(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
NATO has played its historical role, and is overpowered to shut down. When NATO was established in 1947, very few people imagined that the alliance would become a military force with Norway in tow.
The 8. and 9. In July, NATO organized a summit in Warsaw, and peace organizations gathered under the tab No to war – no to NATO seizes the opportunity to demonstrate an alternative security policy that is not based on deterrence and military power. Peace should be based on measures to build a common security. The Left Party Die Linke in Germany promotes 17. July a parliamentary proposal to liquidate NATO – obviously not in the belief that they will get a majority in the first place, but they consider it important to start a debate on security in Europe as the Cold War rhetoric continues to become more dangerous and frightening. Perhaps the US presidential election will help foster such debate in several countries.
The Norwegian government is working on both a long-term plan for the Armed Forces and a message on Norwegian security policy: "New road choices". However, there is an imminent danger that "new" will consist in a stronger focus on security policy in our foreign policy. Few have so far acknowledged that NATO has played its historical role and should be shut down. NATO was presented to the Norwegian people as a transatlantic defense alliance. Very few people imagined that the alliance would become a military force operating in Asia and Africa with Norway in tow. Up-to-date information is needed for the Norwegian people about what the alliance stands for today. The new book from Progressive Publishing, Security policy choices. Fate partnership with the United States and NATO, comes timely for such a discussion.
Naivete. NATO was established in 1947 as a Western military defense alliance against what was perceived as expansionary Soviet communism. In 1955, the Soviet Union responded by establishing the Warsaw Pact. The world went into an arms race with very heavy military spending. The distrust between East and West grew, and the Cold War was a fact. When the Soviet Union disbanded, the Warsaw Pact was abolished. The rationale for NATO was gone. But instead of laying himself down, NATO developed a new concept that allowed for intervention outside its own territory – so-called preventive – without being attacked, and not necessarily with the approval of the Security Council. This was formalized as NATO's out-of-area strategy in 1999. At the same time, the alliance began recruiting former Eastern European countries. Now, NATO has 28 member states and several are in line. The alliance is distant from its origins.
Norway has traditionally understood that our security depends on us being regarded as a peaceful and friendly country, and that we are part of a strong UN. Now, however, we are going to show muscle instead, with the ambition of being so militarily strong that we can defend ourselves against a great neighbor. How naive can you get?
If we want a defense that is not to be used in attacks and war, but which can help solve urgent community tasks and crisis management along our elongated coast, then coastguard and homeland protection and a decentralized settlement pattern with people who are happy in their home are needed, and contributing to food security and willingness to defend. Such a defense is hardly compatible with NATO's interests.
NATO stands for armament. At the 2013 NATO Summit in Wales, it was decided that member countries should use two percent of their gross domestic product for military purposes. Such an excessive investment in the military is a direct prey from people who do not even have enough to survive. The Stockholm Institute for Peace Research (SIPRI) has just released its annual figures for the amount of resources used for military purposes: Around $ 1700 billion, and only in official figures. 10 per cent of military spending will far outweigh the needs the UN has outlined in order to achieve the sustainability goals the world has set for the period 2016-2030. Today, the world's military budget is over 600 times larger than the UN's regular budget, and at the UN's first World Conference on Humanitarian Issues in Istanbul recently concluded, there is screaming for more resources.
I would like my Northern Norway to become a carpet bombing arena.
Not learned by Libya. Norway is involved in military interventions, and conducts war training in several Muslim countries with subsequent refugee problems and the danger of reprisals and terrorism also on Norwegian soil. We do not seem to care about the blurred boundaries in the alliance between the United States' global superpower interests and those of other NATO countries. We buy 52 very advanced bombers, and thus become a country that plans bombing raids. Is there no lesson to be learned from our bombing in Libya?
NATO promotes scares and stiffened enemy images. This complicates the escalation of conflicts, reduces the importance of the UN in the security field, and weakens respect for international law. NATO also helps to blur the boundary between humanitarian work and military intervention, with the subsequent danger to humanitarian personnel. The old Roman thinking that says if you want peace, prepare for war, is still used unrestrained by both politicians and the media. The media message says that the world is dangerous and that military means are needed for our security. But we should not soon conclude that there is no military solution to today's conflicts – after so many failed "operations", mass killings of civilians, torture, political chaos, civil rights violations, radicalization and increased feedback in the form of terrorism and people. on the run?
Will not get rid of nuclear weapons. By building military infrastructure and surveillance capabilities close to the border by incorporating former Soviet states into NATO, and by holding major military exercises closer to the Russian border than ever, traditional trade and traditional relations are undermined. Trust and friendship are weakened. Uncertainty and danger of war are increasing. The Ukraine crisis must be said to have come at a favorable time for a stiffened NATO in need of rising in the wake of mistakes and fads in several Muslim countries. Our geography is firm, and it is important for peace and freedom in our area that Norway manages its neighborhood with Russia in an intelligent way. Superpower interests should not cause us conflicts we cannot control.
The Alliance has more nuclear weapons than anyone else. They are being upgraded and modernized these days – including those that the US stores in Europe, in Germany, Turkey, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium. According to NATO's nuclear weapons policy, the right to use nuclear weapons is invoked first, that is, without being attacked with nuclear weapons. NATO membership is said to prevent Norway from participating in the work of stigmatizing, banning and abolishing nuclear weapons. Over 130 countries are participating in this work. It must be allowed to ask what a peace nation really is, if it cannot even work actively to get rid of the world's worst weapons of mass destruction that can destroy both humanity and the globe many times.
If we are attacked. Paragraph five of NATO statutes promises that if one country is attacked, the other countries in the alliance will come to the rescue. But what kind of help? And how fast will it possibly come? Will the country be bombed and together as we have seen elsewhere where NATO has joined? I would like my Northern Norway to become a carpet bombing arena. A war between the West and Russia with the weapons that exist today will be insane. A stronger Nordic region with Russia as neighbor and partner, on the other hand, will be a good investment in our common future. In addition, it will be hoped that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the OSCE, will have greater opportunities to be an active driver of a Europe without artificial dividing lines.
