BY ARGIRIS MALAPANIS
A summit of heads of state of the 16 countries that belong to NATO invited Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to join the Atlantic imperialist alliance. The three governments are supposed to complete negotiations by December and join NATO as full members by April 1999. The decision to expand NATO into these workers states of Central and Eastern Europe, orchestrated by Washington, provoked an immediate hostile response from Moscow.

"Despite the fact that we have signed a broad, balanced agreement with NATO, we still consider expansion the biggest mistake in Europe since the end of World War II," Russian foreign minister Yevgeny Primakov said in Moscow after the agreement was reached in Madrid on July 8.

Primakov was referring to the "Founding Act," which Russian president Boris Yeltsin and U.S. president William Clinton signed in Paris May 27. That accord left open the possibility that NATO may deploy nuclear weapons and build military bases in the new member countries. In the case of Poland, this could bring U.S. forces up to the border of the former Soviet Union. Yeltsin, who was invited to the NATO summit, decided to stay away and instead sent V. M. Serov, a deputy prime minister.

The Madrid decision was the formal implementation of a U.S. foreign policy shift carefully worked on by the Clinton administration since it came to power, and announced in 1994. In the early 1990s, a majority among the rulers of the United States, Germany, and other capitalist powers hoped that the collapse of the Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe and the USSR would easily bring capitalist restoration and the domination of those countries by the imperialist system. As the initial euphoria quickly wore off, growing layers among these capitalist classes decided they had to use their military might to reestablish capitalist property relations in that part of the world.

Since NATO was founded in 1949 its goal has been to defeat the Soviet Union. Washington is driving to redeploy U.S. forces in Europe, placing them in a stronger position vis-a-vis Russia, with the same goal today.

"The enlargement of Nato cannot fail to be seen as aimed at Russia," said an article in the July 9 Financial Times of London. "It is unavoidably a shift in the strategic balance of power against Russia."

U.S.-French row
NATO expansion is also aimed at strengthening U.S. military and economic domination in Europe, exacerbating rifts among NATO members. This was also reflected in Madrid.

"This is a very great day, not only for Europe and the United States, not simply for NATO, but, indeed, for the cause of freedom in the aftermath of the cold war," crowed Clinton after the agreement was announced in Spain's capital city.

The New York Times editors made a different point. "The grand declarations.. yesterday," began an editorial in the July 9 Times, "could not obscure the serious differences within NATO over how far and fast it should grow."

In Madrid, the French and Italian governments pushed to include Romania and Slovenia in the invitations for NATO membership. Paris and Rome wield more influence in each of those workers states respectively. This proposal had been rejected by Washington outright before the summit. In Madrid, the French and Italian proposals had the support of nine of the 16 NATO members, but Washington prevailed. "The deal was no surprise," said an article in the July 9 Financial Times. "Much of the dispute had a ephemeral, almost phoney, flavour to it. In the end, everyone knew that the US would get its way in limiting a first enlargement to the central European troika, because the US superpower remains predominant in the alliance."

The agreement reached at the NATO summit states that Romania and Slovenia would be considered top candidates in a future NATO expansion.

British prime minister Anthony Blair was Washington's most ardent supporter in the debate, reflecting London's ongoing effort to hang onto its "special relationship" with U.S. imperialism. "NATO is a military alliance not a political club," said Blair in arguing against the French proposal. Taking in three new members - the first to join since Spain entered NATO in 1982 - is "a bold step, not a conservative one."

The governments of the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland lined up with the U.S.-British bloc.

At the Madrid meeting, French president Jacques Chirac reiterated Paris's position that it will not rejoin NATO's military command structure. Former French president Charles de Gaulle pulled France out of NATO's military command in 1966 over developing conflicts with Washington. Chirac had stated two years ago that Paris would rejoin. But when the French government demanded that NATO's southern command be turned over to a European, possibly French, officer, the U.S. rulers said decisively no. The southern command, based in Naples, Italy, is run by a U.S. general. It controls NATO's sixth fleet in the Mediterranean, which provides Washington with a major advantage in naval power over its imperialist competitors in the region.

Citing U.S. intransigence, Chirac said, "Our alliance would not durably survive with an unbalanced Euro-American relationship, both in the sharing of power in the military structure and in the political decision-making process."

French prime minister Lionel Jospin has made repeated statements recently about Washington's "tendency toward hegemony."

Bosnia and the Baltic states
Reflecting the weakening position of German imperialism, and a step further away from earlier attempts at a Franco-German military alliance that could counter U.S. dominance in Europe, the government of Germany took a wishy- washy position. "Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany managed to straddle both positions, saying he was ready to embrace five new members, but adding in almost the same breath that he would be quite content just with early inclusion of the three central Europeans," said the July 9 Financial Times.

At the same time, Kohl has made clear he does not favor the U.S.-led effort to invite Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania - the three former Soviet republics in the Baltics - and possibly Ukraine to join NATO. As the Russian government has made clear, such moves would be considered a direct military provocation against Moscow. German imperialism has more to lose in a flare-up with the Russian government, since Bonn has extended more loans and attempted more investments in Russia than other capitalist powers.

At the insistence of the Clinton administration, the Madrid agreement included this statement, "We recognize the progress achieved toward greater stability and cooperation by the states in the Baltic region who are also aspiring members."

Washington has also made it clear that the recent NATO expansion is only the beginning in its drive to reposition its forces closer to Russia. U.S. defense secretary William Cohen is slated to visit Ukraine soon to sign a military cooperation agreement with the republic's government. On July 3, U.S. Marine Corps General John Sheehan, supreme NATO commander of the Atlantic, arrived in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, for a meeting of the defense ministers of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgystan. The four are to discuss joint military maneuvers in the region in September that are slated to include 500 troops from the elite U.S. 82nd airborne division.

A June 29 front-page article in the New York Times indicated that NATO enlargement will unfold along with a renewed U.S. militarization drive. "Arms makers see bonanza in selling NATO expansion," was the headline of that article, which interviewed Bruce Jackson, president of the U.S. Committee to Expand NATO and director of strategic planning for Lockheed Martin Corporation, the world's biggest weapons maker and Joel Johnson, vice president for Aerospace Industries Association. "The stakes are high.. Whoever gets in first will have a lock for the next quarter- century" on arms sales in Eastern Europe, said Johnson.

In Madrid, U.S. officials reiterated threats of broadening the use of NATO troops occupying Bosnia and other parts of Yugoslavia.

Washington's role in fueling the 1992-95 Yugoslav war and the subsequent U.S.-led invasion unfolded hand-in-hand with NATO's expansion eastward. U.S. officials in Madrid repeated demands that Serbian authorities hand over chauvinist Serb leaders Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, whom an imperialist tribunal in The Hague has charged with "war crimes."

"The point here is, on Karadzic and Mladic, that there is no statute of limitation on their crimes, and their day will come," said U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright.

Debate within U.S. ruling circles
Within U.S. ruling circles, the Clinton administration position on NATO expansion is clearly the dominant view, though the debate over its merits continues.

Senate majority leader Trent Lott has indicated he backs the president on this issue.

Others are more worried about the implications. "Tinkering with the map of Europe is not something to be done lightly," said an editorial in the July 6 New York Times. "NATO expansion seems a gratuitous risk."

The most blunt recent arguments against those who criticize the administration's course were presented by conservative columnist William Safire in an op-ed piece in the July 9 New York Times. "The essential reason for bringing the formerly captive nations of Eastern Europe into the successful European-American military alliance is to deter any future move into Europe by a resurgent Russia," Safire said. "Russia is down but far from out; with its literate population and unlimited resources.. it will regain superpower status soon."

He also argued for unabashed defense of U.S. hegemony in Europe. "Does enlarging the NATO club get us into European affairs more deeply? Yes. And we'll be denounced as `hegemonists' for our much-wanted presence. Charles de Gaulle may have said `France cannot be France without greatness,' but Europe can no longer be Europe without America - as evidenced by the dithering of European and U.N. leaders in the Balkans until the U.S. exerted military muscle through NATO."  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home