NATO

Preamble

The international situation fluctuates on the basis of changes in the situation of nations from positions of strength to positions of weakness, or positions of weakness to positions of strength, or changes in their international relationships with one another. The Islamic State is an ideological state whose prime role is to convey the da’wa to the world. As a consequence of this objective, she would be required to develop an international standing and an ability to influence the international situation. The politician, whether in the Islamic state or a party which seeks the return of such a state, works with the intention of taking care of the affairs of the world. The knowledge of the political idea upon which nations base their policies and the political method which is followed to implement them is a basic necessity for understanding the international situation. The diligent observation of the political plans and means would be a postulate for the one who seeks to understand the international situation, and inshallah influence the international situation in the future.

The Islamic State is a state that seeks influence on world politics, and this would be achieved by threatening the interests of the leading nation, changing the international political climate to a favourable one, attracting nations to its side and undermining the relationships between the leading nation, and the other major powers who vie with it for global supremacy. It would therefore be incumbent upon us to comprehend the political actions which occur throughout the world, in order to evaluate their potential future implications for the Islamic state, from the angle of the protection and propagation of the Islamic ideology.

The future role of NATO in Europe is an area of discussion that has unveiled a potential conflict between the United States and the European countries as well as accentuating internal European rivalries. The identification of such potential conflict and rivalry would be the basis for future exploitation at the hands of the Islamic Khilafah, by weakening the link between the United States and Europe and hence threatening the interests of the leading nation.
Since the second world war the United States has been the leading nation in the world, since joining the allied alliance with Britain, France and Russia to defeat the German nation. Britain, who had been in the past the leading nation, left the war in a state of exhaustion and powerlessness, while the United States emerged as the leading nation, and the international situation became dependent upon it. In the atmosphere of triumph, the United States decided to strip all other nations of any influence they held in the international political arena. She worked towards acquiring influence in the European countries, which all but destroyed each other in the two world wars. America pursued the major powers such as Britain and France in order to liquidate their influence in the world, and created a public opinion against colonialism achieved by physical occupation of land. This further weakened the position of Britain and France, and allowed the United States to explore alternative means of colonialism. It was Eisenhower who said “To meet the challenge of our time, destiny has laid upon our country the responsibility of the free world’s leadership. So it is proper that we assure our friends once again that, in the discharge of this responsibility, we Americans know and we observe the difference between world leadership and imperialism”.

At the wake of the Second World War, Europe was poor and under threat from the eastern communist bloc, under the leadership of Russia, which presented a formidable ideological and military challenge. Faced with such a stark reality the Europeans threw themselves at the beck and call of the United States, hoping that she could rescue her from the turbulent times she was experiencing. The United States was prompt to proffer assistance on the basis of the Marshall plan, which was detailed by George Marshall, the United States Secretary of State, in a speech on June 5, 1947. American economic aid, arms, and experts were injected into Europe, and the United States entered as a major partner in the European economic programmes and companies. The tangible result of the Marshall Plan was the linking of the European economies with that of the United States, and the increased influence enjoyed by the United States in the Western Hemisphere. The American plan was illustrated by the comments of Clayton, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, who said “Let us admit right off that our objective has as its background the needs and interests of the people of the United States. We need markets-big markets-in which to buy and sell”.

Background

The North Atlantic Treaty was signed at Washington on 4 April 1949, and can be considered to be a logical evolution of the American-European relationship. It was signed by Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United States, and the United Kingdom. It may be falsely held by some that the formation of NATO was in fact as a result of an all-encompassing global vision by the Europeans, and the British in particular, in order to share power in a “global commonwealth” as America’s partner. Such a view would be a fallacy of the greatest kind since America was and is the leading nation and undertakes actions based upon a pure colonialist policy that views the whole world as a big farm which belongs to them, and views the great powers as undeserving of the influence that they enjoy. She therefore does not undertake pious or charitable acts, but rather works to cement her influence and interests in all spheres.

NATO is essentially a collective security organisation that guarantees that an attack on one party to the agreement will be considered to be an attack on all other parties, and hence warrant collective concerted action. It can be considered to have been erected as a counter force against the eastern bloc, in order to protect Europe from the clutches of communism, and therefore secure the interests of capitalists in the area, and in particular the interests of the Americans. America views Europe as a potential area of conflict, since it has been the site of two world wars and the ignition point of a Cold War, and therefore the role of NATO for her was geared towards ensuring European security and United States interests in Europe.
From its induction NATO served primarily United States interests by preventing communist expansion by the Warsaw Pact countries, improving the American market share and influence in the European economy, and ensuring that no single nation or nations emerge to rival American influence in the region. In particular the United States was able to use NATO to control the influence of Germany in Europe and upon the international situation by developing her economy on an economic basis rather than a military basis. The tangible results of the American plan on Germany can still be seen 50 years later as it still struggles to emerge as an independent country from the shadows of American foreign policy. The fact that NATO was more than just a combined military effort against the Soviet Union is exemplified by its continued existence after the Kruschev-Kennedy meeting of 1961 in which both the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to define respective spheres of influence, and by its continued existence after the disappearance of the Warsaw Pact and the demise of communism.
Early in this decade the collapse of the Soviet Union and the destruction of the communist ideology was seen. Since the abandonment of the communist ideology by the Eastern bloc, the ideology of capitalism prevails as the sole hegemon over the world. No nation exists that carries an ideology other than capitalism and consequently capitalism controls the international situation, and America, as the leader of the capitalist nations and the leading state, declared the birth of a “New World Order”. The Western Hemisphere which is host to the leading state America and the other major powers such as Britain, Germany and France is plagued by internal rivalries and divisions. Since these nations adopt the ideology of capitalism they vie with one another for power and influence in the international arena and the resulting division and enmity is visible to the assiduous observer.

The main issues

It was the European Christian States that initially formulated the international society and the concept of international law in order to stand against the Ottoman State. The two world wars this century were instigated to resist Germany and redress the changes in the balance of power that were occurring. The issue of Europe has therefore been crucial for the existence of the major powers and in determining the balance of power within the world and it is for this reason that it preoccupies the minds of analysts, politicians, economists and the military alike. The issue of Europe and therefore of NATO must therefore be considered in detail in order to comprehend the international situation and aspire towards changing it. In particular it would be necessary to understand the view of the leading nation, and the other powerful countries in the world, towards NATO and the relationships they share with one another.

The United States

The United States is the leading state in the world and has succeeded in making the capitalist ideology the foundation of international relationships and traditions. She now perseveres to make capitalism the chosen ideology for all nations and peoples of the globe. The United States views the issue of Europe as one of the top issues in politics, and therefore undertakes much effort in order to secure her interests in this area. The United States via the Marshall Plan and NATO was able to control the European countries so that no single power became supreme over the continent and also in order to prevent the eruption of internal problems which could escalate and threaten America’s position as the leading nation. It was also able to secure its economic interests in the major Western markets, while ensuring that European industry developed on an incorrect basis under the shackles of American capital and companies.

It has been no accident that the United States has spent considerable energy to ensure that a transition to a post-communism world would preserve NATO. Since the disintegration of the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact certain voices, particularly from Europe, have been heard which question whether or not NATO has now outlived its usefulness. Since the United States’s interests lie in controlling Europe by controlling NATO, they have had to provide reasons for keeping the treaty alive. The former American Secretary of State Warren Christopher highlighted the American position on NATO when he said that “the NATO alliance will remain the anchor of American engagement in Europe and the linchpin of transatlantic secuirty. That is why we must keep it strong, vital, and relevant. For the United States and its allies, NATO has always been far more than a transitory response to a temporary threat. It has been a guarantor of European democracy and a force for European stability. That is why its mission endures even though the Cold War has receded into the past”.

The United States seeks to gain certain benefits from maintaining, supporting and expanding the North Atlantic Treaty. These can be considered to be the following;

Firstly, NATO allows the presence of the American military within Europe, and ties the European economies to American capital, thus preventing the emergence of a nation which may threaten her position as the leading state. Also, NATO expansion creates a financial burden upon NATO, and in particular on the Western European countries, and hence strengthens the hand of America relative to Europe.

Secondly, by expanding into the eastern bloc NATO will protect European and American interests in the area by preventing the re-emergence of a Russian threat under a nationalist guise.

Thirdly, the maintenance and expansion of NATO will act as the “Marshall Plan for the 21st century” by creating an improved environment for trade, investment and economic growth in Europe. The European markets are undoubtedly the most important in the world and by controlling them by injecting American capital, the United States wishes to cement her position as the leading nation.

Fourthly, the maintenance and expansion of NATO prevents and impedes the establishment of independent European security and political structures such as the European Union. It also enlarges the influence of NATO upon the international situation, and could pave the way for the replacement of the United Nations by NATO, hence restricting the power of countries such as China on the United Nations.

President Clinton said that “NATO can do for Europe’s East what it did for Europe’s West: prevent a return to local rivalries, strengthen democracy against future threats and create the conditions for prosperity to flourish.”

The Americans are therefore committed to the expansion of NATO into the countries of the former Warsaw Pact. The declarations made at the Madrid Summit held on the 8th of July 1997 laid the basis for the beginning of accession talks between NATO, the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary. The American position on NATO expansion was aired by Christopher who said in early 1995 that “expanding the alliance will promote our interests by reducing the chance of conflict in Europe’s eastern half-where two world wars and the Cold War began. It will help to ensure that no part of Europe will revert to a zone of great power competition or a sphere of influence”.

If the United States is to succeed with its plans for NATO and Europe then she must create an environment where the necessity for the presence of NATO is felt by all her allies. In order to achieve this atmosphere the United States must produce an environment in which the nations of Europe harbour certain fears and anxieties, so that these become the focus of their thoughts. The threats that the United States will produce may be real or perceived, but their effect is similar, in that they concentrate the minds of nations upon threats to their own security and the acquisition of solutions to these problems, which on the whole are illusions or exaggerations by the Americans. The fears and anxieties of the European countries will then be allayed by the successful resolution of conflicts by NATO. The continual creation of an atmosphere of fear and anxiety is desirable for the Americans since it produces a consensus upon the usefulness of NATO, and hence is the arbiter for American influence in the region. The remedial measures undertaken by NATO will then serve to create in these nations a conviction in the ability of NATO to quell internal rivalries and problems within Europe.

The speech of Willy Claes, the former secretary-general of NATO, in Germany in 1995 is an example of the creation of a perceived threat to Europe in order to illustrate the necessity for the continuance of NATO. The statement that Islamic fundamentalists are the only threat to the West after the demise of communism is an inconceivable exaggeration, since the threat to the West would only come from an Islamic State, which is an ideological state and not at the hands of Muslim militia and guerrillas waging civil war in Algeria. The United States also contrived the creation of a perceived threat from the former Eastern bloc in the form of the Balkans crisis, which is by no means over. The Economist reported on 20 April 1985 that “trouble in the Balkans has a habit of causing trouble elsewhere” and indeed this is an idea that the Americans seek to implant in Europe. The potential for further conflicts in the Balkans, whether these erupt naturally or are created by the Americans, is large and represents a major problem to Western Europe who have already taken the toll of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Similarly, the United States uses the threat of Russian resurgence and the Southern flank of NATO, in order to subjugate the European powers to the United States.

Russia

After the destruction of the Soviet Union its peoples have abandoned the communist ideology and although Russia still possesses a large military machine, it no longer presents an ideological threat to capitalism. Indeed its peoples, and the countries of the former Warsaw Pact, have adopted capitalism as a way of life.

Russia, in view of its large military machine, is still a potential military threat to Europe, although this alone would not be sufficient for it to influence the international situation. The fear of the Americans and her NATO partners is that if Russia was to see a resurgence of Russian nationalism such military power would have the potential to undermine the “New World Order”. The United States uses the potential power of Russia to instil fear in the other European states while granting certain concessions to the Russians in order to weaken the hand of the Russian nationalist movements.

Russia, as a political power, is a weak nation that has little ability to influence the international situation. Her leaders work for Russian interests and pursue different means to achieve these. The weakness of the Russians can be comprehended from their inability to defeat the Chechen people, even though the United States assisted them in this venture by providing economic assistance to a poorly resourced army. The United States continues to portray Russia as a major power on the world arena, by convening conferences with her, manufacturing alliances with her military, and considering her political actions carefully. By undertaking these actions the United States creates a powerful image for the Russian state which produces fear in the former Western bloc, as well as appeasing those nationalists within Russia.

Her leaders are not the slaves of the Americans since they persevere for Russian interests. Since Russia views the expansion of NATO into the former Eastern bloc as a threat to her integrity, it was necessary for the United States to accommodate certain Russian demands. Yeltsin was rewarded for his agreement to the entry of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland into NATO with a position in the “G8 Alliance”. However, Yeltsin showed his political astuteness by flying to Ukraine and signing a long term military and naval accord, which suggests his unwillingness to depend upon NATO and the Americans entirely.

The future of Russia in Europe and NATO is dependent upon her development as a democratic state. If she were to continue as a democratic state out of the clutches of the nationalists then she would continue to dwindle. However if the nationalists were to take control of Russia then this could lead to the threatening of NATO, and by extension, American interests within the area.

The European Powers

Britain, France and Germany are the three main powers that have influence in Europe and have in the past competed with each other for supremacy.

The elucidation of the respective positions of the European countries with regard to the issue of the North Atlantic Treaty and its expansion is by no means simple, with many factors to be considered. Having dominated the international situation for so long, the European powers nearly destroyed each other during this century’s two world wars. Subsequent to this the United States emerged as the leading state in the world, challenged by the Soviet Union. Since the Second World War, European nations were compelled to put aside old rivalries and to forge a new unity in order to exert some influence on the international situation. Historically, Europe is a collection of warring tribes and nations, with a whole host of differing national interests. The European countries therefore incline towards the formation of alliances in order to exert influence on the world arena.

The struggle to maintain European security has been adopted by the main European nations and can be seen as a “war of institutions”. NATO, the Western European Union and the Franco-German Eurocorps are the main three security structures, and are used as tools in the hands of their proponents, so as to seek and maintain their interests in the region.

Germany

Germany is a capitalist state, and its people are characterised by militaristic and expansionist tendencies. Since the Second World War she has revived her industry on an economic basis, and has become an economic success of the twentieth century. Her economy is tightly controlled by the Americans due to the abundance of American capital and companies within Germany. For her to be able to influence the international situation in the manner she did prior to the Second World War it would be necessary for her to distance herself from the American companies and their capital, and to develop herself on a political rather than an economic basis.

On two occasions this century the major powers of the world gathered to limit German strength and resist her efforts for expansion. Its perceived responsibility for igniting two world wars, and the Jewish Holocaust, has concentrated German minds upon the idea of pleasing all parties in the domain of foreign policy. It is for this reason that a dichotomy of thought can be seen between the approach of Germany towards the issue of NATO expansion and the approach of Germany towards the issue of WEU expansion, favoured by the French. Germany has moved to voice support for the eastward expansion of NATO, as well as a larger role for the EU in a military sense. However she now seems to have inclined towards the American position of NATO expansion and this is allied to the continuing presence of large amounts of American capital within the German economy, and the American promise of a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Volker Ruhe, the German defence minister, laid out German policy towards NATO in a speech at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Spring 1993, when he urged that the first East-Central European countries should become full NATO members by the new millennium. The main interest that Germany may be seeking from such an expansion is to address the security challenges that lie to the east, since many Germans perceive themselves as living on the edge of a volcano waiting to erupt.

The idea of looking to the perceptions of other nations regarding one’s own nation is a dangerous one in international politics if it is the basis of the political thoughts rather than the subject of the thoughts. If Germany is to become a leading state in the world then it would be necessary for her to stop straddling the fence of foreign policy since this jeopardises her interests. The results of such policies are unpredictable and dangerous for the very existence of a nation.

France

The French are the standard-bearers of freedom, equality and justice and feel superior to the other nations of Europe, on account of this fact. They resent the influence of foreign powers over the continent of Europe and the French state. The French pride, which is common amongst her people, has been damaged by her fall from the international situation, and by the development of American control over Europe and Africa. She seeks to diminish the influence of America within the region, and therefore works to counter the policies that the Americans employ to achieve domination. In addition to this she works tirelessly to re-assert her own supremacy over Europe and hence once again influence the international situation. In the face of American domination over the world, and an internal power struggle within Europe, France has become a weak nation that exerts little control over her former colonies. Indeed, in attempts to salvage her own pride, she promotes the French language and culture amongst her former colonies.
France does not favour a continued European role for NATO or NATO expansion into the eastern bloc, as it sees these as a threat to its interests. She therefore favours a strong European security organisation such as the Western European Union, under which Britain despatched troops for the second Gulf War, in order to diminish American control in the area, secure the Mediterrenean area to her own liking and limit the influence of Germany. France has been absent from the integrated command structure of NATO since 1966, and under the presidency of Chirac shows signs of wishing to re-enter with a greater role, especially concerning the sixth fleet of NATO and the southern flank. The United States strengthened the role of Germany in Europe as that of France weakened, and France exploited this to use Germany as an arbitrator between often-differing American and French positions. In the early 1990s the French and the Germans collaborated on the formation of a Franco-German Eurocorps, and Alain Juppe, the former French prime minister, called for a “European army numbering 350,000, independent of United States control and answering to the European Union”. Such moves obviously caused discontent amongst the Americans who feared that the development of the European Union as a military organisation would undermine their plans for a Europe under NATO.

The relationship between France and Germany seems to have soured in recent times as illustrated by the comments of Prime Minister Jospin subsequent to the G7 Denver Summit where he accused Germany of being a party to the establishment of American hegemony over Europe. The likely reason for such a slump in Franco-German relationships is the frustration felt by France towards Germany’s position vis-a-vis NATO expansion and the role of the Franco-German EuroCorps.

The southern flank of NATO remains the main focus of French policy towards NATO, since she regards the Mediterranean and North African region as presenting the greatest threat to French national security in the form of “Islamic radicalism”. Military and political crises in Algeria, Turkey and the Balkans have ensured that the French continue to view developments in the southern flank with pessimism. France therefore targets control of NATO’s southern flank, however this seems unlikely when one considers the strength of the United States within the North Atlantic Treaty. If she is unable to gain control of the southern flank, she may consider the addition of Turkey, Tunisia and Morocco to the European Union.

Britain

The seeking of interests and the striking of alliances forms a major part of British foreign policy, and this has particularly been the case since her fall from the position of the leading state to the position she occupies today. In particular the role of Britain within NATO has been tantamount to providing her with a means of maintaining global and regional influence inspite of diminished resources.

The basis upon which the British view the various European security alliances is their wish to retain sovereignty over foreign policy, and hence their influence on the international situation. As a consequence of this, Britain is unwilling to surrender her sovereignty to the European Union by entering into an integrated European political and military alliance. Conversely, Britain’s role within NATO does not limit her sovereignty within the domain of foreign policy, so she is not opposed in principle to the continued presence of NATO within Europe, however she works to curtail the influence of other major powers within the region.

Britain has expressed a desire to expand NATO as mentioned by Malcolm Rifkind, former Defence Secretary, in a speech in Brussels in January 1995 when he said “There is of course a momentum at work now. We have launched an examination in NATO to determine how the alliance will enlarge. We must ensure that the alliance controls its future direction rather than merely responding to pressure from outside. But that does not mean that we should be reserved about the principle of enlargement, which I believe unreservedly would be beneficial to us”.
It seems as if Britain may be forced to pragmatically accept the principle of NATO enlargement in order to prevent the ceding of influence in East-Central Europe to Germany, who may be inclined to fill the Eastern “strategic vacuum” in the absence of NATO enlargement.

Conclusion

Almost 50 years after the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty, the nature, role and relevance of the alliance are still issues of vital global importance. Today’s leading nation, the United States, is seeking to spread her wings over the four corners of the globe so that she can seek and maintain her interests globally. The issues that surround NATO illustrate the rivalry that exists amongst the capitalist states as a result of the capitalist political method of colonialism.
As the world approaches a new millennium, America stands almost unchallenged at the pinnacle of global leadership. The leading state of tomorrow is the Islamic Khilafah State, which is an ideological state, whose primary aim is to convey the da’wa to the world. It is incumbent upon those who shoulder the responsibilities of this noblest of tasks, to acquaint themselves with the international situation and events so that they can perceive the vision which they have for this glorious Ummah. The subject of NATO is one that has profound implications for an Islamic State established in the Islamic lands. The politician would be the one who considers the conflict between French and American policy, and whether the hurt pride of the French at the hands of the Americans is less or more important to them than their hate for Islam. He would also be the one who considers the proximity in the relationship between America and Germany, and whether this would be a matter of greater importance to the German nation compared with their recent history of ‘tolerance’.

The conflict between the United States and certain European powers is by no means over. Indeed the leadership in both Britain and France is in the hands of individuals who have already shown their readiness to disagree with American policies and be recognised on the world arena as international statesmen. With the imminent return of the ruling with what Allah revealed, the nature of this conflict and others will be considered in detail by the policy makers and strategists of this Ummah, in order to once again lead humanity with the haq.

27/7/1997