Nato, Neocons och Georgia

Från the Nation. Mer om Nato utvidgning, Neo-konservativa, global korståg för demokrati och Georgiens del i detta.

Eller visst alla att planerna för en NATO expansion under amerikansk ledning ingick som en del av den nya globala världsordning som de amerikansk neoliberlakonservativa drömmer om. ’Project for a new american century

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., co-founded in early 1997 as ”a non-profit educational organization” by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC’s stated goal is ”to promote American global leadership.”[1][2] It has exerted strong influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S PresidentGeorge W. Bush and strongly affected the George Bush administration’s development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.

Fundamental to the PNAC are the views that ”American leadership is both
good for America and good for the world” and support for ”a Reaganite
policy of military strength and moral clarity.”

Vist är världen tryggare under amerikansk ledning.

Neocon NATO Delusions

At the recently completed NATO summit
in Bucharest, the Bush Administration took another step in its
seven-year effort to transform the transatlantic alliance into an
organization with a more global mission supportive of Washington’s
broader foreign policy goals. The Administration was able to win
approval for an increase in NATO forces in Afghanistan, for its plan to
deploy a missile defense system in Central Europe ostensibly aimed at a
future Iranian nuclear threat, and for further enlarging NATO membership
with the admission of Albania and Croatia and with promises of future
membership for Georgia and Ukraine. In Bucharest Bush described his
vision for the alliance in terms that should worry everyone familiar
with the neoconservative agenda. ”NATO,” he said, ”is no longer a static
alliance focused on defending Europe from a Soviet tank invasion. It is
now an expeditionary alliance that is sending its forces across the
world to help secure a future of freedom and peace for millions.”

[…]

The main vehicle for transforming NATO into an alliance with a global mission controlled by Washington has been expansion. The Administration pushed for a large NATO expansion in 2001 that incorporated the Baltic states as well as the Central and Eastern European countries not included in the first round of enlargement. It did so in part to dilute (old) European influence within the alliance, since the new members, especially the Baltic and Balkan states, like Poland before them, tend to be more subservient to Washington on military matters.

Expansion has forced the alliance into a looser military and command structure, allowing Washington to pick and choose its allies in any crisis while retaining the appearance of overall NATO support. This strategy did not help win outright support for the invasion of Iraq, but US courtship of Central and Eastern European countries did buy it some semblance of an international coalition and has facilitated its goal of leaning on NATO to support its war in Afghanistan.

The enlargement of NATO has done great damage to the cause of effective international cooperation, including on many of the issues that most affect US security. The main damage has been the increasing alienation of Russia, which has vigorously opposed NATO’s push eastward. Russians of all political persuasions have, justifiably, seen NATO expansion as an unnecessary provocation aimed at weakening Moscow’s influence with its neighbors. Moscow has countered this and other Washington moves by suspending the Conventional Forces in Europe agreement, by stepping up the modernization of its nuclear forces and by tightening its grip on the oil and gas supplies of Eurasia.

Washington’s championing of NATO membership for Georgia, a former Soviet republic that is openly hostile to Moscow, and of Ukraine, a country that is deeply entwined with Russia economically, demographically and culturally, threatens to further damage relations with Russia (it’s also bound to create internal tensions in Ukraine, where a majority of the population opposes NATO membership). This comes at a time when the United States needs Russian cooperation for a wide variety of foreign policy goals, from controlling loose nukes to helping to curb Iran’s nuclear program to containing Islamic extremism. Only the objections of Germany, France and a few other European countries prevented NATO from offering Georgia and Ukraine a Membership Action Plan.

Om Claes

A blogger and general internet nerd from Sweden. I write about politics, internet, technology, the world around me and whatever else interest me. I write mostly in swedish but some english.
Det här inlägget postades i Internationellt och har märkts med etiketterna , , . Bokmärk permalänken.

2 svar på Nato, Neocons och Georgia

  1. gubbe skriver:

    Hej! Lite grann om det kriget från ”inside” på engelska:
    http://blogs.mail.ru/mail/shakhidi_tabriz/5EE041CCAF5ABD8.html

  2. gubbe skriver:

    Hej! Lite grann om det kriget från "inside" på engelska:
    http://blogs.mail.ru/mail/shakhidi_tabriz/5EE041C

Lämna ett svar

Din e-postadress kommer inte publiceras. Obligatoriska fält är märkta *