Whoever calls for the abolition of NATO or steps in this direction will face the argument, which calls itself “realistic”, that this is a utopia and a futile attempt to rehearse the thinking of the unthinkable. It is forgotten or suppressed that the founding of NATO was an act of political will, so that it can be abolished by political will. It is true that NATO has been able to maintain a fragile situation of non-war between the superpowers in the high phase of systemcompetition and mutual armament by maintaining the “balance of terror”. This is thanks to the rational behaviour of both sides in a situation that is fundamentally irrational and extremely unstable.
It is often forgotten that it was this situation of dozens of ability to mutual and planetary annihilation that led to its rational processing — the CSCE process. It contributed significantly to the implosion of the Soviet-led camp, mainly through his Basket III (Human Rights, Freedom of Expression). The culmination of this process, the 1990 Paris Charter, to which it will be to come back, opened up the opportunities for a new world order, as outlined even by then US President George Bush on the eve of the Second Gulf War:
From these difficult times, our fifth goal— a new world order — can emerge. A new era, freefrom the threat of terror, stronger in the enforcement of justice and more secure in the search for peace. An era in which the nations of the world can prosper and live in harmony in the east and west, north and south. Hundreds of generations have been searching for this hard-to-find path to peace. (…) Today, this new world is struggling to be born, a world that is completely different from what we knew. A world in which the rule of law replaces the right of thumb. (…) a world in which the strong respects the rights of the weaker.
Twenty years have passed since this memorable confession. But what about the safety of the planet since then?
1. Security — a utopia?
With an undertone of ridicule, socio-political design proposals are disqualified as utopias if they contradict the interests of the rulers. But utopias have often become a reality. Thomas Hobbe’s design of a state in which the state of anarchy, the violence of all against all, was to be replaced by a state monopoly on violence, became the basis of the absolutist state and all its successors to this day.
Wasn’t the establishment of democracy also a utopia? It was won in the French Revolution and the American War of Independence and is now regarded as the goal of legitimate statehood par excellence. Did it not appear, just over twenty years ago, that the end of bipolarity and the possible creation of a peace order in Europe were a utopia?
If the real behaviour of the States does not refer the Charter of the United Nations to the realm of utopia, even though it is the case with international law, the experience of the atrocities of the Second World War and the will of the peoples to make war a final means of politics have arisen. to outlaw. It is no coincidence that the planning and conduct of an attack war in the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal has been described as a “crime against humanity”. It is also no coincidence that this very wording has found its way into the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Against the terrible background of the two world wars, the Charter of the United Nations declares that its
to protect future generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought unspeakable suffering upon humanity, our belief in the fundamental rights of man, in the dignity and value of the human personality, in the equality of To reaffirm (…) social progress and a better standard of living in greater freedom, both large and small.
Has this not enshrined the utopia of a world without war, at least as a principle of international law, even if the rulers are increasingly reluctant to abide by this text of the Treaty, article 2(4) of which reads:
All members shall refrain in their international relations from any threat or use of force directed against the territorial integrity or political independence of a State or otherwise incompatible with the purposes of the United Nations.
Utopia, which has become the legal norm, represents a milestone in the progress of human development, to an increase in civilization. The “utopia” of a world without war, enshrined in the UN Charter, has its roots in the philosophy of the great enlightener Immanuel Kant, who recognized that only the elimination of military threats can secure peace in the long term. In his treatise “From Eternal Peace” he named the conditions under which humanity can very well find a universally valid peace based on reason. In addition, the preliminar article 3:
“Standing armies should stop all along with time.” For they constantly threaten other states with war; by the willingness to always appear equipped to do so; if they encourage each other to excel in the multitude of armed people who know no bounds, and by the costs of peace at last becoming even more oppressive than a short war, they themselves are the cause of wars of aggression in order to get rid of this burden (… ).
How much more must this demand apply to “defence alliances”, whose concentrated power is even more threatening than that of individual states! Military alliances, by their simple existence, pose a threat to all those who do not belong to their members. This leads to the logical argument that the military alliance that dominates the world, NATO, should be abolished not for moral reasons, but for the sake of international security.
It would be conceivable that the alliance would be dissolved by decision of its members or its gradual dismantling. This could be initiated either by the withdrawal of members, as provided for in Article 13 of the NATO Treaty. Or by strengthening the UN and developing and upgrading regional systems of mutual collective security systems, so that the alliance, which is now threatening its non-members worldwide and incites them to rearmament, would be rendered obsolete.
2. The NATO
A look back is indispensable to remember the meaning and purpose of this alliance. NATO became a militarised expression of the system conflict between two different social orders (3) which developed after the end of World War II in 1949.
The political expression of the emerging bipolar system was the Truman Doctrine of 12 March 1947, which formulated the antagonism of the incompatible orders by putting “freedom” against “totalitarianism”, thereby establishing the United States ‘ Containment policy, which became the foundation of the Cold War. The core set of this doctrine was:
If they help free and independent nations to preserve their freedom, the United States will implement the principles of the United Nations.
The Truman Doctrine followed the establishment of the North Atlantic pact in 1949. The Soviet Union as the weaker counterpart tried in turn to become a member of the Alliance, so as to avoid that this would pose a threat. When this was rejected, the USSR long hesitated to create a corresponding alliance as a military counterweight against NATO, possibly because it was aware of the destabilising consequences of a counter-alliance. At the same time, however, in view of the perceived threat posed by NATO, it pushed for rearmament.
When the membership of the Federal Republic of Germany, created in violation of the Potsdam Agreement, was placed on the international agenda, Josef Stalin tried to prevent Germany’s remilitarization and its integration into NATO by offering the establishment of German armed forces, the reunification of Germany and free elections, but calling for the neutralization of such a united Germany.
Together with the non — aligned Yugoslavia, the neutral states of Austria, Switzerland, Sweden and Finland, this would have created a Cordon sanitaire between the blocs in Europe-a proposal that the Polish Foreign Minister, Adam Rapacki, had developed at the time and presented to the UN assembly in 1957 and which was later put into discussion by Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme. Even in the CDU, Stalin’s proposals were of great interest at the time, but Chancellor Adenauer eventually prevailed with his pro-American course: the Stalin notes were rejected by the Western governments.
The Federal Republic of Germany’s accession to NATO in 1955 was then the occasion for the Soviet Union to establish a military pact for its part: the Warsaw Treaty Organisation (WVO). The militarization of the system conflict was perfect.
NATO, however, was really only an outward-oriented Alliance to defend against a real or perceived threat from the East? In 1949, the Soviet Union, which, with more than 20 million war deaths and the almost total destruction of its infrastructure, had borne the main burden of the war against Nazi Germany, was not a military power threatening the United States.
Too little has been observed in the internal political Dimension of NATO’s founding, although the Truman doctrine, named the system conflict between the antagonistic social orders, Not only in Greece and Turkey, Communist parties and movements were strong, this was also the case in Western Europe, where in Italy the Communist party was close to reaching a democratically legitimated majority, where in France with a strong Communist party against the restoration of a free capitalist order.
Against this background, the question arises as to whether the fear of a system change in western Europe was one of the decisive factors in the establishment of the North Atlantic pact, since the change from the Morgenthau Plan to the marshal Plan shows a fundamental paradigm-change of US foreign policy towards Europe.
This thesis is supported by the creation of military secret organizations such as Gladio, initiated by the United States. Their beginnings date back to 1940. In 1947, the newly founded CIA began building “Stay behind Armies” in western Europe.
The structure of these organizations is based on the directive of the National Security Council of the United States of 18 June 1948, which created an “office for special projects” to carry out covert operations “in the areas of Propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct actions such as Sabotage, counter-sabotage, destruction (…)”.
Immediately after the establishment of NATO, this Instrument, which, in cooperation with the British MI6, was to serve as a defence against communist overthrow in western Europe, was integrated into NATO under the name of “Clandestine Planning Committee (CPC)”. The CPC held its secret command post at NATO headquarters in Mons, Belgium. Where Gladio-(similar) structures have been uncovered, such as in Germany, Austria, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, and especially Italy, there were Connections to extreme right-wing organisations, intelligence services and part of the Mafia. In this respect, this is not without some logic, since it was a question of preventing the Democratic takeover of power or even coalition of civil parties with the left, and thus, above all, defending the existing economic order.
Both in Italy and the Federal Republic of Germany, the organization was based on old fascist structures. The German Federal Intelligence Service, which originated from the Nazi espionage service “Fremde Heere Ost”, was also involved. Gladio was also active in neutral Austria and remained active even after the conclusion of the state treaty in which Austria declared itself neutral. One of Gladio’s focal points was Italy, where the organization cooperated with both the secret services and (neo-)fascist organizations and the Mafia. The structures of Gladio in Germany, where the right-wing Confederation of German youth was involved in the network, are to be finally dissolved in 1991.
It is extremely scarce to Point to the conspiracy theoretical findings is demonstrated by the fact that the European Parliament after a debate on the 22. November 1990, passed a resolution in which it sharply protested against the fact that
a secret communications and armed action organisation has been in existence in several community member states for forty years,
it was headed by the intelligence services of the states concerned in cooperation with NATO,
military intelligence services (or branches of intelligence not controlled by the services) in certain member states are associated with serious acts of terrorism and crime, as demonstrated in several judicial investigations,
the various departments of the “GLADIO” from military arsenals and structures of supply, the Autonomous, and thus an unknown and for the democratic structures of the countries in which they operate or operated, dangerous attack capacity.,
certain American military circles of the SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe) and NATO have the right to establish a secret infrastructure in Europe for the transmission of messages and the implementation of actions
The existence of Gladio, which would be worth further extensive research, underscores the thesis that NATO was not just a purely military defence alliance against a military threat from the East, but an organization whose core tasks included the preservation of the capitalist order in the sphere of influence of the United States even before the establishment of the Atlantic alliance.
This Thesis also explains why the “defense Alliance” was not abolished with the real Implosion of socialism and the end of bipolarity, but after 1990, new tasks such as the reorganisation of the Balkans, the hedging of (oil)transportation routes in the Horn of Africa by means of the Operation Enduring Freedom and the war in Afghanistan, which should in turn ensure the construction of Pipelines from the Caspian basin to the Indian ocean.
So much speaks for the Thesis of Jürgen Wagner that NATO stands for “a completely new Form of colonial policy”, as implemented by the wars in the Balkans, in Iraq and Afghanistan. As evidence of his thesis, he quotes, among others, Carlo Masala from the NATO Defense Academy:
After successful military Intervention, the ‘conquered’ areas are transformed into protectorates, and the Western community of states is striving to introduce liberal political systems, the rule of law and free market economy in these areas.
In summary, it can therefore be stated that the official reasons for the existence of NATO during the first forty years of its existence have now been eliminated. Is it only now that your true nature is revealed? Paragraphs 24 and 25 of the newly defined strategic approach define:
In the case of an armed attack on the territory of the allies, from whatever direction always, find articles 5 and 6 of the Washington Treaty. However, the security of the alliance must also take into account the global context. Security interests of the alliance may be affected by other risks of a broader nature, including acts of terrorism, Sabotage and organised crime, and the interruption of the supply of vital resources. The uncontrolled movement of a large number of people, in particular, as a result of armed conflicts, can also pose problems for security and stability of the Alliance (…).
The Alliance is committed to a broad-based political-security approach, the importance of political, economic, social and environmental acknowledges the political factors in addition to the indispensable defence dimension (…).
These agreements contain everything that NATO, once presented as a regional system of collective defence, will in future be defined as security-relevant and as its mission: “new risks” of any kind, including economic, social and environmental problems, Migration, terrorism and international crime, to cybercrime, and this worldwide, and, as the Secretary-General of NATO claims, in the service and for the benefit of the United Nations.
It seems almost grotesque that the problems caused by the rampant capitalist mode of production are now to be made the subject of military conflict management, or that, in sharp terms, the problems produced by neoliberalism are not dealt with in any way in a civil way, but that their consequences are to be shot.
3. World without NATO?
With the beginning of the decline and gradual disintegration of the Soviet Union and foreign policy of Mikhail Gorbachev, the end of the bipolar system seemed to be finally achieved, and the signatory states to the Charter of Paris, which concluded the “conference for security and cooperation in Europe”, which began on 1 August 1975, adopted on 21 November 1990, the principles of the UN Charter and the provisions of Article 2 of the charter.
( … ) Now that Europe is at the beginning of a new age, we are determined to expand and strengthen friendly relations and cooperation between the states of Europe, the United States of America and Canada and to promote friendship between our peoples. ( … ) In accordance with our obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and the Helsinki Final Act, we renew our solemn promise to abstain from any threat or use of force directed against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state or any other act incompatible with the principles or objectives of such documents. (…)
We reaffirm our commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes. We decide to develop mechanisms to prevent and resolve conflicts between participating states.“
It was therefore decided to establish a regional system of mutual collective security. Mutual and common security should be ensured through the organisation for security and cooperation in Europe (OSCE) resulting from the CSCE negotiations.
Thus, NATO had become obsolete just as much as the WVO, which dissolved itself as a result of this process. Europe was understood as the geographical Europe “from the Atlantic to the Urals”, to which Russia belonged without question.
Despite the transatlantic ties and the membership of the United States and Canada in the OSCE to be established, Europe was seen as an independent actor, because the role of the United States was understood as a companion rather than a core of what was then euphorically celebrated in the media as “the common House of Europe”, the charter declared.
We want a Europe based on Peace, open to dialogue and cooperation with other countries and ready for exchange, and which is involved in the search for common security.
The realization of these principles and objectives could have been a caesura in World History: Europe as an independent and, above all, a peace-oriented force in which the former European member states of NATO and the WVO had found their place.
However, the almost simultaneous 2+4 treaty, which was the result of the dissolution of the blocs and as late fulfilment of the Potsdam Agreement constituted a peace treaty between the allies and Germany, laid the basis for the dismantling of the “common house”, which was designed on the drawing board: according to this treaty, the former GDR, which joined the FRG, became part of the NATO area, even though-at least until 1994-only the German territorial army, i.e. no federations integrated into NATO, should be stationed on its territory.
Just a few months after the dissolution of the WVO, the NATO countries adopted at their summit in Rome in November 1991, a new strategic concept. They reaffirmed the doctrine of deterrence — against whom? - and the alliance’s Option on the first use of nuclear weapons.
Here, there is a heavy responsibility on the governments of the European states, which preferred to remain under the umbrella of US dominance, rather than taking the opportunity to build a genuine European house, as Charles de Gaulle had already postulated in the early 1960s with his Vision of a Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals.
With its newly defined global responsibility, NATO is not only a threat to the Rest of the world, it continues to cement an east-West opposition that has become obsolete with the Implosion of the WVO and the transition of Russia to a precarious democracy-which is by no means perfect in many other Eastern European states and new NATO members — and a brutal
The fact is: there is no more system contrast. Russia’s exclusion therefore seems to be more of a maintenance of an enemy image that has served well in the past, but is now seeking to maintain a security dilemma that is historically outdated. The absurdity of this confrontation — even if it is reduced to the military to criticize even the NATO security experts.
It would be naive to believe that with the abolition of NATO, even the military as an Instrument of state-directed external violence would have disappeared. But just like Andreas Buro and Martin Singe, I see the tremendous progress that there is no more overpowering military power that could enforce their “ordeals” by force. This would lead to:
The compulsion to come to negotiated solutions would be greater. Steps towards mutually verifiable disarmament would be easier.
Confidence-building measures of different kinds were given substance and would develop mutual catalytic effects.
Not with, but only after the NATO in 2009 by then-US President Barack Obama in Prague, demanded the abolition of all nuclear weapons and other horrific weapons of mass destruction — would be possible.
-The evolving multipolar order would be freed from the otherwise inevitable pressure to militarize.
In particular, The creation of regional systems of mutual collective security would be facilitated, its momentum is accelerating and the return of the world of States to the spirit and letter of the UN Charter possible.
- And ultimately: immense resources would be released step by step and could be used for the benefit of humanity and nature.
It goes without saying that NATO must not be replaced or replaced by other multilateral structures, such as the former EU constitutional treaty or the Lisbon Treaty. The EU should just be against the Background of European history, a force for peace, as the Laeken summit in 2001 called for, as he bottomed out, the drafting of a European Constitution and Europe-defined as “Power, globalization, wants to add in a moral framework, ( … ), you anchor wants to be in solidarity and sustainable development”.
Of course, a world without NATO will not be free of conflicts. It is true that the European security strategy (ESS) points out in its analysis of the situation that the main causes of war and violence are poverty and Hunger, that 50 million people die of Hunger every year, one child every ten seconds. Instead of drawing the necessary consequences from this finding, the ESS calls for preventive, military intervention: not the causes of poverty, misery, conflict and war should be removed, but the neoliberal order should also be maintained and enforced by force.
In the war cries of the new risks, the so-called new wars, the alleged global threat of our security, the “Securitisation” of the capitalist over-exploitation caused problems such as climate change, water shortage, ozone hole, misery, migration, et cetera to be concealed the causes of misery and violence, so that the “cannibalistic order”, such as Jean Ziegler, called neoliberalism, is not endangered.
4. Perspectives of the NATO
At the NATO summit in Strasbourg and Kehl on 3 and 4 April 2009, the heads of state and government of the alliance instructed the secretary - general to develop a new strategic approach to replace the 1999 strategy cited above and to present it to the Lisbon summit, scheduled for the end of 2010. A group of experts chaired by former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was set up to draw up a policy paper on the future strategy, Vice-Chairman Jeroen van der Veer, formerly Director General of Royal Dutch Shell.
“The (other) experts act on the basis of their individual abilities, not as representatives of their governments”. This makes it clear that this is the high-level representation of economic interests, because the group does not involve any military, which can, however, be used as an advisory expert. The task of the body is to “clearly define the role and tasks of NATO”.
The focus will be on new security challenges ranging from Internet and energy security to piracy, international terrorism and the security implications of climate change. NATO is therefore increasingly taking over tasks in economic and social fields.
But there is disagreement: especially the new members of the alliance stress that the core of NATO is its Article 5, the defence of the territory of the member states, while the old members argue that all these levels are interconnected and to what extent the new concept should be extended to non-state actors.
This debate inevitably leads to the question of whether energy and Internet security are covered by Article 5. Another point of contention is relations with Russia, since “every NATO member sees relations with Russia through his own glasses,” so that the compromise will probably result in pragmatic forms of cooperation, such as cooperation in the war in Afghanistan in particular. In conjunction with the International Institute for Strategic Studies, is the risk that the targeted strategic concept could become a “disjointed shopping list” or a collection of common places, as they are already included in the final Declaration of the Kehl-Strasbourg.
Among the many voices in this choir, Zbigniew Brzezinski also speaks out, which should be well informed about the debates in NATO and does not happen to represent the globalist Position in the official journal Foreign Affairs.
However, this globe has changed, the global hierarchy has been resolved by a Diffusion of global Power, more and more States have nuclear weapons, some of them — especially Pakistan — are extremely unstable. And “ unfortunately, in recent years, the US leadership has contributed unintentionally, but most unwise, to the current threatening state of affairs. The combination of Washington’s arrogant unilateralism in Iraq and its demagogic Islamophobic phrases have weakened the unity of NATO and Muslim resentment against the United States and the West in General intensified.“
Against the background of this analysis, Brzezinski comes to his conclusion, which provides for the strengthening and tightening of NATO in order to create a global network. This has four central tasks:
the achievement of a politically acceptable way out of the Afghan-Pakistani conflict,
a redefinition of the concept of “collective security” in article 5,
the involvement of Russia in a mutually profitable relationship with Europe and the larger North Atlantic community,
a response to global security challenges.
It is therefore necessary to repeal the consensus principle within NATO in order to enable majority decisions to be taken by qualified majority. Article 13 of the Treaty should be reformed, that the exclusion of members is possible, because, otherwise, individual States could block the consensus. Of particular importance is the involvement of Russia, which is no longer an enemy,but is hostile to NATO.
Close cooperation in the military and political fields is in the interests of both Europe and the US, and Europe can be the mediator in this process. Therefore, he warns against a rapid admission of Ukraine and Georgia, which could consider Russia as an enemy actor. The EU could act as an intermediary here, while at the same time NATO shows greater openness towards Russia. So if NATO wants to remain historically relevant, it must not claim global rights, especially since none of the rising regional powers would accept membership of a globally expanding NATO. Thus, the result would be “ a security network that would satisfy a need that the UN cannot, on its own, but from which the UN would benefit.”- NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s speech at the security conference 2010 seems to be thought here.
This conclusion, which stems from probably more of a Wishful Thinking by the relegation threatened Hegemon, shows the misery of such apologetics is Not the United Nations need NATO, NATO needs to make room for a real System of mutual collective security, such as the United Nations are there. Their survival will and will remain as counterproductive for the UN as it has been for all its violations of international law, at least in the twenty years after the end of the bipolar process.
The enlargement of NATO and its ever-expanding areas of operation over the last ten years make the alliance’s real intention superfluous: NATO wants to undermine, decompose and jeopardize the existence of the United Nations.
Germany and (the end of) NATO.
Germany is a central pillar of NATO because of its economic and political strength, but above all because of its geographical position. It is — as in the early years of NATO, even after the return of France into the military structure of the Alliance — and despite, or perhaps because of the strongly-driven by NATO’s eastward expansion: The historically Russophobes basic flows-related foreign policy attitudes just of the Baltic States and Poland are likely to be as much of a stumbling block for a rational policy of the Western powers and the United States, and therefore NATO. It should not be forgotten that it was the NATO accession of the FRG that led to the establishment of the WVO. There is no doubt that Germany
“one of the most important political and economic actors in the EU, as well as a bridge between East and West Europe, as well as one of the most important allies of the US, and plays a special role in both European and transatlantic policy towards this Region.”
“While Germany is indispensable for the consensus of Western politics, there are real differences in the interests and political approaches between Berlin and Washington, which could lead to dangerous distortions between the two.”
This results in a special responsibility for German politics. In the field of tension between NATO and Russia. Within NATO, there are quite a number of considerations on how to make relations with Russia more relaxed, especially in view of a variety of common interests and urgent common solutions to pressing problems, such as the relationship with China, India and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, but also in view of the conflicts over the disputed Iranian nuclear program.
The Central question is whether NATO wants to create European security with or against Russia. Trusting cooperation within the framework of a European or even transatlantic system of mutual collective security would make NATO superfluous in the foreseeable future — provided that the Transformation of NATO is stopped, so that it does not understand itself as the military Instrument whose core task is to secure the resources of the capitalist powers on both sides of the Atlantic.
It is also obvious that the Expansion of NATO towards the East raises new hot spots and exacerbates the security dilemma with Russia, as demonstrated by the war of Georgia against South Ossetia in August 2008. As early as June 2008, the Russian President Medvedev made a detailed proposal in this direction in Berlin. Russia also presented a draft plan for such a partnership to the OSCE Foreign Ministers ‘ Conference, which met in Corfu on 1 and 2 December 2009.
The fact that Russia was mainly concerned with issues of” hard “ security should not have been unexpected for the Western participants. Their insistence on issues of” soft “ security and the prioritisation of human rights, which are by no means unproblematic in some new member states of NATO, can be regarded as an indication that the West wanted to avoid precisely this debate, which would have to result in serious negotiations — and thus maintain the new-old security dilemma in relation to Russia.
For example, Ukraine will continue to be a contentious issue, crises on the eastern shore of the Black Sea will continue to be on a dangerously escalating agenda, and plans for NATO accession of Ukraine and Georgia will continue to be on NATO’s table: issues of geostrategically motivated resource conservation, as they manifest in the competition between the two competing giant pipelines Southstream and Nabucco, will continue to be a priority.
A policy based on German interests, for which in other contexts the concept of “Sovereign State” (34) is often claimed, should be guided by the concept of mutual collective security. The fact that NATO is not willing to do so is due to both historical and geopolitical reasons, as both the US and the European allies fear a German single entry, which could be fatal for the alliance.
If, however, it is not possible to create a veritable organisation of mutual collective security, including the United States, then a European security architecture should definitely be worked towards. Two paths could lead to such a new construct :
- The implementation of article 13 of the NATO Treaty and the associated exit of Germany from an Alliance, the more risks conjuring up as it will be able to ensure safety. This step would not be a utopia, but in the current world political constellation seems unrealistic, because even in the party the left seems to lack the courage to do so.
- The second possibility is a bilateral comprehensive German — Russian agreement would be quite in analogy to the Treaty of Rapallo, the core of a (continental)European security architecture and for the rest of the European countries attractive could be. Even the “New Europeans”, once highly praised by Donald Rumsfeld, are not likely to be closed to such a process in the long term if it is able to make visible that security is not based on one another but on one another.
A world beyond the NATO is not an Illusion but a feasible goal. It is certainly only achievable in stages in which Europe and especially Germany have a decisive role to play. This is not about nationalism, but about creating a safer world: NATO leaves its European foothold. In any case, it has put at risk its claim to act as a world political power of order with the unprofitable war in Afghanistan. It is not utopian, but realistic policy to use this historical Situation to make the world safer.