 |
 |
||
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Who Needs NATO?What I know about NATO, the North American Treaty Organization, you could put in a bug’s ear. Well, that’s not quite true. I do know the treaty was signed April 4, 1949. It was the result of Cold War fears that the Soviet Union represented a military threat to Europe. A commentary by E. Wayne Merry that appeared in The Journal of International Security Affairs, “An Obsolete Alliance”, caught my eye. The author is a former State Department and Pentagon official who is now a Senior Associate of the American Foreign Policy Council.
“Over the years, NATO has turned its back on its inherently defensive and conservative origins to become a shameless hustler after engagements to justify its own perpetuation,” writes Merry. He quotes Manfred Woerner, its Secretary General in the early 1990s, who said that in order to survive NATO “must go out of area or go out of business.” NATO was established by the Treaty of Washington and Merry points out that it was “purely defensive; nothing in it can legitimize use of force other than in response to a direct attack against its members. Article V, contrary to popular myth, does not even commit its members to the use of force.” As such, “NATO lost its basic raison d’etre years ago, as Europe’s need for American troops ended long before the Cold War did.” Thus, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO was left without a threat or a legitimate purpose. Merry correctly reminds us that “It is axiomatic that nothing in government is so long lasting as temporary measures. Policies, programs and appropriations initiated to respond to a transitory issue take on lives of their own, spawning institutions which not only outlive their purpose, but themselves create new problems to justify their continued existence.” Merry noted that “the collapse of Yugoslavia was a gift from heaven.” It supplied a rationale to become “an international peacemaking force, something its founders never conceived and the U.S. Senate never would have ratified.” I must confess that I never understood Clinton’s decision to initiate military action because, as Merry points out, “the Yugoslav wars did not compromise the security of the United States at all.” Significantly, “Europe remains a net security consumer from America” despite the fact that its member nations maintain their own military capacity, organized on a national, rather than regional, basis, thus creating “vast duplication, overlap and waste of resources.” In effect, Americans provide Europe a low-cost service that frees European public funds for more popular programs “such as subsidized health care and opera.” Why should the American budget underwrite a prosperous Europe with manpower and defense spending? Surely the European Union would not collapse if the American military was not on their continent. Bluntly stated, “European purposes in NATO are clear; to subordinate American power and resources to their interests and to maintain a mechanism by which to constrain the United States.” The unhappiness of Europe with America’s projection of power in Afghanistan and Iraq is hardly a secret. So, as NATO readies itself for its seventh decade, well beyond its original stated purpose and need, it is surely time for the next U.S. administration to consider ending this one-sided relationship. Is there a need for Europe to remain an American security protectorate? Have you visited my blog? These kinds of questions are raised every day. I received my stimulus check yesterday. It was $600 and I put it into my checking account and immediately paid a bill that accounted for half of it. I have serious doubts that it did anything to stimulate an economy that is undergoing a crisis of confidence in its financial and government institutions. There is a serious crisis of trust in Congress. Polls indicate that most Americans think it is the worst in modern memory. They have good reason as they watch two horribly polarized political parties ignore some of the nation’s most pressing problems. These are the morons who banned the future sale of incandescent light bulbs. Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans concentrate on seizing enough control to decide who gets to spend and waste our money. It is, of course, our money. Or more precisely, it's the money the U.S. government borrows from other nations in our name. Giving everyone who paid taxes a pittance in return suggests that Congress thinks we are so stupid that we will actually be grateful. Why should we be grateful to a government that, as it grows larger and larger, seems increasingly less competent to address common sense solutions to our energy needs, refusing to permit the exploration, drilling and mining of our own national resources?
Why should we be grateful for government mandates for ethanol that do nothing other than drive up the price of food and drive down mileage per gallon? Why should we be grateful for the push to impose a bogus “cap and trade” system that will do nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Why create a market for “credits” that will make those trading in them immensely wealthy? Why do this when, in addition to oxygen, CO2 is the most essential gas to the maintenance of all life on Earth, vital to the growth of all vegetation? Why should we be grateful for the privilege of being the world’s policeman when Europe thinks we’re a chump for defending it long after they should have taken on that responsibility? Or when a prolonged occupation in Iraq is greeted with the perfectly natural request that we leave? There are 566,000 Iraqis in police or military uniform these days. Why should we be grateful when we might be taken into a war with Iran over its demand to be a nuclear power when it is surrounded by nuclear powers in Pakistan, India, Russia, and China to name just four? Isn’t a nuclear Iran their problem too? Why do we assume that the prospect of having its cities obliterated and millions of its citizens killed would not have a sobering affect on Iran’s leaders? Why should we be grateful to a government that, during the Bush administration, spent $45 billion on "climate change" research at a time when the Earth is a decade into a natural cooling cycle that any freshman in Meteorology 101 could understand? Could the billions spent on the mission to Mars been spent more wisely on repairs to our nation’s infrastructure of roads and bridges? Why should we be grateful to a government that is inattentive to millions of illegal aliens crossing our southern border, taking up residence while taking jobs that might otherwise be available to native-born and naturalized Americans, and draining the financial resources of states and cities that must educate their children and pay for their medical care? Why wouldn’t a wall along the southern border have some effect on illegal immigration and the huge flow of drugs into the nation? Surely that has a greater priority than Mars? Why should we be grateful to a government that adopted an idiotic policy to not manage our nation’s forests, leading to California's catastrophic fires and the previous loss of countless forested acres in Yellowstone? Removing aging and dead trees and underbrush protects forests. Instead of a thriving timber industry, we have Smokey the Bear. And why should I believe that my $600 is going to make any difference in the resolution of an economic mess created by banking and investment institutions that gave away billions in mortgage loans to people who could not afford them and now want to be bailed out…with our money? Right now, some of these same institutions are driving up the cost of a barrel of oil by gambling in the world’s mercantile exchanges. The nation is being run by people who are clearly delusional over a non-existent “global warming” or committed to a failed “No Child Left Behind” law that transfers control over the nation’s schools to a central government. There is no Constitutional authorization for federal involvement in education. We need a stimulus in rational solutions to real problems. We need something that a government must earn, not confiscate, and not secure through a bribe. It’s called trust. It’s called confidence. More thanks must go forth to those visitors to this site who have generously sent donations to help underwrite the costs of maintaining it and our communications program. If you enjoy these weekly commentaries, please consider making a small donation.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Merry posed a question that had buzzed around in the back of my brain for a long time. Why is the United States still a member of NATO, an alliance that initially was intended to exist for twenty years, but whose life and mission has been expanding now for nearly sixty years? Since the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1990s and the Cold War is over, why does the U.S. or Europe need NATO? Why doesn’t the European Union take responsibility for its own defense?
Why should we be grateful to be told that we need to drive slower, purchase cars the size of golf carts, or use mass transit when we have ample, known reserves of oil?