NATO’s decisions are dangerous for the peoples of the world
NATO didn’t find a single word to say about the continuing occupation of half of Cyprus by one of its leading members
AKEL C.C. Press Office, 11th July 2016, Nicosia
With the decisions it approved the day before yesterday, NATO took a decision for a general escalation of its dangerous plans of all levels. Its aggressive policy towards Russia is intensifying dramatically and is expressed not only through NATO’s provocative rhetoric, but mainly in its decisions for the further concentration of forces on the border with Russia and the completion of the so-called “missile shield”.
Eastern Europe is being transformed into an arena of militarization and tension with NATO reiterating, on this occasion too, the capabilities of its nuclear arsenal. At the same time, NATO on the pretext of “asymmetric threats” and hotbeds of instability, which it itself has created, is building up its military presence in the Mediterranean and Aegean Sea, the Black Sea, the Baltic regions, the Caucasus, the Western Balkans and in North Africa. Indeed, the NATO plans go far beyond its own territory and region by including the Persian Gulf, Africa and Australia.
In the immense energy and geopolitical rivalries of our times, NATO is performing the role for which it was established: that is to say, it acts as the armed iron hand of the European-Atlantic bloc for the promotion of the interests of its leading members by all means.
An equally dangerous development is the joint EU-NATO Declaration which was cosigned in Warsaw with the main goal of further deepening the synergies and coupling of the two organizations. Is what the peoples of Europe are really demanding – the unemployed, homeless and the poor – an even greater increase in military expenditure as NATO is demanding? Indeed yet again, the EU and NATO are stressing the strengthening of their war armaments industry, thus reminding everyone that the bloody slaughter of the peoples, inter alia, are also an extremely profitable business for the war hawks on both sides of the Atlantic.
The Anastasiades government must explain to the people of Cyprus why the consent of Cyprus is given at an EU level to these designs and plans. The advocates of linking Cyprus to NATO will have to explain how this Alliance which supposedly cares about peace, security and the territorial integrity of states, did not find a single word to say about the continuing occupation of half of Cyprus by a country which is one of its leading members?
