Why is it important to protest NATO?

In Chicago this past weekend, May 20, 2012, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has just wrapped up a two-day summit. The issues on the table for most public ears were issues ranging from the Afghanistan War, Missile Defense Systems, and Syria.

NATO is a relic of the 20^th Century Cold War propaganda. Depending on which history textbook and from which country students studied in, the relevance of NATO’s purpose for existence ranges from pro-democracy rhetoric to US puppetry over European nations to Soviet watchdog, from aggressor to savior. But the Cold War is over. World War II is over, but the ripple effects of World War II politics still scars foreign policy, especially since the war-industrial complex is a profit builder for corporate monopolies that dominate the weapon industry.

When the Cold War ended, NATO should have dismantled. However, rather than dismantling, NATO began absorbing and pulling in former Soviet blocked nations. Still to this day, Russia is nervous about NATO expansion.

Every time NATO drops a missile or a bomb they use the US military monopoly Lockheed and Martin products. Lockheed and Martin seem to irresponsibly profit every time NATO or the US enter war activities. They also tip their weapons with Uranium. Uranium may create a visual shiny gloss on its weapon sitting at the base, but when such a weapon rains down on places such as Kosovo, Bosnia, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc, the immediate impact is sudden death to innocent casualties and the future impact after the explosion creates generational loss. Depleted soil, cancers such as leukemia, environmental and health impacts are still killing soldiers and civilians in each country that NATO has touched down on.

When NATO dropped bombs on Kosovo and Bosnia they killed as many people as the Serbian military leader Milosevich had in his genocidal rein. Soldiers who from either side cleaning up after the 1990’s conflict were exposed to high levels of radiation and many KFOR soldiers years after duty were diagnosed with leukemia when no previous family history to the cancer occurred. While soldiers received special attention, civilians who survived the atrocities of the conflicts continue to get ill with limited support services from NATO or Lockheed and Martin for the aftereffects of uranium exposure.  One can only imagine what will be noticed in Libya in the near future?

Since NATO is a Cold War relic intended for Europe, the relic should it choose to exist out of contradictions should have remained in its regional space. When conflicts in Afghanistan and Libya arise, these violent acts of war prove NATO’s true capacity for only adding fire and atrocities. Fighting fire with fire does not create speedy ends to conflicts, but instead historically increase the death toll and generational impact. NATO should not stray into areas that are outside its domain. This creates the image of imperialism and global policeman, not a humanitarian concern. If it chooses to be an exclusive club of capitalist align western powers, than it must remain in its initial domain.  Any involvement in Africa or greater Asia is a regional double standard.

On May 20, 2012, part of the protests of the NATO Summit in Chicago included Veterans Against War, an activist group, who during Sunday’s protest threw their medals of honor for serving in the Iraq War over the security fence of the summit reflecting frustration and disappointment. The symbolic act was a milestone in former soldier disillusionment with the conditions of war.

A month previous to the NATO Summit, Chicago hosted a more significant summit for world peace. The 12th World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates occurred in April 2012. At the summit key speakers included the Dalai Lama, Jody Williams, Muhammad Yunus, Frederik Willem de Klerk, President Jimmy Carter, and Mikhail Gorbachev.  One of the most reflective and important panel discussions included Willem de Klerk, who was the final prime minister of apartheid South Africa, Mikhail Gorbachev, the final leader of the Soviet Union, and Jimmy Carter. The message that these former leaders shared was that the world is in crisis and that great power has the opportunity to put away military might. They each have historically proven that there is another way to solve problems of violence than with adding additional force.

NATO could learn from de Klerk and Gorbachev. They each had been in the highest position of power in their respective regimes and saw a path to change history for more peaceful approaches. South Africa’s former leader worked with Nelson Mandela and knew that the oppressive force that controlled Southern regions of Africa, which included present day Namibia, could not continue. He could have chosen a path similar to former Yugoslavian leadership and chose a violent end; but de Klerk showed charisma and responsibility. He had the power at the time to make positive change and he did.

While William de Klerk found peaceful ways to end apartheid, former leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, chose an equally powerful means to achieve peace during the Cold War and did not resort to weapons of mass destruction. He took power and realized that another way was possible than to continue an oppressive system. At the Peace Summit in Chicago, Gorbachev spoke about the current need to change the global system that should be more inclusive. When asked about NATO he said "They should consider actually abandoning the whole project, not immediately liquidating NATO but gradually" (ABC News). Both key men are experts in seeing a failed system when there is a failed system in South Africa and the Soviet Union. Now both men see that the current state of the corporate global system is a failed system, and they believe another, more inclusive world is possible.

NATO is a relic from the Cold War and is outdated. It continues to get involved in conflicts outside of its own domain, and this does not necessarily lead to more peace; but instead, this has historically instigated additional atrocities adding higher unnecessary death rates, environmental degradation as catastrophic as Chernobyl, and risks the health of future generations with the continual push for violent means. The bottom line for NATO is the pockets of companies such as Lockheed and Martin who irresponsibly profit every time NATO drops US made bombs and missiles.