The resolutions of the recent NATO summit in Istanbul indirectly expressed Europe’s rejection of most of the US demands.
Of concern to us in the Middle East, the European group and especially France and Germany, declined to involve NATO troops in the continued occupation of Iraq. Washington wanted to indirectly involve European countries that had opposed the invasion from the start and to embroil them in the occupation in order for the occupation to gain international legitimacy. It also wanted to reduce pressure on the American forces and the American budget since the oil that has been seized represents nothing compared to what the US and the UK spent on the occupation.
It seems that the European countries in NATO have assimilated the lessons from their involvement in Afghanistan — where they agreed for NATO forces to handle the responsibility instead of the US, leaving their forces under threat. The European countries also have not forgotten America’s stand on the Balkan War when the US took the primary role and totally marginalized NATO forces’ in a bid to show up the Europeans’ inability to solve their internal problems without US help and leadership.
In the closing statement it was agreed that NATO forces would train elements of the new Iraqi army that is now being formed — though the Iraqis had a strong army whose destruction was a primary objective of the Iraqi occupation. They also decided that the role of NATO forces would be limited to logistical support of the 9,000-man force led by Poland in south and central Iraq.
The Europeans have thereby denied the political legitimacy to the US presence in Iraq.
Europe also rejected the idea of imposing a political system on the region as envisaged in the “Greater Middle East Initiative”, adding that it was likely to be an outright failure. Europeans have a much better understanding of the Arab countries’ reality than the Americans do.
The rejection came despite the fact that Washington had drawn up the alliance’s policy for the Middle East long ago. It rests on the need to interfere in the region’s affairs even by force, to protect and safeguard the North against the transgressions of the South.
The Europeans prefer to open lines of dialogue with the Middle East. The Middle-Atlantic dialogue includes Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan, Israel, Egypt and the European NATO countries. This Middle-Atlantic dialogue reflects a wise and perceptive view on the basis that Europe’s security and stability is linked to the security and stability of the Middle East and especially Arab countries.
Nevertheless, there is still some hesitancy from European countries, and this led them to sign the “Istanbul Initiative for Military Cooperation” and defer the signature of four secret addendums. Most importantly, these say that the alliance has the right to rapid interference without prior consultation with the countries in the region in case of a crisis threatening Western interests.
The agreements and disagreements in the NATO leadership raise a number of questions. Most importantly, what are NATO’s objectives now that the West’s No. 1 enemy, the USSR, has crumpled along with the communist ideology and a number of former enemy states such as Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia have joined the alliance? Is protecting Europe from any foreign aggression its goal? Who is the hidden enemy that threatens European countries? Russia is too weak to protect itself and despite being a nuclear superpower is seeking to join NATO. Or is it China and India that are threatening Europe?
I believe that Europe is not really under threat of foreign invasion, though there are far-fetched possibilities of internal struggles like the tragedy of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. The reality with which many political analysts agree is that NATO is a strategic alliance that is being primed to become the new military leadership, able to protect its members’ strategic economic interests with unprecedented American backing. This is being done slowly to pave the way for NATO forces to work outside their boundaries. This new role could change many aspects of international relations between the countries of the North and the South.
