{"id":114425,"date":"2018-07-16T12:02:00","date_gmt":"2018-07-16T11:02:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=114425"},"modified":"2018-07-16T12:13:49","modified_gmt":"2018-07-16T11:13:49","slug":"make-nato-civilian-and-civilised-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2018\/07\/make-nato-civilian-and-civilised-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Make NATO Civilian and Civilised (Part 2)"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is the second of two articles about the coming end of NATO as we know it and what can be done. The first you find here<\/a>. It may be good to have at least browsed that one before you read on here.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Jan Oberg in Aleppo, Syria at its liberation in December 2014.<\/p><\/div>\n

See Oberg\u2019s pictures of the destruction of that place of human civilisation \u2013 and the hope of the liberated people \u2013 HERE<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Banality of Militarism<\/strong><\/p>\n

11 Jul 2018 – <\/em>In the field of science, business and culture, new ideas, innovative methods, doing new things and doing old things in new ways are activities usually rewarded and admired. That keeps these fields vibrant, alive and interesting to others too.<\/p>\n

However, in the field of the all-pervasive, omni-present paradigm of basic<\/em> military<\/em> defence and security thinking and policy \u2013 drop peace because no one has a peace policy \u2013 no such dynamics exist.<\/p>\n

The same old tune is played over and over again \u2013 to make you fearful and pay:<\/p>\n

The same old tune is played over and over again \u2013 to make you fearful and pay:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThere is an enemy \u2013 here or there, today or upcoming \u2013 against which we (as your government) need to protect our country and you, our citizen. To do so, we need more weapons (troops, deployments, bases\u2026) the purpose of which is to create \u2018stability, security and peace\u2019. We are the good guys having done nothing wrong, but they can\u2019t be trusted: look what they have done or the nasty plans we know they have but cannot tell you.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

We<\/em><\/strong> have good intentions but too little capacity, they have bad intentions and too much capacity. We seek balance, they seek superiority. While our weapons have long-range capacity, we have only defensive doctrines and we are, therefore, not a threat to them; we\u2019ll only fight if we are attacked. But their long-range weapons are a threat to us. Thus, we need to increase the military budget. For your own sake, cough up more money for new weapons.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It\u2019s called the arms race and takes various shapes. It\u2019s like two or more scorpions in a bottle, paid by taxpayers with nothing of real value \u2013 peace, for instance \u2013 given back to them.<\/p>\n

Trilllions of dollars is spent on this generalised, repetitive, never-failing intellectual garbage<\/em>.<\/p>\n

It promises citizens \u2013 falsely \u2013 that they will get protection, security and peace. Well, it\u2019s like pissing in your pants: Because a few years later, new \u2013 invented<\/em> \u2013 threats appear and stability, security and peace is threatened and, thus, we need more \u2013 for instance 2 per cent of GDP: A stupid discussion because that measure is related to size of the economy and not to any threat assessment.<\/p>\n

These are, grosso modo, the mechanisms. NATO and its leaders say the same, year after year. So ask yourself:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>What happened to the peace our governments promised would follow a few years ago? What happened to the UN Charter goal that we should solve conflicts and make peace, first of all, by peaceful means? What happened to cooperation, confidence-building and the over all better world we have been promised, decade after decade since 1945? Why are we in a new Cold War in Europe \u2013 why all those hot wars in the Middle East and elsewhere? IF these trillions were the rice for real peace?<\/em><\/p>\n

Imagine what would happen if we separated the gigantic military costs \u2013 some US$ 1700 billion worldwide from the tax declaration and instead forced political leaders, the military and the weapons corporations to beg their bread from door to door for war \u2013 like humanitarian organisations have to do to help repair the damage these militarist policies cause (citizens pay twice, first for destruction and then for re-construction)? Most of all this peace-preventing<\/em> cancer would disappear.<\/p>\n

Hannah Arendt told us about the Banality of Evil. Today there is a much more evil and anonymous MIMAC \u2013 Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex \u2013 which practises this Banality of Militarism<\/em> \u2013 of which you and I are nothing but paying victims.<\/p>\n

Hannah Arendt told us about the Banality of Evil. Today there is a much more evil and anonymous MIMAC \u2013 Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex \u2013 which practises this Banality of Militarism \u2013 of which you and I are nothing but paying victims.<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

How come so many believe in this banality? Because fearology<\/em> is applied to them: making citizens believe that they are constantly and existentially threatened and that more and better weapons is the<\/em> solution. Even when, like after the Cold War ended, the MIMAC invented new enemies \u2013 one after the other \u2013 to keep itself (and NATO) look relevant and profit.<\/p>\n

The militarist Emperor is pretty naked \u2013 but a great perpetuum mobile<\/em>. Until citizens and enough people inside that system begin to think and practise moral courage and civil disobedience, it will continue down the drain and, at some point, lead to either<\/em> worldwide destruction or<\/em>, simply, implode and make the West a sad periphery to the Rest.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

NATO \u2013 North Atlantic Treaty Obsolescence \u2013 in a new key<\/strong><\/p>\n

So, let\u2019s try instead just a little new thinking. For heuristic purposes, let\u2019s assume there are three scenarios for NATO within the next 5-10 year:<\/p>\n

1) The Crisis-Dissolution Road<\/em>
\nContinue down the present crisis road outlined in the first article, leading to its dissolution \u00e0 la the Warsaw Pact. We gave 9 reasons in the first article<\/a>, here is a 10th in a macro-perspective:<\/p>\n

10. Change or fall:<\/em> NATO is doomed to change or fall because the rest of the world (order) is changing. What is usually called the West \u2013 not to be confused with \u201cthe international community\u201d \u2013 is losing power on all power scales to the Rest, China and other Asia in particular.<\/p>\n

NATO is doomed to change or fall because the rest of the world (order) is changing. What is usually called the West \u2013 not to be confused with \u201cthe international community\u201d \u2013 is losing power on all power scales to the Rest, China and other Asia in particular.<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It will, therefore, be much better for NATO to do some early warning on its own existence and prepare for a fundamental change and new role in that rapidly emerging world order \u2013 which, one can safely predict, will not<\/em> be dominated by the U.S. Empire, nor by NATO members and also not by the EU as such. It will be a multi-polar, cooperative world order.<\/p>\n

Europe \u2013 including NATO Europe \u2013 itself is facing a multitude of crises \u2013 economic, management, vision, refugee management, populism, racism and more. It is faces with one big wake-up call: the end of Transatlantic trust and with Brexit, i.e. the likely future departure (more or less) of Britain and the U.S.<\/p>\n

Contrary to the common understanding of the European\/EU situation, this should be seen as a golden historic opportunity for Europe \u2013 the EU and other Europe, including Russia<\/em>.<\/p>\n

But that will require a new creative thinking independent of the paradigm imposed since 1945 on European allies and friends by the US<\/em>. Europe will have to think on its own and stand on its own and find its own role \u2013 and one more with<\/em> than against<\/em> Russia \u2013 in the new future, multipolar Orient-led world order.<\/p>\n

As a matter of fact, Empires do go down and with the relative weakening of the West, there is now only adaptation left for the West<\/em> \u2013 not resistance and not full-spectrum dominance over The Rest.<\/p>\n

The US is fighting all kinds of war it can\u2019t win. The Europeans, including European NATO, can<\/em> be smarter.<\/p>\n

If such a change isn\u2019t coming about soon, it means Crisis and Dissolution. But let\u2019s remain hopeful.<\/p>\n

Mr. Stoltenberg, its\u2019 your turn to make history. Since NATO is meant to defend democracy and freedom, you have the freedom to say something free and creative at your next press conference, take off your mental uniform and become a leading figure in the history of peace. Or resign with honour.<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So what about NATO\u2019s future?<\/p>\n

There could be these two if Crisis-Dissolution is avoided:<\/em><\/p>\n

2) Humanitarian NATO:<\/em>
\nStrip NATO of its weapons policies and arsenals and turn it into humanity\u2019s largest humanitarian transport and communications agency directly under the UN. Since a large number of crises are already at hand and will get worse because of political inaction \u2013 or insufficient action \u2013 and new crises and war will emerge, there will be an increasing need for a benign, well-financed agency for doing good where people become victims of natural and man-made disasters.<\/p>\n

3) New peace and security NATO:<\/em>
\nChange its philosophy back to its original Treaty provisions (see below) and take it from there to build an entirely new regional peace and security (in that order) system that would be good for both the Europeans\/Russia\/Middle East and the Rest of the world \u2013 whether or not the U.S. would like it.<\/p>\n

There may be others, of course, including some kind of combination of these two.<\/p>\n

But any scenario that builds primarily on military security, confrontation with Russia, interventionism, war-fighting without prior conflict-management by \u201ccivilian means\u201d, nuclear weapons and constant quarrels about increasing military budgets spells doom for NATO.<\/p>\n

Such scenarios create more conflict, deeper hatred of and terrorism against the West thanks to failed wars, cause more refugees to flee and consume funds that, in times of economic crisis which we are in, should and can be spent better for civilian purposes.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. New Humanitarian NATO<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    With the starving out of the UN and the systematic undermining of its authority by leading NATO countries since Yugoslavia, if not before, it should be obvious to everyone who cares to see and hear that the UN cannot repair the world after war or solve all the socio-economic problems caused by the global capitalist system. Particularly not when the war-system gets about US$ 1700 million worldwide and the UN budget is less than US$ 50 billion.<\/p>\n

    So take all the weapons away from NATO, the obsolete, and use the organisation, its management, communication, transport capability and its very broad professional skills, for something constructive.<\/p>\n

    And integrate it with the UN, preferably a rapidly reformed UN.<\/p>\n

    So take all the weapons away from NATO, the obsolete, and use the organisation, its management, communication, transport capability and its very broad professional skills, for something constructive. And integrate it with the UN, preferably a rapidly reformed UN.<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    The world would then have a global agency that could intervene in humanitarian crisis situations, rescue people, quickly bring in tents and aid, build refugee camps o other safe zones and provide them with all that is needed for as long as it is needed \u2013 all of course in cooperation with local, regional and global humanitarian civil society organisations.<\/p>\n

    It\u2019s doable if the vision, the cooperation and the political will is there.<\/p>\n

    And what would be more beautiful for NATO than becoming the world\u2019s leading UN agency for humanitarian aid, for doing good? I believe that if NATO\u2019s own employees were asked: Would you like to spend your life here on preparing for war-fighting and killing or would you rather work every day to save lives worldwide, it must be assumed that the great majority of these good women and men would choose to devote themselves to the latter.<\/p>\n

    The better we learn to handle conflicts, the less violence we\u2019ll need. Only the conflict-illiterate uses violence at an early stage.<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    New Peace and Security regional Euro-NATO<\/strong><\/p>\n

    That \u2013 surprisingly \u2013 means becoming what it was originally meant to be and what is embedded in its North Atlantic Treaty of April 1949<\/a> from which I gladly quote at length \u2013 the italics added by me:<\/p>\n

    The Preamble:<\/em>
    \n\u201cThe Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations<\/em> and their desire to live in peace with all peoples<\/em> and all governments.
    \nThey are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy<\/em>, individual liberty<\/em> and the rule of law<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Article 1:<\/em>
    \n\u201cThe Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means<\/em> in such a manner that international peace and security and justice<\/em> are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force<\/em> in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Article 5:<\/em>
    \n\u201cThe Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America<\/em> shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence<\/em> recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

    The UN Charter is about nonviolence and the abolition of war. It\u2019s about using peaceful means to achieve peace and only use \u2013 UN-organised \u2013 military means, detailed in Chapter 7 \u2013 if and when all civilian means have been tried and found to be in vain.<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/a>

    \u201cI\u2019ve met the enemy and he is us\u201d \u2013 applies beautifully to militarism that can never produce peace.<\/p><\/div>\n

    Only self-defence, defensive weapons and postures<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Think if NATO adhered to such principles in its day-to-day policies. Today it does the exact opposite and wraps it all in boringly predictable rhetoric and the three mantras to explain and legitimize whatever it does: Security, stability and peace \u2013 none of them having emerged yet since the end of the First Cold War.<\/p>\n

    A new NATO that would thus go back to its original Treaty provisions and build its new policies on them, would be very acceptable to the world, seen as no threat to anybody. It would be entirely defensive and only take action if one of its members were first attacked. That\u2019s a basically defensive<\/em> posture and in complete unity with moral principles and international law.<\/p>\n

    And with a Kantian thinking about world peace: Do only yourself what can be elevated to a general principle adhered to be all others in the system. Defensive postures \u2013 self-defence \u2013 can be done by everyone without upsetting the system. Offensive \u201cdefence\u201d is nonsense and simply can\u2019t, it will lead to eternal armament and militarism. That\u2019s the reason that the UN Charter\u2019s Article 51 talk about self-defence.<\/p>\n

    What is defensive? Weapons with limited firepower and range. Offensive, on the contrary, means long-range and large, or unlimited, firepower, or destructive potentials. And when can you feel secure? When your own defensive capacity is strong enough to withstand the offensive capacity of the opponent.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

    Today\u2019s Banal Militarism thinking is that \u201cour\u201d defence begins far away \u2013 the US sees itself threatened and as having defensive needs anywhere on earth \u2013 which can only be perceived as threatening by anybody who is not a close ally.\u00a0 That philosophy means war without end\u2026<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    What is defensive? Weapons with limited firepower and range. Offensive, on the contrary, means long-range and large, or unlimited, firepower, or destructive potentials. And when can you feel secure? When your own defensive capacity is strong enough to withstand the offensive capacity of the opponent.<\/p>\n

    That\u2019s a small prize to pay by a few to achieve that much more civilised world!<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Today\u2019s Banal Militarism thinking is that \u201cour\u201d defence begins far away \u2013 the US sees itself threatened and as having defensive needs anywhere on earth \u2013 which can only be perceived as threatening by anybody who is not a close ally.\u00a0 That philosophy means war without end\u2026<\/p>\n

    So much for the military dimension \u2013 and as long as citizens believe in the utility of weapons, democracy compels us to accept that. But not any military posture, then. Only defensive. So what will need to be done is: Disarmament of all offensive weapons, including of course nuclear weapons, and re- or transarmament<\/em> towards new exclusively defensive thinking, weapons, doctrines and policies.<\/p>\n

    Arms races would then stop, militarism would stop. Threatening everybody else with destruction on their territory would stop. Fear would diminish. But \u2013 of course imperialism, interventionism and war-fighting on somebody else\u2019s territory would also be a thing of the past.<\/p>\n

    That\u2019s a small prize to pay by a few to achieve that much more civilised world!<\/p>\n

    Using violence will soon be seen as unacceptable to civilisation \u2013 the way we look today upon cannibalism, absolute monarchy, slavery, child labour, pedophilia, rape and #MeToo.<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Multi-dimensional defence \u2013 civil defence and nonviolence<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Of course, military means would not be enough in this new European system. You\u2019d need civil protection too, you\u2019d need in a crisis to be quite self-reliant and increase, in peacetime, your survival capacity on whatever you can provide yourself. It will also make you defensively strong and increase survival capacity.<\/p>\n

    Call it civil defence<\/em> \u2013 which has many dimensions. And add to that non-violent resistance<\/em> that must be separated from the defensive military in time and space \u2013 for instance be well-prepared for the eventuality that your country is occupied in spite of its strong defence. Think of things like civil disobedience, ridiculing the occupier, denying it legitimacy, demonstrations, petitions, peaceful sabotage of things \u2013 but no killing of course. Much more can be said on all this \u2013 but enough to here.<\/p>\n

    Using weapons\/violence to handle conflicts is un-intelligent, counterproductive.<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Intelligent conflict-handling<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Using weapons\/violence to handle conflicts is un-intelligent, counterproductive.<\/p>\n

    When did you last solve a conflict in your own life and make friends or peace by slapping the other\u2019s face or humiliating him or her? Well, that sort of behaviour is, unfortunately, called \u201cstate(wo)manship\u201d in today\u2019s world.<\/p>\n

    One thing is to have a conflict \u2013 and like shit conflicts happen \u2013 and conflicts can be something good. But the moment you use violence, you add a dimension to the conflict \u2013 humiliating, wish for revenge, hatred, never-trust again attitude \u2013 and those things make it, invariably, much more difficult to solve the original conflict.<\/p>\n

    So conflict-intelligent governments and nations use non-violence first \u2013 \u201cLet\u2019s make nonviolence great again!\u201d \u2013 and violence only as an absolutely last resort and only with a mandate from the UN or other international-regional structures that may emerge in the future world.<\/p>\n

    Using violence will soon be seen as unacceptable to civilisation \u2013 the way we look today upon cannibalism, absolute monarchy, slavery, child labour, pedophilia, rape and #MeToo.<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

    And why not?<\/p>\n

    Think of two streets you walk down: Violent Street<\/em> has people walking and driving by who all carry guns and on the rooftops of the houses you pass there are submachine gun positions. At Peaceful Street<\/em> people walk unarmed but are all trained in JuJutsu.<\/a> There are no weapons, no threats, no fears and if there is a quarrel, there would be a local neighbourhood guard service and mediators at standby, nearby.<\/p>\n

    Which would be the more pleasant and safe to you? And why on Earth do we continue to build Violent Streets all over the place?<\/p>\n

    So, what we are talking about here is a new European peace system that would be secured in many, dense and multi-layerd ways, including the use of the good sides of a new NATO, that could cultivate another defence<\/em> \u2013 built on component such as conflict early warning, intelligent conflict-management<\/em>, early non-violent intervention<\/em> in crisis, mediation<\/em>, consultations<\/em>, provisions of good offices<\/em>, peace-keeping, -making- and -building<\/em> in the spirit of the UN Charter and NATO\u2019s own Treaty. And everything else necessary to achieve negotiated solutions to conflicts and other problems.<\/p>\n

    Such a new Euro-NATO \u2013 something like Gorbachev\u2019s European House<\/em> that coordinates\/integrated also with the OSCE and EU would be an attractive partner for the world, the Middle East in particular. Finally, after more than 100 years of \u2018modern\u2019 interventions for \u2018mission civilisatrice\u2019, Europe\/NATO itself would have become civilised.<\/p>\n

    Peace can be learnt! If we want to.<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    In lieu of a conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Why must car drivers have a driving licence and know traffic rules? In order to get from A to B in the safest way for themselves, reduce violence to people and property and because it is a win-win solution for all. It would be good if those who handle violence in today\u2019s world would have to have a sort of driving licence and know something before they can pull the trigger on other countries and their people.<\/p>\n

    We\u2019ve got to think differently to survive. Most wars and other violence will disappear the day people begin to think and educate themselves in using all the other tools.<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Peace can be learnt! If we want to.<\/p>\n

    The better we learn to handle conflicts, the less violence we\u2019ll need. Only the conflict-illiterate<\/em> uses violence at an early stage \u2013 not because of evil or lack of intelligence (well, in some cases yes\u2026) but because the civil and intelligent means are not part of the discourse and have no budget. Weapons have huge budgets and they are on the shelves ready to use. The MIMAC seeks to maintain that situation, violence being its core interest.<\/p>\n

    We\u2019ve got to think differently to survive. Most wars and other violence will disappear the day people begin to think and educate themselves in using all the other tools.<\/p>\n

    How we can do defence, security and peace much much better than hitherto has been the case should be the main focus when NATO turns 70 next year. Just return to your Treaty\u2019s words and spirit, scrap what you are and do today, and dare think what a wonderful world it could be when we turn into Peace Street from Violence Street.<\/p>\n

    Mr. Stoltenberg, its\u2019 your turn to make history. Since NATO is meant to defend democracy and freedom, you have the freedom to say something free and creative at your next press conference, take off your mental uniform and become a leading figure in the history of peace. Or resign with honour.<\/p>\n

    The rest of shall discuss and use all the nonviolent means at hand to rid the world of militarism and present alternatives<\/em> \u2013 the latter being something the peace movement people are still weak on. \u201cNo to\u2026\u201d \u2013 \u201cDown with\u2026\u201d and angry caricatures isn\u2019t quite enough. The only armament the world needs<\/em> is intellectual and ethical.<\/p>\n

    Remember Gandhi\u2019s subtle smile when saying that Western civilisation would be a good idea\u2026<\/p>\n

    Note:<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Video: The author discusses some of these issues with U.S. diplomat, Michael Springman, on The Debate, PressTV, July 10, 2018<\/a><\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/a>__________________________________<\/p>\n

    TFF Director Prof. Jan Oberg is a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

    Go to Original \u2013 transnational.live<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    This is the second of two articles about the coming end of NATO as we know it and what can be done. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":114426,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-114425","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-transcend-members"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114425","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=114425"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114425\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/114426"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114425"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114425"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114425"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}