Intervention of Costas Christodoulides, Head of the International Relations and European Affairs Department of the C.C. of AKEL, at the Conference “War and Peace in the Eastern Mediterranean”
“NATO as an organization of War – Some lessons from the development of NATO”
7th October 2013, Nicosia
Your presentation has eloquently explained what the war machine called NATO provokes. Its results are of course not an issue of a scientific seminar, since it commits real crimes against humanity.
NATO today is not some multinational police force fighting against the spread of communism, the very reason why it was founded. It is a modern organization, constantly expanding its capacity for military intervention and hegemony, constituting the military wing of imperialism, the division of the world, raw materials and wealth under the leadership of the US and several other states. Consequently, we cannot understand the role of NATO, without first accepting that such a discussion refers, first and foremost, to imperialism. For many reasons, it also concerns our country too.
A full accession and consent of Cyprus with all the aspects of the EU´s foreign policy, including the solution of the problems with NATO as much as these are related to Cyprus, the integration into a NATO Programme in conjunction with the status of Cyprus as an EU member and as a vital “unsinkable aircraft carrier” in the region of the Eastern Mediterranean with its emerging energy wealth will lead to results that will surprise negatively even some of those who are today projecting this strategy as an option supposedly to upgrade and strengthen Cyprus´ position internationally .
The degree of Cyprus´ integration into the problems of the Middle East raises questions, namely the possibility of military cooperation with Israel, an active engagement on the Syrian issue but also on broader issues with regards to Iran. All these issues are priorities for American foreign policy and on NATO´s agenda. According to what is being proclaimed, a big part of these issues are on the agenda of the current Anastasiades government.
Modern NATO in “New Middle East”
A critical question concerns the lessons we can draw from NATO´s operations and development.
Modern NATO is at the forefront of global developments, implementing a plan which the mass media of Cyprus do not follow and public opinion ignores.
Recently, the Secretary-General of NATO Anders Fogh Rasmussen met with the Prime Minister of Libya and agreed that NATO will rebuild Libya’s security, the first country after Iraq on the map of the “Plan for a New Middle East” as it was elaborated by the Bush administration back in 2000. This is the same country that was being ripped apart for seven months by the allied aircraft of NATO. Today’s Libya is patent obvious proof of the NATO intervention; a country without clean water, health and medical care, a state unable to offer even bare minimum welfare. Instead, ethnic civil wars and murders are prevalent in a country that is in fact a non -state. The country’s oil production accounted for almost all its foreign income. Now, it has dropped by more than 6/7th of its production and represents on the one hand, spoils and loot for the foreign forces with the government’s consent and on the other, a justification for acts of war between warring factions.
Subsequently, the Secretary-General of NATO visited Turkey and stated that NATO continues to deploy the Patriot missile system in Turkey in order to protect the people and the country’s territory. Turkey is not only an ally of NATO, but NATO secures troops for the country. During Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s visit to the US in May last year he stated that the 8 billion dollars in trade with the US has today risen to $20 billion, but that this isn’t enough. Since 2011, the alliance has deployed the radar of the NATO missile shield in the city of Malatya. If anyone wonders what such a radar system can do then they should first be informed about the ECHELON and PRISM systems of the British and Americans. It is practically impossible for them not to monitor every useful, personal, political and social conversation.
The most important thing however is the strategic upgrading these NATO radar missile systems provide to Turkey, preparing both the country and the region for the role Turkey will play for the extension of NATO’s intervention in the direction of Iran. The same system has been deployed in the countries surrounding the Russian Federation, in states all belonging to NATO. In mid-2012, the Pentagon revealed that it is planning to install a second missile shield in the Gulf monarchies in the Middle East and Asia, thus encircling China as well.
The neo-Ottoman ideological veil of Turkey’s policies aims to elevate it as the regions police officer, into an imperialist power, in which an alliance of the ruling bourgeoisie with Erdogan’s party is demanded. To achieve this, the main countries in competition with Turkish capital, that is to say Egypt and Iran, must in one way or another be subordinated, or forced to fall in line with this objective. The failure in Syria is obvious, as well as the reversal of the plans in Egypt. This is where Turkish policy is facing problems. On the one hand, the US are seeking, without sending their own troops (for economic and political reasons), to have at their disposal regional forces, namely Turkey, but not without the hegemony of the indispensible – for many reasons – militarist state of Israel.
The question posed by many circles as to whether it is possible for Israel and Turkey to “split up” in view of imperialism’s strategic goals as these are expressed by the US and NATO forces, has its own complex answer: in the end the spoils will be divided between them accordingly. These initial observations have complications in the case of Cyprus, with regards the policies but also perhaps the illusions being cultivated that Israel is an irreconcilable enemy of Turkey.
Furthermore, the Secretary-General of NATO met with the leader of Afghanistan and declared together with President Obama that at the end of 2014, NATO will hand over the country’s security to Afghans who it will however continue to train. On 26th May the Afghan parliament approved the Strategic Cooperation agreement with the US, an agreement safeguarding both their stay and Washington’s interests in Afghanistan the day after the withdrawal of all military forces. The relevant agreement covers issues relating to security, the economy and governance and sets out the US relationship with Afghanistan beyond 2014 when US troops will be withdrawn. 300 billion dollars were given to the war industry and elsewhere just for the war in Afghanistan according to a report published by the European Parliament. Ten years after the US invasion of Afghanistan 55% of children are undernourished according to UNICEF. A Report issued by the European Parliament in 2009 acknowledges that the Taliban receive sums of up to 3 billion dollars of assistance annually and its source is the occupation forces themselves (“European Parliament resolution of 16 December 2010 on a new strategy for Afghanistan (2009/2217(INI)):…45. Notes that the decision to place the US military supply chain in private hands without any reliable criteria for assuring accountability, transparency and legality is fuelling extortion and corruption, as warlords, local mafia bosses and ultimately Taliban commanders end up taking a significant share of the USD 2.2 – 3 billion business of military logistics in Afghanistan. 46. Is appalled by the fact that protection money and extortion at every level of the military supply chain constitute the most significant source of funding for the insurgency).
There is no so security whatsoever, but rather the dissolution of the state entity and the absence of a minimum form of democracy. In addition, it is revealed that even the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) concluded after an investigation that not only is the drug trade continuing, but 75% of this trade ends up in the hands of the occupying government of Afghanistan, a NATO ally. These are just a few of the consequences of the NATO intervention.
At this point, it is a useful to recall that not long ago the former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted that the US backed and supported the Taliban because the battle was of strategic importance for US interests, focusing on combating the Soviet Union’s influence in the region and preserving their own supremacy. She also admitted that had the US not assisted and backed the fanatical Islamist organizations then the US would lose the overall war with the Soviet Union, hence forcing the USSR to spend huge expenditures on budgets that would eventually have painful consequences for the forces of Socialism. This is the covert policy that funded the spectre of “terrorism” invoked today by NATO as a strategic threat to justify its aid and very existence. Just 15 days ago President Obama announced that he has triggered a secret provision of the US anti-terrorism law known as the “Patriot Act” for funding and assisting the rebels in Syria. Replying to a reporter’s question, a Senator replied that for sure some of the money will end up in the hands of fanatical terrorists, but this is a collateral damage of a broader “good” policy. Thus, we are observing a repetition of events precisely because this serves the US strategic interests, which are part of the root causes of the slaughter of humanity. The fundamentalist Islamist movements are the result of a number of policies, but above all they are being fermented by the NATO machine which is in line with its goal for the division and redivision of the world.
NATO´s New Strategic Concept (NSC) is not so new
The next NATO Summit will take place in 2014 in Great Britain. It will lead to the on-going transformation of NATO from an organization that developing its forces into an organization preparing for the grand division of the world. The statement made by the NATO Secretary-General during his meeting with President Obama about the vision of a “well prepared” NATO is connected to developments underway and the Strategic Concept of NATO as agreed in Lisbon and continued at the Session of Chicago last year. Since 1999, against the background of the war in Yugoslavia, the New Strategic Concept (NSC) approved back then in Washington, declared that the Alliance would “safeguard – by political and military means – the freedom and security of Europe and North America.” In 2010, in the conditions shaped by the 11th September events and in the resulting conditions, this time, the war in Afghanistan, the NSC promises that in the next decade NATO will be “more effective, more engaged and more efficient than ever before.”. The following points stand out in the NSC:
1. The ability to develop and maintain parallel operations even “beyond the territorial borders of NATO.” Developing and maintaining robust, flexible mobile forces for expeditionary NATO operations.
2. The engagement of the Alliance “where possible and when necessary to prevent crises, manage crises, stabilize post-conflict situations and support reconstruction.” This demands the further development of military capability for expeditionary operations at all stages of the crisis.
3. Dialogue and cooperation with NATO partners, not only “for strengthening international security”, but also to support NATO operations and prepare for new members. Great importance is attached to the so-called Partnerships / Cooperation.
4. All-round strengthening of the NATO -EU strategic partnership based on full interchangeability and mutual reinforcement.
The Strategy of NATO – support, prevention and intervention – is the driving force of war.
The EU is tied more to NATO
A few words about “our big European family” and its relationship with NATO. In 2008, in Paris with the Sarkozy Presidency a new big step in the association between the two Organisations was secured. The policy of deploying forces on the basis of interchangeability leaves no room for any error in any assessments to be made or both with regards the EU´s role and its relationship with NATO. The decision adopted, which was accompanied by the full reactivation of France into the Transatlantic Alliance, promotes a much deeper structured relationship between the two parties on a strategic and expeditionary level.
The decision includes the following:
“The European Union must be truly capable, within a decade, to use the resources and capabilities of the states, the EU and NATO, within the context of the goal of deploying 60,000 troops…” The planning and simultaneously waging of campaigns for stabilization and reconstruction, as well as rapid response operations. Supervision in third countries where EU interests are at risk. Civilian missions and long-term missions. Even the ERASMUS programme is exploited for military exchanges.
– Two major stabilization and reconstruction operations, with a suitable civilian component, supported by 10,000 troops for at least two years
– Two rapid response operations of limited duration using EU tactical groups
– A rescue operation of EU nationals (in less than 10 days)
– A maritime mission or air surveillance/prohibition in a zone where the interests at the European Union are at stake
– One civilian – military humanitarian assistance operation lasting up to 90 days
– A dozen European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) civilian missions of various kinds, including a major mission that could last for many years
The reconstruction of the industrial and technological base of European defence around the centres of European excellence avoiding revelations, in order to ensure its strength and competitiveness, is a strategic and economic necessity, demanding the enhancement of corporate governance mechanisms, strengthening of the European armaments market and an increased research and technology effort.
The European Council also supports the decision to start an initiative inspired by the Erasmus programme to promote exchanges between young European officers.
The NATO Partnership for Peace
What role do the so-called Partnerships for Peace really play in the NATO structure? I do not consider it fitting to refer to all that we have reiterated strongly today. However, it is right that we should look at what NATO itself says about the use of these Partnerships.
The Partnerships, claims NATO, enable the Alliance “to expand its scope of action.” “To act with greater legitimacy.” That is to say, the states who are not members will legitimize with their participation in the Partnership NATO operations, unjust wars and the violation of International Law; the very International Law which constitutes our protective shield and our ally in the struggle to reach a solution of the Cyprus problem.
“To share the burdens.” That is to say, other peoples too should be burdened with unbearable costs. “The alliance should be favoured by the capabilities of others.” That is to say, we should surrender any of our forces and infrastructure to the plans of the Alliance. In reality, all these countries without becoming members of NATO, are incorporated into the actions and plans of this imperialist organization. This is the real challenge arising from the policy of the present government of the Right in Cyprus. If Cyprus officially becomes a member of the PfP, it will however be incorporated as a puppet to serve the NATO plans. If according to the Government’s wider perception, the solution of the Cyprus problem must serve foreign interests against the Cypriot people, namely NATO interests, our own view and struggle needless to say is completely different.
