[R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] What is NATO Doing in Afghanistan?

[Bill Totten]

NATO, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Pakistan

by Faheem Hussain

CounterPunch (June 06 2008)


What is NATO doing in Afghanistan? What are the true aims of NATO
intervention in the region? These are the questions that I mean to
address in this article. To understand what is happening in Afghanistan
one has to go back to the attack on Yugoslavia by NATO forces in
February 1999.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO lost
its raison d'être given that Western Europe and the United States were
no longer threatened by an invasion from Eastern Europe. NATO thus had
the choice between disbanding itself or developing a new reason for its
existence. This gave the opportunity to the United States to reshape
NATO in ways that would serve its imperial interests. It is very
important to remember that its founding documents clearly say that NATO
was a defensive organisation, which would go into action only when one
of its member states was attacked.

The first step in the US strategy of changing the nature of NATO was the
attack on Yugoslavia on the pretext of preventing ethnic cleansing.
Clearly Yugoslavia had not attacked a NATO member state thus excluding a
response from NATO. Whatever one can say about Kosovo, it was
internationally recognised as an integral part of Yugoslavia (and is
still internationally recognised as part of Serbia) and Yugoslavia did
not attack or even threaten a NATO member state.

As was clear right from the beginning of the Kosovo crisis in the 1990s,
and as was confirmed at the NATO Fiftieth Anniversary Celebrations in
Washington in April 1999, one of the aims of the United States in
attacking Yugoslavia at that time on the pretext of preventing ethnic
cleansing in Kosovo was to present to the European states a fait
accompli as an example of the future role of NATO as an offensive
organisation whose aim was to act as the world's policeman, or more
rightly thug, in the defence of perceived United States interests. It
was clear that the US was intent on provoking a war with Yugoslavia and
its subsequent bombardment.

How was this achieved? One of the final steps in the American strategy
in attacking a sovereign state, Yugoslavia, which had not attacked any
NATO member state, was the proposed Rambouillet Accords, February 23
1999. These show clearly that the Americans had no intention of pursuing
a peaceful settlement of the Kosovo problem and that they intended to
push Milosevic into a situation that he could not accept. In the words
of Lamberto Dini, the then Italian Foreign Minister, the Rambouillet
Accords were made deliberately to "humiliate the Serbs" so that they
could not accept them.

Here I reproduce some of the worst points of the proposed Rambouillet
Accords, Appendix B: Status of Multi-National Military Implementation Force:

3. The Parties recognize the need for expeditious departure and entry
procedures for NATO personnel. Such personnel shall be exempt from
passport and visa regulations and the registration requirements
applicable to aliens. At all entry and exit points to/from the FRY
(Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, F H), NATO personnel shall be permitted
to enter/exit the FRY on production of a national identification (ID)
card. NATO personnel shall carry identification which they may be
requested to produce for the authorities in the FRY, but operations,
training, and movement shall not be allowed to be impeded or delayed by
such requests.
...

6. a. NATO shall be immune from all legal process, whether civil,
administrative, or criminal.

6. b. NATO personnel, under all circumstances and at all times, shall be
immune from the Parties, jurisdiction in respect of any civil,
administrative, criminal, or disciplinary offenses (sic) which may be
committed by them in the FRY. The Parties shall assist States
participating in the operation in the exercise of their jurisdiction
over their own nationals.
...

7. NATO personnel shall be immune from any form of arrest,
investigation, or detention by the authorities in the FRY. NATO
personnel erroneously arrested or detained shall immediately be turned
over to NATO authorities.

8. NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels,
aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded
access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial
waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac,
maneuver (sic), billet, and utilization of any areas or facilities as
required for support, training, and operations.

9. NATO shall be exempt from duties, taxes, and other charges and
inspections and custom regulations including providing inventories or
other routine customs documentation, for personnel, vehicles, vessels,
aircraft, equipment, supplies, and provisions entering, exiting, or
transiting the territory of the FRY in support of the Operation.
...

15. The Parties recognize that the use of communications channels is
necessary for the Operation. NATO shall be allowed to operate its own
internal mail services. The Parties shall, upon simple request, grant
all telecommunications services, including broadcast services, needed
for the Operation, as determined by NATO. This shall include the right
to utilize such means and services as required to assure full ability to
communicate, and the right to use all of the electromagnetic spectrum
for this purpose, free of cost. In implementing this right, NATO shall
make every reasonable effort to coordinate with and take into account
the needs and requirements of appropriate authorities in the FRY.
...

17. NATO and NATO personnel shall be immune from claims of any sort
which arise out of activities in pursuance of the operation; however,
NATO will entertain claims on an ex gratia basis.
...

21. In carrying out its authorities under this Chapter, NATO is
authorized to detain individuals and, as quickly as possible, turn them
over to appropriate officials.


I have here only given some of the articles of the infamous Appendix.
The others are more of the same ilk. The whole appendix is worth
reading. These are some of the privileges which are for example enjoyed
by US troops in Italy. (The new secret agreements being proposed between
the US government and the Maliki puppet government in Iraq go much
further). It was clear that the Rambouillet Accords were attacks on the
sovereignty of Yugoslavia and that NATO wanted to completely take over
Yugoslavia. The above conditions were obviously entirely unacceptable to
a sovereign state and it was clear that these conditions were put so
that Milosevic could not accept them and that the bombing of Serbia
could start. In fact that is exactly what happened.

It should be clear and there is ample evidence of this, which I cannot
reproduce here without making this article too long, that the attack on
Yugoslavia had absolutely nothing to do with preventing ethnic cleansing
and all to do with punishing a state that did not accept US diktat and
was a crucial step towards reinventing the role of NATO.

Attentive readers in Pakistan will note the uncanny similarities between
the proposed Rambouillet Accords of 1999 preceding the 78 day NATO
bombardment of Yugoslavia and what Shirin Mazari, a Pakistani defence
analyst and former head of the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad
(ISSI), revealed as a set of demands that the USA recently made to the
Pakistan government (The News March 08 2008). Although one can never be
sure, I hope that the Musharraf government at that time and the present
government have rejected these demands which negate Pakistani
sovereignty. I wonder if the new "democratic" dispensation has given in
to US pressure to remove Ms Mazari from her position as head of the ISSI
given her opposition to NATO presence in Afghanistan and her criticisms
of US policy in the region.

It is relevant to point out that although the Serbian Parliament had
agreed to an accord a day before the bombardment was started, this was
deliberately ignored. Also significant is the fact that the final accord
sanctioning Yugoslav withdrawal from Kosovo after 78 days of bombing
achieved much less than what was being pushed in the Rambouillet
Accords. So what was the point of bombardment if much less was
acceptable? It was clear then and it is clearer now that the main idea
was to change the nature of NATO as part of a broader strategy to
dominate the Eastern Mediterranean and the oil routes from Central Asia.

The aim of reinventing the role of NATO into an aggressive arm of US
foreign policy was achieved at the Washington meeting. The birth of the
new NATO was sanctioned by the following words of the nineteen heads of
state and government on 24th April 1999:

"This new alliance will be bigger, more capable and more flexible,
involved in collective defence and capable of undertaking new missions,
among which is the active commitment in the management of crises,
including the operations of responding to crises". (Washington Summit
Communiqué, 24/4/1999)


The newly born creature is the fruit of an operation of genetic
engineering: from an alliance that, on the basis of Article 5 of the
Treaty of 4 April 1949, authorised its member countries to assist (also
with armed force) any member state that was attacked in the North
Atlantic area, was transformed into an alliance that, on the basis of
the new "strategic concept", commits the member countries also to
conduct operations outside the territory of the Alliance (non-Article 5
operations). This was stressed several times in the document "The
Alliance's Strategic Concept" approved by the Heads of State and
government on April 24, 1999. For example in Article 31 it says

"NATO will seek, in co-operation with other organisations, to prevent
conflict, or should a crisis arise, to contribute to its effective
management, consistent with international law, including through the
possibility of conducting non-Article 5 crisis response operations".
(The Alliance's Strategic Concept, 24/4/1999; Defence Capabilities
Initiative, 24/4/1999)

Remove the fig leaf of respect for international law and here you have
the real intentions of NATO, to conduct operations throughout the world
as it pleases.

To remove any doubt about the intentions of NATO, President Clinton
clarified, during the press conference on 24 April 1999, that the North
Atlantic Allies

".. have reaffirmed their readiness to affront, in appropriate
circumstances, regional conflicts beyond the territory of the members of
NATO". (Transcript: Clinton Says NATO May Intervene Beyond Its Borders,
24/4/1999)

To the question on what was the geographical area in which NATO was
ready to intervene, "the President refused to specify to what distance
NATO intended to project its force, saying that it was not a question of
geography". In other words, NATO intended to project its military force
beyond its borders not only in Europe, but also in other regions, like
the Middle East, Africa and the Indian Ocean. NATO gave itself the right
to intervene anywhere in the world whenever it feels its interests are
threatened, without consulting the United Nations. Led by the biggest
and most dangerous rogue state, the United States, NATO was set to
become the gravest threat to peace throughout the world. One of the
amazing and disgusting spectacles to watch in Europe in those days was
that these so-called democracies accepted the new NATO without
discussion in any of the European Parliaments. It is as if loyalty to
NATO (which means in effect obedience to US diktat) has been put above
all other considerations of national sovereignty and democracy. The
Italian Prime Minister at that time, Massimo D'Alema, an ex-communist,
said that Italy had to go to war because of its commitments and loyalty
to NATO. He perhaps forgot that the principle of obeying orders while
committing acts against humanity was not accepted at the Nuremberg
trials as an attenuating circumstance.

It is worth remembering in these times, when one tends to blame Bush and
his gang for all US aggressive imperialist policies, that all the above
took place under the falsely admired Clinton and his Secretary of State,
Madeleine Albright, famous for her remark that the death of 500,000
Iraqi children as a consequence of the then embargo on Iraq was a
justified price to pay to remove Saddam. We tend to forget that all US
presidents follow such policies. As was obvious Bush and his gang
whole-heartedly accepted the new role of NATO. If fact this was
reemphasised in the recent NATO heads of states meeting in Romania where
Bush explicitly said that the role of NATO was that of a "global
expeditionary force". These are terrible words that bode ill for the
future of the world.

Yugoslavia of course could not and did not accept the demands made in
the Rambouillet Accords and was therefore subject to savage bombing. The
bombing of Serbia sanctioned NATO out of area operations and was a
prelude to NATO involvement in Afghanistan as the handmaiden of the USA.
NATO should never have been in Afghanistan in the first place and it is
good to see that many European countries are reluctant to send their
troops to die there. What is happening in Afghanistan is tragic with
hundreds of innocents dying at the hands of indiscriminate bombing by US
and NATO forces and by the retaliatory Taliban and resistance bombings
but one thing is clear and that is that NATO will lose the war in
Afghanistan. This is good because, I hope, that it will lead NATO to
rethink its role in the post-cold war world and perhaps, if we are
lucky, it may even be disbanded in the future. A NATO victory in
Afghanistan will be disastrous for the region and for the world. It will
encourage it in its Bush-designated role of a global "expeditionary
alliance". At the NATO summit in Bucarest in April Bush said about NATO:
"It is now an expeditionary alliance that is sending its forces across
the world to help secure a future of freedom and peace for millions". In
other words to interfere in and invade other poor countries of the south
with the pretext of the new white man's burden: promoting freedom and
peace. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan have enough of this so-called
freedom and peace. It is therefore necessary that NATO loses in Afghanistan.

A total withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan followed by a
negotiated settlement between Afghan forces is the only way forward
there. There are those who say that the withdrawal of NATO forces will
lead to chaos, more deaths and re-talibanisation of Afghanistan. But the
truth is that the presence of foreign troops is one of the major factors
of violence there. What more chaos and destruction can there be in
Afghanistan? All the touted aims of the USA and NATO are dead. There is
no democracy there, Karzai is a US puppet, the warlords are in power and
the level of insecurity is increasing, car bombs are becoming a norm.
Pushtuns, as other peoples, never tolerate foreign occupation of their
soil and to me it seems clear that the Taliban have mobilised Pushtun
national sentiment in combating foreign troops.

Following the failure of NATO to defeat Afghan insurgents, the US blames
Pakistan for providing sanctuary and training camps for Taliban and
Al-Qaeda in the border region of Pakistan. But we have heard this
before. When they cannot control the insurgency in Iraq they blame Iran
or Syria for providing training and weapons to Iraqi insurgents. But
this is an even older story. Those with a long memory will remember that
when the US could not defeat the Vietnamese revolutionaries they said
that there were training camps and sanctuaries in neighbouring Laos and
Cambodia. One remembers the savage bombing of Cambodia from 1969 to
1973. It did not help the US to defeat the Vietnamese nationalists but
lead to over a 100,000 Cambodian deaths to add to the three million
Vietnamese killed during the war. Now they are bombing so-called
Al-Qaeda and Taliban in Waziristan on dubious "actionable intelligence"
in which hundreds of innocents are killed and this without a word of
protest, if not connivance, on the part of our elected representatives.

It is a good sign that, in spite of continued US pressure, one of the
first tasks that the new government in Islamabad has undertaken is a
review of Pakistan's involvement in America's "war on terror". An
involvement that has already caused death and destruction in the
frontier, disillusionment in the army and suicide bombings in major
cities. There are reports of secret deals, made in January, between the
USA and Musharraf's government providing Predator bases inside Pakistan
and changing rules of engagement of these aircraft whose controllers are
now authorised to fire on suspicion rather than "hard" intelligence. One
would like to know from the elected government whether there were such
secret deals and if there were does it intend to repudiate them. Already
the CIA and the FBI operate freely inside Pakistan and the Americans are
demanding that we now accept ground troops in the guise of trainers for
the Army and militia. They want to teach the Pakistan Army about
counterinsurgency. If it were not so ominous it would be really quite
hilarious given the singular failure of the US army in fighting
guerrillas in Vietnam and now in Iraq and Afghanistan. What methods are
they going to teach the Pakistan Army? Massive bombing and collective
punishment in the best traditions of Vietnam?

Although the present government has taken some timid steps in distancing
itself from the so-called "war on terror" and has rightly started to
talk to the people of Waziristan, it has not gone far enough. It has to
clearly tell the USA that its policies in Afghanistan and in Pakistan's
frontier are a failure. They have only led to death, destruction and the
spread of terrorism. The only way out is for all foreign forces to get
out of Afghanistan and for the US to stop interference in Pakistan. Once
these forces are out of the region then and only then will one be able
to come to a political solution, as there is no purely military solution
neither to the problems of Afghanistan nor to the rising phenomena of
Islamic militancy in Pakistan. Pushtuns have clearly voted against the
mullahs and the militants but at the same time the rejection of
Musharraf is also a sign that the people of Pakistan reject Pakistan's
forced marriage with the disastrous US policies in the region. It is
time for a clean divorce.
_____

Faheem Hussain is Visiting Professor of Physics at the School of Science
and Engineering, Lahore University of Management Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan.

http://www.counterpunch.org/hussain06062008.html


TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click
on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this
essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/