Why Do We Protest the NATO Summit?
MILITARISM, 26 Mar 2012
After the end of World War II, a group of nations in the north Atlantic established NATO to impede Russian influence over the reconstruction of Europe and to facilitate their own. The economic blueprint begun under the Marshall Plan and continued with NATO saw European member countries shift their energy dependency from coal to oil at a time when the U.S. was the world’s leading oil producer, supplying more than a third of worldwide production from within its own (today, greatly oil-depleted) borders. A couple of decades earlier, the U.S. had already wrested from Britain effective control over vast petroleum reserves in Venezuela. This arrangement ensured that U.S. oil companies stood to make a fortune, setting a high price to fulfill Western Europe’s manufactured demand.
After the Cold War ended, the U.S. rebranded NATO and extended its mandate as a defender of liberty in regions beyond the north Atlantic. Seeing military action as a suitable solution to various global conflicts, it has had the effect of sowing discord and violence instead of alleviating these problems.
In Kosovo, NATO claimed that bombing the countryside would stop Yugoslav forces from invading homes and practicing summary executions of the Kosovars. Instead, Belgrade’s atrocities at ground level “kicked into high gear,” as was widely predicted by international aid workers, described in the Washington Post as “the only remaining brake on Yugoslav troops” and who were forced to leave their host villages when NATO commenced aerial bombing. Two years later, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia would issue an indictment against Slobodan Milosevic on 17 Kosovo-related war crimes, 16 of which happened after NATO’s entry into the conflict.
In Libya, the scene following the NATO-enabled civil war has been a chaotic mix of factional battles with various anti-Gaddafi militias who refuse to disband. On Jan 21, 2012, Libyan veterans were attacked with tear gas while protesting outside the Benghazi headquarters of the ruling NTC party, the site of a near-attack on the country’s Vice President days earlier. They charged into the building and seized it while party officials fled. Widespread torture of alleged Gaddafi loyalists has caused a vicious humanitarian catastrophe, prompting the medical aid group Doctors Without Borders to pull out of Misrata because “detainees were brought for care only to make them fit for further interrogation.” NATO continues to insist that its actions have prevented political repression and have promoted freedom and democratic change, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
In Afghanistan, NATO has been the overseer, since 2003, of the criminal bombardment and invasion of a small nation, one which has not initiated hostilities, by a vast superpower employing devastating and overwhelming weaponry. This war began to exceed the death toll of 9-11, civilian life for civilian life, in only the first few months, and over the last decade, the death toll has continued to mount. A report pdf released in February by the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) noted a sharp rise in the proportion of civilians killed that were women and children. The negligence of NATO was especially glaring from July-December of 2011, during which time aerial strikes killed triple the number of women and children who were killed over the corresponding period of the previous year.
Chillingly, NATO has looked at the Colombian government’s devastating and prolonged war against the FARC as a model for staying the course in Afghanistan. The scandals and crimes carried out by NATO troops and the detestable official apologies devoid of real solutions illustrate that each day the war continues will mean a continuing humanitarian disaster for Afghan people.
Those who participate in the May actions to shed light on this deranged historical trend will not just be protesting NATO, but will also be proposing a different agenda for the nations who convene under NATO’s banner. Instead of pursuing a partnership agreement with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, which would authorize the war up until the year 2024 or beyond, the powerful nations of the world should be meeting to discuss ending drone strikes immediately, pulling combat forces out Afghanistan, and ending their manipulation of Afghan democracy, which they do, in part, by propping up Hamid Karzai and the warlords in the National Assembly. Secondly, they must take responsibility for their past criminality by providing reparations, to be dispersed by an independent body such as the UN general assembly. Reparations would fund projects decided on by local communities and might take the form of food aid, water filtration, housing construction, soil renewal, sanitation, mine disarmament medical brigades, etc. It is crucial that we walk, march, picket, and speak out to demand these real solutions.
Buddy Bell (firstname.lastname@example.org) is a Voices co-coordinator.
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.