Canada
- Time To Exit NATO
By Jim Miles
17 September, 2007
Countercurrents.org
NATO
has recently had one of its regular meetings of the “Military
Committee” in Victoria, B.C., Canada, with appropriate demonstrations
against it for Canada’s role within NATO and Afghanistan. Phil
Lyons, the organizer of the demonstration, which ended peacefully, says
"NATO is now a weapon of American Imperialists." Another demonstrator
asks, “I don’t understand why NATO exists,” then answers
his own question, perhaps without realizing it, that "NATO is a
war tool the West uses to intimidate other nations into submission."
[1]
They are correct regardless
of the high-sounding rhetoric that emanates from the government about
international humanitarian rights and the war on terrorism.
NATO as it currently stands
has a dual command structure, SACT and SACEUR.
SACT is the acronym for the
Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, the transformation being that
of making NATO forces into a U.S. styled rapid deployment force anywhere
in the world. SACT will be dual-hatted (meaning the same guy has both
positions) as Commander, US Joint Forces Command. This one person is
U.S. Air Force Gen. Lance L. Smith, who is headquartered in Norfolk
Virginia. SACEUR is the acronym for Supreme Allied Command Europe and
is be dual-hatted as Commander, US European Command, General John Craddock,
United States Army who is appointed by the US President. His headquarters
are in Mons, Belgium.
It should be obvious that
NATO is led by the U.S. military. With its current role involved with
the powers of the American empire in unilateral pre-emptive actions
that generally work against international law, yes, NATO is nothing
but an extension of that empire, a tool of the corporate-military structure
that is part and parcel of the American government.
The Military Committee’s
role is defined as: “In times of crises, tension or war, and in
relation to military operations undertaken by the Alliance such as its
role in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo and Afghanistan, its role is to advise
the Council or Defence Planning Committee of the military situation
and its implications, and to make recommendations on the use of military
force, the implementation of contingency plans and the development of
appropriate rules of engagement.”
Of course there is little
that is defensive about NATO’s current role, having used uninvited
force in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, and while they may have been
‘invited’ into Afghanistan, it was under an established
puppet government led by a compromised Hamid Karzai. The NATO treaty
does say that the signatory countries “seek to promote stability
and well-being in the North Atlantic area,” a definition which
is pushed to the extreme with the former Yugoslavia and is absurd with
Afghanistan. In addition the NATO treaty indicates “The Parties
to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of
the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace
with all peoples and all governments.” [2]
The UN Charter states in
part, “In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the
Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations
under any other international agreement, their obligations under the
present Charter shall prevail.” Therefore any obligations and
rules and regulations established under the UN prevail over anything
that NATO decides, or at least it is supposed to.
As the UN Charter “prevails
over all other treaties…countries cannot exempt themselves from
the provisions of the UN Charter, which include…the international
rules governing recourse to military force.”[3] These international
rules have developed over time through various treaties, charters, agreements,
and conventions or through customary law involving the wide acceptance
of a rule by a clear global majority. International humanitarian intervention
in the form of military force is not an accepted concept of international
law, and even if it was, cannot over-ride article 2(4) of the Charter
that says “Members shall refrain…from the threat or use
of force against the territorial integrity or political independence
of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes
of the United Nations.” It would seem that NATO’s “recommendations
on the use of military force” and “its development of appropriate
rules of engagement” would be completely over-ridden by the UN
Charter
The Afghanistan occupation is not counter to the political independence
of the state (recognizing that it is a puppet government established
under U.S. auspices and controlling very little of Afghanistan); and
it does have Security Council authorization (it fits somehow under the
“mandate” of the “International Security Assistance
Force” but is not recognized in its own right, an after the fact
recognition of its actions): leading to the observation that the presence
of Canada’s military in Afghanistan is within international law.
[4]
As for self-defence, “Nothing…shall
impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if
an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until
the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international
peace and security.”[5] This has been done, yet problems still
remain under international law and with the ‘moral’ basis
for the war.
Canada’s own elected
representatives and military leadership promote Canada’s military
action in Afghanistan to support the U.S. under the pretext of humanitarian
intervention. However, “the significance of humanitarian concerns
to the international law on the recourse to force remains at the level
of political will” and can not “be considered to have acquired
legal force.”[6] Also, the Canadian government advocates its pro-democratic
intervention role, but use of force for that is prohibited under the
UN Charter as well.
Canada’s role, as an
occupying force under international law, contains other concerns along
with the above: the treatment of prisoners of war; the destruction of
civilian structures (they’ve built some roads, but what about
the farms and houses that have been destroyed?); the ‘rendition’
or transfer of prisoners to the Afghan forces (this issue came to light
recently but was quickly dropped by the media once they were reassured
that Canada had access to “its” prisoners); and the care
and safety of the occupied population.
NATO’s role in Afghanistan,
while ostensibly under UN approval, is in reality under U.S. command.
Canada and NATO have accepted U.S. command, and are faithfully performing
their empirical duties in Afghanistan. While Canadian government rhetoric
has been about rebuilding Afghanistan, the reality on the ground is
about battling an insurgency, that good or bad, is a native insurgency.
Again, while the rhetoric is about rebuilding a democratic Afghanistan,
the ultimate purpose of American geopolitical strategy in the region
is to control the oil and gas supplies and routes from the Caspian Basin
and guard against Russian and Chinese control of the same.
Counter to that, elements
within Pakistan are calling for all foreign forces to leave Afghanistan
in order that Pakistan can negotiate for peace, following on the success
of a recent peace ‘jirga’. The Afghan government itself
has called for recognition of the Taliban as political players within
the Afghani government, as have several domestic U.S. sources. For Canada
to continue in its role as occupier and aggressor within Afghanistan
is fully counterproductive to both reconstruction and the war on terror.
Reconstruction will not occur
within a circle of military battles that can never win the war, and
only cause more civilian deaths and recruit more people to the anti-occupation
forces. At the same time that the NATO meeting was taking place in Victoria,
Canadian troops were fighting in Helmand Province to retake positions
they had “taken” previously. If Canada wants a long war,
they have certainly found the right environment for one.
Always, apart from the legalities,
it is a useless endeavour to invade another country and try to impose
one’s own version of the ‘white man’s burden’
upon the indigenous population. The reality behind that pretext is a
combination of two main forces. The first force is racism - a creation
of the ‘other’ whose life has no value as they do not embrace
our own beautific moral standards and self-aggrandizing democracy. The
second forces are those of capitalist imperialism, the fullest extension
of corporate neoliberalism and its desire for control of resources and
labour.
The war on terror will never
be won by invading and destroying governments and civilian infrastructures,
or by supporting unwanted puppet governments, but by using international
investigative forces and international courts – which of course
leads to the obvious that if foreign forces would go home, the war on
terror would diminish significantly as its antagonizing force would
be gone. The arguments for democracy, for making the world a safer place,
for protecting Canada, for trying to prevent a civil war, for countering
terrorism, for rebuilding Afghanistan, or for honouring those who have
already died by not cutting and running,[7] do not stand up to common
sense and moral scrutiny any more than they do international legalities.
A true democracy, actually
asking the people of the country what they desire and then abiding by
their wishes – and not using a contrived idealism of morality
and democracy – will go a long way to create a safer, more culturally
diverse and healthy and equal world.
Canada should get out of Afghanistan. Canada should get out of NATO.
If the countries involved wished to truly be independent actors and
thinkers, then NATO itself should be disbanded – it has long outlived
its original purpose and is now being used as another force for American
empire.
[1] http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070908/
wl_canada_afp/canadanato_070908234056
[2] http://www.nato.int/issues/
military_committee/tasks.html
and http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm
[3] Byers, Michael. War Law
– Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict. Douglas
& McIntyre, Vancouver, Canada. 2005. p. 6.
[4] Personal correspondence,
Michael Byers.
[5] Byers, ibid, p.7
[6] Byers, ibid, p. 102
[7] arguments similar to
those presented in Anthony Arnove’s Iraq – The Logic of
Withdrawal. Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 2007.
Jim Miles
is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist of opinion
pieces and book reviews to Palestine Chronicles. His interest in this
topic stems originally from an environmental perspective, which encompasses
the militarization and economic subjugation of the global community
and its commodification by corporate governance and by the American
government.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.