Russia
And NATO: `Not A Piece Of Furniture'
28 November 2010 By Eric Walberg
The results of the NATO summit were as predictable as
a Soviet Communist Party congress, with the word
"peace" replaced by "war". NATO's embrace of the US
agenda of missile defence, nuclear arms, and its new
role as global policeman surprised no one. No word
about the United Nations or peacekeeping. In deference
to Russia, the only mention of eastern expansion was
continued "partnerships" with former Soviet republics
Ukraine and Georgia. Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia,
New Zealand and Japan were also offered special
status. The new Strategic Doctrine, replacing the more
modest Euro-centric 1999 model, really just reaffirmed
US control of the foreign policy of what Zbigniew
Brzezinski called its "vassal states".
There were a few ripples. France's new defense
minister, Alain Juppe, openly said the Afghan conflict
was a "trap" for NATO and called for an exit strategy,
unlike Head of the British Armed Forces Sir David
Richards, who opined, "NATO now needs to plan for a 30
or 40 year role." The Euro-spat continues over the
continued presence of nuclear weapons in Europe,
between France, which prides itself on its force de
frappe, and Germany, which was denied any such private
nuclear toys during the Cold War.
But they agreed to disagree and the summit was all
smiles and photo ops, at least centre-stage. On the
sidelines, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev told a
warm United States President Obama Barack that he was
ready to cooperate on missile defence but only in "a
full-fledged strategic partnership between Russia and
NATO", and Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai told a
frosty Obama that he should scale back military
operations and night raids that inflict heavy civilian
casualties.
Through NATO's integration into the Pentagon's world
command structure, it can be said that now,
officially, the US rules the world. NATO has its
Istanbul Initiative, attempting to militarise the
Mediterranean Dialogue and Gulf Cooperation Councils
covering the entire Middle East, including Israel.
Even in Africa, only Eritrea, Libya, Sudan and
Zimbabwe do not (yet) have relations with USAFRICOM.
But then, NATO's two major "out of area" police roles
-- Kosovo and Afghanistan -- are not encouraging
signs, nor are the Pentagon's efforts in Iraq. The
bigger NATO gets, and the more far-flung the US
military, the more unwieldy and expensive both become.
How do Malaysian soldiers in Afghanistan converse with
Albanians? As Muslims, they may know their prayers in
Arabic, but only by rote. And can they be trusted to
kill their Afghan brothers?
What Russian strategists really think of NATO's "new"
doctrine is difficult to tell. The professed
preference for closer relations with the West by
Atlantist Medvedev and the Russian elites he
represents differ markedly from his predecessor
Putin's. Despite Medvedev's assurances, his appearance
at the NATO conference did little to dissipate the
confusion about relations with NATO. His offer of a
joint missile defence network is not the one that the
US has in mind. He told the gathering that Russia
won't join NATO missile defence as "piece of
furniture". A senior Russian diplomat told Kommersant,
"Yes, we will defend countries to the west of Russia.
Equally, NATO must commit to the same responsibilities
-- any missiles that fly against us over Europe, they
must all be shot down by American or NATO forces."
Despite Russia's apparent weakness, it still casts the
biggest shadow over the alliance. There are signs of
meaningful cooperation in the Russia-NATO Council
Action Plan as described by Russian Foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov. Russia's Black Sea Fleet is taking part
in NATO's antiterrorist Operation Active Endeavour in
the Mediterranean Sea and fighting against piracy off
the coast of Somalia. Rather than a will-o-the-wisp
missile defence, he emphasised the joint radar system
near completion along Russia's western borders "to
prevent seizures of aircraft by terrorists" and the
ongoing assistance "during floods, fires and man-made
disasters".
But Lavrov said there are "international problems on
which we do not see eye to eye", that in any missile
defence system there must be "no actions that may
adversely affect the legitimate interests of each
other". He was more concerned about reducing
conventional forces in Europe and "a systemic
discussion about military restraint". NATO "must be
guided by the UN Charter, especially in regard to the
possible use of force in international relation, and
by international law". Meaning, of course, that at
present NATO policies adversely affect Russia, and
NATO and the US are operating outside of international
law.
Quite possibly more significant than the hot air
emitted in Lisbon was the tete-a-tete between Medvedev,
French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Germany
Chancellor Angela Merkel a month earlier on 18-19
October at their own mini-summit in Deauville, calling
on the EU to launch a "modernisation partnership" with
Russia, establishing an economic space with "common
security concepts", including visa-free travel and
cooperation on European security. The United States
was pointedly not mentioned though the security issues
involved "the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian zones", a
half-step towards Medvedev's proposal for a new
European Security Treaty in 2008.
Despite the professed devotion of the French and
German leaders to the US and the war in Afghanistan,
this clear outreach to Russia by the EU's most
important members is an expression of the geopolitical
logic at work as the US flounders and Russia matures
into an unavoidable and increasingly desirable
Eurasian partner. It is Russia that provides Europe
with access to a large market and source of raw
materials -- a peaceful gateway to the entire
continent. This contrasts with the US/NATO forced
march from Eurasia's underbelly, creating enemies from
the Middle East through Iran to China. Spoiler Britain
was pointedly left out of the Deauville summit. Even
at its most Atlantist, Russia is establishing a new
configuration without the Ango-American empire at the
centre.
Both the power struggle among Russia's political elite
and the developing facts-on-the-ground in Afghanistan
and Washington, where START is probably not going to
be ratified by the Senate, will determine just how
US-Euro-Russian relations fare, and whether calls for
Putin to run for president in 2012 result in a return
of Russian geopolitical strategy to the Eurasian path
it was taking prior to Medvedev. Medvedev's abrupt
cancellation of the S-300 missile deal with Iran was
not a popular one; it "undermines Russia's prestige
and erodes its security, making the world less safe
for every one of us. At the moment, the Islamic world
has reasons to believe that Moscow has switched to the
camp of its foes," warns former Russian Joint Chief of
Staff member General Leonid Ivashov.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, taking a
leaf from both Lavrov and Ivashov, insisted at the
summit that any missile defence shield should protect
NATO members from real threats, which translates into
Turkish as "protecting NATO members from Israel, not
Iran". He called for a nuclear weapons-free zone
ranging from Iran to Israel. Davutoglu might have felt
more comfortable outside the summit with members of
the "No to War – No to NATO" alliance, who continued
their tradition of using NATO summits as platforms of
protest against war and militarism. They installed a
Square of Peace and held a counter summit and
International Anti-war Assembly, suggesting their own
Strategic Doctrine for NATO -- euthanasia.
Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/
You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com/ or
efgh1951@yahoo.com
©
EsinIslam.Com Add Comments |