Political Resolution

on NATO's New Strategic Concept

 1. In November 2010 NATO's Annual Summit will take place in Lisbon. This moment is of great importance for two main reasons. One is the approval in that Summit of NATO's New Strategic Concept that will guide the army branch of imperialism in the coming years. The other is the holding of the Summit in Portugal will put NATO and the war issues on our national agenda.

 3. In the new post-Cold War order, the main enemy disappears but not the main function of political-military alliance: the defence of a model of state, economy and society (the Western capitalist democracies), and its role in keeping Europe involved and dedicated to global imperialism.

4. The strategic concept that prevailed during the 90s was inappropriate to reality. Dated from 1991 it was a document deeply marked by the bipolar order that started to collapse the same year. NATO's interventions during that decade (Bosnia in 92 and 95, Kosovo in 99), although devoid of an appropriate strategic concept, were perfectly integrated into the hegemonic ideology of the moment - the trinity of the End of History - democracy, market economy and world peace . The classification of these wars as ethnic and humanitarian crisis intended to include them in speech as the final models of resistance historically condemned.

5. From 1999 the new Strategic Concept compiles NATO's practices. Then emerged the out-of-area doctrine that extends the geographical scope of NATO's intervention to the periphery of the Euro-Atlantic region, and its introduced into the discourse the concept of multidimensional risks, starting the enlargement of the concept of defence to a gray area between defense and security.

6. The 9/11 (2001) marks a critical moment for the redefinition of NATO's role. Article 5, created especially considering an attack of the defunct East Bloc to Western Europe, ended up being invoked for the first time by the U.S. against an enemy difficult to identify: terrorism. This new fact strengthened the idea that the security of the Euro-Atlantic region demanded intervention beyond its borders.

7. Thus, the "faceless enemy" was situated geographically in Afghanistan for the purpose of military intervention. Under the direction of the U.S., the Alliance has embarked on a war named by many as the "second Vietnam." In 2003, inaugurated the concept of preventive defense, the U.S. launched a new assault on the Middle East, occupying Iraq. For this adventure it was no longer possible to achieve the consensus of all the allies, although the intervention was carried out by a coalition of states members of NATO.

8. These two wars were proof of the thesis on global imperialism, that states that the wars of the era of globalization are not clashes between the imperialist powers nor merely exceptions in a process of global peace: the war of the united imperialist powers against the peoples is part of the system's genetic.

9. In both operations, it was remarkable the divorce between public opinion and the governments who were involved in these wars. Iraq and Afghanistan proved to be two missions of high political and financial cost. Both Obama's victory and the defeat of the neo-conservatives in the U.S.A, as well as the fall of the Dutch government, are good examples of such costs.

10. Similar to what happened in the past, this new Strategic Concept comes to reconcile the reality of NATO's actions to its defining document. In other words, this text grants, a posteriori, the legitimacy that was absent or has been shaken in recent military interventions.

11. The environment in which this new concept is born is crucial: the world after 9/11. A world dominated by a security drift: the democratic pillar of the End of History was also shaken by restriction of freedoms and guarantees on behalf of the war on terror, of which the Patriot Act in the U.S.A was an example. A world in which political and economic costs of war forced imperialism to a face change to take on the appearance of multilateralism.

12. NATO claims the necessity of extend its field of legitimate intervention - extending the meaning of territorial defense - less defense of its borders, but a greater expansion of the concept of "border security" - neighbourhood policies and safer periphery.

13. The concept of threat was also extended: it can be used to name a threat or the need to monitor the conditions for the emergence of threats, such as identity tensions or internal crisis. There is a call for greater attention to cyber attacks (emphasising some shortcomings of Europe in this field), which allows to foresee the emergence of new instruments of social control, especially in a inflamed context of security alarm. Apart from cyber attacks it were identified as non-conventional threats: weapons of mass destruction, terrorist attacks and attacks on supply routes (which includes, inter alia, pipelines and shipping routes).

14. The attempt is, however, to fit all of this in art. 5, within the principle of the “indivisibility of security" within the Alliance (an attack on one is an attack on all, the members should consult each other to solve eventual problems). Likewise it doesn't want to lose its original justification of defensive alliance, it also does not want to be an organization of global vocation.

15. The preparatory documents for the summit call attention to the fact that "NATO is by no means the only answer to all problems affecting international security." It isn't a global organization, it is a regional organization whose financial resources are limited and subject to priorities. This means that NATO's intervention outside its borders, where it believes it has the right to intervene, only obeys to the criteria defined by its interests. Striking example is the invocation of climate change as one of the challenges that must be among NATO's concerns. In addition to this invocation there aren't any measures proposed to tackle environmental problems - it's just green imperialism marketing.

16. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan also demonstrated that one of the weaknesses of NATO could become the disagreement among its American and European members. It identifies several critical points in the Euro-Atlantic relationship: the lack of financial resources and the reluctance of Europeans to increase defense budgets, some uncertainties regarding Russia and its role in NATO and in the European defense architecture, but also about the limits of military action. Apart from these, other issues may evolve - or not - to stress points, such as the relations with Turkey and the nuclear policy.

17. But this is just one of several items identified as " Afghanistan lessons". Throughout the document is visible the awareness of the enormous political and financial cost that this war has meant, in part because it was related to the illegal intervention in Iraq. This is a burden that the U.S.A does not want (or can) bare alone. Imperialism has a global army, but its costs have been supported primarily by the U.S.A. Hence they make several "calls": to the unity among members, to the increase of financial contributions, to the need to show the people of each country the importance of NATO, to restrict the use of national caveats (national restrictions on participation in certain aspects missions).

18. In fact the political and economic commitment of the European states is considered insufficient. The U.S.A tends to examine the quality of its allies by its commitment to the security interests that they consider primary (Middle East, South-west Asia). There is a reminder of the fact that only six of the 26 European members spend more than 2% of GDP in the defense area. And the U.S.A worry that it seems some of the European allies went in Afghanistan more to preserve the alliance than because they consider the mission important for their own defense.

19. The preparatory documents for the Summit stress the fact that the Atlantic Alliance is the only contractual link between the U.S.A and Europe. However, they weave compliments to the Treaty of Lisbon, where the concern with the development of a European defense is stated (by increasing spending). The defense of Europe/EU is undeniably dependent on the U.S.A. In this context, the increased funding for defense resulting from the Lisbon Treaty should be seen, according to those documents, not as a challenge/alternative to NATO, but as a shared responsibility (financial) in the investment on defense and, not less relevant, a stimulus to the war industry.

20. On the topic of Euro-Atlantic relations, is symptomatic of Obama's absence at the EU-USA Summit in Spain. It was clear that the president of the U.S.A subjects the EU-US relations to the contractual link to the Alliance. He toured Europe under the guise of NATO Summit in Strasbourg-Kehl and only returns to Europe and participates in EU-US summit which coincides with the NATO summit.

21. NATO aims to be "the muscle and backbone of democracies." This means, in connection with the restatement of its regional character, the descending process of the EU's role in global economics and politics as well as the emergence of China-US G2 doesn't mean the weakening of Europe's role in Global Imperialism. Europe forms with a North American a military-political axis from which the power of the American and transatlantic bourgeoisie works in partnership with variable geometry with the other partners of the Global Imperialism.

22. The preparatory documents recognize the alliances, and the partnerships are valued as important, particularly for the success of actions outside the Atlantic area. Other partners, states or groups of states, are called to share responsibilities and costs. One such partners is Russia, the second military power, but also Japan, China, and Australia, among others, are required to maintain and/or develop partnerships. In spite of defending a unified command for the partnerships, they also defend their diversity and flexibility, according to the individual assessment of each case. The document goes as far as to claim that NATO in the next decade will not be the main protagonist in crisis scenarios.

23. The idea is therefore to increase the capacity of the organization in human and material resources, forming forces of rapid intervention, flexible and easily deployable. Also, civilian receive quite emphasis in this text. The same effort to increase the level of efficiency chairs the proposal of a pre-delegation of competence to the Secretary-General or the Military Command to act in case of emergencies and crises unconventional.

24. With the approval of this new Strategic Concept, NATO intends not only to legitimize its past practice, but also resolve all problems with legitimacy in the future. Assuming as a major reason of its existence the defence of a way of life, NATO considers itself a permanent need, which is independent of the existence of a real and current enemy. Considering itself as the "muscle and backbone of democracies," the very survival of the system is considered inseparable from the existence of NATO. That is, the Global Imperialism depend entirely on NATO as the military wing and of the partnerships it establishes with other actors of global imperialism.

25. NATO is the main military muscle of imperialism. In what concerns the democratic values, it has 61 years of practice, which proves that this is not its function. Since the beginning its practice denies the theory of the defense of democratic values: the so-called "democratic values" did not prevent the dictatorship of the Estado Novo to became a founding member. The disrespect for international law has never caused problems for the NATO action. The "general war on terror" of the Bush era has been replaced in the Obama era by a method that aims only to broaden the base of public support: warning for multiple unconventional threats and for the need for unity within the Atlantic Alliance.

26. It is noted that one of the " Afghanistan lessons" for the new strategic concept is that NATO must act "whenever possible" (though not necessarily) in a legal manner and with public support. This concern can be summed up in the need to keep the democratic appearance to public opinion "whenever possible" and to support all types of aggression that had already been the practice of NATO and its allies. This new strategic concept of NATO is a bomb in the UN Charter, a bomb on the basis of international law, an attack on democracy and freedom.

27. The Bloco de Esquerda has always assumed the acquis of the anti-militarist and anti-imperialists history. In addition to the defense against the specific aggression of imperialism (Afghanistan, Iraq, for example), the BE has been the only political force to defend unequivocally Portugal retry of NATO and the extinction of this organization. The gathering of the next NATO summit in Lisbon creates an opportunity to dispute the public opinion and open up new fronts in this fight, winning more people for this cause.

28. For these reasons, the members of the UDP should commit themselves, either within the BE either in the social movements mobilized for this cause, in order to achieve an alternative summit and other actions of struggle against NATO and imperialism.

UDP, September 11, 2010