NATO is, most Indy readers would surely agree, one of the main criminal organizations in the present day, along with the CIA or IMF. But there is a peculiar reluctance on our part to challenge the deeper rationale behind this existence of the 'alliance'. We are all familiar with the effects it has had, paticularly on Kosovo, but there it sems to end. Considering that NATO poses as big a threat to the world as does, say, the WTO, the protests have been comparatively muted, usually led by the more pacifist groups. But what does NATO intend ? In short, what is NATO there FOR ?
It is naieve to assume tht anti- capitalism and anti- militrism are comlementary yet separate struggles. Far from it, as Rosa Luxemberg pointed out in her magnum opus "The Accummulation of Capital" (1913), modern imperialism comprises both. The meeting in Vilnius was curious for it was not, as you might imagine, a bunch of snarling generals and colonels but a summit of POLITICAL representatives from NATO member states. NATO has political pretensions as well as military power. NATO is clearly trying to establish a pseudo- legit ideological agenda. Our very own Labour party George Robertson (the NATO sec-gen) berated the latest wave of new applicants (the last saw POland, Hungary and Czech Rep join in 1999) for their supposed lack of democratic credentials, which sounds good prima facia until you realise it may be a carte blanche to invade anywhere that doesnt come up to NATO's full approval rating. Like Russia perhaps.
Vilnius, you will note, is very near Russia on the Baltic coast. Apart from the Balkans, which NATO has turned into a radioactive hell, the Baltic is one of the most sensitive areas in Europe, centering around the Russian enclave of Kalinigrad (Konigsberg), ans which has seen NATO's frontiers reach Russia at this spot.
Although the ideological fear has gone from Russia, the capitalsim that has been restored there is far from stable. Already liberal opinion is detecting a "new Stalin" in President Putin ( see "Newsweek" magazine, or last night's "Arena" documentary, for example), and NATO is clearly not spreading anywhere else at the moment except eastwards, striaght towards Russia, perhaps only semi- consciuosly, for capitalism is not entirely rational after all...
The British left has not been consistently opposed to NATo; in 1999, some groups denied its political significance, others blatantly went along with it, still others such as the SWP spoke the language of anti- imperialism for a few months, then went back to their usual ways. "Globalize Resistance" openly silence people who try to speak out on the matter- why ?
Can it be that NATO, as a supra-nationl organization, rather undermines the conventional "Global capital " theory ? If there is one major industry that cannot be globalised, it is surely the armaments manufacturers. Whatever Mc Donalds is up to, Mc Donell Douglas stays at home.