next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BED936.40B7C7C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I've read Peter Nicholl's post with interest. Here are my thoughts: NATO came about, largely at British and Canadian initiative, to keep the = United States involved in European security. The purpose of that was to = bolster weak West European governments, especially France and Italy, = which faced strong indigenous Communist movements and which, in power, = could have extended Soviet influence to Western Europe. Only later, = during and after the war in Korea, was it militarized. =20 In 1956, after West Germany was admitted to NATO, the Warsaw Treaty = Organization was formed in response. We can't understand the origins = and history of the Cold War without finding some responsibility for it, = including who broke the Potsdam agreements and who engineered the = partition of Germany. (See Carolyn Eirenreich, "Drawing the Line, The = American Decision to Divide Germany, 1944-1949," Cambridge University = Press, 1996) Although Canada supposedly gains military security from the NATO=20 collective defence alliance, plans have never included Europe coming to=20 Canada's defence because there has never been any reason to do so. = Canada's interest in European security arises from her participation in = both World Wars,=20 and the fact that the only military threat to Canada is a war in Europe, = or arises from the threat thereof, as in intercontinental strategic=20 weapons. Political interests aside, including the need to have friends=20 vis-a-vis the United States, there is no military reason for Canada to=20 remain in NATO. After 1989, as long as NATO was avowedly defensive, as in the 1991=20 strategic concept, membership in NATO offered whatever political value=20 it confers at zero military risk. Since the new strategic concept was=20 unveiled in Washington last April, this is no longer the case. In March, = membership in the alliance took Canada into an illegal war in = Yugoslavia. That was an unintended consequence of membership. Military alliances need an enemy to give them purpose. The=20 only conceivable enemy is a renascent Russia, and NATO expansion is a=20 threat to them, whether we say so or not. By its preparations for war, = NATO has become a threat to its members, including Canada, and it should = be abolished. The 56-member OSCE, a regional collective security entity = founded on the=20 Helsinki Accords, is the best hope for European security, but NATO=20 stands in the way of its development. Incorporating European NATO = forces into the OSCE would be preferable to the current trans-Atlantic = arrangement. George Kennan said that NATO expansion is a fateful error, and he is = right. Now that it has begun with the admission of three new members = with status equal to the other 16, it will be difficult to resist = pressure for others to join. I look forward to what I hope will be a productive discussion, but our=20 purpose should not be to justify NATO. We should exert ourselves to=20 building political support for its abolition instead. If we are to = prevent another European war we must stop preparing for it. Leonard V. Johnson Major-General (ret.) Westport, Ontario K0G 1X0 ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BED936.40B7C7C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 = http-equiv=3DContent-Type> <META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I've read Peter Nicholl's post with=20 interest. Here are my thoughts:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>NATO came about, largely at British = and Canadian=20 initiative, to keep the United States involved in European = security. The=20 purpose of that was to bolster weak West European governments, = especially France=20 and Italy, which faced strong indigenous Communist movements and which, = in=20 power, could have extended Soviet influence to Western Europe. = Only later,=20 during and after the war in Korea, was it militarized. = </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>In 1956, after West Germany was = admitted to=20 NATO, the Warsaw Treaty Organization was formed in response. We = can't=20 understand the origins and history of the Cold War without finding some=20 responsibility for it, including who broke the Potsdam agreements and = who=20 engineered the partition of Germany. (See Carolyn Eirenreich,=20 "Drawing the Line, The American Decision to Divide Germany,=20 1944-1949," Cambridge University Press, 1996)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Although Canada supposedly gains = military=20 security from the NATO <BR>collective defence alliance, plans have never = included Europe coming to <BR>Canada's defence because there has never = been any=20 reason to do so. Canada's interest in European security arises = from her=20 participation in both World Wars, <BR>and the fact that the only = military threat=20 to Canada is a war in Europe, <BR>or arises from the threat thereof, as = in=20 intercontinental strategic <BR>weapons. Political interests aside, = including the need to have friends <BR>vis-a-vis the United States, = there is no=20 military reason for Canada to <BR>remain in NATO.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>After 1989, as long as NATO was = avowedly=20 defensive, as in the 1991 <BR>strategic concept, membership in NATO = offered=20 whatever political value <BR>it confers at zero military risk. = Since the=20 new strategic concept was <BR>unveiled in Washington last April, this is = no=20 longer the case. In March, membership in the alliance took Canada into = an=20 illegal war in Yugoslavia. That was an unintended consequence of=20 membership.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Military alliances need an enemy to = give them=20 purpose. The <BR>only conceivable enemy is a renascent Russia, and = NATO=20 expansion is a <BR>threat to them, whether we say so or not. By = its=20 preparations for war, NATO has become a threat to its members, including = Canada,=20 and it should be abolished. The 56-member OSCE, a regional = collective=20 security entity founded on the <BR>Helsinki Accords, is the best hope = for=20 European security, but NATO <BR>stands in the way of its = development. =20 Incorporating European NATO forces into the OSCE would be preferable to = the=20 current