Should NATO Be Handling World Security? Peace Action board member Larry Wittner on Huffington Post

So, I was planning to write a post-NATO Summit op-ed (and we may well have more reports, photos, etc. on our terrific work in Chicago soon) but hadn’t gotten around to it. Which is just as well, because Peace Action board member Larry Wittner published this very comprehensive yet concise piece about NATO on Huffington Post. Here it is:

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (better known as NATO) is in the news once again thanks to a NATO Summit meeting in Chicago over the weekend of May 19-20 and to large public demonstrations in Chicago against this military pact.

NATO’s website defines the alliance’s mission as “Peace and Security,” and shows two children lying in the grass, accompanied by a bird, a flower and the happy twittering of birds. There is no mention of the fact that NATO is the world’s most powerful military pact, or that NATO nations account for 70 percent of the world’s annual $1.74 trillion in military spending.

The organizers of the demonstrations, put together by peace and social justice groups, assailed NATO for bogging the world down in endless war and for diverting vast resources to militarism.According to a spokesperson for one of the protest groups, Peace Action: “It’s time to retire NATO and form a new alliance to address unemployment, hunger, and climate change.”

NATO was launched in April 1949, at a time when Western leaders feared that the Soviet Union, if left unchecked, would invade Western Europe. The U.S. government played a key role in organizing the alliance, which brought in not only West European nations, but the United States and Canada. Dominated by the United States, NATO had a purely defensive mission — to safeguard its members from military attack, presumably by the Soviet Union.

That attack never occurred, either because it was deterred by NATO’s existence or because the Soviet government had no intention of attacking in the first place. We shall probably never know.

In any case, with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, it seemed that NATO had outlived its usefulness.

But vast military establishments, like other bureaucracies, rarely just fade away. If the original mission no longer exists, new missions can be found. And so NATO’s military might was subsequently employed to bomb Yugoslavia, to conduct counter-insurgency warfare in Afghanistan, and to bomb Libya. Meanwhile, NATO expanded its membership and military facilities to East European nations right along Russia’s border, thus creating renewed tension with that major military power and providing it with an incentive to organize a countervailing military pact, perhaps with China.

None of this seems likely to end soon. In the days preceding the Chicago meeting, NATO’s new, sweeping role was highlighted by Oana Lungescu, a NATO spokesperson, who announced that the Summit would “discuss the Alliance’s overall posture in deterring and defending against the full range of threats in the 21st century, and take stock of NATO’s mix of conventional, nuclear, and missile defense forces.”

In fairness to NATO planners, it should be noted that, when it comes to global matters, they are operating in a relative vacuum. There are real international security problems, and some entity should certainly be addressing them.

But is NATO the proper entity? After all, NATO is a military pact, dominated by the United States and composed of a relatively small group of self-selecting European and North American nations. The vast majority of the world’s countries do not belong to NATO and have no influence upon it. Who appointed NATO as the representative of the world’s people? Why should the public in India, in Brazil, in China, in South Africa, in Argentina, or most other nations identify with the decisions of NATO’s military commanders?

The organization that does represent the nations and people of the world is the United Nations. Designed to save the planet from “the scourge of war,” the United Nations has a Security Council (on which the United States has permanent membership) that is supposed to handle world security issues. Unlike NATO, whose decisions are often controversial and sometimes questionable, the United Nations almost invariably comes forward with decisions that have broad international support and, furthermore, show considerable wisdom and military restraint.

The problem with UN decisions is not that they are bad ones, but that they are difficult to enforce. And the major reason for the difficulty in enforcement is that the Security Council is hamstrung by a veto that can be exercised by any one nation. Thus, much like the filibuster in the U.S. Senate, which is making the United States less and less governable, the Security Council veto has seriously limited what the world organization is able to do in addressing global security issues.

Thus, if the leaders of NATO nations were really serious about providing children with a world in which they could play in peace among the birds and flowers, they would work to strengthen the United Nations and stop devoting vast resources to questionable wars.

Lawrence Wittner is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is “Working for Peace and Justice: Memoirs of an Activist Intellectual” (University of Tennessee Press).

The Greek Tragedy

by Peter Deccy

Much has been reported about the decline of the Greek economy. Some Republicans have enjoyed using the tragedy to warn the same fate awaits the US unless it cuts its social spending, often implying the social safety net in Greece supports a lazy society that prefers drinking on the beach and handouts to hard work and productivity.

Nice try. What’s been missing in mainstream media coverage is the fact that Greece is the 3rd largest importer of weapons in the world. That’s right, China, India, Greece.

Greece is largest importer of weapons among the NATO allies. While NATO countries spend an average of 1.7% of their GDP on ‘defense’, Greece has been spending 4%. That’s roughly $1,500 per person.
It has a standing army of 156,000 men, more than the UK which has 6 times the population of Greece. Military service of nine months is compulsory.

And who is selling them the weapons? No, it’s not the world largest weapons trafficker (the US) this time. It’s France and Germany, the belt tighteners who have been pressing Greece to accept a bread and water diet to solve their financial crisis.

Of course, you need a threat of cosmic proportions to justify runaway military spending. For Greece, that’s Turkey. But wait, isn’t Turkey Greece’s NATO ally? Yes, they are, but don’t look behind the curtain. The extreme right in Greece has long used the dispute over Cyprus to justify their militarism. That sounds vaguely familiar.

So the Republican’s have it half right, which is twice their average score. If we don’t watch out we’ll end up in the same mess Greece is in. But it won’t be because we’re taking too good care of our people. It will be because of our addiction to militarism.

In Chicago for the NATO Free Future Counter-Summit and marching on May 20?

If you are marching on May 20, take our Nonviolence & Media training at 5pm on Wednesday, May 16.

Feel prepared and supported to exercise your right to nonviolent protest and speak to the media about why we must  end the war in Afghanistan and retire NATO.

After an overview of NATO/G8, the National Lawyers Guild and Street Medics will do presentations and answer questions.

You will have the option to do a NVDA training or break out to a media training session led by trainers from Peace Action and AFSC.

RSVP

You will feel ready to go on Sunday, know your rights and counter the NATO summit media spin! Space is limited, please email Mary at mzerkel@afsc.org if you are interested in participating.

March on May 20 with the Network for NATO Free Future contingent for  the IVAW and CANG8 march.

A few Peace Action media hits around the Obama visit to Afghanistan and Bin Laden anniversary

Peace Action West’s Political Director Rebecca Griffin’s excellent op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle focused on public opinion and opportunities to end the war while stressing diplomacy, political and economic development support for Afghanistan.

Field Director Judith Le Blanc’s response to the president’s speech from Kabul addressed the cost of the war to both the Afghan and U.S. people (watch for this piece, it could show up in your local paper, as it is being distributed nationally by the Oregon Peace Institute’s op-ed service, and it was also published with a different headline on Counterpunch).

Executive Director Kevin Martin and U.S. Labor Against the War’s Michael Eisenscher called for the troops to come home now, not at the end of 2014 or worse, 2024, in an essay on Common Dreams.

Martin again, on Chicago public radio station WBEZ’s excellent Worldview program yesterday, spoke of the president’s trip in the context of the public’s clear support for ending the war rapidly, upcoming congressional action on Afghanistan, and the NATO Summit in Chicago later this month (my segment is from yesterday, 5.2.12, and begins 16 minutes into the program, lasts about 22 minutes, with two good callers!)

Give U.S.-Iran negotiations time to succeed, Op-Ed by Peace Action West’s Rebecca Griffin in the Sacramento Bee

I was in Iran in 2009 when a family invited me into their home for dinner. Over kebabs and rice, I chatted about school and video games with their 6-year-old son. He and his mother sang us a song about flying like a balloon, and I struggled to keep up with his uncle’s many American movie references.

The family lives in Esfahan, a likely target of any Israeli or American military attack. Esfahan is home to part of Iran’s nuclear energy program and less than two hours from another potential target, the Natanz uranium enrichment facility. Whenever I hear talk of war with Iran, I think of these kind people.

On April 13, the United States and its allies will resume negotiations with Iran aimed at resolving the conflict over Iran’s nuclear program. Congress should give diplomacy time to work, rather than pushing the United States closer to a military confrontation nobody wants.

Last month, American officials conducted a classified war simulation that showed that military strikes on Iran could spark a wider regional war and leave hundreds of Americans dead. American officials predict that Iran would retaliate with missile strikes on Israel and attacks on U.S. personnel overseas. As Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former commander of Central Command, said, “If you follow this all the way down, eventually I’m putting boots on the ground somewhere. And like I tell my friends, if you like Iraq and Afghanistan, you’ll love Iran.”

Politicians love to promote a fantasy of swooping in with fighter jets and rescuing helpless Iranians from a repressive regime, but democracy activists in Iran don’t see it that way. As renowned Iranian journalist Akbar Ganji explained, “Even speaking about the possibility of a military attack on Iran makes things extremely difficult for human rights and pro-democracy activists in Iran.”

Unpopular regimes like Iran’s relish the rally-around-the-flag effect created by a military confrontation, which allows them to marginalize dissidents. The threat of action is damaging enough. The reality would be devastating to all Iranians, especially for those who have been speaking out for justice and democracy.

Many in Congress are undermining prospects for a peaceful solution by pushing to lower the threshold for military action. A resolution sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn.; and Robert Casey, D-Pa.; and Reps. Ilena Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., and Howard Berman, D-Calif., would draw the “red line” for military action against Iran at a nuclear weapons capability, not an actual weapon. However, “nuclear weapons capable” is a dangerously vague term that could also apply to dozens of other countries that, like Iran, have nuclear energy programs. All 16 of America’s intelligence agencies have reported that there is no proof that Iran has decided to build a nuclear weapon.

This is more than congressional grandstanding. As the United States and its allies engage in delicate negotiations, lowering the threshold for war could rule out diplomatic alternatives and back the United States into a corner. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff for SecretaryColin Powell, warned, “This resolution reads like the same sheet of music that got us into the Iraq war, and could be the precursor for a war with Iran. … It’s effectively a thinly disguised effort to bless war.”

Disrupting diplomatic efforts on the eve of talks is highly counterproductive, but that’s not stopping politicians on both sides of the aisle who seem ready and willing to ignore the advice of national security professionals like Gen. Zinni and Col. Wilkerson.

The Iranian mother who welcomed me into her home told me that she watches BBC Persian with her son and struggles to answer when he asks her to explain the violence on TV. We should think twice before rushing into another war and bringing that same horror to his doorstep. It’s time to commit to serious diplomacy with Iran, and Congress must give President Obama the space to conduct it.

—

ABOUT THE WRITER

Rebecca Griffin is political director of Peace Action West, 2201 Broadway, Suite 321, Oakland, Calif. 94612; email: rgriffin@peaceactionwest.org; website: www.peaceactionwest.org.

This essay is available to McClatchy-Tribune News Service subscribers. McClatchy-Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of McClatchy-Tribune or its editors.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/09/4400461/give-us-iran-negotiations-time.html

Chicago May 18 & 19 – 99% vs War and Injustice

By Judith LeBlanc
Peace Action and the American Friends Service Committee have initiated a network of peace, faith, economic and racial justice groups to convene a Counter Summit for Peace and Economic Justice in Chicago on May 18 – 19.

While the NATO Summit meets at McCormick Place in Chicago we will gather at the People’s Church on 941 West Lawrence from Friday morning until Saturday afternoon.

While they discuss the Afghanistan war, we will map out campaigns for a future free of wars, occupation and the costs of a militarized foreign policy.

The conference will bring together representatives of the 99% from the US and around the world who oppose the policies which generate wars and impoverish our communities. Register now.

Find out more information on the NATO Free Future website. http://www.natofreefuture.org/

Join the low volume announcement list to get updates on plenary speakers and workshops.

We will raise our voices with an alternative vision to NATO’s wars. One that is premised on diplomacy and international sovereignty. Between now and May 18, you can invite speakers to come to your area and be a part of the dialogue.

In the months leading to the  NATO meeting and the G8 meeting at Camp David, it is an opportunity for popular education about NATO and  the G8 and the impact on our communities.

Check out the speakers bureau. In every region of the country there are experts, historians and organizers who can come and speak at events, or your own local Counter Summit for Peace and Economic Justice.

Join us in Chicago!

More Prolific Peace Actionistas Published on Prospects of War on Iran

Whew! Hard to keep up with all the great articles being published by grassroots leaders in the Peace Action network. Here are two for you today, both on the lunacy of a war with Iran:

National Peace Action Board Co-Chair Jean Athey and Peace Action Montgomery (in Maryland, just outside the nation’s capital) Steering Committee member Alex Welsch had an op-ed in yesterday’s Baltimore Sun titled “Overstated Iranian ”threat’ puts U.S. on path to war”

New Jersey Peace Action Executive Director, on Op-Ed News, asks “Can the U.S. Afford Another War?” (Of course we can’t, but her article is full of facts, figures, links and news you can use!)

Peace Action Statement on Humanitarian Crisis in Syria

Statement by Peace Action Calling for a Halt to the Military Violence and

Human Rights Violations in Syria

March 6, 2012

 

Peace Action deeply deplores the military action taken by Syria’s armed forces to violently suppress opposition to the government of President Bashar al-Assad.  This military action is largely responsible for the deaths of thousands of Syrians – with estimates ranging as high as 7,500 deaths – mostly of civilians.  In the midst of this violence, an estimated 70,000 Syrians have been displaced from their homes and over 20,000 have become international refugees.

 

The Syrian government’s brutality was justly condemned by the UN General Assembly on February 16, 2012, in a resolution that was supported by 137 of 149 nations voting.  Peace Action also applauds the overwhelming vote by the UN Human Rights Council on March 1, 2012 to condemn “the continued widespread and systematic violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms by the Syrian authorities” and the action by the UN Security Council that calls on the Syrian government to allow “immediate, full and unimpeded” humanitarian access to its country.

Peace Action supports the recently-announced UN plan for a mediation process in Syria that includes all political factions.  According to former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan – the newly appointed special envoy for Syria on behalf of the United Nations and the Arab League – this plan is supported by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

 

Meanwhile, Peace Action warns against precipitous military intervention in Syria by foreign powers.  “Unfortunately,” notes Kevin Martin, Peace Action executive director, “we have seen how violence has escalated when other nations intervened militarily in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Even when the United Nations authorized the use of force in Libya under its `responsibility to protect’ policy, outside powers overstepped the boundaries of the UN authorization and created a broader military conflict.”

 

Peace Action also calls attention to the fact that, as the Syrian situation demonstrates, when a nation maintains substantial armed forces, it not only threatens the security of other nations, but the human rights and lives of its own citizens.  This threat provides yet another reason for reducing the massive international arms trade.

 

Peace Action believes that the people of the world would have greater security and freedom in a demilitarized world.

 

Founded in 1957, Peace Action (formerly SANE/Freeze), the United States’ largest peace and disarmament organization, with over 100,000 paid members and nearly 100 chapters in 36 states, works to abolish nuclear weapons, promote government spending priorities that support human needs, encourage real security through international cooperation and human rights and support nonmilitary solutions to the conflicts with Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq. The public may learn more and take action at http://www.Peace-Action.org. For more up-to-date peace insider information, follow Peace Action’s political director on Twitter. http://twitter.com/PaulKawika

 

Interview on Chicago Public Radio from Monday

This program, Worldview, with host Jerome McDonnell, is one of the best on public radio. It’s on five days a week, focusing on international affairs. I’ve known Jerome for over 20 years, he’s a good egg, very sharp, asks good questions, good politics. Not a bad segment I don’t think, we covered a lot of issues of import to the peace movement. Feel free to give me feedback on my “performance” if you like!

Preserving the Island of World Peace – Noam Chomsky and Matthew Hoey on the struggle to stop a missile defense base on Jeju Island, South Korea

We’ve written on this blog before about this struggle to stop constuction of a missile defense base on Jeju Island, South Korea, as well as the fight against U.S. military bases on Okinawa. And of course Peace Action is a co-sponsor of a conference in Washington later this month on Asia-Pacific Peace and Security, where these issues will be highlighted .

Here is the latest on the struggle on Jeju Island, in the Korean newspaper The Hankyoreh, by Noam Chomsky and Matthew Hoey.

Also, for those in the DC area, there will be a protest at the White House state dinner for South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak October 13 at 5:30 pm.  It’s important for international solidarity with the people of Jeju, and for the U.S. and especially the Korean media, that there be a strong protest of the base when President Lee when he visits the White House.

Finally, see Matt Hoey discussing the struggle on the lovely shoreline of the island.