NATO jubilee party ends up in a jumble

They came for the party, quarrelled and even called names. That’s how the 70th jubilee party of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the world’s strongest military alliance, began and ended. The 29-member military alliance, which held its platinum jubilee summit this week in London, is in disarray.  Its member states struggle to strike a balance between their individual national interests and the alliance’s collective interest, which often happens to be the United States’ geostrategic interest. 

Despite the bad blood and the squabbles over personality and policy, the London summit found three reasons why NATO should still exist -- Terrorism, Russia, and, for the first time, China.  the inclusion of China gives further credence to the claim that NATO exists to do the United States’ bidding. Analysts believe that Washington is said to have convinced its NATO allies to name China as a threat. In bringing in China, the Trump administration, it appears, is trying to give NATO some purpose to exist although Trump himself in the past has questioned its relevance.

Even before taking office in January 2017, he described NATO as “obsolete and a relic of the Cold War. Then once in office, he accused the NATO allies of being stingy and expecting the US to pay for their defence. He was particularly harsh on Germany.

“Germany owes vast sums of money to NATO, and the United States must be paid more for the powerful, and very expensive, defence it provides to Germany,” The businessman president said and insisted every NATO member should set aside at least two percent of their national budget for defence. 

Despite these early Trump attacks, there appears to be some new found enthusiasm on the part of the US to re-launch NATO on a new trajectory. So there, Trump was slamming French President Emmanuel Macron this week for undermining NATO. In recent comments, Macron said NATO was suffering from “brain death” in part due to a lack of US leadership under Trump. He also described the alliance as a “burden we share.” Trump hit out by saying Macron’s comments were “nasty” and “insulting.” 

Facing at home the worst crisis of his political career, with the House of Representatives closing in on an impeachment motion, Trump did not find the much-needed respite at the London summit. On the contrary, the summit air was filled with ill-feelings. Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was caught on video mocking Trump’s rambling media appearances. Later Trump called Trudeau “two-faced” and cancelled his final news briefing.

The bitterness among NATO members did not happen in a vacuum. It began no sooner the Cold War ended in 1991.  As the Soviet-led Warsaw military alliance disbanded itself soon after the end of the Cold War, there emerged a strong call for the disbanding of the NATO, which was formed in October 1949 to counter the Soviet military threat to the so-called “free world”. 

In the early post-Cold War period, France and Germany pondered the formation of a European military force, but such an arrangement did not see the light of day because the US opposed it. To put it in another way, the US used NATO to achieve its geostrategic objectives. It happened in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Then there were attempts by Washington to expand NATO to Russia’s backyard. 

Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia -- nations which emerged from the former Soviet Union –joined the NATO when Russia was weak in the early years of the post-Cold War period. But later, when Russia emerged stronger under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, NATO’s move to woo Georgia led to Russia’s military action in that country. 

Today, both Russia and NATO have deployed advanced missiles to counter threats from each other. Such a tit-for-tat military buildup comes amidst contradictory signals from the Trump administration with regard to Russia, a country that is alleged to have put Trump in the White House through hacking and Facebook adverts. In many statements, Trump has indicated he has a soft spot for Russia and its authoritarian leader. However in recent months, the US has ended a key nuclear treaty with Russia. Adding to confusion, Trump last week called for a new nuclear missile treaty with Russia. Trump’s policies do not make clear whether Russia is a friend or foe. 
On the Asian front, however, the US is unhappy over NATO allies’ lackadaisical response to China’s growing military power. Many NATO nations have close economic ties with China. Hence their reluctance to toe the US line and name China as a threat. 

The inclusion of China in the final declaration, analysts believe, must have come from the US, which is worried about rapidly improving China-Europe trade ties which are set to receive a further boost through the Belt and Road Initiative. Worried about China’s lead in the 5G technology, which is set to bring revolutionary changes to the world and people’s lifestyles, the US appears to be determined to scuttle China’s advance. 

Addressing the summit, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg urged the alliance to take the Chinese threat more seriously, describing it as “coming closer to us.”
“We see them in the Arctic, we see them in Africa, we see them investing heavily in European infrastructure and of course investing in cyberspace,” Stoltenberg said. He however clarified that he was not calling on NATO to move into the South China Sea.

It is against the backdrop of these political shenanigans, that NATO leaders cobbled together a London declaration, covering up the squabbles and disagreements over the two percent defence budget, Turkey’s purchase of Russian missiles and the war in Syria. 

“In challenging times, we are stronger as an alliance, and our people safer. Our bond and mutual commitment have guaranteed our freedoms, our values, and our security for 70 years, said the declaration. 
As the jubilee party ended with the world more unsafe than before the summit due to NATO getting a new enemy, China, the Western military alliance should focus more on world peace instead of honing its capabilities to face more conflicts.

Outdated NATO, An Obsolete Tool of the Fading US Empire

By: Kayhan Int’l 

 With the end of the ‘Cold War’ between the Capitalist West and the Communist East following disintegration of the USSR and with it the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the military alliance called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization North (NATO) lost all justification to exist.

Yet NATO, which on April 4 marked its 70th inauspicious birthday in Washington, has been made to survive, mainly to serve the devilish designs of the US Empire, which though in a state of rapid decline, continues to use it as a tool for its extra territorial mischief, and this time against the growing global influence of the industrial giant China, whom the thuggish regime of Donald Trump views as the principal adversary.

This signals that the Washington-Beijing trade war is about to change into a military confrontation in the South China Sea, where the US has stepped up its naval provocations.

Recently, US Vice-President Mike Pence raved and ranted against China by calling it the "empire and aggression” in the South China Sea, which is a clear distortion of facts, since the region is China’s neighbourhood, while the outsider and aggressor is the US.

Mischief-monger Trump wants European members to pull their weight inside NATO, which implies dragging them into his suicidal confrontation at a time when Germany, France, and Italy have snubbed Washington by endorsing China’s ambitious Belt and Roads Initiative (BRI).

The Europeans ought to be careful, since one wrong move and they would be embroiled in an undesirable war in faraway Pacific with destructive consequences at home, as they have already been exploited by the US outside NATO’s sphere in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. 

Way back in 1989, US Secretary of State James Baker had assured the last president of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, that if Moscow allowed the two Germanys (east and west) to reunite, NATO will not expand even a single inch towards the east.

NATO, however, in violation of Washington’s promises, has grown in size from 16 to 29 official member states today, including the former Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The combined military expenditure of NATO states constitutes around 70 percent of the total global spending, with the US spending around as much on war as every other country in the world combined.

NATO was set up in 1949 by 12 North American and Western European states, and later in the 1980s added Greece, Turkey, West Germany and Spain to total 16.

Its objective was to counter any Soviet invasion of Europe, but with the USSR having dissolved in 1991, which meant the end of all threats from Moscow, the justification ended for NATO’s existence. But instead of disbanding, it began to expand, both in its size and scope, and has gone from a guard dog to an attack dog.

In 1999, NATO bombed Serbia to carve out a new country – Kosovo. In 2001 it attacked and occupied Afghanistan. In 2003 it was involved in the US-British led invasion and occupation of Iraq, which resulted in over a million people killed and millions of others displaced. In 2011 it bombed Libya that led to the overthrow and killing Colonel Mu’ammar Qadhafi. In all the above cases, NATO had faced weak and warn-out opponents.  

In addition, though not formally involved, NATO members such as the US, Britain, France and the Netherlands actively supported various terrorist outfits in Syria in a vain bid to overthrow the legal government of President Bashar Assad, which has triumphed over international terrorism thanks to the assistance provided by the Islamic Republic of Iran, Russia, and Lebanon’s legendry anti-terrorist movement, the Hezbollah.

This means any pretense of NATO to being a purely defensive organization are completely false. 

Now, NATO is in the process of being transformed from a conventional military alliance to a center of cyber warfare. This was evident at the 70th anniversary meeting in Washington which focused on new areas of confrontation, especially information warfare, with US Secretary of State, the gangster Mike Pompeo, calling for "adaption” to a new digital era and move into cyber warfare. 

This is indeed a worrying omen for those concerned with freedom of speech and an independent media. Observers, however, believe that despite the war-mongering policies of the roguish regime of Donald Trump, NATO faces uncertain future. 

It has probably nearing the end of the road, given its criminal track record of destruction around the world. Unable to cope with a resurgent Russia, a determined China, and other emerging powers like the Islamic Republic of Iran, coupled with the realization by most European Union members of the stupidity of siding with the US, NATO may soon become a piece of history.  

American or Arab NATO?

By Farzad Farhadi

TEHRAN - The Trump administration is quietly pushing ahead with a bid to create a new security and political alliance with six Persian Gulf Arab states, Egypt and Jordan, in part to counter Iran’s expansion in the region, according to U.S. and Arab officials.

The White House wants to see deeper cooperation between the countries on missile defense, military training, counter-terrorism and other issues such as strengthening regional economic and diplomatic ties.

The plan to forge what officials in the White House and Middle East have called an “Arab NATO”. The administration’s hope is that the effort, tentatively known as the Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA), might be discussed at a summit provisionally scheduled for Washington on Oct. 12-13. Saudi officials raised the idea of a security pact ahead of a Trump visit last year to Saudi Arabia where he announced a massive arms deal, but the alliance proposal did not get off the ground, a U.S. source said.
“MESA will serve as a bulwark against Iranian aggression, terrorism, extremism, and will bring stability to the Middle East,” a spokesperson for the White House’s National Security Council said.

Similar initiatives by previous U.S. administrations to develop a more formal alliance with Persian Gulf and Arab allies have failed in the past. It is unclear how the alliance could immediately counter Tehran but the Trump administration and its allies have joint interests in the conflicts in Yemen and Syria as well as defending Persian Gulf shipping lanes through which much of the world’s oil supplies are shipped.

Arab NATO and its impact

Saudi Arabia and the UAE are the key player in the formation of the so-called “Arab NATO”. Potentially a big obstacle to the planned alliance is a 13-month-old rift pitting Saudi Arabia and the UAE against Qatar, home to the largest U.S. airbase in the region. The U.S. administration is concerned the quarrel could be an obstacle to the initiative, he and an Arab official both said Riyadh and Abu Dhabi had assured Washington the rift would not pose a problem to the alliance.
 The sultanate of Oman is also an obstacle in this direction. This country has good relations with Tehran, a relationship that does not match the coalition with the United States and against Iran. Although the Sultanate has a good relationship with the United States, it is unclear what will the courageous Oman still have to deal with this coalition?

The role of Tel Aviv in Arab NATO

In fact, the Trump administration began to complete what had been launched a year ago in Riyadh and announced the establishment of the Middle East Strategic Alliance.
Undoubtedly, the Zionist regime alongside the United States and what moderate Arabs will play an effective role in the coalition. In the other words, this alliance called the Arab NATO to favor the Zionist regime.
 
Why did not the treaty establish a joint Arab defense against the Zionist regime?

All these years, why did not you hear about a joint Arab defense treaty against Tel Aviv?
The Israeli’s attack on al-Aqsa mosque is increasing in large numbers and Jewish settlements have expanded. Why does not this provoke any reaction? The new generation of Arabs is faced with a lot of dangerous dilemma illustrated in fake phrases such as counteracting terrorism and preventing the spread of Iranian influence. But it cannot conceal the fact that occupation, settlement, blockade and racism constitute a major threat to Palestine, the interests of Jordan and Arab security.

America, the West and Zionists exploit sectarian and tribal issues to spark conflict in the region. The U.S. uses the Arab NATO in the first place to serve the Zionist regime and then pursue its interests and with its Western allies.

The U.S. seeks to keep the Arab states under the auspices of Washington, and in turn, they always need the U.S. and its military support.

By creating an unrealistic enemy of Iran, the United States is seeking to boost its military and arms industries.

What caused the Arab NATO to be addressed is Yemen and Syria's crises. When in the Yemeni war, the Saudi coalition could not get any achievement, and when in Syria, the United States saw itself against strong rivals, the whispers of the creation of the Arab NATO got stronger.

The U.S.'s goal of the Arab NATO formation is in the first step in stabilizing the U.S. presence in the region and the protection of U.S. economic and investment interests and the creation of job opportunities within the United States through the sale of weapons to the region. The United States seeks to maintain balance and domination of the region's economy.

Abdel Bari Atwan, the famous analyst of the Arab world, wrote: “At the same time of Trump's war of words with Rouhani, Trump is looking to form a new security-military coalition with the Persian Gulf countries alongside Egypt and Jordan.”

He added: “The Saudi propaganda against Yemeni Ansarallah about the attack on oil tankers is likely to help establish a new pact with U.S. oversight. But there are a lot of questions here, including will Egypt and Jordan join the new coalition and participate in the upcoming Washington Summit in October? What is the Israeli relationship with this new treaty, and whether it is a member, and how is the nature of this membership, secret or public? What is the problem with the Doha crisis with the four Arab countries that are blocking this coalition?

Will Qatar cut ties with Iran upon the demands of the U.S.-Saudi-Emirati? Is it worth $ 1.5 billion to develop the U.S. military base in Qatar, Al Udeid, targeting it as one of the main centers of the new Arab-American treaty and outlining its main role in any future anti-Iran war?”

Atwan highlighted: “It may be too early to give an answer to all these questions given the unclear details of the American plan. But it is unlikely to know that America's anti-Iran threats are intended to terrorize Arab nations, and in particular the Persian Gulf, to justify signing the new treaty and to fully honor membership fees.”

He continued: “This new tribal treaty is a new tool for taking over hundreds of billions of dollars from the Persian Gulf States on the pretext of strengthening the defense capability but in reality to prepare for the war against Iran. These countries can not oppose Trump’s request and may be left out of the future summit of Washington, or face heavy debts owing to the large military spending that the United States seeks to pay.”

In any case, it is undeniable that Arab NATO is more than the Arab desire.

The United States confronts Arabs by Arabs, and through the imaginary subjects. The U.S. will challenge states that do not move on the path of the Zionist regime and the United States. Washington aims to sell weapons and maintain tension between Saudi Arabia and its allies with Iran. And by scaring Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states from dangerous illusion about Iran, U.S. has already signed wealthy weapons deals.

The goal of Arab NATO formation is to serve Israel, marginalize Palestine, sell more weapons, make more money, and show more hostility towards the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Experts and observers believe that good prospect for Arab NATO could not be imagined. The goal of the Arab Nation is to destabilize the Middle East and to spur the regional issues by Americans.