The days of Imperial Dominance have gone long ago. The present world will not tolerate the dominances of dollar and American interference. NATO alliance is struggling militarily under US leadership.
There is no doubt that NATO is approaching at the cross-roads. Peace-loving and democratic people around the globe are lasting for (Nuclear weapons of mass destruction free) humane world order.
Twentieth-century witness two catastrophe world wars. The present-day world is facing new problems like regional war and terrorism. Terrorism that occurs throughout is known as global Terrorism. It is probably the worst type of crime that ever exists. The results of terrorism are almost always catastrophic as we see in Syria now. There were about 174 or more terrorist organizations all over the world.
In a few reasons they have grown up and in certain time they vanish from history. But now a new phenomenon has developed like religious terrorism. But some are so strong like Taliban, Al-Qaida, most recently powerful Terrorist groups are IS and Boko Haram.
The world is changing every day and every moment. Twentieth Century is not the replica of the Nineteenth Century. Twenty-first Century will be quite different. At present Science and Technology have developed so much which could not be developed during the last few Centuries.
Words like justice, equity, equality, liberty, love, compassion, tolerance, morality, human rights etc., can not be explained in terms of science and technology or even in economic terms.
The present century is passing through lots of crises of which economic and debt crises have engulfed the overall situation of the whole world affairs, even the developed countries like America and European countries, above all the crises of third world war is rising day by day. Presently the American and Iran crisis may lead to some kind of war. Israeland Palestine crises are a long standing issue.
Let us look back to the Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948.
However, the participation of the United States was thought necessary both to counter the military power of the USSR and to prevent the revival of nationalist militarism, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949.
It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, stated in 1949 that the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down."
Popular support for the Treaty was not unanimous, and some Icelanders participated in apro-neutrality, anti-membership riot in March 1949. The creation of NATO can be seen as the primary institutional consequence of a school of thought called Atlanticism which stressed the importance of trans-Atlantic cooperation.The members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all.
Consequently, they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
The treaty does not require members to respond with military action against an aggressor. Although obliged to respond, they maintain the freedom to choose the method by which they do so.
This differs from Article IV of the Treaty of Brussels, which clearly states that the response will be military in nature. It is nonetheless assumed that NATO members will aid the attacked member militarily. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their "vessels, forces or aircraft" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France.
The Revolutions of 1989 and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 removed the de facto main adversary of NATO and caused a strategic re-evaluation of NATO's purpose, nature, tasks, and their focus on the continent of Europe.
This shiftstarted with the 1990 signing in Paris of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe between NATO and the Soviet Union, which mandated specific military reductions across the continent that continued after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991.
At that time, European countries accounted for 34 percent of NATO's military spending; by 2012, this had fallen to 21 percent. NATO also began a gradual expansion to include newly autonomous Central and Eastern European nations and extended its activities into political and humanitarian situations that had not formerly been NATO concerns.
The first post-Cold War expansion of NATO came with German reunification on 3 October 1990, when former East Germany became part of the Federal Republic of Germany and the alliance.
This had been agreed in the Two Plus Four Treaty earlier in the year. To secure Soviet approval of a united Germany remaining in NATO, it was agreed that foreign troops and nuclear weapons would not be stationed in the east, and there are diverging views on whether negotiators gave commitments regarding further NATO expansion east.
Jack Matlock, American ambassador to the Soviet Union during its final years, said that the West gave a "clear commitment" not to expand, and declassified documents indicate that Soviet negotiators were given the impression that NATO membership was off the table for countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, or Poland.
In 1996, Gorbachev wrote in his Memoirs, that "during the negotiations on the unification of Germany they gave assurances that NATO would not extend its zone of operation to the east," and repeated this view in an interview in 2008. According to Robert Zoellick, a State Department official involved in the Two Plus Four negotiating process, this appears to be a misperception, and no formal commitment regarding enlargement was made.
As part of post-Cold War restructuring, NATO's military structure was cut back and reorganized, with new forces such as the Headquarters Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps established. The changes brought about by the collapse of the Soviet Union on the military balance in Europe were recognized in the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, which was signed in 1999.
The policies of French President Nicolas Sarkozy resulted in a major reform of France's military position, culminating with the return to full membership on 4 April 2009, which also included France rejoining the NATO Military Command Structure, while maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent.
The imperialists of the EU and NATO are speaking about International Law and the protection of the lives of civilians. Apart from hypocritical and dubious, it is also of double moral.
Where is the International law in the case of the Palestinian people who are suffering from a slow genocide and are deprived of their right for an independent State, not to mention the dozens of resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly of the UN? Why the International Law is not applied in the case of the occupation of Western Sahara or the partial occupation of Cyprus till today?
In the course of preparations for the military aggression and occupation of Iraq in 2003, the main argument was that the regime in Baghdad was in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Later, when this flagrant lie was revealed nobody amongst the governments of the EU or NATO raised the question of withdrawal of the foreign troops from Iraq, the killings of civilians and destruction went on and is still going on. Meanwhile, the oil of the country is flowing under the US control and a puppet regime has been installed.
In the case of Afghanistan, the US and its allies called for a 'war against terror', against the Taliban, which was trained, financed and guided for decades-long by the CIA. The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan resulted again in a puppet regime in Kabul and in new records of the opium production and its export for use of the International drugs trafficking.
But also in the murderous 78 days long bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 by NATO, many lies have been revealed especially afterwards. The goal of USA, the EU and NATO to divide theformer Yugoslavia in parts and create EU and NATO protectorates like the ones of Bosnia- Herzegovina and Kosovo was serving the goals of Imperialism in the broader region, their plans for the 'Missile Defense Shield', their interests in Central Asia and the 'New Middle East Plan'.
The strategy ofimperialism is very clear all these years, despite the contradictions or rivalries that appear from time to time. It is at least naive and dangerous if somebody believes that the various imperialist forces are different from each other or the one better than the other.
Interestingly, Richard Clarks, a NATO watcher and director of the Royal United Services Institute in Britain, said 'the US still need NATO as political conduit to Europe- but admitted the alliance is struggling militarily. There is no doubt that militarily, NATO is approaching something of a cross-roads - it's been approaching this crossroads for some time.'
We have seen the creation of CENTO, SEATO, BAGDAD PACT and WARSAW in the middle of the twentieth century but these pacts had natural death by the end of the twentieth century. The world situation has reached in such a stage that NATO has reached the crossroads. Now the question has arisen: why should NATO exist? In the twenty-first century, the days of NATO's existence is numbered, and approaching the end.
The writer is a politician, columnist and director general, Bangladesh Foundation for Development Research
Leave Your Comments