When founded, NATO's purpose was to keep Germany down and Russia out. Today it looks like a way to stop another superpower emerging. It's an agreement to go to war in defense of other members - a throwback to 1914 when the "Great War" was triggered. As a block it accounts for 70% of world arms spending. It requires congruence between member's armories - a gift to US weapons manufacturers' sales - and the mutual agreement embraces first-strike use of nuclear weapons; essentially making all 26 members potential nuclear states. There are thought to be between 150 and 240 nuclear bombs stationed around Europe. There is often strong local opposition to them, particularly as they are beyond the control of their host governments. The policy also conflicts with Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations forbidding the transfer of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states. Our own supposedly 'independent' nuclear 'deterrent' is committed to NATO use and Geoff Hoon reiterated our obligation to NATO's nuclear first-strike use policy when Blair took us to war with Iraq. For a while it really seemed that a nuclear strike was in prospect! Understandably, with the migration of NATO eastwards and the stationing of missile defence installations adjacent to Russian Federation borders, Russia is feeling tetchy.
The Warsaw Pact was the USSR cold war response to NATO when parties either side of the Iron Curtain were engaged in a threatening power struggle. With the end of the cold war and the onset of détente with the Russian Federation, NATO was redundant, but instead took advantage of the power vacuum, created by the fall of the USSR, to grow and grow, with ever more states promised early consideration for accession. The 50th anniversary conference in 1999 launched the new 'Strategic Concept' which embraced new ideas about offensive operations out of area in defense of NATO interests (looking very like US plans for global domination in 'The New American Century); and it has alliances with a further 24 independent states embracing most of Eurasia.
The Georgia conflict, portrayed as a contest between the Russian Bear and the innocent Georgian mouse valiantly defending freedom and democracy, was really about the dangerous extension of NATO eastwards to the very borders of the Russian Federation. 'Breakaway' regions of Georgia adjacent to the Russian border, populated by ethnic Russians, had voted not to be part of the new 'liberated' Georgia - and Georgia, encouraged by warm words from the US and NATO, decided to use old-fashioned military force to bring the recalcitrants to heel! France and Germany had resisted US plans for further expansion so Georgia joined NATO's 'partnership for peace' scheme and its military budget grew 100 fold. Its forces, under the newly appointed Defence Minister (an Israeli), were Israeli trained and went to Iraq. Saakashvili deluded himself that his South Ossetia invasion would get US/NATO armed support, but instead brought a Russian response which decimated the army and weapons - still to be paid for! Georgia paid a heavy price. The South Ossetians and Abkhazians will remain independent for the foreseeable future, and a confrontation with Russia was averted - no thanks to George Bush and David Miliband.
Post USSR, there are regional tensions between other states craving western alignments and ethnic groups demanding to remain Russian. Pressure from NATO, with incentives for former Russian satellite states to join up, increases instability.
NATO is fighting in Afghanistan, and there is a menacing presence of a ring of US bases from Kosovo and Iraq to Central Asia and Afghanistan. The NATO agreement for prompt collective action in the event of a threat essentially by-passes the UN. Bringing NATO right up to Russian Federation borders into areas of instability where minority groups are unhappy with changes and fear discrimination, moving up nuclear weapons, many times the power of Hiroshima, on 'hair-trigger-alert' committed to 'first-strike' use, and installing anti-missile defence so close will ratchet up fear and distrust. The Blair government put our commitment to NATO above commitment to ourselves and humanity. This is a very dangerous game unlikely to lead to a constructive dialogue. And now we hear that the UN is contemplating doing a defence deal with NATO under which NATO troops could be dispatched to trouble spots.
CND says NATO should be disbanded and US nuclear weapons be withdrawn from Europe. All foreign military bases should be closed, restoring sovereignty to the countries concerned. Instead the Organisation for Security and CO-operation in Europe (OSCE) should be extended as a less militarized, non-nuclear security pact to work for a stable Europe capable of addressing various political interests from a non-aggressive posture.
EDF boss Vincent de Rivaz says one way to start convincing the public that nuclear power is the solution to our energy problems is to "make all decisions public and transparent" (Friday Interview, 30th Jan). We as taxpayers are being asked to take responsibility for significant amounts of spent fuel - something omitted by Rivaz. Spent nuclear fuel contains most of the radioactivity from the new reactors, but neither government nor its regulators have assessed its "disposability" or the health effects of managing it. The Nuclear Industry Association says a repository dealing with legacy wastes could readily accommodate the smaller volumes of easier-to-handle wastes from the new nuclear plants.
But the spent fuel from EDF's planned European pressurised reactors in England would be hotter and more radioactive than that of the EPR at Olkiluoto, Finland. There are serious doubts it could be disposed of in the deep geological repository for legacy waste, but the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has only recently received the detailed information from EDF that will allow it to make the assessment. Having asked for a copy of that information, I have been told by the NDA that it was submitted in confidence under contractual arrangements, and agreement to the release of the information has not been granted. Thus data directly relevant to independent assessment of health detriments during the storage, retrieval, encapsulation, emplacement and subsequent abandonment of spent fuel, is being withheld by the company concerned.
I have asked the energy department to publish the data, but the Secretary of State is busy promoting nuclear power by "reducing regulatory risks for investors". He is also the "sole justifying authority" that will decide whether benefits from new reactors outweigh any health detriments, a somewhat dangerous conflict of interests.
Hugh Richards, Llandrindod Wells, Powys.
Read more at
www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk.
CND today welcomed news that the Czech government has been forced - through public and parliamentary opposition - to temporarily withdraw Treaties supporting the deployment of US Missile Defence facilities in the Czech Republic. This victory opens the door to a fundamental rethinking of the system which is controversial across Europe, including in the UK, which houses two facilities for the system at Fylingdales and Menwith Hill bases in Yorkshire.
US proposals to develop US Missile Defence in Europe received a huge blow last night when the Czech government was forced to withdraw the Treaty it has agreed with the US, fearing it would lose a ratification vote in the Chamber of Deputies.
The strength of public opposition in the Czech Republic, and the weakness of the government in Chamber of Deputies, has forced the government to delay the ratification a number of times, with the latest being the most significant.
Earlier in the day the government had failed to keep a vote on the Treaty off the agenda, when two Green Deputies joined with the main opposition Social Democrat and Communist groups to support it being voted on. Following this, and in a unique move constitutionally, the two main governing parties called a recess to discuss the issue in their respective groups and the Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek announced in a live television address that the treaties were to be temporarily withdrawn.
The Czech government announced it will discuss the issue with the Obama administration at the NATO Summit in Strasbourg on 4-5th April.
Kate Hudson, Chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said, "We congratulate the Czech movement against US Missile Defence, both in civil society and their representatives in Parliament. They took a huge step forward yesterday in preventing the radar deployment. Our own MPs will not be surprised that the Czech government has sought to keep its ratification proposals alive by preventing Czech Deputies from casting their vote: British MPs have not been afforded a vote on our own involvement in the system.
"Now that the Obama administration wants to 'press the reset button' on relations with Russia, the first thing it must do is end its plans to deploy US Missile Defence bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. Here in Britain, the government must listen to the growing demands of MPs - now over 100 [see note 3] - to announce a review of our own involvement in the system, at Fylingdales and Menwith Hill."
Marcus Papadopoulos says that the Western Media have got it very wrong about Kosovo with disastrous results.
In my opinion Marcus has written an excellent article headed "The Cancerous State at Europe's Heart"
Here's a short extract, all I have room for:-
Last month marked Kosovo's first anniversary as an independent state following its unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia in 2008. ..... Most Western Governments and mainstream media outlets did not inform their domestic audiences of the nature of the new nation which has been created in Europe, and the implications of this in the global fight against international Jihadism, drugs and weapons smuggling, and the sex trade. .....The majority of Western journalists who reported on the wars in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990's presented the conflict from a one-sided perspective, like a Hollywood version of good versus evil. ....As Lewis MacKenzie, the former United Nations Protection Force General in the former Yugoslavia said "Those of us who served in Bosnia realised the majority of media reports were biased - when we tried to set the record straight we were - and continue to be - accused of being 'Serbian Agents'"... ....By having torn Kosovo away from Serbia and then masterminded its independence, the West has created a cancerous state. Modern Kosovo is the most intolerant country in Europe. Since 1999 more than 200,000 Serbs and Gipsies have been ethnically cleansed by the Albanian authorities. ... a UNMIK official said "Kristallnacht is underway in Kosovo churches are being burnt and people attacked"....According to the Home Office, more than 70% of the sex trade in London is run by Kosovan Albanians, former KLA personnel.....
Because I think this article is so important I have made some photocopies, please phone 8-399-2547 if you would like me to send you one.
Patrons:
Tam Dalyell Esq (Former Father of the House)
Harry Cohen Esq MP
Ref: 10.03.09 19th March 2009
The democracy placed by the Bush/Blair administration in post 2003 occupation of Iraq may have the façade, frill and trapping but beneath this thin veneer emerges a country governed by an uncommitted disloyal group of collaborators. Tension and division are paramount, services decaying, unemployment at unprecedented level, education is lacking and descending the health is deteriorating. Coupled with these facts is the ethnic cleansing of Christian minorities and the evaporating indigenous professional capabilities practically descending to pre-1950 levels. These are the stark realities supported by independent observers and institutions. Indeed no gloss by Whitehall or the White House can tangibly challenge the above.
To date, no official figures were provided by the Green Zone Government of the total civilian casualties or those in detention. However, in accordance with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office table provided to Harry Cohen Esq MP (Patron) question. There are 75 of pre-2003 Government official detainees held. 31 are still held without charge or access to a lawyer, family or adequate medical or detention facilities. I am fully aware (via his son) that former PM Tariq Aziz was denied legal representation throughout the court charade. His detention was inhumane, denied access to contact his family on a regular basis or allowed visitation. No security was provided for the defence lawyers and many have lost their lives. The general health of all detainees deliberately left unchecked. So far 2 have deceased while in detention.
Former Minister of Trade (UK PhD graduate) lost his sight and former Minister of Oil (UK PhD graduate) is in extreme mental and physical trauma and the same fate to the former Minister of Culture.
The list confirms that 5 were sentenced to death, 2 for life and 7 for 15 years, while 8 are pending release (why pending?) and the balance of 20 are awaiting their sentence of vengeance!! This depravity by the Green Zone Government is conducted with the guidance and assurance by the US/UK administration. No-one in Whitehall has raised the question if the Iraqi people, having participated in these democratic elections in such high numbers then why are all government ministries not freely accessible by the population? Also, if the security is improving to the point that both the British and US administrations are intending to withdraw their troops, then one would ask why are the collaborators ministers families not residing in Iraq? (apart from the Kurdish warlords). Also for the UK provides at the tax payers' expense round the clock protection to former Iraqi Prime Ministers residences in Surrey and Middlesex and not in Iraq!! is not only absurd but undermining the very presence of British troops in harms way.
Unexpected change has taken place in the US and in order to halt a repeat of this tragic mistake is for all responsible officials on both sides of the Atlantic to right the wrong by calling for:
(i) Full independent public enquiry on events leading to the war.
(ii) Total withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.
(iii) Initiate negotiation with the resistance to occupation sooner.
(iv) Release of all detainees or those charged to be tried in a
court supervised by International observers and in accordance with the
international convention.
It is evidently clear that this war of terror is a product of failed unethical western policy rather than what is perceived as a clash of culture, or struggle between faiths!! I urge you to take a positive initiative in the interest of lasting peace and harmony.
Riad El-Taher, Chair.
Andy Worthington, London-based journalist and author of "The Guantánamo Files" (Pluto Press), has released the first definitive list of the 779 prisoners held in the US prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
The list, which is the result of three years' research and writing about Guantánamo, provides details of the 533 prisoners who have been released, and includes, for the first time ever, accurate dates for their release. It also provides details of the 241 prisoners who are still held, including the 59 prisoners who have been cleared for release. Although some stories are still unknown, the stories of nearly 700 prisoners are referenced either by links to Andy's extensive archive of articles about Guantánamo, or to the chapters in "The Guantánamo Files" where they can be found.
Links to the list:
Part 1 (ISNs 002 to 200):
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/guantanamo-the-definitive-prisoner-list-part-1/
and continues to -part-4
Andy Worthington says:
"It is my hope that this project will provide an invaluable research tool for those seeking to understand how it came to pass that the government of the United States turned its back on domestic and international law, establishing torture as official US policy, and holding men without charge or trial neither as prisoners of war, protected by the Geneva Conventions, nor as criminal suspects to be put forward for trial in a federal court, but as 'illegal enemy combatants.'
"I also hope that it provides a compelling explanation of how that same government, under the leadership of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, established a prison in which the overwhelming majority of those held -- at least 93 percent of the 779 men and boys imprisoned in total - were either completely innocent people, seized as a result of dubious intelligence or sold for bounty payments, or Taliban foot soldiers, recruited to fight an inter-Muslim civil war that began long before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and that had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or international terrorism."
About the author
Andy Worthington studied English Language and Literature at New College, Oxford. He writes regularly for the Guardian, the British human rights group Cageprisoners and the Future of Freedom Foundation. He has also written for the New York Times, Amnesty International, Index on Censorship, and many other publications. He also wrote the "Guantánamo Scandal" for the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia.
"The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America's Illegal Prison" is published by Pluto Press, and distributed in the US by Macmillan. http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/the-guantanamo-files
NATO and the French authorities are threatening to ban the international 'No to NATO, No to War' demonstration in Strasbourg on Saturday 4 April. NATO's 60th anniversary meeting will be held inside a Red Zone that encompasses the whole of the city centre. Even Strasbourg residents will need a special pass to come and go in their own city. Now the authorities are threatening to exclude the international peace demonstration from the city. The international coalition calling the demonstration are organising a wave of protest at this attack on the right to demonstrate. Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/nato/petition.html
Write to the President of France at http://www.elysee.fr/ecrire/
In February, British and French submarines loaded with nuclear weapons collided in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Both submarines are powered by nuclear reactors.
According to reports, the French submarine was able to return to its port under its own power; the British submarine was towed back to port.
British and French officials claim that this incident was a random accident caused by the extreme stealth capabilities of the submarines. However, the British sub suffered significant damage to the propeller area at the rear of the sub, and the French craft was heavily damaged at the front. Although some sceptics say that this could indicate a "rear-ending" caused by the French chasing the British sub, the French apparently did not at first realise they had hit a British sub, as the Defence Minister initially announced that the boat had "collided with an immersed object, probably a container, damaging its sonar dome.
SNP Westminster MP Angus Robertson called on the Ministry of Defense to "explain how it is possible for a submarine, carrying weapons of mass destruction, to collide with another submarine carrying weapons of mass destruction, in the middle of the world's second-largest ocean." John Large, a nuclear engineer and consultant, said navies often use the same "nesting grounds" for their subs. Commodore Stephen Saunders of Janes Fighting Ships expained that all submarines make less noise now. "The modus operandi is to operate as stealthily as possible. To maintain their low sonic profiles they do not use active sonar, which involves using the familiar pings to detect other vessels. Instead, they rely on passive sonar, listening for the noises generated by other submarines. Great efforts have been made to improve the quality of sonar, but its effectiveness has not kept up with advances in noise-quieting. That these subs. did not detect each other is perhaps a feature of how successful the UK and France - not to mention the US - have been in making their nuclear submarines quieter."
Regardless of the cause of the accident, the effect has been to draw the public's attention to the continuous movement of hundreds of nuclear warheads under the oceans, a policy left over from the Cold War.
Rachel Williams, Richard Norton-Taylor, "Nuclear Submarines Collide in Atlantic," and Sam Jones "Deep Silence - Avoiding Detection" The Guardian, February 17th, 2009
AND JUST IN CASE THAT HASN'T MADE YOU FEEL ANY SAFER - HERE'S A CO-INCIDENCE:--
The Guardian 21st March reports that "Two US navy vessels, one of them a nuclear-powered submarine, collided in one of the Middle East's key oil routes yesterday, slightly injuring 15 sailors. The collision in the straits of Hormuz, between Iran and the Arabian peninsula, occurred in darkness when the submarine was submerged. The craft, the USS Hartford, suffered no damage to its nuclear propulsion system, a spokesman said. The other craft, the amphibious USS New Orleans, suffered a ruptured fuel tank, resulted in the spillage of 95,000 litres of diesel fuel. Both vessels were heading in the same direction.
Dan Glaister, Los Angeles.
Newsletter Editor for this issue was Rosemary Addington.
Disclaimer: It is the nature of a newsletter like KPN that views cannot be sought on everything that appears herein, so views expressed are almost never the agreed opinion of the group.