|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Implications for NATO and IranBy Christopher King* 15 March 2008 Christopher King considers the reasons for US Admiral William Fallon’s recent resignation as Centcom commander and argues that his departure is likely to be followed by an acceleration of the USA’s use of NATO as a disguise to its territorial aggression. Admiral William Fallon’s resignation a few days ago is a bad sign. The admiral is commander of Centcom, which includes all US forces from Egypt, Sudan and Kenya to Pakistan and Kazakhstan, including Iraq and Iran. He appears to be a man of principle and ethics who is proven to have taken seriously his job of protecting his country while avoiding provocation to potential enemies. One could ask for no more. He seems also to have a penchant for engaging in dialogue with potential enemies and their neighbours, which makes sense: if it should come to conflict, he would know his enemy better, but better still, he might achieve his objectives peacefully. Straight Sun Tzu. This seems to have unnerved the White House as a thinking commander might actually form his own views about conflicts in which he might be ordered to participate. Such mental activity is completely in accord with, if not obligatory under the Geneva Convention; however, the Convention is regarded by the Bush administration as out of date and irrelevant. Several months ago, Admiral Fallon gave interviews to various media outlets, including Al-Jazeera television and the Financial Times, saying, broadly, that he could not forsee a war with Iran in the immediate future and more along these lines. Naturally, this would be based on the best possible intelligence for his area. It is well worth reading Tomas Barnett’s account of Admiral Fallon. His resignation might well be highly relevant to the future of Iran, the Middle East and the world economy. The main possibilities prompting his resignation appear to be:
In the meantime, the chaos and uncertainty that the USA and Israel have created in the Middle East are causing havoc with the global economy, to say nothing of deaths, destruction, injuries and refugees on a scale approaching a genuine Middle Eastern holocaust. If there should be an attack on Iran the effect on the global economy will be catastrophic. Similarly, the effect on world security and stability will be unpredictable and undoubtedly disastrous. The American public and the UK political class view the present disasters in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the USA’s clear wish to attack Iran with equanimity. They should not. The USA’s interventions are usually failures with unforeseen outcomes and, if Iran is attacked, no country will be unaffected. Admiral Fallon’s resignation might well bring such a disastrous failure closer. How, then, does Admiral Fallon’s resignation relate to NATO? The USA is now attempting to use NATO as a disguise to its territorial aggression and to involve as many other countries in further illegal humanitarian disasters as possible. The Bush administration has found in Afghanistan and Iraq that an illegal war can be converted quickly into a legal peacekeeping mission by an easy-to-get United Nations resolution. It should work again. The USA’s description of a “new” NATO that fights terrorism and weapons of mass destruction is a description of a NATO that is willing to fight Iran. These are the first words in the Congressional Research Service’s (CRS) briefing to Congress entitled: NATO in Afghanistan: A Test of the Transatlantic Alliance. This document commences:
Well, there is nothing about this “new” NATO and its new objectives on the NATO website, so this is evidently White House wishful thinking and spin aimed at Congress. The “test” for NATO is clearly whether or not the European Union will follow US orders. United Nations Resolution 1771 under which NATO currently operates in Afghanistan makes no mention of “combating new threats such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction”. The CRS report does accurately say, however, that the mission is the stabilization and reconstruction of Afghanistan. It also says that the participating countries as well as the Afghan government believe that there has been too little stabilization and reconstruction. The implication is that the emphasis has been on killing rather than winning hearts and minds (see Britain should stop marketing America’s war on Afghanistan). Basically, the countries operating in Afghanistan have become disenchanted with US leadership. Pacification to the US forces means killing enemies before reconstruction commences. Pacification to the other countries, particularly those from Europe, means constructing infrastructural and development projects such as roads and orchards, thus averting the creation of enemies. These are irreconcilable differences of philosophy. The result is that few roads have been built and no orchards planted. The CRS report suggests that orchards would substitute for opium in producing cash crops. It is clear therefore that if orchards had been planted six years ago when reconstruction would have been easy, they would now be bearing fruit, the Pashtun population would be content, current record crops of opium would not exist and the resurgence of drug barons and the Taliban would not have occurred. This failure of American philosophy, policy and practice that have kept Afghanistan in poverty and conflict is magnified to a disastrous scale in Iraq with more of the same promised for Iran. Worse, it is now clear that the objectives of these conflicts are America’s seizure of oil and other resources rather than development, democracy and ‘enduring freedom’. These are all related in European minds. NATO is to have its summit meeting in Bucharest on 2-4 April 2008. These issues will almost certainly be raised. In particular, close examination will doubtless be made of the negotiations or agreements by the USA with Poland and the Czech Republic for accepting elements of an American anti-ballistic missile shield, bypassing NATO and the European Union (EU). Such installations involve these countries irrevocably in US foreign policy, over which neither they nor the EU have control. Russia has already protested strongly and it is evident that, through these footholds in Eastern Europe, the USA will be able to create tensions with Russia at will, generating enormous problems for the EU and blocking further rapprochement between the EU and Russia. Potential “spoiling” options for the USA are created but there can be no conceivable benefits whatever to the EU (see The USA, Russia and the spinoff from Iraq and Iran). Poland and the Czech Republic are negotiating the level of bribes payable by the USA for taking these installations, as if they have no relevance to their own security, the security of the EU or the economic well-being of the EU. One can only ask whether they understand what it means to be members of the EU and whether it was a mistake to accept the membership of these selfish and politically naïve countries without further conditions. The position might be simpler, of course. The USA is not above simply buying politicians, for example, our ex-prime minister, Tony Blair (see Tony Blair moves on). One must also ask why our unelected prime minister, Gordon Brown, is so enthusiastic about expending British soldiers’ lives in Afghanistan. I mention in passing the United Kingdom Parliament’s grovelling acquiescence to the USA’s disgraced foreign policy while trusting that other NATO countries will reaffirm NATO’s original purposes. Hopefully they will also execute UN Resolution 1771 in Afghanistan by continuing to follow their instincts to pacify that country through positive economic development rather than killing its inhabitants. If that is not possible, it would be best to leave. The collapse of the Soviet Union and reforms in Russia have left NATO without the enemy against whom it was created to defend. To Europe, this is very satisfactory and matters can remain as they are; to the USA, NATO appears to be a useful tool that is being left idle. It is a safe prediction that, at the summit, the USA will raise the issue of NATO’s participation in attacking Iran under the guise of defending Europe from Iran, as the anti-ballistic missile facilities have been presented. Conceivably, Admiral Fallon’s presence and his independent views were considered to be undesirable at this meeting. It will be clear to the European NATO membership what their response should be from their own experience and observation of the USA’s policies and practice in Afghanistan, Iraq and indeed Kuwait. As for the citizens of Poland and the Czech Republic, perhaps their leaders have not mentioned to them that, to the Americans, they are expendable. *Christopher King is a retired consultant and lecturer in management and marketing. He lives in London, UK. Copyright © Redress Information & Analysis. All rights reserved. |
|