360 -NATO: Mobilization on all Fronts - Sabine Lösing (Ed.) - DIE LINKE. im Europaparlament
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Information on Politics and Society No. 12, April 2017
News, Reports and Analyses from the European Parliament. Edited by Sabine Lösing, MEP.
Sabine Lösing (Ed.)
360°-NATO:
Mobilization on all Fronts
Sabine Lösing, MEP European Parliament Sabine Lösing, MEP Rue Wiertz WIB 03M023 1047 Brussels Belgium Phone: +32 2284 7894 Fax: +32 2284 9894 Email: sabine.loesing@europarl.europa.eu Assistants: Ota Jaksch, Anne Labinski Local Offices: Europabüro Sabine Lösing Goseriede 8 30159 Hannover Germany Phone: +49 511 4500 8852 Email: hannover@sabine-loesing.de Assistants: Daniel Josten, Michael Kuhlendahl Europabüro Sabine Lösing Lange Geismarstraße 2 37073 Göttingen Germany Phone: +49 551 5076 6823 Email: europabuero-loesing@web.de Assistant: Fritz Hellmer www.sabine-loesing.de
360°-NATO: Mobilization on all Fronts Editors of the brochure are Sabine Lösing, MEP and the Parliamentary Group GUE/NGL in the European Parliament. Editing by: Informationsstelle Militarisierung e.V., Hechinger Straße 203, 72072 Tübingen, www.imi-online.de English Translation: Richard van Ess Publication date: April 2017 (Layout: Daniel Josten) Circulation: 1000
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
NATO’s 360 Degree Approach:
Heading Towards Confrontation with Russia and the Rest of the World
Jürgen Wagner...........................................................................................................................................................................................6
II. Missions
Occupied, looted, divided: NATO in Kosovo
Jürgen Wagner.........................................................................................................................................................................................15
NATO in Afghanistan: A never ending story
Anne Labinski..........................................................................................................................................................................................19
Mission accomplished: Why NATO has destroyed Libya and destabilized the region
Jürgen Wagner .........................................................................................................................................................................................24
The Militarization of NATO’s Eastern Flank
Restructuring of NATO policy in the light of the conflict in Ukraine and the Russian crisis
Nathalie Schüler......................................................................................................................................................................................30
NATO’s (hybrid) role in Syria’s devastation
Christoph Marischka................................................................................................................................................................................37
III. Strategies
NATO Centres of Excellence – Planning the Next War
Christopher Schwitanski..........................................................................................................................................................................43
NATO at sea… The Alliance as a maritime power
Claudia Haydt..........................................................................................................................................................................................52
Cyberwar and information space: NATO and war on the fifth battlefield
Thomas Gruber........................................................................................................................................................................................54
Militarization of information: NATO propaganda is now called Strategic Communications
Christopher Schwitanski.........................................................................................................................................................................58
Allied Ground Surveillance: NATO’s eyes and ears above Eastern Europe
Marius Pletsch.........................................................................................................................................................................................61
Atomic Sabre-rattling: NATO’s Nuclear Offensive
Jürgen Wagner.........................................................................................................................................................................................62
IV. Protest
Resistance against NATO structures in Germany - EUCOM in Stuttgart
Thomas Mickan......................................................................................................................................................................................69
No NATO: Mapping the Protest Sites
Jacqueline Andres..................................................................................................................................................................................71
5NATO’s 360 Degree Approach:
Heading Towards Confrontation with Russia and the Rest of the World
by Jürgen Wagner NATO 1.0: Strategic Focus Soviet Union an independent European strategy during
the postwar decades. This held especially
It was former NATO Secretary General The formerly top secret US Policy Planning true for Foreign and Security Policy.”6
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who, already in Study 23 (PPS/23), issued on 8 February
2010, brought forward the argument that 1948, provides an insight into the purpose With the decline of the Soviet Union, these
the Western military alliance was in the of NATO’s establishment, which had been frame conditions changed fundamentally at
process of transition into NATO 3.0.1 As a instituted roughly one year later: “[w]e have the beginning of the nineties. The adver-
matter of fact, the development of NATO about 50% of the world’s wealth but only sary’s system was defeated, thus heralding
from its foundation in 1949 until now can be 6.3 of its population. […] In his situation, “the end of history” (Francis Fukuyama),
roughly classified into three stages: Initially, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and the ultimate victory of the Western neolib-
the conflict with the Soviet Union was piv- resentment. Our real task in the coming pe- eral model of global economics, as it was
otal (NATO 1.0). Following the end of East- riod is to devise a pattern of relationships, understood at that time. Subsequently,
West confrontation NATO focused on the which will permit us to maintain this posi- all efforts were aimed at enforcing this
transformation towards a worldwide alliance tion of disparity without positive detriment model on a global level – and NATO was
for military interventions as well as on the to our national security. To do so we will one of the essential means to this end.
expansion of its sphere of influence (NATO have to dispense with all sentimentality and
2.0). For several years now, conflicts with daydreaming; and our attention will have tob NATO 2.0: Conversion into an
Russia and an arms build-up at the Eastern e concentrated everywhere on our immedi- alliance for intervention
flank have gained considerably in impor- ate national objectives. We need not de-
tance again. This by no means implies, how- ceive ourselves that we can afford today the With the Cold War’s end in the early nine-
ever, that the Alliance would shift away from luxury of altruism and world benefaction. ties (which turned out to be just tempo-
its claim to intervene militarily anywhere […] We should cease to talk about vague rary, as one might argue from today’s
– including in cyberspace – wherever its – and for the Far East – unreal objectives perspective) NATO needed a new mission
future interests lie. In fact, having the best such as human rights, the raising of living if it was going to continue to ensure the
of both worlds is the credo of NATO 3.0! standards, and democratization. The day is Western hegemony it had just obtained
not far off when we are going to have to deal against potential r ivals like the Soviet
In June 2015, the NATO Defence Ministers in straight power concepts. The less we are Union (subsequently Russia) and China.
put this claim for an omnipresent projec- hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.“3 Since these rivals underwent a tempo-
tion of force and power in a nutshell and rary period of weakness, though, NATO
created a narrative for a NATO with a 360° Subsequently, when asked about the turned toward a program of expanding
approach, which has been used constantly primary tasks of the alliance, Lord Ismay, and safeguarding the neoliberal economic
ever since: “Russia is challenging Euro- NATO’s first Secretary General of NATO, system, by military force if necessary.
Atlantic security through military action, replied in a slightly more careful way: “to
coercion and intimidation of its neighbours. keep the Russians out, the Americans in, The new mission included the “protection“
We continue to be concerned about Russia’s and the Germans down.”4 Thus, the grid of Western economic interests like access
aggressive actions […]. We are also con- of the Cold War and its constellation of to essential mineral resources and trade
cerned about the growing instability to our interests had been specified quite accu- routes, but also more fundamental consid-
South […]. To address all these challenges rately: The mission of the Alliance was the erations: One consequence of this mission
and threats to the East and to the South, triumph of the US-led Western-capitalist has been the impoverishment of large parts
NATO continues to provide a 360-degree bloc against the Soviet Union, while at the of the global population, as a direct result
approach to deter threats and, if necessary, same time ensuring that Germany would of the neoliberal global economic system.
defend Allies against any adversary.”2 never again strive for power by conquest. These economic strains are considered to
be an essential factor in the violent escala-
Naturally, the fact that NATO has brought It was primarily due to the power of the tion of conflicts and the breakout of civil
forth these “challenges“ by its militarism Soviet Union that this general framework re- wars. Since NATO member states show
and heavy-handed use of political power mained more or less stable for the duration no inclination to change their neoliberal
is not being mentioned. Instead of tak- of the Cold War. Furthermore, this conflict economic policies, it is inevitable that NATO
ing a critical look into their own court, the resulted in keeping any expansionist ambi- will repeatedly need to use military power to
Alliance causes more and more chaos, tions pursued by NATO tightly in check and keep the lid on the boiler that they are over-
conflicts and destruction. This, in turn, is limited its field of action by and large to the heating themselves.7 As Birgit Mahnkopf
closely connected to the fact that one thing Western sphere of influence.5 Because EU critically points out, this was NATO’s aim at
has remained constant in all those years member states lacked the military capabili- an early stage: “Given the extension of the
of its existence: NATO is, and will always ties to counter this supposed existential definition of security, which NATO […] has
be, the armed branch of the Western- threat from the Soviet Union – at least it conducted at the beginning of the nine-
capitalist bloc, serving the interests of was perceived as such – the United States ties, the North-South conflict, which has
its biggest member states by threat or became the undisputed leading power certainly a lot to with the absence of global
use of force – at all costs, if necessary! within the Western alliance: “Given the con- justice and a growing global imbalance of
ditions of US hegemony and the competition opportunities in life, was re-interpreted as
of systems, there was nothing of the sort of a ‘global security problem’. […] The pow-
6At the 1999 NATO Summit a new intervention strategy was established. (Source: US Department of Defense/R. D. Ward)
ers of the capitalist regime try to get rid United Nations operations. With little turning the province into a de facto Western
of the disorder, which is caused especially notice, they had completed the transforma- protectorate while reorganizing Kosovo’s
by the economy and which is external- tion from an alliance of defense into one economic system in a strictly neoliberal
ized by the market within the structure for intervention, which amounted to an manner (see the article by Jürgen Wagner).
of reproduction of the global system, by “informal change of the treaty”.10 Starting
means of political and military force.”8 in 1992, this new strategy of intervention On 24 April 1999, just one month after the
was implemented when NATO controlled first air strikes on Yugoslavia, NATO adopted
Consequently, NATO quickly transformed the arms embargo against Yugoslavia. A a new strategy that interpreted similar
from being - at least nominally - oriented number of additional operations like the air interventions as its core task. Addressing
along the fault lines of national t erritorial combat campaigns in Bosnia-Herzegovina the topic of violation of international law,
defense into being an interventionist al- in 1994 followed. In December 1995 NATO the document included the following telling
liance, willing to act on a global scale. At took over the command of the Implemen- statement: “NATO will seek, in cooperation
the summit meeting in Rome in November tation Force (IFOR, subsequently SFOR), with other organisations, to prevent conflict,
1991 NATO adopted a new strategic con- which occupied the country and tempo- or, should a crisis arise, to contribute to
cept: the “predictable” danger attributed rarily deploying up to 60.000 troops. its effective management, consistent with
to the Eastern bloc had been replaced by international law, including through the
“multi-directional” threats. At that time this This transformation climaxed in March possibility of conducting non-Article 5 crisis
included nuclear proliferation, the spreading 1999: Without a UN Security Council man- response operations. […] In this context
of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism date, and thus in clear violation of interna- NATO recalls its subsequent decisions
and other asymmetrical threats, and the tional law, NATO began an offensive air war with respect to crisis response operations
disruption of access to vital economic against the independent state of Yugoslavia. in the Balkans.”11 The reference “consist-
resources.9 In June 1992 NATO decided The Alliance had emphasized its readiness ent with international law”, while the line
to be willing to conduct missions for the to intervene “out-of-area” by acting indepen- of action in the Balkans was addressed as
Centre for Strategic Cooperation in Europe dently of the United Nations Security Coun- being a model for future operations, was
(CSCE; today: OSCE) even if they would cil and therefore avoiding the veto powers quite disturbing. The entire statement, in
take place outside the Alliance’s borders of Russia and China. After the armistice fact, runs contrary to the NATO treaty itself,
(“out-of-area”). By the end of the year this of 10 June 1999, NATO occupied Kosovo as there is no provision in the treaty for
resolution was enhanced to also include with more than 50.000 KFOR troops, thus military interventions outside the territory
7of the Alliance. The member states make Adenauer-Stiftung, writing on behalf of the “In light of the complex and unpredictable
a mockery of their own treaty, which had NATO Defense College, summed up this security climate likely to prevail through the
remained unmodified since 1949, by invent- development: “in its broadest sense, NATO coming decade, it is not possible to rule
ing so-called non-Article 5 operations. today is the protector of globalization. out NATO’s future participation in similar
Article 5 of the NATO treaty does not By […] projecting security and stability in (although hopefully less extended) stabilisa-
include an obligation for military assistance critical regions of the world NATO simulta- tion missions.”17 The reformulation of the
by the member states: The NATO states neously drives and protects the process of NATO strategy, which was released shortly
are held to exhibit solidarity in case of an modernization and liberalization.”13 Keller’s afterwards, sounded quite similar demand-
attack against another NATO member state. statement clearly reveals the mission of ing once again to “improve” the capabilities
Individual states are allowed to determine NATO 2.0 – to emphasize the Western of the Alliance to accomplish operations like
their own course of action in following this rules of the world (economic) order and to these “successfully”: “we will […] further
provision. Nevertheless, a case for extra-ter- enforce these rules with military force. develop doctrine and military capabilities for
ritorial operations for the Alliance was made expeditionary operations, including counter-
following the attacks on the US on 11 Sep- NATO 3.0a: Out-of-Area without end insurgency, stabilization and reconstruction
tember 2001. The invasion of Afghanistan operations.”18 In the NATO Centers of Excel-
by NATO began less than a month later. The During the first decade of the 21st century, lence they work hard to generate the know-
justification for NATO’s operation against Af- the wars in Iraq (where not NATO itself but how deemed necessary for this purpose
ghanistan was that the nation was providing several of its member states, such as the (see the article by Christopher Schwitanski).
shelter to Al Qaida and their leader, Osama US and Great Britain were fighting) and in
bin Laden, who were blamed for the attacks. Afghanistan developed increasingly out of At the same time, due to the risks outlined
Offers by the Taliban, Afghanistan’s de facto the West’s control. In the Hindu Kush NATO above, skepticism over interventions
ruling party, to extradite bin Laden, were “failed soundly”14 in its largest military utilizing a large number of Western troops
ignored.12 In August 2003 NATO took over operation ever, particularly in light of its considerably increased over time. Because
the governance of Afghanistan with its Inter- stated objectives for military action – they didn’t want to back away from their
national Security Assistance Force (ISAF). namely to bring security, democracy, human aspirations for military intervention, a
With the deployment of - at times - more rights and economic growth to the country. feverish search for alternative military op-
than 130.000 troops, Afghanistan became Fifteen years of war and occupation have tions that didn’t involve massive numbers
the central setting for NATO to prove that it devastated Afghanistan and produced of ground forces began in the Western
was capable of permanently seizing control countless civilian victims. Pulling out of capitals. Thus, ever since 2011 they in-
of a conflict area. The Afghanistan mission Afghanistan was never seriously consid- creasingly rely on the training and arma-
was and still is of enormous importance to ered despite the lip service paid to this ment of local forces, while operating with
Germany, as well, as it is its most extensive option by political leaders. ISAF’s succes- smaller numbers of special forces units.
combat operation since World War Two and sor, operation “Resolute Support,” is being The Western aerial bombing campaigns
it thus became an expression of Germany’s extended again and again – sometimes continued apace as they are considered to
growing ambitions in terms of military there is even frank and open talk of NATO be relatively free of risk.19 The increased
policy (see the article by Anne Labinski). fighting for decades in the Hindu Kush.15 use of armed drones has similarly become
an important weapon in this “low-risk”
The last big operation clearly being initiated The reason for such stubborn adherence doctrine (see the article by Marius Pletsch).
within the stage of NATO 2.0 is “Operation to the war in Afghanistan is quite simple: If
Allied Provider” at the Horn of Africa, which NATO officially confessed its failure at its Probably the most vital prototype for this
was launched in 2008 and continues to the most important operation, future interven- new form of intervention was the war
present under the name “Operation Ocean tions would only become more difficult against Libya, started by an ad hoc coali-
Shield”. As a consequence of a Us-led to legitimize and carry out. The Alliance’s tion on 19 March 2011. On 31 March 2011,
military intervention in Somalia in 2006, the concern is to prove that NATO is not only the entire conduct of war was given to the
country descended into total chaos. From willing but also able to “successfully” “Operation Unified Protector” (OUP) and
the West’s point of view, however, the most intervene out-of-area. As German chan- thereby to NATO. This operation displayed
significant consequence was that the pirate cellor Angela Merkel blatantly expressed several unique features: First, It was not led
groups operating within that chaos became already years ago: “I believe it is safe to by the US, but by France and Great Britain.
the sole focus of attention. These pirate say […] that the stabilization of Afghanistan Second, with its non-involvement, Berlin
groups grew larger and became more em- is currently one of the greatest challenges stood not only against Washington and
boldened so they began capturing commer- for NATO and its member states. At the London, but also against Paris for the first
cial ships and h olding them for ransom. This same time, it is, in some sense, a litmus time. This initiated a downright propaganda
development threatened the free movement test for successful crisis management and offensive in Germany claiming that a faux
of Western trade and, thus, it was argued, for a NATO capable of taking action.”16 pas like this should never happen again. The
fell under the purview of NATO. Since these war also relied solely on air strikes except
pirates were threatening one of the world’s Although the political, personal and financial for the deployment of special forces. Finally,
most important maritime trade routes, NATO costs of the operations were rising dramati- in contrast to the NATO missions in Kosovo
and the European Union (Operation ATAL- cally, a high-ranking commission of experts and in Afghanistan, it didn’t turn into a mili-
ANTA) have been dispatching warships into for the development of a new NATO strategy tary occupation on the ground after its com-
that region since 2008 to literally attack the avowed in May 2010 that operations similar pletion on 30 October 2011, after Libya’s
problem (see the article by Claudia Haydt). to those in Afghanistan would belong to the ruler, Muammar al-Gaddafi, was murdered.
Patrick Keller, member of the Konrad- core business of the Alliance in the future: In Libya, NATO had substantiated its readi-
8ness for further military interventions. Ac- Gorbachev clearly viewed NATO’s eastern For a long time Moscow has been anxiously
cording to former NATO Secretary General expansion as a violation of these pledges: observing NATO’s plans for missile defense.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen one of the most “The decision for the US and its allies to These plans were reasonably interpreted by
important lessons of this intervention was expand Nato into the east was decisively Moscow as a specific attempt to neutral-
that “those who claimed that Afghanistan made in 1993. I called this a big mistake ize Russia’s second-strike capability.26 In
was to be NATO’s last out-of-area mission” from the very beginning. It was definitely 2003, the so-called “color revolutions”
had been disabused.20 Although the opera- a violation of the spirit of the statements started. Pro-Russian rulers were replaced
tion resulted in civil war, chaos and destruc- and assurances made to us in 1990.”24 by pro-Western rulers in nations directly at
tion within Libya itself, and even destabilized The demand to expand NATO in the direc- Moscow’s doorstep. This included espe-
the entire region, especially Mali21, some tion of the former Eastern bloc was fed cially those coup d’états that were in part
regard it as a role model for future – for the into the debate as early as 1993 by former substantially supported by the West in
West – “inexpensive” military interventions German Secretary of Defence Volker Rühe. Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004), and Kirgizia
by NATO (see the article by Jürgen Wagner). One year later, the “Partnership for Peace” (2005). Taken together, these measures
In response to the political violence and civil
war in Syria, influential politicians on both
sides of the Atlantic Ocean have long-since
pushed for direct military intervention. At
the NATO summit in Warsaw in July 2016
the heads of state and government finally
gave the go-ahead for NATO’s AWACS-
airplanes equipped with radar and commu-
nication technology to control the airspace
above Syria (and Iraq) and, thus, to join the
fight against the so-called “Islamic State
group” (see the article by Christoph Mari-
schka). With the new US president Donald
Trump, who took office on 20 January 2017,
NATO’s efforts to be militarily active in the
region will likely grow even further: “In terms
of his priorities, Trump has stressed repeat-
edly that fighting jihadist groups, especially
Daesh, is his security policy priority.”22
NATO 3.0b: NATO at a new
Cold War against Russia
Yet at another front massive trouble started
to loom again in the course of the 2000s:
In the middle of the decade, the longstand- Vladimir Putins speech at the Munich Security Conference 2007. (Source: Antje Wildgrube)
ing anti-Russian NATO-policy resulted in a
complete change of sentiments towards programme was issued. It was especially formed a critical mass that resulted in a
the West, which had been friendly minded aimed at the gradual introduction of the fundamental Russian policy shift. Russia
in the beginning. NATOs pretense of trust former Warsaw Pact countries into the Al- perceived these measures as hostile
based on partnership toward Russia after liance. Consequently, Poland, Hungary and and determined to use its own means to
the end of the Cold War was revealed to be the Czech Republic were formally invited to oppose NATO’s policy of expansion.
nothing more than a strategy to impede the join NATO in 1997, and were admitted on 12
reemergence of state power from Russia March 1999. This occurred at the same time Western observers first became aware of
at any cost. NATO’s expansion into former NATO started its war of aggression against this shift in Russia’s attitude when Vladimir
Soviet territory was predestined to serve Yugoslavia, which represented, as has al- Putin aggressively spoke out against these
as the main tool to produce this result. ready been mentioned, a drastic violation of expansions at the 2007 Munich Security
international law since the war was conduct- Conference. The resulting conflict reached
The violation of promises given to former ed without a mandate by the UN Security its first climax in the summer of 2008,
Soviet Secretary General Mikhail Gorbachev Council and, thus, bypassing the Russian when Russia answered the Georgian war
in return for ending the Cold War and for the right of veto. Subsequently, NATO pushed of aggression against South Ossetia with
NATO membership of a reunified Germany, further: In November 2002 it was decided a severe military counterattack. Moscow
has been the object of heated debates until to incorporate seven more states into the unambiguously signalized its readiness
today. This controversy, which has often Alliance, even including states that formerly to shoot the bolt against further Western
been maintained by means of very quirky comprised the Soviet Union. Estonia, Latvia expansions by the use of force if neces-
arguments23, is driven by the fact that these and Lithuania became members of the sary. Western reactions to Russia’s use of
verbal promises were given and that Alliance, even though Moscow had always military force in Georgia were particularly
Gorbachev obviously assumed their validity. called this a “red line” not to be crossed.25 strident. As a result, already at that time
9there was talk of a “New Cold War” brew- of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in further escalation, Russia moved ahead
ing up between Russia and the West.27 Brussels, stated in 2009: “We will experi- with a two-pronged approach. As an option
ence fierce competition and severe conflicts for cooperative de-escalation, the Russian
Generally, it was argued that a confrontation of interest among the rising great powers president at the time, Dmitry Medvedev,
of blocs between “democracies” (U.S. and in an increasing number of spheres. This announced in June 2008 that he was
EU) and “autocracies” (China and Russia) requires a determined global presence of seeking to create a “Euro-Atlantic Security
was in the making and that the West had to the West, and that means not only of the Agreement”. Although first elements of its
brace itself against it. In the US, it was the US. […] They will be less and less able, content were leaked shortly afterwards,
influential political scientist Robert Kagan though, to bear the burden on their own. the draft treaty was published in detail
who summed up this argument in his book […] Europe won’t be able to subsist as only at the end of November 2009. The
“The Return Of History And The End Of one big peace movement in a world full intended contracting parties were sup-
Dreams”, published in 2008: “The old com- of rough geopolitical rivalries, but has to posed to come from all countries “from
petition between liberalism and autocracy develop its own ambitious diplomacy and Vancouver to Vladivostok” (i.e. including
has also reemerged, with the world’s great self-confident appearance. This problem the US and Canada) as well as the respec-
powers lining up according to the nature of cannot be solved by creating more p ositions tive international structures (NATO, OSCE,
their regimes. […] History has returned, and and structures in Brussels, but instead CIS …). The core of the treaty is “indivis-
the democracies must come together to the elites in the large member states need ible security”, meaning that no contracting
shape it, or others will shape it for them.”28 to develop more readiness to jointly face party may undertake any actions that have
up to tough issues of power politics.”29 a negative effect on any other’s security.30
On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean Thus, the treaty would have given Russia
numerous representatives of the political To be able to present solutions to the crisis a full voice in European security matters,
establishment internalized this position as which culminated in 2008 and simultane- including military interventions. Not sur-
well. Thus, Nikolaus Busse, correspondent ously getting prepared for any possible prisingly, there was no positive response
Secretary General
supports chairman supports
chairman Private Office chairman
International Staff (IS)
of the Secretary General
North Atlantic
Council (NAC)
Committees:
Nuclear Planning Group
(NPG) Euro-Atlantic Partnership
advises on
military matters Council (EAPC)
decides on NATO-Russia Council
proceeding (NRC)
Military Committee
(MC) ...
Supreme Allied advises Supreme Allied
Commander
Commander Europe Transformation
(SACEUR) International Military
Staff (IMS) (SACT)
leads leads
instructs instructs
Allied Command Allied Command
Operation (ACO) Transformation (ACT)
10from NATO.31 Consequently, Moscow tions between Russia and NATO had hit rock would be a start” (p. 10). Two brigades,
expedited the formation of a counter-bloc, bottom: “The proposed European security up to 10.000 troops, were not enough for
with Vladimir Putin announcing in July treaty has been put on hold. […] We believe former NATO Secretary General Wesley
2009 that Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan that NATO’s policy towards Russia remains Clark, who, alongside other high-ranking
were creating a customs union. On 29 May unfriendly and generally obdurate. Speaking NATO military officers shortly thereafter de-
2014, Kazakhstan, Russia and Belarus bluntly, we are rapidly rolling into a period of manded the deployment of three brigades.38
signed an agreement by which the new a new cold war. Russia has been presented NATO’s final deployment didn’t reach these
“Eurasian Economic Union” turned into as well-nigh the biggest threat to NATO, or numbers, but it is sad enough that the NATO
being on 1 January 2015 with Kyrgyzstan to Europe, America and other countries heads of state and government ultimately
and Tajikistan joining shortly thereafter, (and Mr Stoltenberg has just demonstrated agreed on the permanent deployment of
while Armenia, Uzbekistan and M ongolia that). They show frightening films about four battalions (roughly 4.000 troops) at the
were named as further candidates. Russians starting a nuclear war. I am some- NATO summit in Warsaw in July 2016. One
times confused: is this 2016 or 1962?”36 battalion of this enhanced forward pres-
The relations between Russia and the West ence is to be domiciled in Estonia (under
ultimately escalated over the Ukrainian NATO 3.0c: A catalogue of command of Great Britain), another in Latvia
crisis, which commenced when former armaments for the 360°-NATO (Canada), and a third in Poland (USA).
Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych in
November 2013 refused to firmly integrate Another important step forward on the way The build-up of the fourth battalion is under
the country into the Western sphere of towards a further militarization of NATO’s the control of Germany, which furnishes
influence by signing an association agree- policies was the publication of a study further evidence for how serious the
ment with the EU. This decision gave rise to in March 2016 funded by the „German Federal Government is with its statements
protests, which were massively supported Marshall Fund“ and produced by numerous of willingness to shoulder more military
by the West, culminating in a violent revolt top-class NATO strategists. It provided a “responsibility”. Right before the Warsaw
which resulted in Yanukovych fleeing from view into the crystal ball, on how NATO 3.0 NATO summit Chancellor Angela Merkel
the country in February 2014.32 Russia is planning to proceed in the future. Among issued a government statement which
reacted to these developments in this the participants were illustrious figures included a passionate commitment to the
geostrategically important country with the such as Karl-Heinz Kamp, president of the whole range of NATO’s aggressive policies
integration of Crimea which was a violation German Federal Academy for Security Policy – and to Germany’s intent to play a lead-
of international law and with the support BAKS (“Bundesakademie für Sicherheits- ing role. The chancellor also embraced the
of separatist forces in Eastern Ukraine. politik“), Pierre Vimont, Secretary General “360°-approach”: “In the East, Russia’s
NATO responded by offensively arming its of the European External Action Service, actions in the Ukraine crisis have profoundly
Eastern flank. The most significant frame- and Kurt Volker, former US ambassador unsettled our eastern allies. […] However,
work for this purpose was the “Readiness to NATO.37 In March 2016, they presented we have also witnessed a dramatic deterio-
Action Plan” adopted at the NATO summit a catalogue of measures, very obviously ration in the security situation to the south
in Wales in September 2014. It allows for inspired by the idea of the 360°-NATO: “[A] of the NATO area. […] [The Readiness Action
the formation of a Very High Readiness lliance leaders are only now beginning to Plan] will make the Alliance faster, readier
Joint Task Force (VJTF) totaling about 5.000 focus in earnest on the question of strategy and more operational as regards meeting
troops, with Germany playing a pivotal role toward the south. Mediterranean security – challenges of all kinds and in all directions,
by its own account.33 NATO also massively long part of the NATO calculus but rarely at thus providing a 360-degree approach.”39
extended its activity in military exercises the forefront – has become a pressing con-
with a virtually permanent deployment of cern in light of risks emanating from North One of the core assumptions of the
forces on the Eastern flank, a move that Africa and the Levant. […] NATO needs to 360-degree approach is that NATO predicts
actually represents a violation of the NATO- look south without weakening its commit- severe imminent conflicts with Russia. As
Russia-record: “US ready to fight and defeat ment to deterrence and defense in the east the authors of the Marshall Fund report
Russia in Europe”, emphasized General and north, where Russian risks remain at point out, these conflicts are not geo-
Breedlove, then Supreme Commander of the center of the strategic calculus.” (p. 5) graphically restricted to the eastern flank,
the strategic NATO command in Europe conflicts were also increasing in the far
(see the article by Nathalie Schüler).34 As far as the eastern flank was concerned, north (keyword Arctic) and in cyberspace,
NATO Secretary General Jens S toltenberg, their vision welcomed the existing measures where NATO is becoming more active, too.
who took over from Denmark’s Fogh of arms build-up, such as the formation of Furthermore, Russian propaganda had
Rasmussen in October 2015, expressed a “Very High Readiness Joint Task Force” to be answered by intensified “strategic
himself satisfied with the achievements at or the massive extension of maneuvers, but communication” – i.e. propaganda. The
the Munich Security Conference early in that was nowhere near enough: “[T]he alli- report also puts special emphasis on the
2016: “NATO is undertaking the biggest ance cannot rely solely on extended deter- revitalization of the role of nuclear weap-
strengthening of our collective defence rence and small mobile forces, like the […] ons, which was imperative considering
in decades. To send a powerful signal to VJTF […]. NATO must now shift its strategy the deteriorated relations with Russia (see
deter any aggression or intimidation. Not toward an increased forward presence that the articles by Thomas Gruber, Christo-
to wage war, but to prevent war. […] We would be in place before a conflict starts, pher Schwitanski and Jürgen Wagner).
agreed to enhance our forward presence and thus serve as a deterring and stabiliz-
in the eastern part of the alliance.”35 At the ing force. […] These forces would have to The report continues stating that the south-
same place Russian Prime Minister Dmitry be combat-ready […]. The size of a brigade ern flank should not to be neglected either:
Medvedev pointed out afterwards that rela- force, one in the Baltics and one in Poland “Russia is likely to consolidate its return as
11a Mediterranean security actor, in Syria and not expect a dramatic change of course will be an increasing demand of Europe
in less visible but still meaningful ways in in Washington Russia policy: „No matter from our neighbours and from our partners
Egypt and Algeria. One consequence of this who is in the White House, Washington’s worldwide,” the EU’s High Representative
will be the spread of NATO-Russia military imperative to contain regional hegemons Federica Mogherini said shortly after Trump
risks southward to the Black Sea and the will continue to be a mainstay of its foreign won the election. “There is and there will be
Eastern Mediterranean.” (p. 16) Given this, policy. With Europe becoming increasingly an increasing demand for a principled global
and the rising conflicts in that region in divided since the Brexit referendum, Russia security provider, for a superpower that be-
general, NATO had to “[d]evelop a more has another chance to recover from its lieves in multilateralism and cooperation.”41
robust role in the South.” (p. 2) This went strategic setbacks and regain influence in
along with the idea that “VJTF and enhanced the Eurasian region in the coming year. […] Regardless of which way we look at it,
standing naval forces […] can be employed Ties between Washington and Moscow will although budgets are already soaring for
some time, military spending is likely
to increase even further. As the NATO’s
military budgets rose from $892 billion in
2015 to $918 in 201642 the declaration of
the Warsaw summit in June 2016 cheered:
“we have turned a corner”.43 Against this
background it is particularly shocking how
this money could have been made use of in
a more reasonable way. The “Committee on
Disarmament, Peace & Security” (CDPS),
a nongovernment organization engaged in
peace policies, compared the spending on
armament with the estimated costs that
would have been necessary to reach the
Millennium Development Goals that aimed
among others to fight extreme poverty
(MDG) until 2015. While the security goals
were light-years away from being accom-
plished, according to CDPS extreme poverty
and hunger could have been eradicated with
a yearly investment of $39 up to $54 billion.
The achievement of universal primary edu-
cation and the promotion of gender equality
would have required another $10-30 billion.
Source: Flickr/Juska Wendland To reduce child mortality by two-thirds and
to improve maternal health, in addition to
in the south, as required.” (p. 12) Programs certainly evolve under Trump. Some tactical combat HIV/Aids, Malaria and other dis-
for “defense capacity building”, especially shifts, possibly including adjustments in eases, $20-25 would have been necessary.
in reference to the Arab states, were to U.S. sanctions and measured cooperation Finally, ensuring environmental sustain-
be extended: “Cooperative frameworks in in Syria, will doubtless take place. Wash- ability would have required $5-21 billion.
the south can also be useful for mobilizing ington’s policy of containment, however, is In other words, $74-140 billion would have
regional contributions to potential NATO still very much in force, and it will continue been necessary to implement ALL of the
operations in the Middle East and North to feature heavily in U.S. strategy well Millennium Development Goals – not even
Africa” (p. 17). In light of such considera- beyond the Trump administration.”40 10-20 percent of what NATO member states
tions the heads of state and government in put into militarized security in 2015!44
the Western military alliance resolved at the Where Trump has sent very consistent mes-
Warsaw summit in July 2016 to start a new sages is in the area if military spending. Not The consequences of all these measures are
NATO training mission in Libya, depending only has he announced to hugely increase perfectly obvious, an increasing number of
on the approval of Libya’s new unity govern- America’s military budget. He is also exert- conflicts from which the West reckons it has
ment. Moreover, they approved a request ing much pressure on the European allies to to “protect” itself or even put up a “barrier”
by the Iraqi government in May 2016 to pay their “fair share” – i.e. to also increase against. These are the words chosen by the
start a NATO training mission in Iraq. their military spending dramatically. As in-house think tank of the European Union,
Trump threatened that failing to do so could the “Institute for Security Studies” in Paris,
Money for Nothing put America’s commitment to NATO into which published the report “What ambitions
question, the EU side has signalled its for European defence in 2020?” Thus, we
Although the new US President Donald willingness to fulfill this demand – and see a programmatic article about the most
Trump repeatedly signaled a willingness at the same time, they are trying to take vital tasks of Western foreign and military
to improve the relationship with Russia, it advantage of the opportunity to “improve” policy in the future anticipating the use of
is far from clear whether this will happen. Europe’s role as a global power: “In the frightening measures to fight migration:
For example the analysts from the private months and years ahead, actually I can “Barrier operations – shielding the global
intelligence agency Strategic Forecast do say in the hours we are living, there is and rich from the tensions and problems of
12the poor. As the ratio of the world popula- to give an answer. The Alliance is enforc-
tion living in misery and frustration will ing the essential interests of its member 1. The New Strategic Concept: Active
remain massive, the tensions and spillover states and this, essentially, was NATO’s Engagement, Modern Defence, Speech
between their world and that of the rich purpose, from its very beginning – to make by NATO Secretary General Anders
will continue to grow. As we are unlikely sure that the structures of hierarchic order Fogh Rasmussen at the German
to have solved this problem at its root by and exploitation of the prevailing world Marshall Fund of the United States
2020 – i.e. by curing dysfunctional societies order are maintained in the long run: “The (GMF), Brussels, 08.10.2010.
– we will need to strengthen our barriers. true relevance of the Alliance is based on 2. Statement by NATO Defence
It is a morally distasteful, losing strategy, its ability to unite liberal democracies in a Ministers, Brussels, 25.06.2015.
but will be unavoidable if we cannot solve volatile world and to assure the stability and 3. Excerpt from the Policy Planning
the problems at their root. […] Today our well-being of the North Atlantic area” (p. 7). Study, chapter VII. Far East, p. 524,
security is increasingly dependent upon cited in Wikipedia: Grand Area.
global transnational functional flows. Pro- In seeking to implement this objective, 4. Speech by German Secretary of
tecting these flows and their critical nodes NATO leaves behind a trail of chaos, State Steinmeier at the celebration
will be the main security concern of the conflicts and destruction – whether in of 60 years of Germany’s NATO
globalisation stakeholders (TNC, PMC and Afghanistan, in Libya or in reference to membership, Berlin, 30.06.2015.
RTS) by 2020, for the very practical reason Russia. NATO is one of the biggest factors 5. For an on overview over NATO’s
that if these flows fail then everything else of insecurity in the world and has to be offensive actions at that time Guilliard,
will collapse. Challenges include friction dissolved – immediately! Therefore, it is a Joachim: Die NATO 1949-91: Kurze
(piracy, crime, corruption), shocks (regional sight for sore eyes that the protests against Bilanz einer kriegerischen Geschichte,
instability, terrorist strikes against critical NATO have gained pace again in recent in: DFG-VK/IMI (Hg.): Kein Frieden mit
flows or nodes, operations by alienated years. Hopefully, this is a foundation to der Nato, Tübingen 2009, p. 16-17.
regimes, earthquakes), strangling (pandem- build upon in the future (see the articles by 6. Bieling, Hans-Jürgen: Die Globalisierungs-
ics), corrosion (poor design or maintenance) Jacqueline Andres and Thomas Mickan)! und Weltordnungspolitik der
and so forth. Protecting flows will require Europäischen Union, Wiesbaden
global military policing capabilities (protect- 2010, p. 53. Own translation.
ing sea lanes and critical nodes, etc.) and 7. Cf. Wagner, Jürgen: Globalisierung, Armut
some power projection (preventing choke und Krieg. Die Krise des Neoliberalismus
operations, managing regional instability).”45 und die militärischen Reaktionen des
Westens, IMI-Studie 2010/10.
A current example of these operations is 8. Mahnkopf, Birgit: Neoliberale
the NATO operation in the Aegean adopted Globalisierung und Krieg, in: Blätter
in late February 2016. As the report by the für deutsche und internationale Politik,
Marshall Fund emphasizes, this mission, 1/2004, p. 47-57. Own translation.
as well as the NATO Operation “Active 9. The Alliance’s Strategic Concept, Rome,
Endeavour”, is supposed to help prevent November 7./8., 1991, item 8 and 12.
illegalized migration. “[A] stronger capacity 10. Varwick, Johannes/Woyke,
for warning, surveillance, and response” Wichard: Die Zukunft der NATO
is deemed to be necessary to that end – Transatlantische Sicherheit im
among other things as well (p. 12). The Wandel, Opladen 2000, p. 149.
close interlocking of NATO and EU op- 11. The Alliance’s Strategic Concept,
erations to fight migrants, adopted at the 24.04.1999, Item 31.
Warsaw summit meeting in July 2016, is 12. Kompromisslinie. Taliban erwägen
also related to this context: “To support Auslieferung Bin Ladens an Drittstaat,
the EU Operation Sophia at the Libyan Spiegel Online, 14.10.2001.
coast, the spectrum of tasks possible for 13. Keller, Patrick: Barack Obama’s
the current mission in the Mediterranean foreign policy. What can NATO expect
was distinctly extended. NATO warships from the next U.S. President?, NATO
are supposed to get involved in the fight Defense College, Research Paper
against human trafficking. Hence, the No. 43, November 2008, p. 4.
operation in the Mediterranean is called 14. Glaßer, Michael Schulze von/
‘Sea Guardian’. It follows the Operation Wagner, Jürgen: Krachend gescheitert.
‘Active Endeavour’, which was launched Demokratisierungsrhetorik und
after the terrorist attacks of 11 September Besatzungsrealität in Afghanistan,
2001. The mandate for ‘Active Endeavour’ IMI-Studie 2014/04.
so far only permitted the surveillance of 15. The U.S. was supposed to leave
civil seafaring in the Mediterranean.”46 Afghanistan by 2017. Now it might take
decades, Washington Post, 26.01.2016.
If we ask ourselves why NATO is pursuing 16. Handlungsfähigkeit der Nato stärken,
these militaristic policies with such a com- Spiegel Online, 25.10.2006.
mitment, we can look at the Marshall Fund 17. NATO 2020: Assured Security;
report mentioned above, which is not shy Dynamic Engagement. Analysis
13and Recommendations 38. NATO in a World of Disorder: Making
18. of the Group of Experts on a New the Alliance Ready for Warsaw:
Strategic Concept, 17.05.2010, p. 32. Making the Alliance Ready for Warsaw,
19. Active Engagement, Modern Defence, Advisory Panel on the NATO Summit
Strategic Concept For the Defence 2016, German Marshall Fund, March
and Security of The Members of the 2016. The following page numbers in
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, in brackets refer to this document.
Lisbon, 19/20.11.2010, Item 25. 39. Clark, Wesley u.a.: Closing NATO’s Baltic
20. Wagner, Jürgen: Die Rückkehr der Gap, ICDS-Report, May 2016, p. 7.
Schattenkrieger. Spezialeinheiten 40. Policy statement by Federal Chancellor
als neue Speerspitzen des Dr Angela Merkel, Berlin, 07.07.2016.
Interventionismus, IMI-Studie 2013/05. 41. Washington’s Cold War Containment
21. Fogh Rasmussen, Anders: NATO Strategy Is Still Alive and Well,
After Libya. The Atlantic Alliance in Stratfor, 23.01.2017.
Austere Times,in: Foreign Affairs, 42. Mogherini calls EU a peace
July/August 2011, p. 2-6. ‘superpower’, in wake of Trump
22. Vgl. Marischka, Christoph: US-Drohnen win, Euractiv, 10.11.2016.
über französischen Uranminen in 43. Defence Expenditures of NATO
Niger, IMI-Standpunkt 2013/056. Countries, NATO,0 7.07.2016
23. Post-Truth, Post-West, Post-Order?, Munich 44. Warsaw Summit Communiqué, Issued
Security Report, February 2017, p. 14. by the Heads of State and Government
24. See about this debate in detail participating in the meeting of the North
Wagner, Jürgen: Expansion – Atlantic Council in Warsaw 8-9 July 2016,
Assoziation – Konfrontation. EUropas Press Release (2016) 100, para. 34.
Nachbarschaftspolitik, die Ukraine und 45. Vries, Wendela de: Reduction of
der Neue Kalte Krieg gegen Russland, Military Budgets - What can United
IMI-Studie 2015/06, p. 6f.. Nations do? Lecture University
25. Gorbachev: how we pulled down of Amsterdam, 08.01.2011.
the Berlin Wall, Russia Beyond 46. Ries, Tomas: The globalising
the Headlines, 30.10.2014. security environment and the EU, in:
26. The other countries were Bulgaria, Vasconcelos, Álvaro de (ed.): What
Romania, Slovenia, and Slovakia. Ambitions of European Defence in
27. Neuber, Arno: Schild und Schwert: 2020, The European Union Institute for
Aggressive Atompolitik und Raketenabwehr Security Studies, October 2009 (2nd
der NATO, IMI-Analyse 2009/012. edition), p. 61-74, p. 73 and 69.
28. In particular, the term of a New Cold 47. Nato-Gipfel beschließt Awacs-
War was made popular by von Lucas, Einsatz im Kampf gegen IS, DPA,
Edward: The New Cold War: Putin’s 09.07.2016. Own translation.
Russia and the Threat to the West,
New York/Basingstoke 2008.
29. Kagan, Robert: The Return of History and
the End of Dreams, London 2009, p. 4.
30. Busse, Nikolaus: Harte Zeiten für
Friedensbewegte. Eine multipolare
Welt bringt die klassische Machtpolitik
wieder zurück, in: Internationale
Politik, Juni 2009, p. 49-53, p. 53.
31. The draft of the European Security
Treaty, draft, 29.11.2009.
32. Clinton sagt njet - und umwirbt die Russen,
Süddeutsche Zeitung, 17.05.2010.
33. About the power political background of
the Ukrainian crisis see Wagner 2015.
34. Dossier: VJTF – Speerspitze der
NATO, bmvg.de, 18.02.2016.
35. Karas, Sonja: Nachdenkhinweisliste in
Sachen US-Panzerbrigade für Osteuropa,
Grüne Friedensinitiative, 02.04.2016.
36. Speech by Jens Stoltenberg at the Munich
Security Conference, Munich, 03.02.2016.
37. Speech by Dmitry Medvedev at the Munich
Security Conference, Munich, 14.02.2016.
14Occupied, looted, divided: NATO in Kosovo
by Jürgen Wagner a drastic violation of international law and geographical situation between the Baltic
confirmed that international law would not Sea and Anatolia, as it had been at the
The war of aggression against Yugosla- deter the Alliance. After putting together a time of the height of Roman expansion.”5
via, started by NATO in March 1999, was commission on that matter, NATO subse-
seminal in several ways: First, it marked the quently tried to whitewash its conduct by There is also evidence that the NATO inter-
conversion of the military organization into using the formula “illegal but legitimate”2. vention in Kosovo was supposed to further
a global alliance for intervention by means expand the neoliberal global economic
of cheeky lies about the cause for the war The determination of NATO to employ ag- system through what amounted to a colonial
as well as a blatant violation of interna- gressive tactics indicates that the opera- occupation. Strobe Talbott, US Deputy
tional law. Second, the ensuing neoliberal tion was actually about protecting relevant Secretary of State at the time, admitted
rebuilding of Kosovo, undertaken within interests. The Kosovo operation created a this interest quite frankly: “As nations
the context of the occupation, became a test case to sensationally finish the process throughout the region sought to reform their
model for subsequent operations, such as of transforming NATO from an alliance economies, mitigate ethnic tensions, and
Afghanistan, where the occupied area was oriented towards national defense into an broaden civil society, Belgrade seemed to
openly transformed into a Western colony. alliance for intervention outside the territory delight in continually moving in the op-
Next, a new doctrine emerged recognizing of the Alliance. The Alliance sent a clear posite direction. It is small wonder NATO
state secession when Kosovo was allowed signal that NATO was not willing any more and Yugoslavia ended up on a collision
to fully separate from the independent state to allow the veto power of Russia and China course. It was Yugoslavia’s resistance to the
of Serbia. Finally, a very special cooperative in the UN Security Council to prevent the broader trends of political and e conomic
strategy was developed where civilian forces Alliance from using military force to back its reform – not the plight of the Kosovar
(EU) worked with military forces (NATO) to interests. Klaus Naumann, chairman of the Albanians – that best explains NATO’s war.”6
subdue political protest, even if this was NATO Military Committee (1996 – 1999),
the result of miserable living conditions. wrote shortly after the end of the operation: These justifications supported NATO’s
“[During the Kosovo war] we showed them willingness to cause wartime destructions
1. An interest-driven war of aggression that they had no chance to interfere with in Yugoslavia to total DM 26 billion accord-
NATO’s interventions by a Russian veto. And ing to estimates from a Federal Armed
The accusation that Serbian-led Yugoslavian I hope that Moscow has understood this.”3 Forces report.7 Moreover, the Serbian
troops were committing genocide in Kosovo province of Kosovo was occupied at times
against the Kosovar Albanians was invoked NATO’s Kosovo operation substantially by more than 50.000 KFOR troops. NATO’s
as an official justification for the war. How- extended NATO’s sphere of influence, and military intervention factually transformed
ever, allegations of a massacre at Racak or by extension that of the US as well. Heinz Kosovo into a Western protectorate after
Operation Horseshoe were subsequently re- Brill, a former lecturer at the University of the ceasefire of June 10th, 1999.
vealed to be nothing more than cheeky war the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg, for
propaganda disseminated by Germany and instance, argued: “Against this background, 2. Neoliberal NATO colony
other actors. This is particularly ironic given the US interest in NATO’s strategic repo-
this announcement of the day, issued by the sitioning on the Eurasian continent and „Protectorates are in,“ Carlo Masala of
Federal Armed Forces (Bundeswehr) Intelli- its periphery, which has been identified as the NATO Defence College (NADEFCOL) in
gence Office only two days before the onset a key motive of the Kosovo War by many Rome explains. “From Bosnia via Kosovo,
of the aerial campaign: “Tendencies towards observers, emerges in its full moment. If the to Afghanistan all the way to Iraq, the
ethnic cleansings are still not perceptible.”1 political influence and the military power of pattern of Western intervention policy is
the US – as Brzezinski argues – was only always the same. After successful mili-
An argument can be made that NATO ‘immediately’ entrenched on the Eurasian tary intervention, the ‘conquered’ regions
wanted to wage this war at any price. The continent by mean of the NATO, the logical are transformed into protectorates, and
Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was delib- conclusion can be inferred that an extension the Western states attempt to introduce
erately armed by the Federal Intelligence of NATO’s European scope, facilitated by the liberal political systems, rule of law and
Service BND and later by the CIA. According elimination of the Yugoslavian bolt, would free market economy to these areas.”8
to Heinz Loquai, German liaison officer with inevitably also expand the direct sphere of
the OSCE in Vienna at the time, the task of influence of the US.”4 Willy Wimmer, State In Kosovo, NATO safeguarded the activity of
the OSCE mission in Kosovo – the surveil- Secretary in the German Ministry of De- the UNMIK mission of the United Nations,
lance of a truce negotiated in 1998 – was fense until 1992, also revealed that similar which acted as an occupation authority in
intentionally undermined. Similarly, the motives were voiced by American NATO the country. In the absence of a state
collapse of the Rambouillet peace talks in representatives at a conference in Bratislava authority, UNMIK became the ultimate au-
early 1999 was a direct result of a disin- in April 2000: “The war against the Federal thority in Kosovo by accumulating executive,
genuous move by NATO negotiators. At the Republic of Yugoslavia was conducted to re- legislative and judiciary powers. Economic
last moment, in a move that anyone would vise a false decision made by General Eisen- historian Hannes Hofbauer confirmed the
find unacceptable, NATO negotiators added hower in World War II [which put Yugoslavia scope of this outcome: “The UN mission is
an appendix to the treaty (Annex B) that outside the Western sphere of influence]. a unique case in this form: there has not
the Serbians viewed as a serious threat to Due to strategic reasons the decision to been a case of external and internation-
their nation’s sovereignty. Since the NATO deploy American soldiers in the region had ally constituted administration of a terri-
intervention was not supported by a vote to be rectified. […] The goal of the recently tory like this before in recent history.”9
of the UN Security Council, it represented pending NATO expansion is to restore the
15You can also read
