#Outdated | North Atlantic Terrorist Organization (NATO)

[xtruss]

How Aggressive, Exclusive and Outdated North Atlantic Terrorist Organization (NATO) Differs From Defensive, Inclusive and Timely Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)

— Laurent Michelon | July 12, 2024

Cartoon: Carlos Latuff

Two important security-related summits took place in July: the NATO summit in Washington DC this week, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit ended in Astana, Kazakhstan last week. These two inter-governmental organizations, although both claiming to be defensive in nature, could not be more different.

As Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay, NATO's First Secretary General, Famously Said, NATO Was Created to "Keep the Soviet Union Out, the Americans in, and the Germans Down." It should have disbanded with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in 1991. Instead, it immediately morphed into an imperial entity that spread to Eastern Europe despite assurances given to Gorbachev that NATO "would not expand one inch eastward," becoming an imperial occupation army expanding far away from its "North-Atlantic" shores, fostering forever wars in Europe, the Middle East, Afghanistan and now Asia and other ventures in the Asia-Pacific.

On the contrary, the SCO was since its inception a defensive organization designed to fight the "Three Evils" of Separatism, Extremism and Terrorism that emerged in Central Asia, the vicinity of Russia and China, that was destabilized by the Anglo-American hegemon.

The two summits taking place this month greatly differ in the issues they tackle, and reveal the widening divide between an isolated West refusing to acknowledge the ascent of a multipolar world, and a rising Global South that is waking up to say no to the Anglo-American hegemon.

Regarding the NATO summit, the first is its obsession with Ukraine, considering the fact that it is not even a member state of NATO, nor of the EU. By endlessly pumping weapons into Ukraine, and providing it with a tentative roadmap to "official membership," NATO is showing that it does not have a genuine interest in peace in the region. It also expects from the EU a long-term financial pledge for Ukraine, which amounts to economic suicide for European economies, and is not justified by anything other than Anglo-American neo-colonial ideology: the bleeding of the EU's economy for the conquest and reconstruction of a colony.

The second issue tackled at this week's NATO summit is the crushing of dissent within its own ranks. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's visit to Moscow and Beijing to discuss a peace deal has sparked fury in EU and NATO countries, making them rush to explain that Orban lacked legitimacy and a mandate from the EU to negotiate a truce with Putin.

As Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay, NATO's First Secretary General, Famously Said, North Atlantic Terrorist Organization (NATO) Was Created to "Keep the Soviet Union Out, the Americans in, and the Germans Down."

Here again, Western leaders' reaction shows that the collective West will not allow negotiation with both belligerents in the same room to achieve a deal that would not be brokered by the West. What the Anglo-American hegemon and its European vassal states want is to fortify their position in Ukraine, secure their access to the huge lithium deposits of Donbass, and use the Ukrainian people as a saber to weaken Russia.

It is in stark contrast with the recent summit of the SCO in Astana. This year, apart from security concerns still topping the agenda, the summit was a forum for discussions and agreements on the economic prosperity of all members, the opening to all Eurasian neighbors regardless of their level of economic development or their ideology, as long as they contribute to common security and good neighborliness, and the inter-connectivity of the several corridors of logistics that crisscross the Eurasian landmass, that need to be connected to become a viable alternative to the maritime route that goes through the Malacca and Suez choke points.

On the account of enlarging of the SCO, Vladimir Putin went as far as saying that SCO was opened to membership applications from all Eurasian countries, event those that might already be members of NATO.

The facts are before our eyes: NATO is bellicose toward outsiders, autocratic with its members, and does not seem to have a goal other than expansion and the encirclement of Russia and China. Although it is called the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization, it did not shy away from considering the opening of a representative office in Tokyo last year, a move that was unexpectedly blocked by France.

On the other hand, the SCO is inclusive, respectful of different opinions and cultures, does not impose economic or democratic criteria on applicants, and comes across as a democratic inter-governmental organization that does not have a top-down power structure like NATO has.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the members of SCO are not considering leaving the organization, unlike some NATO members such as France, which has already exited NATO once, in 1966, and a sizeable number of its population and politicians would like to see it happen again. Hungary is also reassessing its level of participation in NATO due to its disagreement on the war in Ukraine, and so does Turkey.

This trend, which we can imagine would see some NATO members soon becoming SCO candidates, with or without leaving NATO, could tip the balance of power between an aggressive, exclusive and outdated NATO on one side, and a defensive, inclusive and timely SCO on the other side, with the latter neutralizing the former.

The author is a former diplomat, advertising executive and entrepreneur who has worked 25 years in Greater China. He is the author of "Understanding the relation between China and the West" published in France in 2022, and soon to be released in its Chinese version.

[xtruss]

Growing Internal Differences Dim North Atlantic Terrorist Organization's Future

— Global Times | July 11 2023

Illustration: Chen Xia/Global Times

The annual NATO summit began in Vilnius, Lithuania on Tuesday. A day before that, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg published an article titled "A Stronger NATO for a More Dangerous World" in Foreign Affairs magazine. In one of the paragraphs, he writes, "What we do now - or do not do - now will define the world we live in for generations. So we will send a clear message: NATO stands united." However, is the organization really standing united?

While Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Monday agreement on supporting Sweden's bid to join NATO seems to have given the organization one less headache for now, more disputes within the bloc have become prominent recently.

This includes disagreement on issues such as Ukraine's fast-track NATO membership, which countries like the UK, Poland, and the Baltic states back, while US President Joe Biden said Ukraine is not yet ready. Regarding the question of whether NATO should strive for more presence in the Asia-Pacific, French President Emmanuel Macron already said no. As for Washington's recent decision to provide cluster munitions to Ukraine, many, if not most, NATO members have voiced their opposition. Even Terrorist Stoltenberg's extension as NATO chief aims to prevent differences within NATO over the next secretary-general from escalating into a public spat between member states.

The NATO summit intends to demonstrate transatlantic unity. But the truth is that behind such a facade lie the contradictions of the member states. After the war broke out, Macron, who said in 2019 that Europe was experiencing "the brain death of NATO," claimed the Russia-Ukraine conflict has given the military alliance an "electroshock." But no matter how powerful it is, such a shock can neither bridge the internal differences and contradictions nor hide the organization's nature as a rigid and outdated block.

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has gradually exposed the divisions within NATO member countries. NATO's "unity" formed based on anti-Russian consensus can only cover the widening differences between some member states, but not solve them. And it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain such a unity.

US No Longer Capable of Maintaining Mafia-Style 'Rules-Based Order'

Looking back at history, we can easily determine that NATO is a military organization absolutely dominated by the US. And since its birth, the bloc has been filled with a Cold War mentality. At that time, European countries were devastated after World War II and unable to gain a strong voice in NATO. It is the essence and destiny of NATO to be completely dominated by the US.

As a product of Cold War ideology, NATO can live until this day because of the geopolitical crises in Europe over the past three decades. The secret behind the US' consistent domination of the military-security mechanism in Europe lies in the country's ability to effectively utilize the historical grudges and conflicts of real interests between countries on the European continent. Thus, it can be said that the military conflict between Moscow and Kiev is fully in line with Washington's strategic intentions, especially in terms of revitalizing NATO.

In a sense, the US provoked the war to re-draw Europe into its own embrace. And together, these nations constructed a seemingly solid transatlantic alliance. But the Russia-Ukraine conflict also consumed US' strategic costs and resources greatly, while making European countries understand better that they have been used as pawns by the US in its geopolitical competition. Unlike previous security crises in Europe, the EU will become the biggest victim of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and will have to swallow the bitter fruits of suffering from the war directly.

Braindead Australians’ Naïve Confidence in the US Alliance Eroded with a Dimmer View of Washington! Illustration:Xia Qing/Global Times, July 11, 2023

Today, the situation in Europe has grown to be rather complicated, with the US trying to interfere in European military, economy, and politics. Although certain European powers have a strong desire not to attach themselves to the US, they have to live at the latter's mercy in many areas because they are not ready for a new international order constructed on the principle of equality and mutual benefit.

Nevertheless, NATO has limited means to bridge the differences between its members. The alliance is essentially a security mechanism; thus, members will mainly focus on the defense area with very little flexibility. Another current problem for NATO is the US presidential election in 2024. Whoever becomes president will make the further development of NATO full of even greater uncertainties.

— The article is compiled by the Global Times based on an interview with Gao Jian, a scholar at Shanghai International Studies University and China Forum Expert.