FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Why NATO Has Not Permitted Russia to Join

by

As the West’s assault on Ukraine gets ever bloodier, the “news” on National Public Radio (NPR) is teeming with anti-Russian propaganda, interspersed with the usual pieces declaiming on one’s senior prom and other matters of equal import.   All in all it is a pretty dismal substitute for news and analysis.

But even at the “Diane Rehm Show,” very near the bottom of the dung heap that is NPR, a few scraps of truth can be scavenged on occasion – usually uncovered by a caller’s question.  Such was the case on March 27 when Rehm’s guests were Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, before which he was Director of Policy Planning at the Bush/Powell State Department, and Ian Brzezinski, son of Zbig.

In this case the caller raised an oft-asked question since Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland put the final touches on the $5 billion plan to install a fascist-ridden government in Ukraine.  The caller asked: Rather than antagonize Russia with the relentless advance of NATO, why not incorporate Russia into the European “security structure” and into NATO itself?  Before Hass’s answer, a little history.  NATO was formed in 1949.  In 1954, the year after Stalin’s death, the USSR proposed that it join NATO as part of a mechanism to preserve peace in Europe.  By that time the denazification campaign in Germany had been halted and the German intelligence services, chock full of “ex”-Nazis were up and running.  West Germany was on its way to being incorporated into NATO, and the Soviets were alarmed.  NATO turned down its request.  In 1955, the Warsaw Pact was formed in response.

To return to the Diane Rehm show, here is how the caller posed the question, directing his question to Haass (Italics mine):

REHM:  “And welcome back as we talk about what’s happening in Russia, in Crimea and possibly in Ukraine, as well as the president’s recent trip to Europe. Let’s open the phones now first to Michael in Kingston, R.I. Hi, you’re on the air. Go right ahead.”

MICHAEL:  “Good morning, Diane. Thank you. Mr. Haass, with respect to NATO, you were in President Bush’s administration, George H.W. Bush. You know more than anyone in this country the question I’m about to ask. Was there nuanced reason or a specific reason why the Western powers, specifically NATO, did not, after the fall of the Soviet Union — why didn’t we specifically extend an invitation to Russia to become a part of NATO? And if we had, would we be looking at a Crimea crisis today”?

REHM: “Richard”?

HAASS:  “Look, it’s a great question. The issue did come up at various times. I, at one point, to be honest, advocated it. I wrote a memo when I was the head of policy planning — so this was not under H.W. Bush, but George W. Bush, the 43rd president — suggesting that this was something that we could (do) for two reasons.”

“One is I didn’t think it would really impair the functioning of NATO, as we just discussed. I think NATO had already become, if you will, what I described as an a la carte relationship. So it wasn’t all or nothing. Coalitions of the willing had increasingly become the norm. And, second of all, I thought it would take some of the sting out of NATO enlargement and it would remove the argument that the post-war order was somehow built against Russia. So it would take away the kind of humiliation or rant we heard the other day from France and Putin.”

REHM:  “And why was the suggestion denied”?

HAASS:  “Those who doubted the wisdom of it, besides the possibility that Russia might not accept, which was a side argument, worried that it would impair the continuing military effectiveness of NATO, that Russia, essentially as an insider, would become obstructive and would work against NATO’s continuing viability.”

Let us stop right there and consider Hass’s reply.  What does it mean to say that NATO would not have continuing “viability”?  Certainly, with Russia inside, it would be better as an instrument of peace in Europe.  But it would be useless as an instrument for the U.S. to dominate Europe.  Refusal of membership to Russia is simply another way of saying that NATO is not a means to ensure peace in Europe. In NATO there is to be “Only one tiger on the mountain,” as the Chinese saying has it, and that tiger is the U.S.   No other tigers need apply.

At this point a voice to give the Russian view would have been salutary, even “balanced.”  But in the realm of Rehm and NPR, there is no such voice.  So on she went to Ian Brzezinksi:

REHM:   “Ian, do you think it would have been a good idea?”

BRZEZINSKI:  “No. I would have argued against at that point. But I think the general prospect of saying that one day one could consider Russia being part of NATO is something you wouldn’t want to take off the table. You know, to be a NATO member, you have to meet standards of democracy. You have to demonstrate a consistency of a shared-world view, shared interests. You have to demonstrate those commitments to those common interests.”

“And if there’s a point in time — which I think will be quite far down the road — that Russia meets that (sic) criteria, then it’s something we should address. But one would also want to think carefully about how it would affect the balance of power within NATO. Because right now you have an alliance really that features one predominate power and then a group of smaller powers that enables a certain amount of cohesion that might be undermined if you had two great powers sitting at the table.”

Brzenzinski’s reasoning there echoes the naysayers to whom Haass alludes and certainly reflects that he is a chip off the old block.    “One predominant power,” he says.  Only one tiger on the mountain, as the Chinese say.   In fact the nations of NATO are condemned to follow the U.S. in its quest for global hegemony.  And Russia will be admitted only after it bows to the West.  That indeed will be “quite far down the road.”

What about Germany as a counterweight to the U.S?  Germany, however, is not really a sovereign nation; it is occupied by tens of thousands of U.S. troops, and the German NATO forces are under U.S. command.  Whereas the NATO Secretary General can be a citizen of any NATO country, the Supreme Commander, that is the number one military commander, has always been an American.  So the German NATO forces answer to an American commander.  And the U.S. keeps a watchful eye on Germany in other ways, as the latest scandal of NSA’s spying on Germans in general and Angela Merkel in particular.

NATO’s goal remains what it was from the beginning, a mechanism to “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down,” as the first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, stated in 1949.  The idea that the U.S. keeps troops in Germany, and in Japan for that matter, out of excessive generosity to help in their “defense” is only for us rubes.  It is time to dissolve NATO and let Russia and the rest of the European nations devise their own mechanisms for preserving peace on the Continent in a nuclear age.

John V. Walsh is a contributor to Antiwar.com, CounterPunch.com, DissidentVoice.org and Unz Review.  He can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.com

 

John V. Walsh can be reached at John.Endwar@gmail.com

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
April 28, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Slandering Populism: a Chilling Media Habit
Andrew Levine
Why I Fear and Loathe Trump Even More Now Than On Election Day
Jeffrey St. Clair
Mountain of Tears: the Vanishing Glaciers of the Pacific Northwest
Philippe Marlière
The Neoliberal or the Fascist? What Should French Progressives Do?
Conn Hallinan
America’s New Nuclear Missile Endangers the World
Peter Linebaugh
Omnia Sunt Communia: May Day 2017
Vijay Prashad
Reckless in the White House
Brian Cloughley
Who Benefits From Prolonged Warfare?
Kathy Kelly
The Shame of Killing Innocent People
Ron Jacobs
Hate Speech as Free Speech: How Does That Work, Exactly?
Andre Vltchek
Middle Eastern Surgeon Speaks About “Ecology of War”
Matt Rubenstein
Which Witch Hunt? Liberal Disanalogies
Sami Awad - Yoav Litvin - Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb
Never Give Up: Nonviolent Civilian Resistance, Healing and Active Hope in the Holyland
Pete Dolack
Tribunal Finds Monsanto an Abuser of Human Rights and Environment
Christopher Ketcham
The Coyote Hunt
Mike Whitney
Putin’s New World Order
Ramzy Baroud
Palestinian, Jewish Voices Must Jointly Challenge Israel’s Past
Ralph Nader
Trump’s 100 Days of Rage and Rapacity
Harvey Wasserman
Marine Le Pen Is a Fascist—Not a ‘Right-Wing Populist,’ Which Is a Contradiction in Terms
William Hawes
World War Whatever
John Stanton
War With North Korea: No Joke
Jim Goodman
NAFTA Needs to be Replaced, Not Renegotiated
Murray Dobbin
What is the Antidote to Trumpism?
Louis Proyect
Left Power in an Age of Capitalist Decay
Medea Benjamin
Women Beware: Saudi Arabia Charged with Shaping Global Standards for Women’s Equality
Rev. William Alberts
Selling Spiritual Care
Peter Lee
Invasion of the Pretty People, Kamala Harris Edition
Cal Winslow
A Special Obscenity: “Guernica” Today
Binoy Kampmark
Turkey’s Kurdish Agenda
Guillermo R. Gil
The Senator Visits Río Piedras
Jeff Mackler
Mumia Abu-Jamal Fights for a New Trial and Freedom 
Cesar Chelala
The Responsibility of Rich Countries in Yemen’s Crisis
Leslie Watson Malachi
Women’s Health is on the Chopping Block, Again
Basav Sen
The Coal Industry is a Job Killer
Judith Bello
Rojava, a Popular Imperial Project
Robert Koehler
A Public Plan for Peace
Sam Pizzigati
The Insider Who Blew the Whistle on Corporate Greed
Nyla Ali Khan
There Has to be a Way Out of the Labyrinth
Michael J. Sainato
Trump Scales Back Antiquities Act, Which Helped to Create National Parks
Stu Harrison
Under Duterte, Filipino Youth Struggle for Real Change
Martin Billheimer
Balm for Goat’s Milk
Stephen Martin
Spooky Cookies and Algorithmic Steps Dystopian
Michael Doliner
Thank You Note
Charles R. Larson
Review: Gregor Hens’ “Nicotine”
David Yearsley
Handel’s Executioner
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail