Abu Asma
The strategic direction of NATO is slowly being realigned so that it becomes the world’s premier political and military organisation with an extended remit of intervention, pre-emptive military action and main decision-making body on global issues. This issue must be seen in the context of the West’s current ideological campaign against Islam-political Islam-in particular and poses a clear and present danger for the Muslim world and future Khilafah.
Background
Recent years, has seen NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and its advocates propose fundamental changes to the organisation that emerged after the second world war and the beginning of the West’s cold war with the Soviet Union. NATO-led by the USA-has changed beyond recognition from its earlier years with 26 countries and 20 partners having been deployed in combat roles in Europe, Africa and Asia.
Discussion thus far, and highlighted at the Bucharest NATO summit in April 2008, has concentrated predominantly on NATO’s current problems and difficulties with troop deployment in Afghanistan and the growing resistance to foreign occupation. Specifically the debate has centred on details of burden sharing amongst the nations involved and the degree to which NATO-ISAF member countries commit troop levels and where they are deployed in relation to Afghanistan. Other areas of current concern have focused on NATO’s eastward expansion since the 1990’s when many of the former Eastern bloc countries came under the NATO’s umbrella; ie how far East should NATO’s expansion proceed; how to incorporate former Soviet block countries such as Georgia and Ukraine. By far the most pressing immediate issue for NATO members has been how to manage Russian fears that NATO’s eastward expansion and presence of missile receptors in Eastern Europe represents a threat to Russia’s sphere of influence.
Strategic fit
However, what has been largely missed by elements of the media [and what should be of paramount importance to the aware Muslim] is that discussion and debate has been happening for a number of years regarding NATO’s strategic fit-namely, what is its purpose in the 21st Century, is NATO a regional or global institution, what is its role, essentially what it is about. Before I go into these issues it is important to mention the historical context and how NATO has evolved particularly in the last few years.
NATO was formed after WWII as a western European defence agreement against the fear of an encroaching Soviet Union and Warsaw pact countries. It was basically a regional military alliance that sought to produce solidarity amongst its members in the advent of a military assault. Western European countries received the assurance of military protection from the US and its superior military in the event of a Soviet invasion; in return for permitting America to dominate NATO and set its direction.
After the demise of the Soviet Union and Communism in the early 1990’s many commentators debated the role and future of NATO; how could the organisation prove relevant where the raison d’etre of its existence, communism, had been taken away. During the 1990’s NATO’s apparent relevancy was further questioned by the ascendancy of a renewed European vigour-namely France and Germany-to form common security and defence arrangements outside of NATO and Britain’s more measured approach to European independence with parallel organisations such as a European army.
NATO’s re-emergence
The conflict in the Balkans in the late 1990’s against Serbian aggression on Kosovan minorities gave NATO a renewed lease of life with NATO aircraft-principally US and UK forces, conducting for the first time a 7 week long aerial bombardment of Serbia to ensure withdrawal from the Kosova region. This was a significant development as for the first time NATO air troops had been used in active combat since its very inception.
After the events of 9/11, the first real examples of how NATO’s strategic direction of travel began to change were initiated by the US administration. The US successfully manipulated world public opinion in the initial few days and tied NATO into the defence of its own country after the attacks in two ways:
Firstly, NATO members invoked Article 5 of the NATO constitution that an attack on any one member is an attack on all and that member states had a duty of care to assist an ally who had come under attack. Thus the war against Afghanistan was launched.
Secondly, the US created the climate for viewing NATO alliances not as a temporary measure or ad-hoc grouping responding to particular crises but as a permanent body ready for combat on a continual basis. Former US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld famously said at the time; “the mission defines the coalition” ie conflict and crises will always be apparent that need solving-only the personnel involved will change
Post 9/11-A new creeping role for NATO
As a result NATO troops have been deployed in Afghanistan for the past 7 years with 26 countries contributing troops and equipment. The 2002 NATO Prague summit opened the floodgates for strategic changes. It established amongst others a NATO led rapid reaction force, increased military, security and surveillance capabilities and a focus on WMD, which were used as a prelude to the 2003 Iraq invasion and war.
At the 2004 NATO summit in Istanbul NATO members committed themselves to reaching out to Middle Eastern partners as a way of extending NATO’s brand and influence. In a speech in 2003, US ambassador to NATO, Nicholas Burns reflected this shift in thinking from NATO being an essentially European security arrangement to having a reach outside of Europe to neighbouring countries. He said,
“NATO needs to pivot from its inward focus on Europe – which was necessary and appropriate during the Cold War – to an outward focus on the arc of countries where most of the threats are today – in Central and South Asia, and in the Middle East“…..He continued by saying
“NATO’s mandate is still to defend Europe and North America. But we don’t believe we can do that by sitting in Western Europe, or Central Europe, or North America. We have to deploy our conceptual attention and our military forces east and south. NATO’s future, we believe, is east, and is south. It’s in the Greater Middle East”
[Senate Foreign Relations Committee, America’s Ambassador to NATO, R. Nicholas Burns]
In the 2003/04 period NATO took over joint control of ISAF [International Security Assistant Forces] in Afghanistan from a previous UN mandate, this was significant as member countries up to that point had not been willing to fight under a NATO command structure.
NATO accelerated its ‘partnership for peace programme’ by forming alliances with M.Eastern nations and for the first time with the countries of Central Asia and the Caucuses reflecting their vital importance in terms of strategic depth and immense natural oil and gas resources. During this period the US also thwarted European opposition to its increasing hegemony within NATO by emphasising the spending gap on military and hi-tech weaponry. In doing so, it forced European nations to increase their own defence spending (to US arms companies of course) but also engaged them in the US view of things and the whole War on Terror narrative; that future crises and conflicts would require unconventional, hi-tech, leading edge technologies and methods of warfare. Further evidence that Europe is beginning to see its future defence capabilities under the umbrella of a new NATO structure is the recent decision of the French government to rejoin NATO after leaving many years ago.
At the same time, after the re-election of Bush the junior in 2004, the US was able to buttress criticism of unilateralism by forming closer ties with the European Union and quell French and German opposition in particular for independent structures and parallel organisations to NATO. For example, NATO managed to get itself involved in joint missions with the EU in respect to Africa and sending peacekeeping troops for resolving conflicts. As well joint naval exercises have begun with NATO forces in India in late 2007, Australia and the Asia-Pacific indicating the range of alliances being sought and the potential for a remodelled, global NATO.
In Africa, in late 2006 the US military created AFRICOM a regional command structure designed to give the US a sustained presence in the continent. It quickly coupled its military capability, AFRICOM with NATO operations offering assistance so as to give it a bigger reach. The AFRICOM commander, General William E Ward, has since stressed the “need for close coordination” with NATO.
Indeed, since July 2005, NATO has provided air transport for peacekeeping forces in Darfur. The purpose of all these regional alliances is for NATO and by default it’s leading player the US to increase its capacity to neutralise its enemies and secure its interests. The NATO Security General Jaap de Scheffer said, “Maritime security, ensuring the safe passage of shipping and supporting a coordinated international approach to protect energy supplies are high priorities for NATO.”
And NATO in the Middle East has also expanded by forming alliances and partnerships. NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue, which began in the mid 1990’s now includes Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia. The Istanbul Cooperation Initiative announced at the 2004 NATO summit has increased NATO’s leverage from the eastern Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf region. NATO presence in the Persian Gulf now includes partnerships with Saudi Arabia and the countries from the Gulf States such as Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, UAE and Qatar. For the US, the fruits of NATO’s extended relationships with other countries and conflating US security interests with that of NATO are beginning to show with it becoming increasingly difficult to separate the US’s response from NATO’s. In July 2008, the US Commander of the Sixth fleet in the Mediterranean said in reply to a question on a possible Iranian attack on Israel “It demands our immediate attention in the event of a need for a US or NATO response”.
Drivers for continued Change
Despite the above changes to NATO from its original concept to its actual mission in the last few years for US planners this has not been enough; it is seeking further change due to the following factors:
Operational and logistical difficulties in Afghanistan: Other European countries [Germany, Netherlands, Canada] have been reluctant to commit troops, or will not permit their troops to be deployed in combat roles and this has resulted in a fractured command structure and constant conflict between the western nations.
The NATO Secretary General highlighted the difficulties that an enlarged NATO currently faces,
“Clearly, an alliance of 26 sovereign nations means 26 different political and military cultures, and it also means 26 different constitutional realities. We need to take these into account, but we cannot afford the notion that certain allies have only limited responsibilities and are confined to specific areas. Afghanistan is one country. It is one strategic theatre for NATO. We need one NATO strategy,”
[Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO Secretary General, February 29, 2008]
UN credibility: the Iraq war fiasco and failure of 2nd resolution along with negative world public opinion has severely dented the UN’s image in the eyes of many. Moreover, the requirement for all 5 veto wielding permanent member of the Security Council actually hinders the US from its foreign policy goals.
Excess bureaucracy in many of these institutions such that unanimous voting is required for anything to become a reality
Abject Failure of the West’s Iraq/Afghanistan wars in changing hearts and minds from people in the Muslims world
The rising tide of Islam and future challenges from non-state actors
New vision for NATO
In light of the above, radical changes are being pushed by US officials and those tied to NATO command structure that will fundamentally realign NATO and mean its becomes the chief force of political and military change. If these changes go though, over the next few years NATO will have a:
- Global reach with no part of the world off limits
- React immediately and decisively to threats and opponents
- Key body for decision-making and conflict resolution
Moreover, the US now sees its own defence and security interests interwoven with its role within NATO and NATO’s broader alliances and partnerships. The 2006 Quadrennial review, a four yearly review by the US department of defence, talks of a long war (ideological) with NATO taking the burden of solving current problems.
The US vision for NATO clearly envisages a worldwide approach with NATO having a global reach. The US ambassador to the UN, Victoria Nuland, has been instrumental in shaping US policy. In the Financial Times, she wrote that NATO must be “all across our planet…in the front line in confronting the 21st century” and a….”globally deployable military force” that will operate everywhere from Africa to the Middle East and beyond…”It’s a totally different animal”
[Victoria Nuland, US Ambassador to NATO, Financial Time, 24 January 2006]
Moreover, the architects of NATO’s redirection see the NATO countries being the ones responsible for international conflict resolution, peacekeeping and combating terrorism [sic]. Nuland commenting on issues that may need confronting said,
“wherever and whenever they may arise”….. “NATO must be the place where we talk about all the issues affecting our future – the Middle East, Iraq, North Korea, China, Iran, just to name a few ,”
[Victoria Nuland, NATO Summit at Riga 2006]
And also,
“Threats to the security and prosperity of the Atlantic Alliance can come from anywhere… NATO must have forces that are prepared to deter wherever the threat arises.“ [US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman, Nov 11th 2003 ]
In the clearest example of the pressure being brought to bear upon NATO’s future, a 150-page document was released earlier this year, to coincide with the Bucharest NATO summit, from five retired Generals led by John Shalikashvalli supreme commander of Allied forces in Europe under Bill Clinton.
In this report the Generals advocate an overhaul of NATO decision-making structure to combat the rise in political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism and acknowledge the future threats come from “economic powerhouses of India and China and radical Islam”. They propose that
- Countries that do not commit troops cannot get to decide on operations
- Countries that do commit troops must share the work equally with other NATO members
- NATO having the authorisation of force without a UN Security Council resolution
- End to national vetoes on major decisions and a move to majority voting [which clearly benefits the US since many of the new NATO countries such as Poland are virtual US satellites]
- The right to deploy pre-emptive first nuclear strike if necessary
NATO at the vanguard of the battle of ideas
At the same time as reshaping the West’s military response to threats and opponents, via NATO, the architects of NATO’s new direction see it as a vital part in the campaign of hearts and minds amongst the Muslim world. NATO planners admit that its mission in Afghanistan on the pretext of defeating the Taliban is actually much larger than simply that. Ambassador Nuland stated,
“The Afghanistan mission is an investment in our collective security…..If we get it right in the Hindu Kush we will also be stronger the next time we are called to defend our security and values so far from home
[Victoria Nuland, Feb 1st 2008]
The West and NATO in their arrogance also assume they can change and revise the thoughts and opinions of the Muslim World. The NATO secretary general boasted that,
“Our engagement in Afghanistan is an engagement for moderate Islam” and “We are simply giving moderate Islam the chance it deserves…. and the international community supports those who want to wrest themselves from the grip of radicals and from the grip of extremists.”
[Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, February 29, 2008]
Part of the vision behind NATO’s global expansion is for ideologues in the West to create a unified stance and future bulwark against those who share different beliefs and views. Hence, NATO has extended its tentacles to parts of Asia, the Pacific, southern Europe and beyond.
“If we trace the line between the West and the rest, Israel is on the same side as Europe, the US, Japan and Australia. We defend the same values against the same enemies”
[Ex Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Maria Aznar, Jerusalem, Oct 2006]
More specifically, the growing clamour for the establishment of the Khilafah in the Muslim world has signalled a more violent approach by the West as it faces a losing battle. Bush, the junior, said,
” We fight our enemies abroad instead of waiting for them to arrive in our country. We seek to shape the world, not merely be shaped by it; to influence events for the better instead of being at their mercy”
[President Bush, 16th March 2006, Washington Post]
And stated that the,
“The real challenge for the future is to help people of moderation succeed in the face of threats by radicals and extremists”
[President Bush, Oval Office, October 2006 in meeting with NATO Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer]
What does this all mean?
- The West, led by the USA, is mobilising a huge public opinion against political Islam and the need to intervene if necessary within the Muslim world
- It is assembling a military rapid reaction force through NATO that will give it a pre-text to intervene wherever it wants quickly and decisively with overwhelming force
- The Muslim world should realise the gravity of the situation it faces itself in and the range of threats both ideologically and military that are stacked up against it
- In response to a new aggressive, belligerent West the Khilafah once established needs to have preventive measures to combat the West’s colonial ambitions and institutions such as NATO
- Muslims throughout the world can and must continue to expose the colonial and imperialistic motives of NATO, the countries that form part of it, and its future plans whilst contrasting with the vision that the Khilafah offers the globe in solving humanity’s problems