NATO turns 75: a peace alliance is needed

Next week NATO celebrates its 75th anniversary. More and more leftists seem to believe that Germany’s NATO membership is a good thing. It has been a long time since the Greens demanded that the Federal Republic withdraw from the militarized foreign policy of NATO and the USA and leave the military alliance. That was in their election manifesto in 1987.

“A desirable dissolution of NATO while simultaneously creating an alternative collective security system currently seems to be a long way off,” is how Sevim Dağdelen assesses the situation in her new book “Nato”. She has been a member of the Bundestag since 2005 and is now the foreign policy spokesperson for the “Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht – Reason and Justice”.

nd.DieWoche – our weekly newsletter

With our weekly newsletter nd.DieWoche look at the most important topics of the week and read them Highlights our Saturday edition on Friday. Get your free subscription here.

For Dağdelen, feeling protected by the North Atlantic Treaty is a myth from the old Federal Republic, when the population was made to fear the “communist East.” It should be noted that NATO was founded on April 4, 1949 and the Warsaw Treaty was only founded in May 1955 as a reaction to this. Two power blocs fought for influence in the Cold War, but also kept each other in check. When Gorbachev reached out for reconciliation because the USSR was economically overwhelmed by the arms race, it was understood across the Atlantic as a capitulation, an invitation to absolute world domination.

All of this is well known on the one hand and ignored on the other. There are already many thick books on geopolitical issues – the USA, NATO’s eastward expansion, Europe, the war in Ukraine. This one, with extensive annotations, comprises just 128 pages. It is a condensed, precise explanation of why the author does not want to celebrate the 75th birthday of the military alliance.

Is this really a defense alliance in the sense of international law, democracy and the rule of law, community of values ​​and human rights? Dağdelen judges NATO by its noble maxims, which it has continually betrayed in the past. Portugal, which was under fascist rule at the time, was a founding member; the military dictatorships in Greece and Turkey were not a moral problem at all.

The organizational model for the founding of the alliance was the “Inter-American Treaty of Mutual Assistance” of 1947, with which the USA established its influence in Latin America (and promoted many reactionary policy changes there). In NATO, too, the superpower USA gives the other states so-called security guarantees and demands political consent in return. “Within the military pact, the remaining NATO members are reduced to client states like those that once served as a military buffer zone in the east of the Roman Empire to maintain the Roman Empire’s power,” writes Dağdelen.

It’s good to have this slim book handy for reference. Twelve chapters, including an introduction and outlook, coherently summarize historical contexts and current aspects. Dağdelen underlines the dialectic of political action in the USA, which often leads to the opposite of what was intended. The decision is made to “devil come out” and we forget that every reaction results in a counter-reaction. The fact that the US presidents feel subjectively committed to democratic values ​​and believe in a higher mission of their country does not even have to be denied. But how the USA interferes in the affairs of other countries with this intention always leads to disaster and even to crime.

As absurd as it sounds: When the two power blocs saw each other as opponents in the Cold War and were forced to negotiate, there was a certain balance in the world. After the collapse of real socialism, the USA followed the motto “The Winner Takes It All” and pulled out all the stops. They wanted to continue to weaken Russia and actually forced it to become stronger. Dağdelen quotes the diplomat and historian George F. Kennan, who warned against NATO’s eastward expansion because it would fuel nationalist, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies among the Russian public. “With the recognition of Kosovo in 2008, the NATO states opened the door through which Russia subsequently went” in order to support declarations of independence (Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Donetsk, Luhansk).

Dağdelen calls the attack on Ukraine contrary to international law, but also recognizes Russian security interests. This proxy war is NATO’s biggest challenge since its founding. “The sheer volume of financial resources dwarfs everything that NATO states have previously used in wars and conflicts.” Compared to Russia, NATO spends 15 times as much on armaments. It goes without saying that military companies, especially those from the USA, benefit greatly from this. According to Dağdelen, this is not the first time in history that “Russia’s resources, war production and military learning ability are being massively underestimated.” The economic war, which is the focus of an entire chapter in the book, gave rise to alliances that could never have been imagined before. The West is losing its supremacy.

A “new thinking in the atomic age” – something Gorbachev once hoped in vain – is actually more necessary today than ever, on both sides. Instead of an alliance for war, one is needed for peace, Dağdelen calls for the courage to engage in diplomacy in order to end the economic war and return to disarmament. Because “instead of ruining the enemy, the sanctions are ruining your own country,” she emphasizes.

Sevim Dağdelen: NATO. A reckoning with the alliance of values. Westend, 128 pages, br., 16 €.
nd Literature Salon with Sevim Dağdelen on October 3rd, 6 p.m.

Subscribe to the “nd”

Being left is complicated.
We keep track!

With our digital promotional subscription you can read all issues of »nd« digitally (nd.App or nd.Epaper) for little money at home or on the go.
Subscribe now!