in manoeuvres in northern Europe.
Before the summit there were also reports revealing how the alliance’s
sphere of influence is also being extended further towards Asia by
means of “Partnerships for Peace”, bringing the Philippines,
Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Japan and even Vietnam into NATO’s sights. It
is obvious how China could be encircled. For the first time, Japan has
also designated a permanent representative to the NATO headquarters.
And the further expansion of NATO’s influence towards Central Africa
was also on the agenda.
The situation in Afghanistan
The failure of NATO’s military involvement in Afghanistan is generally
relegated to the background (by the press but also by many in the
peace movement). Another manipulated election with the warlords’
preferred victors (regardless of who becomes president), a completely
unstable domestic political situation, starvation and poverty all
characterise life in this long-suffering country. The main actors
responsible for most of this are the USA and NATO. A complete
withdrawal is not planned but rather the ratification of a new
occupation treaty, which President Karzai no longer wanted to sign.
This would allow international troop contingents of approximately
10,000 soldiers to remain (including up to 800 German armed forces
members). The “comprehensive approach” will also be intensified, i.e.
civil-military co-operation. And the politics that have so clearly
failed will be pursued further. Those that suffer will continue to be
the general population in the country who are being robbed of any
chance to see an independent, self-determined development in their
country – which would also help them to overcome the criminal
structures of the warlords. The obvious affinity of both winning
parties in the election for the USA and NATO will hinder an
independent, peaceful development.
So it is still remains true to say: Peace in Afghanistan is yet to be
achieved. Cooperation between all forces for peace in Afghanistan and
the international peace movement needs to be developed further. We
should not allow ourselves to forget Afghanistan: it remains a vital
challenge for the peace movements after 35 years of war (including 13
years of NATO war).
No peace with NATO
So the peace movement has enough reasons to demonstrate against these
policies of confrontation, armament, “demonising” the so-called enemy,
and further NATO expansion to the East. The very institution whose
policies are significantly responsible for the crisis and civil war is
seeking to suck out of them the lifeblood needed for its further
existence.
Once again, the NATO Summit in 2014 has shown: For peace’ sake, there
will be no peace with NATO. The alliance deserves to be abolished and
replaced with a system of joint collective security and disarmament.
Actions organised by the international peace movement
Initiated by the international network “No to war – No to NATO”,
providing critical coverage of a NATO summit for the fourth time, and
with strong support from the British peace movement in the form of the
“Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)” and the “Stop the War
Coalition”, a diverse range of peace events and actions took place.
The main events were:
An international demonstration in Newport on September 30, 2104.
With c. 3000 participants it was the largest demonstration the city
has seen in the past 20 years, but still too small to really be
satisfying considering the current situation in the world. Speakers
from trade unions, politics and the international peace movement were
all agreed in their clear opposition to war and in favour of
disarmament, and with regard to the need to subject the whole idea of
NATO to renegotiation.
An international counter-summit took place in Cardiff city hall
on August 31 with the support of the local council, and on September 1
in Newport. This counter-summit was supported with funding and staff
by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. It successfully managed to achieve
two goals: firstly, a detailed analysis of the international
situation, and secondly, the formulation of political alternatives and
options for action within the peace movement. At the counter-summit,
feminist criticism of NATO militarisation played a particularly
intensive role. All the events were carried out in an atmosphere of
express solidarity and surely form the foundations for stronger future
cooperation in the international peace movement. The number of
participants was also very pleasing at around 300.
An international peace camp in a beautifully situated park at the
edge of Newport’s inner city. In particular, younger participants in
the protest actions found space here for lively discussions, with 200
people attending the camp.
A demonstration procession on the first day of the summit
attracted lots of positive attention from the media and the local
population, with around 500 participants bringing the protest right to
the front doors of the summit venue. For the first time, a thick
package of protest resolutions could be handed over to the NATO
bureaucrats (who remained nameless and faceless).
Once again, there proved to be great media interest in the counter
events. Welsh print and online media carried intensive coverage, and
the British press also provided comprehensive reporting. The German
broadcasters ARD and ZDF showed images from the protest actions and
the left-wing press in Germany also covered the counter-summit.
All of the protest events occurred absolutely peacefully, without any
violence. Of course, this was due mainly to the protestors themselves,
but happily the British police contributed to this achievement as well
thanks to their cooperative and low-key behaviour.
Especially at the counter-summit, the debates once again documented
the fundamental difference between aggressive NATO policies and
strategies that would bring about peace. So this summit in particular
has proven the need to continue delegitimizing NATO.
The creative potential of the peace movement was continued during
further meetings where future activities were agreed upon:
International Drones Meeting on Saturday, August 30, 2014. One of
the topics discussed was the preparation of the Global Day of Action
on Drones for October 4, 2014. It was also agreed to work towards an
international congress on drones for May 2015.
International meeting to prepare actions for the 2015 Review
Conference for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
in New York in April/May. Topics discussed included the program for
the two-day Congress Against Nuclear Weapons and Defence Expenditure,
the fringe events during the UN meeting, and a large demonstration in
the city.
The Annual Meeting of the “No to war – no to NATO” network on
September 2, 2014. This network, whose meetings are supported by the
Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, can now look back at a successful
counter-program to four NATO summits. It can justifiably claim to have
brought the delegitimization of NATO back onto the peace movement’s
agenda and to some degree into wider political discourse as well. It
will continue these activities in 2015, including two events on the
role of NATO in northern Europe and in the Balkans.
Kristine Karch, Co-Chair of the Coordinating Committee of the
international network “No to war – No to NATO”
Reiner Braun, Co-President of “International Peace Bureau (IPB)”,
Managing Director of IALANA and member of the Coordinating Committee
of the international network “No to war – No to NATO”
Lucas Wirl, Program Director at “International Network of Engineers
and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES)”, Co-Chair of the
Coordinating Committee of the international network “No to war – No to
NATO”
http://www.no-to-nato.org/2014/09/16/report-from-nato-summit-in-newport-wales-4-5-sept-2014/
--
Matthias Reichl, Pressesprecher/ press speaker,
Begegnungszentrum fuer aktive Gewaltlosigkeit
Center for Encounter and active Non-Violence
Wolfgangerstr. 26, A-4820 Bad Ischl, Austria,
fon: +43 6132 24590, Informationen/ informations,
Impressum in: http://www.begegnungszentrum.at
Spenden-Konto Nr. 0600-970305 (Blz. 20314) Sparkasse Salzkammergut,
Geschäftsstelle Pfandl
IBAN: AT922031400600970305 BIC: SKBIAT21XXX
--
Ausgezeichnet mit dem (österr.) "Journalismus-Preis von unten 2010"
Honoured by the (Austrian) "Journalism-Award from below 2010"
Mehr Informationen über die Mailingliste E-rundbrief