Will NATO be an Alternative to the U.N.?
|
|
Tuesday, October 7, 2008 16:49 | ||
|
|
Will NATO be an Alternative to the U.N.?
|
|
| Home |  |
News |  |
Yellow Pages |  |
Shopping | |
Classifieds | |
Fun | |
Chat | |
Forum | |
America |  |
| • | News |
|
|
|
Will NATO be an Alternative to the U.N.?
12 Feb 2007  printer version
viewed (216)
raiting (2/6) By Yevgeny Primakov, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences George W. Bush Jr. has the lowest approval ratings of any modern president. His plummeting ratings are due to his failure in Iraq. This failure did not result from the mistakes made by U.S. military or other officials responsible for following Washington's course on the ground. Needless to say, they did make mistakes. But the situation in Iraq shows to any impartial observer the unrealistic, inconsistent, deficient and dangerous nature of a course based on unilateralism. The doctrine of unilateralism was formulated by Bush's neoconservative entourage as a means of preserving America's hegemonic influence in the world after the Cold War. According to the U.S. neocons, the time came when the United States - the world's economic and political powerhouse with the strongest military - should use force at its own discretion to strengthen its global positions, removing the regimes that hinder or may hinder the attainment of this goal. An underlying assumption of this course was not only that the U.S. must go it alone, but also that its actions would be automatically supported by its close allies in the Cold War. That did not happen. The U.S. operation in Iraq was fiercely opposed by Germany, France, Belgium, and other countries. Only the U.K. unstintingly lent its support, but then its cooperation weakened as the "Iraqi deadlock" became apparent. Many see the collapse of the American doctrine of unilateralism as a foregone conclusion. Bush has lost control over both houses of Congress. American public opinion is turning against the administration - this is to say nothing about other countries, many of which in the past blindly obeyed the U.S. How is this going to impact on the Bush administration's policy? When President Bush was confronted with the negative fallout from the operation in Iraq, he appealed to the U.N. for assistance - previously, that option was completely ruled out. Emphasis was placed on camouflaging the occupation as a "coalition-led operation": Many countries were urged to assume at least a symbolic role, even if by contributing personnel to the medical corps. All of that pointed to a certain measure of deviation from the rigid unilateralist course. But will the Iraq situation compel the U.S. to abandon its course? Amid the ongoing threats against Iran, backed up with a U.S. naval build-up in the Persian Gulf, I would not insist on such a conclusion. Although it is very unlikely that, given the present lineup of forces in the U.S. and in the world at large, and after so much trouble in Iraq, Bush will decide to use military force, especially in a ground operation, against Iran. Rather, the U.S. administration would prefer to review the context in which American policy is being implemented. In other words, the concept of the unilateral use of force will be given a rethink. It is doubtful, however, that this will happen through the compulsion of multilateral efforts within the U.N. framework. It is indicative that the U.S. showed no interest in a report by a High Level Group of eminent personalities (or the so-called Wise-Men Group), set up by former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. The group, which included Brent Scowcroft, a prominent politician and national security adviser to President Bush Sr., (the father of the incumbent president), on the U.S. side, and this author on the Russian side, proposed adapting the U.N. to the new security challenges in the world. However, the international organizations would retain an unchallenged monopoly on the decision to use military force (when a country is subjected to direct aggression, needless to say, it uses this right without seeking anyone's permission). From every indication, Washington is choosing a different course for itself, namely, strengthening NATO as a military instrument to be used at its own discretion. What are the grounds for this conclusion? Originally founded during the Cold War era as a regional organization to ensure the security of U.S. allies in Europe, NATO today is acting on the basis of an entirely different philosophy and doctrine, moving outside the European continent and conducting military operations far beyond its bounds. NATO already has experience in the use of force in circumvention of the U.N. - i.e., air strikes on Yugoslavia. Second, NATO is rapidly expanding in contravention to earlier accords. The admission of new members to NATO is leading to the expansion of bases that host the U.S. military, air defense systems, as well as ABM components. America's approach toward NATO as a mechanism for pursuing its own policy is, without a doubt, strengthened by its strong desire of some countries to join the bloc. I do not think they are being driven by the fear of a Russian military threat. There is no threat, and the West knows this very well. But certain countries would like to use NATO as a free pass to the European Union, especially now that the door to the EU closed when some of its members rejected a new Constitution. Third, not only European countries or those located on the border of Europe and Asia are seen as potential NATO members today. For example, a special governmental commission was set up in Israel to make recommendations concerning its accession to the North Atlantic alliance. As is known, the Israeli leadership started putting out feelers and studying the possibility of joining NATO a long time ago, although denies such a possibility. In 1971, I was assigned by the Soviet leadership to hold a confidential meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan. They denied any intention to join NATO, but we knew that Israeli officials were testing the ground at meetings in Washington. At that time, the U.S. rejected the idea of Israel's participation in NATO because Israel was involved in a conflict with the Arabs. But what is going to happen now, given the "Iranian card," and the desire of many players to use it in their own game? This questions becomes more poignant when we remember that involvement in conflicts, together with the lack of border agreements with neighboring states, is no longer regarded as an insurmountable obstacle to NATO membership. A case in point is Georgia and its "encouraging" negotiations with NATO, as well as the admission of the Baltic States to the North Atlantic alliance. Fourth, the emphasis that is being put on NATO's enlargement is related to Washington's desire to subdue opposition to its military actions. In the emerging multipolar world, the return to a system of military blocs (whatever good intentions may be invoked to justify it) is an atavism, pure and simple, a Cold War hangover, a path to the destabilization of the international situation, complex and convoluted as it is today. Source: Other articles in Politics:  Readers' CommentsNo comments Add your commentary |
|
|
Advertise on RusUSA.com Contact: Site search Search internet Site map |
|
|
©2008 LCube. All rights reserved.
RusUSA.com - Russian America.
Terms of Use
|
|
