Australia.TO
Hillary Clinton’s Prescription: Make The World A NATO Protectorate
Monday, 01 February 2010 11:37
Written by Rick Rozoff
Hillary Clinton
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was busy in London and Paris
last week advancing the new Euro-Atlantic agenda for the world.
As the top foreign policy official of what her commander-in-chief
Barack Obama touted as being the world’s sole military superpower on
December 10, she is no ordinary foreign minister. Her position is
rather some composite of several ones from previous historical epochs:
Viceroy, proconsul, imperial nuncio.
When a U.S. secretary of state speaks the world pays heed. Any nation
that doesn’t will suffer the consequences of that inattention, that
disrespect toward the imperatrix mundi.
On January 27 she was in London for a conference on Yemen and the
following day she attended the International Conference on Afghanistan
in the same city.
Also on the 28th she and two-thirds of her NATO quad counterparts,
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and French Foreign Minister
Bernard Kouchner (along with EU High Representative Catherine Ashton),
pronounced a joint verdict on the state of democracy in Nigeria,
Britain’s former colonial possession.
Afterwards she crossed the English channel and delivered an address
called Remarks on the Future of European Security at L’Ecole Militaire
in Paris on January 29. That presentation was the most substantive
component of her three-day European junket and the only one that dealt
mainly with the continent itself, her previous comments relating to
what are viewed by the United States and its Western European NATO
partners as backwards, "ungovernable" international badlands. That is,
the rest of the world.
While in Paris, Clinton held a joint press conference with her
counterpart Kouchner and said, "we…discussed the results of the
London meetings on Yemen and Afghanistan. We have a lot of work ahead
of us. We appreciate greatly the support that France has given in
developing a European police force mission to support NATO in its
effort to train police.
"We will be consulting even more closely. Our work in Africa is
particularly important. I applaud France for resuming diplomatic
relations with Rwanda, and I also appreciate greatly the work that
Bernard and the government here is doing in Guinea and in other
African countries." [1]
Rwanda and Guinea (Conakry) are former French colonies.
Two days before she made a similar joint appearance in London with
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Yemeni Foreign Minister
Abu Bakr Abdullah al-Qirbi. Yemen is a former British colony. The
conference on that country held on January 27 also included the
Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Prince Saud
Al-Faisal, but not Secretary General Amr Moussa or any other
representative of the 22-member Arab League.
Having the foreign minister of the unpopular government in Yemen that
the U.S. is waging a covert – and not so covert – war to defend
against mass opposition in both the north and south of the nation and
the foreign minister of the nation that is bombing villages and
killing hundreds of civilians in the north was sufficient for the
Barack Obama and Gordon Brown governments. A war on the Arabian
peninsula whose three major belligerents are the Yemeni government,
Saudi Arabia and the U.S. is not viewed by Washington and London as a
matter that 20 other Arab nations need to be consulted about.
Clinton delivered comments on the occasion that were exactly what were
required to obscure the real state of affairs in Yemen in furtherance
of her nation’s military campaign there: "The United States is
intensifying security and development efforts with Yemen. We are
encouraged by the Government of Yemen’s recent efforts to take action
against al-Qaida and against other extremist groups. They have been
relentlessly pursuing the terrorists who threaten not only Yemen but
the Gulf region and far beyond, here to London and to our country in
the United States." [2]
Bombing Shia civilians in the country’s north and resorting to the
preferred "diplomatic" intervention of the last four American
secretaries of state – cruise missiles – in the south in the name of
protecting London from Osama bin Laden is yet another illustration of
how a nation behaves when it doesn’t have a formal diplomatic corps.
In the same breath she added "The Yemeni people deserve the
opportunity to determine their own future," when there was nothing
further from her mind.
She acknowledged that "a longstanding protest movement continues" in
the south and that fighting in the north "has left many thousands dead
and more than 200,000 displaced" – without in any manner alluding to
Saudi armed assaults in the north and U.S. cruise missile attacks in
the south – but her focus remained firmly on "extremists who incite
violence and inflict harm." American bombs and missiles, of course,
are nonviolent and harmless in the Secretary’s us-versus-them view of
statecraft.
Clinton didn’t miss an opportunity to dress down her nation’s client
Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh – "This must be a partnership if
it is to have a successful outcome" – for his failure to adequately
"protect human rights, advance gender equity, build democratic
institutions and the rule of law." The U.S. may extend its
Afghanistan-Pakistan war into the Arabian Peninsula and the Horn of
Africa [3] in nominal support of the Yemeni head of state and his
Somali counterpart President Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, but they and
their like – Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai and Pakistan’s Asif Ali
Zardari – should not for a minute forget who is in charge and who
makes the rules.
The secretary of state had nothing to say about the condition of human
rights, gender equality and so forth in Saudi Arabia and America’s
other military vassals in the Persian Gulf. Medieval monarchies and
hereditary autocracies that host American military bases, buy billions
of dollars of advanced weapons from Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and
Northrop Grumman and are home to the U.S. 5th Fleet are not subjected
to homilies on human rights and "democratic institutions."
On the day of the London conference on Afghanistan Clinton, flanked by
the foreign ministers of Africa’s two former major colonial masters,
Britain’s David Miliband and France’s Bernard Kouchner, also delivered
a lecture to the government of Nigeria, ordering it to address
"electoral reform, post-amnesty programs in the Niger Delta, economic
development, inter-faith discord and transparency." [4]
At the January 28 International Conference on Afghanistan, attended by
the foreign ministers of all 28 NATO member states and dozens of NATO
partnership underlings with troops in the South Asian war zone – the
"international community" as the West defines it – Clinton
complemented the Pentagon’s allies and satraps:
"I think that what we have seen is a global challenge that is being
met with a global response. I especially thank the countries that have
committed additional troops, leading with our host country, the United
Kingdom, but including Italy, Germany, Romania." [5]
She will need yet more troops in the near future for a far larger
conflict than those the U.S. and NATO are currently involved with in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia if the following comments
contribute to the results they appear to intend:
"I also had a chance to discuss Iran’s refusal to engage with the
international community on its nuclear program. They continue to
violate IAEA and Security Council requirements.
"The revelation of Iran’s secret nuclear facility at Qom has raised
further questions about Iran’s intentions. And in response to these
questions, the Iranian Government has provided a continuous stream of
threats to intensify its violation of international nuclear norms.
Iran’s approach leaves us with little choice but to work with our
partners to apply greater pressure…."
Washington and its main NATO partners Britain, France and Germany
along with miscellaneous allies around the world – "rogue" nuclear
powers India, Israel and Pakistan among them (who know who to align
with and purchase arms from) – dictate the terms on matters ranging
from the proper holding of elections to which nation can develop a
civilian nuclear power program. Any country outside the
"Euro-Atlantic" and "international" communities faces censure,
threats, "greater pressure" and ultimately military attack.
The U.S. has a population of 300 million and the European Union of 500
million, combined well under one-eighth that of the world. Yet the
two, whose military wing is NATO, hold "international conferences" on
Asia, the Middle East and other parts of the world and presume to
deliver ultimatums to all other nations.
To cite a recent example, the New York Times reported that "Secretary
of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned China on [January 29] that it
would face economic insecurity and diplomatic isolation if it did not
sign on to tough new sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program,
seeking to raise the pressure on Beijing to fall in line with an
American-led campaign." [6] On the same day "The Obama administration
notified Congress on Friday of its plans to proceed with five arms
sales transactions with Taiwan worth a total of $6.4 billion. The arms
deals include 60 Black Hawk helicopters, Patriot interceptor missiles,
advanced Harpoon missiles that can be used against land or ship
targets and two refurbished minesweepers." [7]
Clinton has joined in the U.S. chorus of hectoring of China since she
took up her current post last year, in May even raising the specter of
Chinese penetration of Latin America.
China is not Afghanistan or Yemen. It is not even Iran. The last
generation’s foreign policy hubris and megalomania of the West,
epitomized by its wars in Southeast Europe and South Asia and the
Middle East, may be headed into far more dangerous territory.
Grandiosity, arrogance and perceived impunity blind those afflicted
with them, whether individuals or nations.
No clearer example exists than Secretary Clinton’s remarks in Paris on
January 29.
To demonstrate the worldview of those she represents – that the United
States and Europe are the incontestable metropolises and rulers by
right of the planet – early in her address Clinton said "I appreciate
the opportunity to discuss a matter of great consequence to the United
States, France, and every country on this continent and far beyond the
borders: the future of European security." [8]
That is, the U.S. arrogates to itself the prerogative of not only
speaking with authority on the security of a continent 3,500 miles
away but intervening around the world in its alleged defense.
Flattering her hosts, she further said: "As founding members of the
NATO Alliance, our countries have worked side by side for decades to
build a strong and secure Europe and to defend and promote democracy,
human rights, and the rule of law. And I am delighted that we are
working even more closely now that France is fully participating in
NATO’s integrated command structure. I thank President Sarkozy for his
leadership and look forward to benefiting from the counsel of our
French colleagues as together we chart NATO’s future."
Regarding the phrase "to defend and promote democracy, human rights,
and the rule of law," evocative of almost identical terms used two
days earlier in reference to Yemen, Clinton’s Paris speech was fairly
overflowing with similar language.
The words recently have been tarnished and debased so thoroughly by
the use they have frequently served – justifying war – that they are
at risk of deteriorating into not so much noble as suspect
abstractions.
Worse yet, they are incantations employed to praise oneself for
uniquely possessing them and to castigate others who don’t. ["Our work
extends beyond Europe as well….European and American voices speak as
one to denounce the gross violations of human rights in Iran." But not
in Saudi Arabia, Western Sahara, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip,
post-"independence" Kosovo, Estonia and Latvia, etc.]
Clinton’s speech contained these terms and phrases in the following sequence:
democracy, human rights, and the rule of law
unity, partnership, and peace
global progress
reconciliation, cooperation, and community
security and our prosperity
importance of liberty and freedom
peace and security
development, democracy, and human rights
human potential
democratic institutions and the rule of law
progress and stability
democracy and stability
accountable, effective governments
economic and democratic development
expanding opportunity
development and greater stability
defend and promote human rights
peace and opportunity and prosperity
defending and advancing our values in the world
a Europe transformed, secure, democratic, unified and prosperous
The last is a variant of A Europe Whole And Free [9] first employed by
President George H.W. Bush in 1989 to inaugurate his putative new
world order.
As will be seen by further excerpts from her address (as well as its
location and context), Clinton’s use of the above expressions was, as
noted, both self-congratulatory and in contradistinction to the
implied lack of what they pertain to in the world outside of the
Euro-Atlantic community and its approved allies elsewhere.
Again taking up the theme of Western superiority and the need for the
Euro-Atlantic precedent to be enforced on others, she said "European
security is, not only to the individual nations, but to the world. It
is, after all, more than a collection of countries linked by history
and geography. It is a model for the transformative power of
reconciliation, cooperation, and community."
However, "much important work remains unfinished. The transition to
democracy is incomplete in parts of Europe and Eurasia." The
subjugation of Europe’s eastern "hinterlands" will be explored later
in relation to her comments on the European Union’s Eastern
Partnership and related matters.
"The transatlantic partnership has been both a cornerstone of global
security and a powerful force for global progress.
"NATO is revising its Strategic Concept to prepare for the alliance’s
summit at the end of this year here at (inaudible). I know there’s a
lot of thinking going on about strategic threats and how to meet them.
Next week, at the Munich Security Conference, leaders from across the
continent will address urgent security and foreign policy challenges.
"The United States, too, has also been studying ways to strengthen
European security and, therefore our own security, and to extend it to
foster security on a global scale."
To elite trans-Atlantic policy makers the above paragraphs’ meaning is
indisputable: The use of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
military bloc – the true foundation of the "transatlantic partnership"
– in waging war in and effectively colonizing the Balkans and in
expanding into Eastern Europe, incorporating twelve new nations
including former Warsaw Pact members and Soviet republics, is the
worldwide paradigm for the West in the 21st century.
That mechanism, using Europe as NATO’s springboard for geopolitical
aggrandizement in the east and the south, is being applied at the
moment against larger adversaries than the bloc has tackled before
now:
"European security remains an anchor of U.S. foreign and security
policy. A strong Europe is critical to our security and our
prosperity. Much of what we hope to accomplish globally depends on
working together with Europe….And so we are working with European
allies and partners to help bring stability to Afghanistan and try to
take on the dangers posed by Iran’s nuclear ambition."
"We have repeatedly called on Russia to honor the terms of its
ceasefire agreement with Georgia, and we refuse to recognize Russia’s
claims of independence for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. More broadly,
we object to any spheres of influence claimed in Europe in which one
country seeks to control another’s future. Our security depends upon
nations being able to choose their own destiny."
The final sentence is galling beyond endurance, coming as it does from
the foreign policy chief of a nation with hundreds of thousands of
troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and which with its NATO allies waged
war against Yugoslavia and tore the nation apart.
The one preceding it is equally absurd, as Clinton repeatedly insists
on the right of the U.S. to be not only a major player on the European
continent but the main arbiter of military, security, political,
energy and other policies there while denouncing Russia – it didn’t
need to be named – for alleged designs to establish a "sphere of
influence" in neighboring states.
"Security in Europe must be indivisible. For too long, the public
discourse around Europe’s security has been fixed on geographical and
political divides. Some have looked at the continent even now and seen
Western and Eastern Europe, old and new Europe, NATO and non-NATO
Europe, EU and non-EU Europe. The reality is that there are not many
Europes; there is only one Europe. And it is a Europe that includes
the United States as its partner….We are closer than ever to
achieving the goal that has inspired European and American leaders and
citizens – not only a Europe transformed, secure, democratic, unified
and prosperous, but a Euro-Atlantic alliance that is greater than the
sum of its parts…."
For decades, indeed since the end of World War II, American leaders
have been "inspired" by a vision of a Europe transformed and unified –
under NATO military command and a European Union serving as the
civilian, and increasingly military, complement to the Alliance.
"NATO must and will remain open to any country that aspires to become
a member and can meet the requirements of membership," even Ukraine
where the overwhelming majority of its citizens oppose being pulled
into the military bloc. ["We stand with the people of Ukraine as they
choose their next elected president in the coming week, an important
step in Ukraine’s journey toward democracy, stability, and integration
into Europe. And we are devoting ourselves to efforts to resolve
enduring conflicts, including in the Caucasus and on Cyprus."]
And should a nation be incorporated into the bloc even against the
will of its people, then the U.S. "will maintain an unwavering
commitment to the pledge enshrined in Article 5 of the NATO treaty
that an attack on one is an attack on all. When France and our other
NATO allies invoked Article 5 in the aftermath of the attacks of
September 11th, 2001, it was a proclamation to the world that our
promise to each other was not rhetorical, but real….And for that, I
thank you. And I assure you and all members of NATO that our
commitment to Europe’s defense is equally strong.
"As proof of that commitment, we will continue to station American
troops in Europe, both to deter attacks and respond quickly if any
occur. We are working with our allies to ensure that NATO has the
plans it needs for responding to new and evolving contingencies. We
are engaged in productive discussions with our European allies about
building a new missile defense architecture…."
Washington is uncompromisingly bent on expanding NATO even further
along Russia’s borders – Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Finland –
despite misgivings among some NATO allies in Europe, and will use the
Alliance’s Article 5 war clause to "protect" those new outposts. It
will also drag all of Europe into its worldwide interceptor missile
system.
And not against military threats – there is no military threat to any
European nation – but against a veritable plethora of phantom
pretexts, including so-called cyber and energy security, both of which
are subterfuges for the U.S. to intervene against Russia. A host of
other ploys for NATO intervention were added, many from NATO Secretary
General Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s 17-point list of last year [10]:
Iran’s nuclear program, "confronting North Korea’s defiance of its
international obligations," "tackling non-traditional threats such as
pandemic disease, cyber warfare, and the trafficking of children" and
the "need to be doing even more, such as in missile defense,
counternarcotics, and Afghanistan." Anything and everything is grist
to the U.S.’s and NATO’s mill.
As Clinton put it, "In the 21st century, the spirit of collective
defense must also include non-traditional threats. We believe NATO’s
new Strategic Concept must address these new threats. Energy security
is a particularly pressing priority. Countries vulnerable to energy
cut-offs face not only economic consequences but strategic risks as
well. And I welcome the recent establishment of the U.S.-EU Energy
Council, and we are determined to support Europe in its efforts to
diversify its energy supplies."
Diversifying energy supplies is a code phrase for driving Russia and
keeping Iran out of oil and natural gas deliveries to Europe. If the
tables were turned the U.S. would view – and treat – such a policy as
an act of war.
The global expansion of the American agenda in Europe was indicated
further in Clinton’s remarks that "This partnership is about so much
more than strengthening our security. At its core, it is about
defending and advancing our values in the world. I think it is
particularly critical today that we not only defend those values in
the world. I think it is particularly critical today that we not only
defend those values, but promote them; that we are not only on
defense, but on offense."
And placing the current world situation in historical perspective, she
said: "We are continuing the enterprise that we began at the end of
the Cold War to expand the zone of democracy and stability. We have
worked together this year to complete the effort we started in the
1990s to help bring peace and stability to the Balkans. And we are
working closely with the EU to support the six countries that the EU
engages through its Eastern Partnership initiative."
The Eastern Partnership is a U.S.-backed European Union program to
pull six of twelve former Soviet repiblics that formed the
Commonwealth of Independent States into the Western orbit: Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. [11] Armenia and
Belarus are members with Russia of the Collective Security Treaty
Organization, a potential counterbalance to NATO’s drive into the
former Soviet Union. Along with Serbia and Cyprus, those nations
represent the last obstacles to NATO, and behind it the U.S., securing
control of all of Europe.
Clinton also had the audacity to raise the issues of the Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and the Conventional Forces in Europe
Treaty (CFE), the first almost two months beyond its December 5
expiration and the other, in its adapted form, not ratified by a
single member state of NATO, which – led by the U.S. – is exploiting
its suspension for military buildups in new Eastern European nations.
"Two years ago, Russia suspended the implementation of the CFE Treaty,
while the United States and our allies continue to do so. The
Russia-Georgia war in 2008 was not only a tragedy but has created a
further obstacle to moving forward…." The U.S. and NATO have
justified their non-ratification of the Adapted Conventional Forces in
Europe Treaty by demanding that Russia withdraw a small handful of
peacekeepers it maintains in post-conflict zones in Abkhazia, South
Ossetia and Transdniester. Had those forces been withdrawn earlier
under Western pressure, Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia in 2008,
coordinated with an attack on Abkhazia, might have proven successful
for its American-trained army.
Part of Clinton’s self-serving interpretation of the CFE Treaty is
"the right of host countries to consent to stationing foreign troops
in their territory." That is, U.S. and NATO and decidedly not Russia
troops. There can be no spheres of influence in former Soviet space –
except the West’s.
Her understanding of an autonomous Europe not "besieged" by Russia and
Iran – and North Korea – includes not only stationing American troops
on its soil but also nuclear weapons, hundreds of which are still
housed in NATO bases in several European countries. "President Obama
declared the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons. As
long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe,
secure, and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and we will
guarantee that defense to our allies.
"[W]e are conducting a comprehensive Nuclear Posture Review to chart a
new course that strengthens deterrence and reassurance for the United
States and our allies…." Clinton didn’t indicate which European
nations have requested to be placed under the Pentagon’s nuclear
shield.
After her presentation Clinton answered questions from the audience at
the French Military Academy.
Her extemporaneous comments were even more revealing that her prepared text.
They included:
"When it comes to NATO, I think that greater integration on the
European continent provides even more opportunity for the level of
cooperation to increase.
"But I think, given the complexity of the world today, closer
cooperation and more complementarity between the EU and NATO is in all
of our interests to try to forge common policies – economic and
development and political and legal on the one hand in the EU, and
principally security on the other hand in NATO. But as I said in my
remarks, they are no longer separated. It’s hard to say that security
is only about what it was when NATO was formed, and the EU has no role
to play in security issues."
NATO’s new Strategic Concept lays particular emphasis on the
advancement – indeed the culmination – of U.S.-EU-NATO global military
integration. [12]
Regarding the implementation of that project, Clinton stipulated the
issue of energy wars. "[I]t would be the EU’s responsibility to create
policies that would provide more independence and protections from
intimidation when it comes to energy markets from member nations. But
I can also see how in certain cases respecting energy, there may be a
role for NATO as well."
When asked about what in recent years has been referred to as Global
NATO "extending the boundaries of NATO to non-Western countries,
emerging powers like Brazil, India, other democracies that might
fulfill their criteria," Clinton advocated a series of expanding
partnerships in addition to the Partnership for Peace, Adriatic
Charter, Mediterranean Dialogue, Istanbul Cooperation Initiative,
Contact Country, Trilateral Afghanistan-Pakistan-NATO Military
Commission and others that take in over a third of the nations in the
world:
"How do we cooperate across geographic distance with countries in
other hemispheres, different geopolitical challenges? And there is a
modern living example of that with the NATO ISAF commitment in
Afghanistan.
"In many ways, it’s quite remarkable, the success of this alliance.
Yesterday at the London conference on Afghanistan, as you know, the
United States, under President Obama, has agreed to put 30,000 more
troops in Afghanistan. And member nations, NATO and ISAF – the
international partners – have come up with a total of 9,000 more
troops….NATO is leading the way, but NATO has to determine in what
ways it can cooperate with others. I think that the world that we face
of failing states, non-state actors, networks of terrorists, rogue
regimes – North Korea being a prime example – really test the
international community. And it’s a test we have to pass. Now, there
are some who say this is too complicated, it is out of area, it is not
our responsibility. But given the nature of the threats we face, I
don’t think that’s an adequate response.
"[C]yber security breaches, concerted attacks on networks and
countries, are likely to cross borders. We have to know how to defend
against them and we have to enlist nations who are likeminded to work
with. Similarly, with energy problems, attacks on pipelines, attacks
on container ships, attacks on electric grids will have consequences
far beyond boundaries. And it won’t just be NATO nations. NATO nations
border non-NATO nations."
A small consortium of Western nations, two in North America and 26 in
Europe – though most of the latter are nothing more than slavishly
subservient junior partners – has appointed itself, for its own
interests, the arbiter of world affairs in all matters from judging
the political legitimacy of governments to who receives energy
supplies from whom to the most urgent question of all, when and
against whom wars can be launched. [13]
Clinton’s speech in Paris has signaled her country’s intention to
formalize and extend that role throughout the world in the 21st
century.