Counter military globalisation: NATO Game Over

Back to index page

NATO Game Over: on 22 March 2008, five years after the start of the Iraq war, activists from all over Europe will nonviolently try to enter and close NATO headquarters in Brussels, in order to prevent further war crimes and military occupations. The following two days, Bombspotting and War Resisters' International organise a conference on how to counter the ongoing military globalisation with nonviolent resistance.

Military globalisation and NATO

Europe is at war. The bombs are not falling in Europe, but several thousands of miles away in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nevertheless war is waged from Europe. With the start of the war in Iraq five years ago, when the US waged war from its European bases together with the British military forces, this became very visible.

In 2003 54,000 US military personnel based in Europe were deployed or were active in direct support of the war against Iraq. 320_000 tons of military material was shipped from Europe to the war zone in the Persian Gulf. The US Army had 26_000 European-based soldiers deployed, mainly from Germany. Among them were 1_000 soldiers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade, based in Vicenza (Italy), who did a parachute jump into Northern Iraq taking off from Aviano airport (Italy). Bombing flights over Iraq by the US and UK Air Force were continuously taking off from British bases, while 3_000 combat sorties were flown from aircraft carriers of the US 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean. Marines were inserted into North Iraq from Souda Bay on Crete.

All this is still going on. In 2006 two thirds of the US Army personnel in Europe was deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, preparing to deploy or just returned. 75% of the military equipment used in these wars by the US military passes through Europe. And besides all the talk about secret rendition flights, the US military openly moves prisoners of war to Guantanamo through its European bases. In other words, the war in Iraq is not possible without wide European consent to these military operations.

Meanwhile European countries participate in the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our governments support NATO's International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, a force of 40_000 military under NATO command of which about 20_000 come from European countries.

NATO has also developed its own intervention force, the NATO Response Force, consisting of 20_000 soldiers for rapid intervention.

All this is the result of being part of NATO. NATO membership implies participation of your country in military interventions all over the world, directly with national forces or indirectly through military bases or as logistical support for foreign troops. The war in Iraq has been fought because Iraq was supposed to develop weapons of mass destruction, and Iran is threatened with war for the same reasons.

Meanwhile, thanks to our NATO membership, about 350 US nuclear weapons are deployed in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the UK. The British nuclear arsenal also has a NATO role. In terms of international humanitarian law these weapons are as illegal here as elsewhere. In the US strategy these nuclear weapons already have a role in wars in the Middle East and if they do not disappear they will get such a role as well in the NATO strategy.

NATO is one of the most important institutions in this military globalisation, just like the G8 is for the economic globalisation. And just like we said no to the G8, we have to say no to NATO. NATO Stop these war games, NATO Game Over.

NATO discusses its future. What is at stake?

At the beginning of April a very decisive NATO summit will be held in Bucharest. NATO is discussing its future and undergoing a transformation of its military into intervention forces. A political transformation is also going on and the US would like to see NATO evolving into a global military alliance of like-minded states. A kind of ‘United Nations of the Willing’, which will result in the marginalisation of the real United Nations. In other words, an alternative for the United Nations without difficult competitors like Russia and China and spoilers like Iran and an alternative which can legitimate military intervention on its own without recourse to the UN Security Council. This would mean a further polarisation and militarisation of international relations. As a first step in this evolution the US would like to see closer relations between NATO and Pacific-states like Australia, Japan, New-Zealand and South-Korea. In practice this is developing through their participation in the Afghanistan war and through several technical agreements between NATO and these states. Their participation in the political discussions and decision-making is much more contested as this would mean an important internal power shift. Also Europe would suddenly become entangled in the power struggles in the Pacific. It can be heard regularly in American military circles that the next big conflict will be with China. Do we really want to get involved?

How will the countries who do not belong to the group of the ‘Willing’ react? What will it be like to not be part of the ‘right’ camp? These countries will be confronted with a global military alliance that can brand them as a security problem. For them this is a threat to which they will strive to respond militarily. The result is a further arms race and militarisation of international relations. The idea that these threats are global could well become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

An important step in the discussion on NATO's future will be the review of its Strategic Concept. This document states the basic strategy of NATO. A new document would shape NATO policy for the next ten years. The chance is quite high that the Bucharest summit will open the Strategic Concept for review. This could result in a new Strategic Concept on the 60th Anniversary Summit in April 2009. Therefore the coming year is very important for the future of NATO and for the antimilitarist an important time to put political pressure on NATO. Will NATO remove its nuclear weapons or do they get a new role towards the Middle East? Will NATO become a global military alliance? Will NATO legitimate the US missile defense system and incorporate it into a NATO system?