Georgia Crisis Highlights the True Nature of NATO

Written by Patrick Krey
Tuesday, 12 August 2008 05:22
While Senator McCain makes bold statements about the situation in South Ossetia, there is more going on behind the scenes than the mainstream media would have you believe. Russian troops in Abkhazia on August 10 prepare to invade Georgia. The unfolding crisis in Georgia gave Senator McCain another opportunity to show off his alleged foreign policy prowess and “talk tough” on the topic of Russia. Senator McCain read a prepared statement in his typically hawkish and interventionist tone: NATO's North Atlantic Council should convene in emergency session to demand a ceasefire and begin discussions on … the deployment of an international peacekeeping force to South Ossetia. This is nothing new for McCain as he had previously spent considerable efforts in an apparent bid to restart the Cold War and embroil the United States in another unnecessary and costly conflict. One has to wonder why is there such a strong desire to get involved in even more trouble abroad. Is there more motivation than just Senator McCain’s concern for the fate of the Georgian people? Perhaps the real reason can be found by taking a closer look at NATO. NATO was originally sold to the world as a means to stave off expansion of the Soviet Empire but since the collapse of the USSR, it has instead transformed into a tool used to expand the American Empire. NATO, like most programs established by the government, has grown well beyond its initial scope. The United States has strongly and successfully encouraged the expansion of NATO beyond its original charter. Despite American efforts, Georgia’s bid to become a member, along with Ukraine, was postponed this past April due to Russian concerns. The question is why is America so eager to take on more foreign policy responsibilities and financial commitments when it is so clearly militarily and economically overextended? What good reason is there to expand NATO? Doug Bandow of the American Conservative Defense Alliance perfectly summed up the situation when addressing the continued expansion of NATO: The benefit to America of adding a host of new defense responsibilities is zero. A close relationship with multiple Central and Eastern European states provides modest economic and cultural benefits, but no obvious security gain. To the extent that Russia requires deterring, it should be Europe's job. To the degree that Eastern Europe can be drawn westward, it should be Europe's job. To the extent that missile threats from Iran and similar states must be defended against, it should be Europe's job. Even with these obvious realities, however, our leaders have been moving in the exact opposite direction. Journalist Richard Cummings has shed some light on the true reason for this. Mr. Cummings painstakingly detailed the incestuous relationship between government contractors and politicians in creating U.S. foreign policy in his article “Lockheed Stock and Two Smoking Barrels”. In the late 1990s, key powerful figures – who would later work to drum up support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq – were deeply involved in the campaign to increase membership in NATO to include former Soviet Bloc countries. The truth of the matter is that when the U.S. gives foreign military aid to its allies, it ends up going to government contractors in an elaborate smoke-and-mirrors trick to conceal corporate welfare. Those former Soviet Bloc countries that joined NATO eventually upgraded their militaries with supplies from corporations that then received great profits at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. This type of extravagant, if convoluted and hidden, government spending is what imperils America’s fiscal stability and not the proportionately insignificant “pork barrel” projects that McCain has made the centerpiece of his campaign. So then what is the next step in the present situation? American leaders admit that military action against Russia is highly unlikely. One of the other quotes from McCain’s statement explains what the future holds. As if on cue, McCain immediately used the present situation as a pretext to further expand NATO. “NATO's decision to withhold a Membership Action Plan for Georgia might have been viewed as a green light by Russia for its attacks on Georgia, and I urge the NATO allies to revisit the decision,” said the Arizona Senator. The mainstream media portrays McCain as an aspiring war president eager to defend a helpless nation against an aggressive attacker, but perhaps the sad truth is that McCain is simply a high level mouthpiece for corporations hoping to increase their profit margins. It seems like neither McCain nor NATO’s corporate beneficiaries care that they might bankrupt our nation, and sow the seeds of war and discord, in the process. Patrick Krey, M.B.A., J.D., L.L.M., is a freelance writer in New York.