& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

NATO celebrates 60th anniversary

Billy I Ahmed
FROM Nato's foundation in April 1949 until dissolving the Warsaw Pact in July 1991, the role of Nato was dictated by confrontation with the Soviet Union. The United States functioned as a protective umbrella for Western Europe and played the leading role inside the alliance. This was accepted by European governments, although France's decision to quit leading NATO bodies in 1966.
The Nato summit, which coincides with the 60th anniversary, took place on 3 and 4 April. It was dominated by the occupation of Afghanistan - the most protracted war carried out by the military alliance in its 60-year history. A polarisation is taking place between the US and Britain on the one side and leading European countries on the other over how best to prosecute the war.
Both sides are ready to intensify the conflict at enormous cost to the Afghan and Pakistani population. Increasingly, however, European countries, with France and Germany at the fore, are demanding that their own contributions be rewarded by increased influence over imperialist decision-making bodies including Nato.
While Afghanistan is at the top of the Nato agenda, the summit also discussed Nato relations with Russia, the role of France in the alliance and to prepare a new strategic concept. The summit is being held just two weeks after the decision by the French parliament to fully reintegrate France into the structures of Nato.
The Nato summit follows the G20 conference in London, where Germany and France presented a united front in opposition to US and British proposals to deal with the economic crisis. Nevertheless, just as the G20 summit revealed intense fault lines between the Atlantic partners over economic policy, the list of contentious foreign policy issues between the US-Britain and leading European nations is growing.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the European want for American protection fell away, and the tasks and aims of Nato were up for renewed definition.
In principle, two paths were possible: building an independent European military alliance leading towards the dissolution of Nato, or transforming Nato into a global intervention force, keeping the dominant role of America.
At the Rome conference held in November 1991, the summit signalled the transformation of Nato from a largely defensive military alliance into an aggressive intervention force for imposing the economic, political and geostrategic interests of its members on a global scale.
In line with the new doctrine, Nato has carried out a series of military interventions since 1991notably in the Balkans and Afghanistan. These interventions were supported by Nato partners on both sides of the Atlantic.
At Nato's 50th anniversary summit in 1999, the US once again used its influence to ensure the alliance expanded its limits for military opera-
tions by undermining clause V of the Nato Treaty, which allows military action only to defend Nato member countries from an attack. The new doctrine allowed "out of area" operations against other countries or regions and allowed Nato to carry out aggressive military operations without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council.
Over the same period, at the behest of Washington, Nato conducted a systematic policy of encirclement of Russia. Following the 40-year postWorld War II standoff with the Soviet Union and its allies, the US government used Nato as an instrument to increase its influence in several Eastern European countries and to isolate Russia.
The outcomes of this policy exploded to the surface last year following the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia, which led to a dramatic heightening of tensions between Russia and America, which had given the green light for the invasion.
For their part, leading Western European nations have shown no scruples about waging wars "out of area." They have sent troops to Africa, engaged in policing the Middle East and deployed troops in Afghanistan.
At the same time, the European ruling elites have watched with mounting alarm as the US transformed the alliance into an increasingly aggressive military instrument for advancing American interests across the globe. In particular, the growth of tensions between the US and Russia cut across the close relations needed by European Union nations
heavily dependent on Russian energy supplies.
In response, the European Union has undertaken some early steps to develop a rival military intervention force. It has established a 25,000-strong Nato Response Force (operational since 2006) and the EU Rapid Defence Force comprising 60,000 soldiers.
Nevertheless, European nations continue to confront enormous financial and political obstacles in their effort to create a pan-European military capacity. US expenditure on its military (around $600 billion) is still more than double the military spending of all EU states combined. At the same time, European governments confront broad public opposition to their military engagements abroad.
Unable to compete directly with the US militarily, European nations have shifted the struggle to the ground of Nato itself. Under conditions where 21 of the current 28 members of Nato are members of the EU, the European ruling elites are demanding more say in Nato decisions. This is a crucial aspect of the recent decision by the French government to fully rejoin the alliance.
The strategy that is now being followed by the French government was spelt out in a contribution in Le Monde published to correspond with the 50th anniversary of Nato.
In April 1999, French defence expert Francois Heisbourg declared: "For France to play a leading role in the build-up of European defence, it must once again be fully integrated into Nato."
The recent US military escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan points to the latter conclusion. The decision to increase troop presence in Afghanistan was taken by the administration in Washington without any consultation with its European allies. Both the French president and the German chancellor have rejected sending more troops to Afghanistan.
In his only media interview before the G20 meeting and the Nato summit, French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared, "There will be no military reinforcements" from his country to Afghanistan. The economic and financial crisis is redrawing the geostrategic map. Tension between the great powers that have simmered over a long period arc beginning to erupt.
This is the significance of the joint front presented by Merkel and Sarkozy at the G20 summit against Washington on economic issues. It is only a matter of time before such immersed conflicts surface in the military policy.
Sarkozy and Merkel are still seeking to Europeanise Nato, but in a manner that increasingly brings them into conflict with the Obama administration. The current economic crisis is fuelling conflicts between the great powers that threaten to break the Nato alliance apart and raise the spectre of a new world war.
Tho author Is o columnist and researcher