|
NEWS
November
13th 2002
|
||
|
NATO prepares to expand…but at whose expense? Next week sees the first NATO summit to be held in a former Eastern Bloc country, and once again, thousands of people are expected to converge on Prague to protest against the organisation, both for its policies and its very existence. NATO has been criticised for its lack of strategic role since the end of the Cold War, but its bellicose actions in the Balkans and Afghanistan have indicated that it is still dedicated to expanding the US sphere of influence in its new guise as the armed wing of corporate globalization. As US journalist, author, and free marketeer Thomas Friedman stated: ‘The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist -McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15.’ As during the Cold War, the world is seen as consisting of Good Guys and Bad Guys, but the difference is that during the Cold War, a strategy of containment of state socialism was employed, implying a tacit acceptance by the US that for now at least, it couldn’t rule the whole world. With the collapse of the USSR, the only barriers left to the US government and corporations are trade barriers and a few ‘rogue states’, and these are being vigorously demolished. During the coming weeks, NATO/ the US’s treatment of its enemies will be receiving more coverage, but one of the main topics under discussion at its summit will be related to friends rather than foes: planning the further expansion of the organisation and its sphere of control. In 1999, Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic were
admitted to NATO, and it is likely that during the summit, at least
one more state will be invited to join. Currently, 10 states are participating
in NATO's membership action plan, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Macedonia NATO membership is a way of cementing one’s stance as an ally of the US, with all the attendant implications. It is far from clear, however, what exact benefits it brings for the countries joining. Most explanations by governments hoping to join are vague mentions of ‘stability’ and ‘security’, and it seems that prestige is another main factor for joining. One fairly precise document on this subject is a study by the Employers Association of Bulgaria/The Centre for Liberal Strategies, which sets out the supposed economic benefits of joining NATO. It names increased defence spending, investment in infrastructure, and long-term rises in inward investment due to improved status and political characteristics needed to be admitted to NATO. These things are all generally likely to occur, but it is a matter of whether they are really a good thing, and at what cost they come. An increase in defence spending, for example, is of extremely questionable utility to the public good, especially since most of the contracts go to Western arms companies such as McDonnell-Douglas, Lockheed-Martin, or Raytheon. Since 1996, there have already been $78,073,314 worth of arms licenses and agreements between the US and Bulgaria. Not all of these will have been paid for by the Bulgarian taxpayer - NATO expansion is also heavily opposed by those who object to Western taxpayers paying part of the (extremely unpredictable and ever-increasing) costs - but even so, spending money on NATO-compatible arms is a huge burden. Even the apparently richer countries of Central Europe are finding the costs difficult to meet: only months after formally being accepted into the alliance, Hungary's ambassador to NATO Andra Simonyi warned in November 1999 that Hungary could not afford to modernize its fleet of fighters to meet the alliance's requirements for interoperability, maintenance and logistical support. Hungary appears to be being more honest about this issue than, for example, Poland, which is currently trying to decide which of BAe Systems-SAAB, Dassault or Lockheed Martin to award a $3.5 billion deal for new fighter aircraft to replace its MIG-21s with, whilst its national budget suffers from a huge ‘hole’ and its social spending is being slashed accordingly. Likewise, $990,948,470 worth of arms licenses and agreements have been made between the US and Romania since 1996, and this for a country where I was told during a visit last summer that the hospitals were lacking something as basic as antidote to adder bites. In order to cover the costs of the transfers, the West has developed a variety of schemes, including selling off second-hand weapons, offering ‘no-cost leases’ and negotiating offset agreements, which involve investing in the country or buying other products. These deals are perceived by central and eastern European countries as a means to stimulate foreign investment and trade. While offsets appear to reduce the financial burden on the purchasers by stimulating investment, the burden is instead shifted to Western taxpayers, and a corporate welfare scheme is created, whereby arms companies produce and make huge profits from subsidized weapons for other countries. The clear winners here are the arms companies, so it comes as no surprise that they are the biggest supporters of expansion. The recipient countries are grateful for the temporary employment crumbs which they receive from the companies, yet their domestic arms industries are destroyed and their dependence on the West for weapons is complete, while the profits similarly migrate. In April 1997, then-Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine promised to support Romania’s bid for NATO membership in return for the Romanian purchase of an $82 million radar system from his company - this is about the level of subtlety of the arms industry’s campaign for NATO expansion. Several groups are active in lobbying for expansion, of which the most well-known is the US Committee on NATO, (formerly the US Committee to Expand NATO), headed by Bruce Jackson, who until 2002 was the CEO of Lockheed Martin, although even without these groups they would still be heard, as for example Sir Richard Evans (Chairman of BAe Systems) has been described as ‘one of the few businessmen who can see Blair on request’. So is anyone else benefiting? Well yes. All the talk of stability is generally misleading, as it seems that NATO expansion may bring a regional arms race, an increase in terrorism, confrontation with Russia, and increased poverty for many people, but as long as we are talking of military stability and blind loyalty to the US, then it does have some relevance, because stability is a necessary precondition for certain things: Firstly, for the West to access markets, and secondly, particularly if we look at the location of certain aspiring NATO members, for transporting oil out of the Caspian Sea region and across to the fuel-hungry West. This month Serbia, Romania and Croatia will sign an $800 million deal on the construction of an oil pipeline within the European Union INOGATE programme. The South-East European Line (SEEL) would link the Romanian Black Sea Port of Constanta with Serbia's Pancevo refinery near Belgrade and Omisalj in Croatia, and would be built under the auspices of INOGATE (Interstate Oil and Gas Transport to Europe), a European Commission initiative launched in 1996 to facilitate the EU fossil fuel trade with Eastern Europe and Western Asia. The EU has said it would finance the project within its programmes of financial aid to Romania, Yugoslavia and Croatia. Bringing these countries into NATO’s fold is one way to ensure their dependence on and compliance with the demands of the West, whilst gradually moving the alliance south and eastwards in order to ensure the military control of all areas relevant to extracting and transporting oil and gas from the Caspian Sea region. Further, if slightly older reading:
|