Screeds
Sunday, September 26, 2004
A Fond Farewell
February 20, 2003
So long, NATO. We hardly knew ye.
The North Atlantic Charter of 1949, which formed the NATO Alliance, states clearly that each member shall treat an attack on any other member as an attack on itself. Originally, when the threat was the Soviet Union’s large land army, this was the linchpin of deterrence. Soviet planners were on notice that a Soviet assault on Germany would be met with nuclear retaliation from the United States: the geostrategic posture that came to be called brinksmanship.
Fifty-two years later, there was no longer a Soviet Union, but there was a Black Tuesday, and the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center went down into dust, bearing 3000 lives with them. Though no one would ever have believed it, America, the invulnerable superpower that had undertaken to protect the Old World from the menace to the east, was the first member of the alliance to be struck.
Of course, back when the Atlantic Alliance was first formed, no one had even heard the words “terrorist,” “asymmetric warfare,” or “Islamism.” The classical model of war as a contest between States still prevailed, and all strategic planners thought, spoke, and worked under its shadow.
All the same, America was struck. Did our NATO allies leap to pledge themselves to our defense? When our intelligence agencies unearthed evidence of state support for the terrorist al-Qaeda network by the government of Iraq, did our allies even wish us well in moving against them?
At this time, only Britain, of all the original NATO members, has agreed to fight at our side. Two key members of the Alliance, France and Germany, not only oppose our military initiatives, but have done all they can to impede them. Germany’s government has proclaimed that it will not permit America to attack Iraq from her bases on German soil. Though a hollow boast in practical terms, it’s troubling to those who thought of Germany as an ally. We recall too vividly America’s generous assistance to Germany’s postwar reconstruction and our long commitment to Germany’s defense against possible Soviet predation.
And now we have Turkey.
Turkey was brought into the Alliance with some trepidation. Her neighbor Greece, with which her relations have never been good, was already a member and none too happy about being allied with a longstanding enemy. The Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations valued Turkey as a stone in the wall around the Soviet Union; American Jupiter-C IRBMs with nuclear warheads were stationed there until early 1963.
Yesterday, the government of Turkey demanded a cash ransom—$30 billion in grants and loan guarantees—for its permission to use the American-built, American-operated NATO bases in Turkey for an attack on Iraq.
The consensus is that our strike against Saddam Hussein is no more than a month away. What excuse has Turkey for this outrageous demand on the eve of war?
Turkey’s foreign minister has claimed that his country suffered “at least” $30 billion in damage from the Persian Gulf War of 1991. This claim is twelve years late and has not been substantiated. No part of Turkey’s territory was touched by the 1991 hostilities, nor did any of the Iraqi Scud missiles land on Turkish soil. If the claim is for loss of trade between Turkey and Iraq, no one has stepped forward to say so.
The demand gives every appearance of being an extortionate ploy, an opportunistic attempt to squeeze the United States when it can least afford delay.
Turkey’s recently elected government is Islamist in orientation. There’s no telling how this factors into the equation.
The combination of the Turkish thrust with the Franco-German refusal to assist in deposing Saddam Hussein makes it quite plain that the original NATO alliance is now dead. A new one might arise from the “New Europe” countries that were liberated by the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Given recent events, it is highly unlikely that France, Germany or Turkey would be welcome in it—especially in light of France’s attempt to dissuade the “New Europe” nations from their support of American policy.
The world’s major political alignments and spheres of influence are moving into a new configuration, as ponderously and dangerously as tectonic plates. The future is, as always, unclear. But the lessons of these changes are the old ones, the ones that our Founders laid down for us more than two centuries ago.
There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.—George Washington
Nations cannot truly be friends. They may partake of a common heritage. They may share interests for a time, and find it expedient to act together to pursue or secure them. But, however any two peoples might feel toward one another, it is in the nature of governments to be incapable of the affection required for friendship. The inherent dynamic of States overrides all more intimate and personal inclinations, as John Gall wrote in his book Systemantics:
Government Systems, acting in accordance with the laws of growth, tend to expand and encroach. In encroaching on their own citizens, they produce Tyranny, and encroaching upon other Government Systems, they engage in Warfare.
Say goodbye to the illusory veil of international friendship, in which America could count on allies as staunch and true as we have always been toward others, and smile hello to the reality that always hid behind it.
| <<- $5 Billion Per Clue | A Guilty Pleasure ->> |
