The
Daily Mail is furious; the Telegraph is appalled;
Lady Thatcher has handbagged Tony Blair. The Conservative Party,
above all, is incandescent. The new euro-army, they all clamour,
will put the safety of Britain at risk; Tony Blair is playing
with fire; Nato will be undermined. Yet all this is very rum.
Those who insist that they stand for national sovereignty now
seem to be claiming the United Kingdom can never take military
decisions independently of the Pentagon. What kind of national
freedom is that?
On
closer inspection, things are even rummer. The Conservative hostility
to the new European rapid reaction force comes as a bit of a shock
after a decade in which Conservatives have consistently supported
a series of Nato declarations which explicitly call for the creation
of a European military capability.
In
July 1990, Mrs Thatcher approved Nato’s London declaration which
stated, ‘The move within the European Community towards political
union, including the development of a European identity in the
domain of security, will contribute to Atlantic solidarity and
peace throughout Europe.’ In 1991 in Rome, John Major signed the
new Strategic Concept of Nato which said, ‘The development of
a European security identity and defence role will reinforce the
integrity and effectiveness of the Alliance as a whole.’ In Oslo
in 1992, Nato reaffirmed ‘support for the objective of developing
the Western European Union as the defence component of the European
Union and as a means of strengthening the European pillar of the
Atlantic Alliance.’ In Brussels in 1994, Nato declared, ‘We give
our full support to the development of a European Security and
Defence Identity.’ In Brussels in 1995, in Berlin in 1996, and
in every Nato summit since then, a European defence identity has
been explicitly supported by Nato and the Tories. In addition,
the Maastricht treaty itself – whipped through the Commons by
the government of which William Hague, Francis Maude and Michael
Portillo were all members required that ‘the Member States shall
support the Union’s external and security policy actively and
unreservedly,’ and committed the EU to ‘the eventual framing of
a common defence policy.’
The
Europeans will be forgiven for muttering about perfidious Albion
if former British Tory ministers now say they did not mean what
they signed. However, as Mrs. Thatcher’s 1990 signature attests,
the explanation for this litany of Nato declarations in favour
of a euro-army is not treachery by John Major and his clique.
It lies instead in a change in the nature of Nato itself – a change
of which the Tories seem blithely unaware.
The
change was once graphically explained to me, albeit analogously,
by a turncoat sitting in a café somewhere in Eastern Europe.
Quizzed about his sudden transformation from a communist to a
democrat, he replied, in the succinct mid-Atlantic English which
reformers master so well, ‘Well, I morphed.’ Well, Nato morphed
too. In what looks suspiciously like a quid pro quo for
the end of the Cold War, Nato in 1990 abandoned defence of national
sovereignty as its principal aim and adopted supranationalism
as its own creed instead. The key pillars of this new Nato were
support for rising supranational organisations like the European
Union and the OSCE – specially reactivated for the purpose in
November 1990 and a new cosy relationship with Moscow.
Nato
thus changed from being an alliance to defend the freedom of its
members into a pro-active politico-military instrument with very
wide-ranging, indeed globalist, aims. This change severely weakened
the old Eurosceptic argument that sovereignty was not affected
by Nato in the way it has been by the EU. According to Article
5 of the 1949 Washington Treaty, Nato was to be used only when
one of its members was attacked. As such, and because it had no
supranational political control, Nato was compatible with national
sovereignty. However, in Nato’s new documents, Article 5 has been
effectively canned: according to the 1999 New Strategic Concept,
‘large-scale conventional aggression against the Alliance is highly
unlikely.’
One
might have thought this was a good reason for dissolving the Alliance
altogether. Instead, new threats were listed which, it was claimed
with highly dubious legality, Nato would now deal. Take a long
look at these threats, for all of human life is here. They are
‘military and non-military’; they include ‘uncertainty and instability
in and around the Euro-Atlantic area’; ‘serious economic, social
and political difficulties’; ‘inadequate or failed efforts at
reform’; ‘ethnic and religious rivalries,’ ‘disruption of flow
of vital resources.’ Even ‘human suffering’ is a threat. Almost
any thread of life’s rich tapestry is now a potential casus
belli for Nato. ‘I say, Wiggins!’ one can imagine a Nato brass
hat saying. ‘There’s some jolly dangerous uncertainty in Absurdistan
– not to mention serious political difficulties! That’s pretty
near the Euro-Atlantic area, isn’t it? Chocks away!’
The
continuing Tory love of the new Nato is strange in view of the
fact that, for the last decade, the Alliance has been controlled
by globalists and men who devoted their lives to opposing the
West when it mattered, during the Cold War. President Bush’s proclamation
of the ‘New World Order’ in 1990 merely raised the curtain on
the reign of the Draft Dodger, and the installation by him at
the levers of Nato power of men who had spent the entire Cold
War attacking Nato or denigrating it: first the corrupt Willy
Claes, the man who never mentioned Nato when discussing the reasons
for post-war European peace; then the old anti-Nato militant,
Javier Solana; finally the former CND activist, George Robertson.
Jobs
for the boys and bureaucratic gobbledegook are now the order of
the day in Brussels. Soldiers, meanwhile, are sent on meaningless
and humiliating traffic-calming missions to the Balkans. Not to
be outdone by the European Parliament’s new palace, Nato is inviting
tenders for a brand new HQ building of its own, in order to house
all the new staff who will manage its greatly expanded agenda.
Anyone who takes the plunge into Nato’s official documents will
immediately see why – providing they do not drown in alphabet
soup first as the relationship is explained between CEP, ESDI,
EADRU, EADRCC, PfP, PARP, and CEP. ‘We endorse,’ one typically
mind-numbing sentence explains, ‘the Council decision to begin
implementing the Multinational Joint Logistics Centre concept
by the end of 1999 and to develop the C3 system architecture by
2002 to form a basis for an integrated Alliance core capability
allowing interoperability with national systems.’ New Nato members
have to ‘show commitment to promoting stability and well-being
by economic liberty, social justice and environmental responsibility.’
And one of Nato’s most Orwellian new commitments, signed as 800
sorties a day were being flown to bomb Yugoslavia, is to ‘an environment
in which no country will be able to intimidate or coerce any other
through the threat or the use of force.’ In the new Ministry of
Love, it seems, war is peacekeeping.
Nato’s
attacks on Yugoslavia supported by the Conservatives as are
all other bombing raids, however absurd put a final end to any
pretence that Nato was a defence alliance committed to national
sovereignty. It has become instead an instrument of world administration
– more globalism’s iron fist than invisible hand. Committed to
all the fashionable nostrums of civil society and multi-culturalism,
visited by the arch-globalist George Soros, determined to send
its soldiers to build basketball pitches for Albanian schoolchildren,
and institutionally inseparable from the whole fabric of international
organisations which do so much to stifle national independence
and democracy, Nato is now culturally indistinguishable from any
other supranational body. The Tories schizophrenically pretend
to stand for national sovereignty, while simultaneously giving
unquestioning support to Nato’s whole futile paraphernalia of
supranational administration and international peacekeeping. But
they are just as schizophrenic to believe that they can hide from
European supranationalism under America’s skirts. Whichever way
you turn in the New World Order, all roads lead to Brussels.
|