● Le crescenti crepe nella Nato riflettono spostamenti tettonici nelle relazioni internazionali;
● la crisi finanziaria del 2008 e le sue conseguenze hanno acuito le divergenze economiche e politiche tra i paesi Nato;
o forti contrasti tra Berlino e Washington su questioni monetarie e sulla bilancia commerciale;
o gli Usa, che stanno concentrandosi sul Pacifico e sul conflitto con la Cina, hanno scarso interesse ad sostenere militarmente i concorrenti economici in Europa.
– Gli Usa sfruttano le tensioni tra Germania, Francia e GB, e tra Europa e Russia per manovrare sulla situazione politica in Europa e tenerla sotto controllo.
– Vertice Nato, Lisbona: deciso il settimo progetto strategico Nato dalla sua fondazione (1959), il primo del 1999, presentato come storico passo avanti, compresa la cancelliera tedesca Merkel per la parte riguardante cooperazione con la Russia.
– In realtà il progetto è solo un compromesso verbale tra interessi divergenti nella maggiore alleanza militare del mondo, e si limita a dissimulare le fratture aperte tra i suoi 28 membri.
– Unanime è solo il consenso sul maggior ruolo che la Nato dovrebbe avere in futuro nelle questioni socio-politiche;
o ribaditi i suoi compiti di difesa collettiva con armi convenzionali e nucleari, vengono sanciti gli interventi internazionali (come quelli già effettuati nella ex Iugoslavia e quelli in corso in Afghanistan, Corno d’Africa, etc.),
o giustificati con una lista di motivazioni-pretesto: proliferazione missili balistici, armi nucleari, altre armi di distruzione di massa; instabilità, compreso l’incoraggiamento dell’estremismo, il terrorismo e attività illegali transnazionali come traffico di armi, droga e persone; l’attacco e distruzione di vie di comunicazioni, trasporto e transito vitali.
o Sono utilizzate come pretesto anche le questioni ambientali, e nuove aree come gli attacchi cibernetici, per cui finiscono sotto il diretto controllo e influenza dei militari anche Internet, e la ricerca scientifica e tecnologica.
– i paesi est-europei enfatizzano il ruolo della Nato per la difesa contro la Russia,
o chiedono una forte presenza militare americana in Europa,
o come protezione dal possibile avvicinamento di Germania, o Francia alla Russia.
o Risponde a queste richieste la nuova strategia Nato con un impegno esplicito alla difesa collettiva (art. 5, tutti i paesi Nato devono fornire assistenza militare ad altri membri la cui sicurezza sia minacciata).
o Ad esempio, in caso di conflitto tra Russia e uno dei paesi baltici membro della Nato ad es. su minoranze etniche, la Nato deve intervenire militarmente contro la Russia;
o altra fonte di conflitto ad es. la regione secessionista della Transnistria che è sotto protezione russa, in Moldova, confinante con la Romania che è membro Nato.
– la nuova strategia Nato non contempla l’accesso di Ucraina e Georgia, ma solo di sviluppare l’alleanza con esse e tenere la porta aperta a tutte le democrazie europee;
– lo scudo missilistico previsto per il 2020 segue un piano Nato e non quello originale di Bush; su richiesta della Turchia non nomina l’Iran come pericolo.
– Medvedev ha accettato l’invito a partecipare al progetto di scudo missilistico, e avrebbe promesso alla Nato maggiore accesso al trasporto russo per i rifornimenti militari all’Afghanistan.
o Gli impegni di Medvedev sono però generici; sono piuttosto scettici sulla cooperazione con la Nato Putin assieme a frazioni politiche e militari russe.
o Negli Usa, a seguito delle elezioni di midterm hanno guadagnato terreno gli oppositori ad una più stretta cooperazione con la Russia; dubbi sulla ratifica da parte del senato del nuovo trattato Start.
– La Germania chiede migliori relazioni tra Nato e Russia, non vuole essere stretta nella morsa delle due maggiori potenze nucleari, che limiterebbe la sua capacità di azione esterna.
– USA, con l’Amministrazione Bush
o aveva spinto per l’espansione Nato ad Est con il progetto dello scudo missilistico e l’appoggio alle rivoluzioni colorate nelle ex repubbliche sovietiche, ponendo sotto pressione la Russia;
o aveva utilizzato le contraddizioni tra i “vecchi” e “nuovi” paesi europei per rafforzare la propria posizione in Europa;
o la proposta americana l’ingresso di Ucraina e Georgia,
o aveva suscitato forti reazioni russe, nel 2008 evitato per poco lo scontro militare Russia-Usa in Georgia.
o Con l’amministrazione Obama, ripresa la convergenza Usa-Russia,
o 1. Russia necessaria agli Usa in Afghanistan;
o 2. maggior attenzione al conflitto con la Cina, evitare l’avvicinamento Mosca-Pechino;
o ad aprile 2010 siglato nuovo accordo Start, per limitazione armi nucleari strategiche.
– Disarmo: a parte le dichiarazioni formali a favore del disarmo chieste dalla Germania, è ribadito il deterrente nucleare;
o la Francia rifiuta l’abbandono dell’arma nucleare, la “force de frappe”, garanzia della sua posizione in Europa, ma anche di consentire alla Nato di ingerirsi,
o non considera lo scudo missilistico un sostituto della difesa nucleare;
o risolto prima del vertice il conflitto sulla questione tra Francia e Germania.
● Il progetto Nato non parla del suo finanziamento; il Financial Times parla del vertice come di uno spettacolo surrealista: la Nato ha nuove ambizioni, ma in Europa vengono tagliate proprio le risorse necessarie ad affrontare le nuove minacce.
o dal 2001 il Pentagono ha aumentato la spesa militare da $493 MD a $708MD,
– mentre l’Europa, complessivamente – 2% l’anno, a $295MD, neppure la metà di quello americano.
– Nessun governo europeo può permettersi di proporre a breve un forte aumento della spesa militare dati i tagli in corso sulla spesa sociale; il settore militare dei paesi europei viene solo riorganizzato e ristrutturato:
o vedi recente accordo militare franco-britannico; o in Germania l’abolizione del servizio militare obbligatorio, con la riduzione del numero di soldati, ma al contempo l’aumento del numero di soldati a disposizione per operazioni internazionali.
o Per la Germania una maggiore distensione nelle relazioni con la Russia sono una premessa per poter continuare gli interventi militari all’estero:
o vano in senso contrario l’appoggio americano ai pesi est-europei e nuove tensioni russo-americane.
– La riorganizzazione delle forze armate europee va di pari passo con la concentrazione dell’industria bellica europea, che ha accresciuto la competizione con quella americana.
o 10 anni fa, Germania, Francia e Spagna hanno unito la loro industria aerospaziale per crea EADS; Airbus, produttore di EADS, è il maggior concorrente di Boeing nella flotta commerciale e il secondo gruppo degli armamenti in Europa.
o Gli Usa non vedono bene il rifornimento di armi europee a Russia e Cina; la Francia, ad es., sta cercando di vendere il suo portaelicotteri Mistral alla Russia.
– Il vertice Nato di Lisbona ha deciso di estendere fino al 2014 il dispiegamento in Afghanistan, e di lasciarvi in seguito forti contingenti militari.
– Il fallimento in Afghanistan segnerebbe per diversi paesi europei il fallimento della Nato,
ma al contempo diversi di essi non sono più molto disposti a sottomettere agli Usa le loro future operazioni militari.
World Socialist Web Site
Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)
– On November 20 in Lisbon, NATO adopted a new strategic concept. It is the seventh in the 61-year history of the military alliance and the first since 1999.
The summit was preceded by months of preparation and discussion. A group of experts chaired by former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright issued recommendations for the new strategy in May.
– After a long tug of war, the strategic concept has now been adopted and was presented to the public in Lisbon. Those attending the summit celebrated it as a historic breakthrough. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel said, “This summit will go down in history. The strategic approach is clear, and it shows we are all working on the same footing.”
– In reality, the eleven-page document barely manages to paper over the fault lines that have opened up between the 28 members of the largest military alliance in the world. It is a verbal compromise between divergent interests. The different factions were able to agree on many formulations only at the last minute.
– Where the summit was unanimous was that the military should in the future play a far more important role in political and social life. In addition to collective defence with conventional and nuclear weapons, the new strategy sanctions international interventions of various kinds, such as those NATO has already conducted in the former Yugoslavia and is presently carrying out in Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa and elsewhere in the world.
– The strategic concept lists a variety of reasons that could serve NATO as a pretext for war in the future. These include “the proliferation of ballistic missiles, of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction,” “instability, including by fostering extremism, terrorism and trans-national illegal activities such as trafficking in arms, narcotics and people,” and the attacking and disruption of “vital communication, transport and transit routes on which international trade, energy security and prosperity depend.”
– Even environmental issues can be exploited for military aims. “Key environmental and resource constraints, including health risks, climate change, water scarcity and increasing energy needs will further shape the future security environment in areas of concern to NATO and have the potential to affect significantly NATO planning and operations,” states the document.
NATO will also become active in completely new areas which previously had been largely beyond the clutches of the military. These include the “ability to prevent, detect, defend against and recover from cyber-attacks” and “assessing the impact of emerging security technologies.”
– Important means of communication, such as the Internet, and scientific and technological research are similarly to come more directly under the influence and control of the military. The consequences will be the erosion of democratic rights, the involvement of the military in domestic politics, and the merging of military, police and intelligence agencies.
– While the participants at the Lisbon summit were largely in agreement on the growing role of the military, there were disagreements about the strategic direction of the alliance that could be concealed only with difficulty. In particular, deep differences exist concerning the attitude to Russia.
– The Eastern European countries, which joined the Atlantic Alliance after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, emphasize the role of NATO as a territorial defence alliance against Russia. They insist on a strong American military presence in Europe, which they regard as protection against a possible rapprochement between Germany or France and Russia.
– Germany, however, which has close economic relations with Eastern Europe and is dependent on Russian energy supplies, called for better relations between NATO and Russia. It wants to avoid once again being squeezed between the two largest nuclear powers of the world, limiting its capacity for external action, as was the case during the Cold War.
– Under the presidency of George W. Bush, Washington put Russia under great pressure—by the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe, through the planned construction of a missile defence shield and the support of so-called “colour revolutions” in former Soviet republics. The US used the contradictions between the “old” and “new” Europe to strengthen its own position in Europe. The proposal for the inclusion of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO met with fierce resistance in Moscow. In 2008 in Georgia, an armed conflict between Russian and American forces was narrowly averted.
– Under Obama, Russia and the US have converged again. First, because the US needs Russian support in Afghanistan, and in part because it is devoting more attention to the conflict with China and does not want to drive Russia toward Beijing. In April of this year, Obama and Russian President Medvedev signed a new START agreement limiting strategic nuclear weapons.
– In a concession to the Eastern European states, the new NATO strategy now gives a clear commitment to collective defence under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Article 5 requires all NATO countries to provide military assistance to another member if its security is threatened.
– If there were, for example, a conflict between Russia and any one of the Baltic NATO member states where there are unresolved issues concerning ethnic minorities, NATO would be obliged to intervene militarily against Russia. Moldova, which borders NATO member Romania, and whose breakaway province of Transnistria is under Russian military protection, could be another possible source of conflict.
– The new strategic concept also holds out the possible NATO accession of Ukraine and Georgia. It stresses that it is “keeping the door to membership in the Alliance open to all European democracies that meet NATO’s standards” and that its aim is to “continue and develop the partnerships with Ukraine and Georgia.”
Even the controversial missile defence shield is to be built by 2020—not as planned by Bush as an American project, but rather as a NATO project. The strategic concept does not say who might pose the danger of a missile attack, since Turkey had spoken out strongly against the naming of Iran.
– To reassure Russia, Moscow has been invited to join the missile defence shield. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev came to Lisbon and responded positively. According to some reports he promised to allow NATO greater access to Russian transport in supplying military equipment to Afghanistan.
– Especially in Germany, this cooperation with Russia was celebrated as a “historic breakthrough.” NATO Secretary General Rasmussen also described it as an unprecedented step. “For the first time in history, the NATO countries and Russia are cooperating in their defense,” he claimed.
– In fact, nothing is settled. The Russian president himself made no firm commitments. He said only that he was prepared to conduct further talks, and warned: “We must be involved on an equal footing or we will not participate.” Moreover, many sections of the political and military elite in Russia, including Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, are far more sceptical concerning cooperation with NATO.
– Following the recent elections in the United States, opponents of closer cooperation with Russia have gained ground. It is questionable whether Congress will ratify the START agreement signed in April. In Germany, this has given rise to concern.
– Despite paying lip service to disarmament, the new NATO strategy holds firm to the nuclear deterrent. Although it states that NATO pursues “the goal of creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons,” the next sentence reads: “As long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, NATO will remain a nuclear power”.
– The commitment to a world without nuclear weapons was inserted at the insistence of Germany, which as a non-nuclear power is pushing for the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Europe in order to reduce its military dependence on the United States.
– France, which has its own nuclear weapons, refuses, however, to abandon them. It considers its nuclear force, the force de frappe, as the guarantor of its position of power in Europeand rejects giving NATO any say in this matter. France, in particular, had opposed describing the European anti-missile shield as a substitute for nuclear deterrence. The conflict between Germany and France was resolved shortly before the summit at a meeting of President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel.
– The strategic concept completely excludes the question of financing, which had led to considerable tensions in the run-up to the summit. While the Pentagon has increased its annual military expenditure since 2001 from $403 billion to $708 billion, European military spending over the same period fell by two percent annually. Totalling $295 billion, it is not even half that of the US.
– The Financial Times quoted a defence expert who, in view of the financial gaps, compared the Lisbon summit with “a surrealist play.” NATO sets out fresh ambitions, “yet in Europe, the very resources to deal with those threats are being cut back hugely,” she said.
– In view of massive cuts being made in social spending, hardly any European government sees itself in a position near-term to greatly increase unpopular military spending. Instead, the military is being reorganized and restructured.
– France and Britain have recently agreed closer military cooperation in order to preserve the international capabilities of their armed forces. Germany has abolished compulsory military service, reducing its troop strength, but at the same time increasing the number of soldiers available for international assignments.
– From Germany’s perspective, a more relaxed relationship with Russia is the pre-condition for remaining capable of military action internationally.
o US support for the Eastern European countries, and new tensions between Washington and Moscow, are met in Berlin, therefore, with growing aversion.
– The reorganization of the European armed forces is accompanied by a concentration of the European defence industries, which have stepped up the competition with their American counterparts.
o Germany, France and Spain combined sections of their aerospace industry ten years ago to form EADS. Airbus manufacturer EADS is not only the biggest competitor to Boeing in commercial aircraft, but also the second largest arms company in Europe.
– Washington is particularly annoyed that European arms manufacturers are also providing materiel to Russia and China. For example, France is attempting to sell a Mistral class helicopter carrier to Russia.
– The growing cracks in NATO reflect tectonic shifts in international relations. In particular, the 2008 financial crisis and its consequences have sharpened economic and political differences between NATO members.
– There are sharp disputes over currency matters and exports between Berlin and Washington. The US, which is increasingly focussing on the Pacific and the conflict with China, has little interest in militarily bolstering its economic rivals in Europe.
– and between Europe and Russia provide numerous opportunities for Washington to manipulate the political situation in Europe and keep it under control.
– In Lisbon, the NATO members have agreed to extend the deployment in Afghanistan until 2014, and thereafter to leave large military contingents in the country. Failure in Afghanistan is in many European capitals seen as a death sentence for NATO, with incalculable consequences. But the willingness to be subordinate to the US in future international military actions has decreased markedly in most European capitals.
About the WSWS | Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Top of page
Copyright © 1998-2010 World Socialist Web Site – All rights reserved