Dealing with the asymmetric threats

The crowd surges forward toward the sound of the megaphone. Journalists hold their cameras above their heads, motor drives clicking. Above, helicopters survey the demonstrators. At the center of crush is a representative from the Eastern European Anarchist block, reading a prepared statement.

»There is no war against terrorism, war is terror! Nato is a real terrorist, not the people who are struggling for a better world. Let us not allow our children to grow up in fear like we did during the cold war. Military pacts don’t provide security, but they are keeping people in wars, fear and insecurity. Let us not allow our youth to go off in foreign lands and fight on behalf of those who already have too much!«

It is November 21st, 2002, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or Nato, is holding its summit in Prague, the Czech Republic. The city is on edge, concerned about the possibility of a terrorist strike against the heads of state and government officials taking part in the summit, as well the possibility of violent clashes between protestors and police.

But the demonstrations turned out to be both small, around 2.000 people, and also peaceful. Andre Slacelek, editor of the anarchist magazine, A-Kontra, said:

– I think it does not depend if this protest will be big or small. I think it depends on ideas it would like to spread.

Those demonstrators lucky enough to cross the Czech borders agreed. 353 people were turned back from Czech borders, either because their names were on a list of undesirable persons, or because they were carrying anti-Nato material.

150 air-launched nuclear bombs

Bigger threats than street protestors were at the center of the Nato summit agenda. The 53-year-old military alliance is trying to spice up it’s aging image. The alliance expanded its membership by seven new countries, including Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. The borders of western military power just took a big step to the east.

– Nato is a cold war anachronism that really should no longer exist. It is a military nuclear alliance, that realistically has no place, says William Peden, Disarmament Campaigner with Greenpeace International.

Greenpeace was in Prague during the Nato summit because the United States has an estimated 150 air-launched nuclear bombs in seven Nato countries. Greenpeace is concerned that Nato’s nuclear doctrine is moving more towards preemptive strikes.

And at the same time, putting the decision to use nuclear weapons completely into the hands of the military.

– Our big concern with the new changes in Nato is whether or not they’re going to take the political control away from the politicians, and parliamentarians back in the capitals of the Nato member states, says Peden.

– Because the whole, seemingly the whole rational behind this, is that they have a rapid reaction force that can move very quickly into conflicts, within weeks. So there’s not time for the parliamentary debates and decision making processes. And if the nuclear weapons policy is changing in the same way, then that’s taking the democratic processes away from parliaments, and actually into the military commanders inside Nato.

Rapid response

Nato did commit to the creation of a 20.000 strong »Nato Response Force«. The force will be operational by 2004, and will eventually have the capacity to be deployed anywhere in the world within one week, under any conditions. The new response force will allow the alliance to operate globally, against what Nato secretary general Lord Robertson calls new, »asymmetric threats.«

Nato members also agreed to modernize their military equipment. There has long been an imbalance in military spending among Nato countries, in which the U.S. outspends other members by billions of dollars. The goal of Nato is to make their technology more compatible, particularly with US military equipment. It means an increase in billions of dollars of military spending for Nato member states.

Nato leaders say coordinating technology and streamlining the command structure will create a more effective military force. And the arms industry is standing by ready to help in any way they can.

– The Nato summit in Prague is partly co-financed by big armaments companies like Lockheed Martin or Boeing, says Milan Stefanec, from the Independent Social Ecological Movement, in the Czech Republic.

– In my opinion this testifies to the link between the economic and political interests in Nato. I’m sure that these big armaments companies exert pressure over Nato to accept more members because in this way they will become new markets where they can export their arms.

Lockheed Martin already has contracts with many of the new Nato member states, including providing and upgrading radar systems in Romania, Slovakia, Estonia and Latvia. The company also has contracts with Ministries of Defense in Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria.

In November, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics submitted an offer to supply the Polish Air force with 48 new F-16 fighter jets. In all, Lockheed Martin has proposed to the Polish government a project package worth more than eight billion U.S. dollars.

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics is headquartered in George Bush’s home state of Texas.

By Patrick Beckett