(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
25. In May, NATO's top commanders gathered for a four-hour meeting in the new headquarters in Brussels, which cost over 10 billion. They celebrated their military strength with the war aviation parade, and spawned enemy images by showcasing bits of both the Berlin Wall and the World Trade Center in New York. The top commanders formally approved NATO's participation in the fight against IS, an extension and strengthening of the war on terror launched by President Bush after 11. September 2001. membership
the figure was extended to 29 countries, despite a very strong civil resistance in Montenegro. The demand for member states that two percent of GDP should go to military purposes (of which at least 20 percent for equipment) was knocked out in particular by the US president, who demanded a more even distribution of burdens. And rumors were that Stoltenberg, for its part, would like to increase to 3 – 4 percent. For Germany, an increase of 2 percent means an increase from 34 to 69 billion, and for Europe in total it means an increase from 200 to over 300 billion. The military industry is overjoyed, but in a situation of high unemployment and precarious situations for many – not least among young people – the upcoming cuts in education, health and environmental budgets are hardly something that neither promotes sustainable development nor counteracts terrorism.
Counter-reactions. During the NATO Summit, the Belgian and international peace movements organized a counter-meeting with a number of prominent peace activists who discussed various measures to promote both peace and human security. They believe that NATO must be disbanded, justifying the fact that the organization has changed away from its original purpose: it does not promote our security at all, but only benefits the war industry, arms dealers, war profiteers and those who make a living from creating false security. . NATO's thinking is simply outdated and ripe for the scrap heap of history. Expenditure on NATO and militarization was set against the basic needs of the 65 million people on the run, the many millions who are now at risk of starvation and those suffering from war and hardship in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Mali and elsewhere in Africa. It was especially emphasized that the incitement against Russia and Muslims, respectively, must stop. In various ways, it was emphasized that one must promote cooperation and not confrontation. The old slogan "Common security, or no security" was again brought up. One must not legitimize the war industry and NATO by creating images of enemies and fears.
Many were concerned about how the large multinational companies and NATO were reducing the UN's importance and job opportunities. However, there is hope for better co-operation between the UN and civil society that the new UN Secretary-General, the former Portuguese Prime Minister António Guterres, is so aware of the importance of preventing violence and war and wants to strengthen the work of disarmament. NATO's insistence on deterrence using nuclear weapons and the fact that it will not take part in the ongoing UN negotiations on a nuclear ban, and even invokes the right to the first use of nuclear weapons, is one of the main arguments against the alliance.
One must not legitimize the war industry and NATO by creating images of enemies and fears.
The day before the summit, more than 12 people marched in the streets of Brussels under the auspices of Belgian and international peace organizations. The Belgian organization Vrede, together with the network "No to War – No to NATO", had also joined a number of women's, environmental and development organizations in a peaceful, colorful, young and creative demonstration train. The mood was high, people were happy to come together against the war machinery NATO now constitutes. The participants expressed anger that leading politicians, supported by the media, choose to promote enemy images and militarization at a time when social inequalities are growing so rapidly, and young people who have no choice – especially young men – can be recruited into fundamentalism. Instead of spending money on a totally failed war on terror, the desire was expressed to improve the world's security by meeting people's needs for education, food, work and a life of dignity. The posters and slogans were clear: "Fund peace, not war". "Drop Trump, not bombs." «Make peace great again». "No peace possible with NATO".
Peace organizations want to reach people with information that the danger of terrorism only increases the more we fight: Instead of seeking a military security that does not work, that is destructive and also destroys the environment, we must work out concrete strategies to build human security.
Norwegian conditions. I presented the situation in Norway, and showed how we break with previous Norwegian foreign policy by not supporting the UN's work to get a nuclear ban, and by accepting more American intelligence in the north and a US military base in Trøndelag where war materiel is also stored. We let large NATO troops practice close to the Russian border and build a border fence against Russia, and we participate in NATO's out-of-areawarfare, partly attempted disguise as training, and considering possible participation in NATO's missile shield. At the same time, I emphasized Norway's previous status as a country of peace, as a driving force in the work of promoting human security (among other things through the Lysøen Declaration from 1998) and as a friendly country that understood the importance of a strong UN.
