Mr. Waterfield, an article I wholeheartedly agree with! In the united states of america (a NATO founding member), police shot and killed protesters at Ken State University in 1970. That’s but one example, police attacking and killing protesters has happened in several NATO countries.
Furthermore, I agree that NATO should be resigned to the dustbin of history (we Europeans alienate our neighbours due to this archaic organization).
I appreciated reading this commentary of yours.

I strongly oppose the view that NATO should be sent to the dustbin of history. Let’s take a look at the anti-globalization protests in Genoa in 2001: there was at least one protester shot by the Italian police. Let’s look at the protests against the Hungarian government in 2006. These are just two cases in two NATO-member countries. Has anyone called for the dissolution of NATO because some people died during the protests?

I wonder how would EU look like without NATO. Remember the Berlin Plus Agreement? To the best of my knowledge, this agreement allowed the EU to use NATO military capabilities whenever the EU needed them and NATO did not consider necessary to intervene. You may wish to read a 2004 statement of Lord Robertson, former NATO SG, in which he underlined the scarcity of EU resources in terms of long-haul air carriers and the need to have NATO as a reliable partner.

To Emile: if this may alleviate your against-NATO hunger, perhaps you should propose a binding referendum in each Member State and ask citizens whether they would like to see their country walking out from the Alliance.

To Andrei-such a referendum would not be a bad idea at all-I would imagine a fair few nations would reject NATO membership-if they don’t then so be it. The electorate of most nations were never consulted on joining, to the best of my knowledge.

“democratic freedoms and liberties” are all well and good, apart from when they are in reality used as a front for US economic and political interests. The wars in Afganistan had nothing to do with democracy or freedom, surely no one actually buys that rubbish. NATO originally served a purpose-to deter a belligernet Soviet Union from overruning Europe. This time however is gone. Russia may be trying to huff and puff and regain its superpower status, but while it is by no means a trivial threat, it is in no way the threat it used to be. It has neither the conventional military capability nor the political will to pose a serious military threat to Europe as a whole. The Russians have, I think, realised that its a lot easier to do business with people than shoot them.

With the removal of NATO’s sole raison d’etre, what is left? Maybe I am missing something, if so feel free to enlighten me.

@Peter Sain ley Berry

“This is one of the foundations that couples Europe and America in the defence of democratic freedoms and liberties. We break that link at our peril.”

Two wars with hundreds of thousand dead, millions refugees, almost daily drone bombings in various other countries that kill countless bystanders, prepping up countless dictators in the name of “stability” to the detriment of their populations, paying off and arming every murdering warlord in Afghanistan that will say that he opposes the Taliban again for the sake of “stability” to the detriment of the population, shipping around suspects to torture centers, camps for indefinite detention without trial, meddling in the legal system of various European states to avoid war crimes and torture prosecutions and a US legal system that does not investigate any of this and gives the victims little or no legal recourse to challenge these state actions against them.

Europe has been complicit in many of these policies either through active participation or by looking away or by lending support in private while denouncing in public. Europe needs to decide if it wants to live up to any kind of human right ideals or if it wants to continue to be the extended arm of an imperial US foreign policy.

NATO…an organization which embraced such Fascist Dictators as Antonio Salazar. What noble beginnings, such admirable values and principles…NATO IS A JOKE!!!

Is there a source for this, or is it just how the author remember things being said?

Whatever NATO was before the end of the Cold War any historian can see that it and its host of little allies have become a new feudal system with minor states sending soldiers to fight for their overlord in his foreign adventures in exchange for cash and benefits. It has no interest in human rights unless they can be used to destabilise a nation that does not cooperate. Dick Marty described Kosovo as “a black hole” as far as human rights were concerned in 2007.

Europe requires enough force to make quite sure that Russia does not get fresh with the Baltic States and that is about it. Above all it does not need unneccessary tension on its borders with Russia just to suit the Republican majority in Congress. It has no interest of any kind in Afghanistan.

As General de Gaulle wanted a long ago, it is time to get rid of it before we get dragged into more wars for US imperialism and business interests.

If we need oil or gas we just pay for it because they, whoever they are, surely have to sell it to live.

Dear Klaus,

Try reading Bruno Waterfield’s excellent post above and you will find the answer.

If Europe does not like NATO then why do they not provide for their own security. The onlyreason the US is there is at the request of those nations who want protection while proclaiming neutrality. The US would be more than happy to leave thus saving billions of dollars yearly. Come all ye Germans, French, English, Italians, Greeks and others gather round and come up with your own armed forces.

To Pedro:
I have yet to see the Germans take orders from the French, the French to trust the Italians or the Greeks to carry out any mission.

TO TED WILSON: I have yet to see Texans take orders from the Californians, the Californians to trust the Floridians or the Alaskans to carry out any mission…although I have no doubt it is a daily occurance.

We know that during the Cold War, NATO was responsible for secretly organising a number of fascist armies (Operation Gladio). In 1990, the European Parliament reportedly called for an investigation. Has NATO yet revealed the full details of what went on and why? And has it given credible assurances that it won’t encourage fascism in future? If not, I see no reason why any of us should tolerate our countries remaining part of this alliance, whose main purpose seems to be to perpetuate US hegemony over Europe.

Their were people armed with guns in that crowd in Tirana – pictures were published in the papers. And members of the crowd were attacking the police with sticks and throwing stones at them – there were people looking for trouble there, although certainly not everybody was. It’s hard to imagine Danish protesters behaving similarly, but if they did and attempted to enter government buildings by attacking the police, I wouldn’t be surprised if the police response would be similar to that occurred Albania. This was more than a protest against living conditions – whether the opposition politician who called it was hoping it would turn into a coup is still an open question.

As for the Kent State killings in the US, those were not police but members of the National Guard, who were not trained for crowd control. Changes were made in training after as a result, and what was learned is offered as part of the training offered to foreign police. Why do you think the Serb police no longer attack protesters but only protect themselves? They’ve been getting money from the US for a decade for training in crowd control, among other things.

To Pedro’s comment 18: you can google all those names and you’ll find that they are real, but never been tested. What about Yugoslavia in the 90s, a conflict on EU’s backyard? Kosovo 1999 or the FYROM on the brink of civil war at the begining on 2000s? Where were the brave EU forces? In which major conflict have they been involved and managed to resolve it successfully? Where are the EU soldiers deployed and take part in bringing stability in war-torn countries/regions? Have you forgot about the national caveats? In Afghanistan, who is fighting? The US, Canada, UK, the Netherlands, Germany and a few others. Is anyone talking about EU being there? Wishful thinking… As Ted Wilson rightly says in comment 17, I really wonder if any EU MS will kindly ask the US to remove its military bases from their territory.

TO ANDREI: I am confident that the men and women of our armed forces are more than capable of defending the European Union against anyone!! ANYONE!!! NATO can take a hike…..

Pedro :TO TED WILSON: You may wish to Google “European Union Battle Groups,” “Eurocorps,” “European Rapid Reaction Force,” etcetera, etcetera.

If he did, there would be little of anything to see. NATO’s purpose is to guaruntee the stability of Europe. If you want that to end, sobeit. Vote on it. A continent made opoplectic by bean sprouts, or Putin getting his rocks off playing with the gas valve should do rather well on its’ own.

NATO, in the case of the balkans, was a vehicle by which the initally reluctant, but later aware European states could take the lead on the issue from the US without making it look like they were going it alone. Something that was an embarassment to ignore in their own back yard.

NATO’s role in Afghanistan is a result of Europeans’ need to look involved in something, having taunted America for years about “going it alone” without them.

Libya, on the other hand, is a direct product of European involvement. The DDR’s Stasi formed their domestic intelligence establishment, trained their cretins, and managed to make it a self-sustaining oppression mechanism, just as they did in Yemen, with the Sandanistas, the Sindero Luminoso, and in other garden spots of the world – not to mention the training of PFLP, PLO, Red Army Faction, Red Brigade terrorists that formed the core skillset and knoledge base that today’s civilian-targetting murderers are working with today.

Otherwise conversations with Europeans on defense is a tale of adolescent passive-aggressive psychological behavior, with invective heaped on their allies and one another, for the simple reason that they know that the criticism will never be publicly returned to them.

Do you really believe the US, Canada, Australia, etal, really enjoy having to put up with the decades of disinvolved harangueing and the village mentality it displays? Do you think repeating the same stale stock phrases about “the only country ever to use an atom bomb” are meaningful after decades of thoughless repetition?