#6
Moskovsky Komsomolets
February 20, 2003
THE CONCERT IS OVER
How America subdued Europe
Author: not indicated
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]

IT IS NOW TIME FOR RUSSIA AND THE REST OF THE WORLD TO DETERMINE, AS NATO HAS ALREADY DONE, WHOM TO SUPPORT: THE TOTALITARIAN IRAQI DICTATOR WITH HIS PRO-FASCIST BA'ATH PARTY AND HIS DOOMED REGIME - OR AMERICA, WHICH IS CONCLUSIVELY BECOMING THE UNDISPUTED GLOBAL LEADER?

The rejoicing in Moscow over last week's anticipations of a split in the "aggressive NATO bloc" didn't last long. France, Germany, and Belgium imposed a veto on the US proposal to start an immediate transfer of forces and resources to reinforce Turkey's defense in the event that Iraq, contrary to all expectations, does actually fire one of its remaining ballistic missiles at Turkey. However, this anti- American rebellion was soon suppressed.

On Sunday night the veto was overruled, and by a very simple method: the issue was transferred to the Military Planning Committee, of which France is not a member; while Belgium and Germany were persuaded to withdraw their objections. Sp within the next few days, Patriot missile systems and AWACS long-range radar detection aircraft will start being transferred to Turkish territory.

The swift resolution of the crisis in NATO once again demonstrated in practice that the favorite phrases of official NATO representatives are really just propaganda: when they say that even the smallest nation (say, Luxemburg) can supposedly impose a veto, and all the rest (including the powerful US) will be unable do to anything about it. After all, if one reads the basic text of the Washington treaty closely, the NATO Charter has only one mandatory circumstance in which a veto can be applied - in the admission of new members to the alliance. Only one nation has real veto power on all NATO decisions: the United States. Without the US Armed Forces, the remaining member nations are fundamentally incapable of fighting a serious war within the NATO framework. But taking individual action, without any of the other members (and especially without Russia) is possible - thus, they do not and cannot have real veto power.

However, it is the done thing in the West to find a consensus, as far as this is at all possible, and for this purpose NATO has developed an entire arsenal of arm-twisting and other means of persuading those who disagree. Once a political decision is made, after complex diplomatic maneuvering and consultations - even if it is a strained compromise decision - the united military structure of the Alliance takes rapid and efficient action.

According to US military plans, the transfer of additional forces and resources to Turkey should indirectly involve the whole of NATO in the operation, including those countries that are vigorously criticizing the US. Besides, the NATO reinforcements will additionally support Turkey's decision to make its bases avaliable to the US for the strike on Iraq.

Standardized weapons and constant joint exercises over many years have turned NATO into an ideal coalition tool. It is possible to quickly build up a unit of, say, Danish, Dutch, and Turkish troops under American command - and be certain that it will be effective and manageable, and that officers will understand each other and interact successfully. What has been discussed recently among Moscow's political elite is completely wrong: the idea that NATO has grown obsolete and will soon fall apart due to admitting too many former socialist republics.

Our former satellites follow Washington's instructions even more readily than the "old" members of NATO; this has been confirmed once more in the present crisis over Iraq. And the old partners are also too strongly bound to America.

It is now time for Russia and the rest of the world to determine, as NATO has already done, whom to support: the totalitarian Iraqi dictator with his pro-fascist Ba'ath party and his doomed regime - or America, which is conclusively becoming the undisputed global leader?

For the nations of the "old Europe", for France and Germany, America's anger is unpleasant but not fatal. But Russia's fate is different. For nearly half a century it was America's main enemy, and even now it possesses a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the US. Both in Washington and in Europe, Russia is always under strong suspicion, no matter how much public praise is heaped on our president.

In that new world that might take shape after the American occupation of Iraq and the possible establishment of an effective protectorate over the entire Middle East, the US will apparently enjoy complete and absolute rule. Neither the United Nations nor the "concert of the great powers", permanent members of the UN Security Council, will be making any decisions (or almost none). The concert is over, and the UN Security Council has actually one function left to it now: to legally confirm decisions made in Washington, or else to stand by impotently and watch America do what it wants and can.

So far, our president has been maneuvering successfully. In Germany and France, Vladimir Putin politely agreed with his hosts, supporting their pro-Iraq position and even sort of promising to use Russia's veto in the UN Security Council together with France, if it comes to that. At the same time, intensive behind-the-scenes bargaining is underway with the Americans over what benefits they might offer us if we abstain in the UN and do not really try to prevent America from doing away with Saddam Hussein - although continuing to publicly support peace and grieve over the possible casualties.

Of course, our tradition-bound diplomats are still ready to follow old Soviet patterns: supporting the anti-American, anti-war movement around the world, in order to isolate the US. However, America is too strong today for any anti-war coalition to stop it, even a global coalition; while Russia is too weak to take any sort of advantage of the rise in anti-American attitudes. (Even the far stronger USSR never had any success in flirting with the western anti- war movement, for many years - it only wasted billions of petrodollars supporting various progressive groups.)

All we can do is hope that Putin will manage to maneuver correctly - now, on the issue of Iraq, and over the next few years, so that in the new world of American hegemony Russia can secure a place as far from both Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic as possible.

(Translated by P. Pikhnovsky)

BACK TO THE TOP    #245 CONTENTS    NEXT ARTICLE