Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 04, 2008

NATO Summit Misreported

With regards to the recent NATO summit the media is falling for another round of U.S. disinformation.

Missile Defense Endorsed By NATO, says the Washington Post:

President Bush advanced his plans Thursday to build a controversial missile defense shield in Eastern Europe by winning the unanimous backing of NATO allies and sealing a deal with the Czech Republic to build a radar facility for the system on its soil.

The NYT headlines NATO Endorses Europe Missile Shield

NATO leaders agreed Thursday to endorse a United States missile defense system based in Europe ...

NATO has not "endorsed" the U.S. missile defense.

In only point 28 of the 50 point official Bucharest Summit Declaration it says:

We should continue our common efforts in the fight against terrorism and in the area of non proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and their means of delivery. We urge Russia to engage actively in important cooperative offers that have been extended. We believe that United States Russia bilateral discussions on missile defence and CFE, among other issues, can make an important contribution in this field.
We reaffirm to Russia that NATO’s Open Door policy and current, as well as any future, NATO Missile Defence efforts are intended to better address the security challenges we all face, and reiterate that, far from posing a threat to our relationship, they offer opportunities to deepen levels of cooperation and stability.

NATO 's own missile defense is a long standing and ongoing program for tactical theatre air and missile defense.

NATO has not endorsed the U.S. unilateral strategic missile defense. It has acknowledged talks between Russia and the U.S. on the issue. Aside from the NATO meeting the Czech Republic and the U.S. signed a bilateral deal to build a radar side in Czechia. This will not be a NATO installation.

There is a big difference between the tactical and the strategic program. NATO tactical missile defense capacities will not be able to hinder Russia's strategic nuclear forces. The successful security policy of Mutual Assured Destruction is not endangered by these.

The U.S. strategic missile defense may one day hinder Russia's strategic capabilities. More than that, U.S. missile defense in East Europe could be used as offensive weapons against Russia. A U.S. attack from Czechia on Moscow would have warning time of only a few minutes. That's why Russia is set to counter these, probably with setting up its own missile defense in Cuba against the imminent threat from Columbia.

In point 37 NATO "recognizes" the U.S. strategic missile defense attempts. In diplo-speech, that is hardly an endorsement. To see something doesn't mean on likes it. Further, in what is a rebuke to U.S. unilateral action, NATO urges solidarity and then pushes the problem into the future:

Bearing in mind the principle of the indivisibility of Allied security as well as NATO solidarity, we task the Council in Permanent Session to develop options for a comprehensive missile defence architecture to extend coverage to all Allied territory and populations not otherwise covered by the United States system for review at our 2009 Summit, to inform any future political decision.

The reading of this on the eastern side of the Atlantic is much different from what the U.S. media are saying. One wonder how such cheerleading of Bush's propaganda is supposed to be reporting.

U.S. media have also reported on a French reintegration into NATO. But the real intent of France is again different.

"Let Europe's defense pole advance and we will continue to advance toward NATO. I repeat, these are two things that go together, not one or the other, so let's wait for the summit" in 2009, [Sarkozy] said.

Sarkozy does not want to put French troops under NATO. He wants an (old) Europe defense organization build around French and German forces, that then may or may not be part of NATO.

The continued misreading of European intent for NATO in the U.S. might well lead to a deeper split and in the end a slow death for NATO.

That would be fine with me.

Posted by b on April 4, 2008 at 11:47 UTC | Permalink



their misreadings are so multiple, not just on this question - sometimes i wonder why we just don't give up. as you've hinted - it rreally is a full time job just correcting the lies

the least that can be said is that they are sum sucking out the blood of a peoples desire for peace

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 4 2008 12:06 utc | 1

that would be scum, evidently

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 4 2008 12:07 utc | 2

Watch Ukraine......

Two major US companies are getting a slice of Ukraine's vast atomic power market, offering a chance to reduce its dependency on Russia, currently its monopoly supplier of nuclear fuel.

On March 30, Westinghouse Electric Co. and Holtec International sealed contracts with Energoatom, the national nuclear power company, without disclosing details.


Posted by: Cloned Poster | Apr 4 2008 12:12 utc | 3

Bun and I were just remarking early this morning at the apparent [shocking, to us] outcome of the NATO meeting, i.e., Bush's "win" on the acceptance of the "shield" in Poland and Czech Rep., as expectations beforehand had been negative. During our puzzlement I remarked that Bernhard would have some info on what went on. Those headlines are flat-out lies. Can't return to the US a loser, now can he? Working the Bush legacy I guess.

Thanks b.

Posted by: Hamburger | Apr 4 2008 13:22 utc | 4

Not sure how real this is ... but any look at an exit-strategy certainly deserves to lauded.

Does NATO Want Out of Afghanistan?

In public, NATO is demanding that all allies contribute their fair share to the ongoing effort in Afghanistan. But behind closed doors, a paper has been circulated that may provide the beginnings of an exit strategy. Germany is pushing the plan.
According to diplomats, there are indeed some interesting details to be found. The paper illustrates a new train of thought developing within NATO: For the first time, a step-by-step outline has been sketched -- with substantial help from Germany -- for when the 47,000 NATO troops currently in Afghanistan might be pulled out. According to diplomats, concrete benchmarks are laid out -- though any withdrawl, they make clear, would not be immediate.

Posted by: b | Apr 4 2008 14:26 utc | 5

Great work, b! I would quibble that the press has not fallen for disinformation, they are already supine, and print the deceptions willingly and knowingly.
As for NATO out of Afghanistan, Gates just said that 7-10 thousand more US troops are heading there in 2009. Related?

Posted by: Dick Durata | Apr 4 2008 16:51 utc | 6

can there have ever been a time in human history when so many clowns clacked their tongues to no end at all

whjen these thing were once called talkshops - that is now insufficient as a description - becuase it has become a more venal form of ventriloquism

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 4 2008 18:29 utc | 7

On the best of the Danish TV news (DR2 Udland), they made a big deal that Putin had "stolen the show" (media-wise)and had gotten Ukraine and Georgia taken off the NATO table (for now), while "all" that Bush had gotten was acceptance of the missile base in Poland.

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Apr 5 2008 6:27 utc | 8

Dick Durata:

Gates just said that 7-10 thousand more US troops are heading there in 2009.

How convenient, promise more troops after the currant Commander In Chief steps down. Bush gets to say it without actually doing it. Don't worry the next President will do it I promise. Another round of kool-aid for the World.

Posted by: Sam | Apr 5 2008 9:51 utc | 9

You tube gets it right, I think..


Posted by: Cloned Poster | Apr 5 2008 10:01 utc | 10

Afghanistan is such a mess now there is no fixing it. There are 45 million Pashtun in Afghanistan and Pakistan and 47 thousand troops are never going to defeat them. All the top commanders, even the ones in favor of staying, say this openly. The problem is the US changed it from taking out the government to revenge against the people. Hanging a taxi driver from a meathook and beating him to death over 3 days is just a small example. All the torture destruction and killing of civilians ensures this.

When bin Laden declared war on America on an international press conference that he himself called, the attacks began. US Embassies, foreign military barracks, military ships and finally 9/11. Before 9/11 the GOP just ignored them. Bob Novak on Capital Gang spelled it out clearly when he said there is no proof that Al Queda did attakced the USS Cole and Clinton was firing missiles at terrorist training camps in Afghanistan to defelect attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The Taliban were visiting Texas talking about a pipeline with the Bush Administration. Bush was on holidays when he got the PDF stating that Al Queda were going to hijak aircraft in the US and he stayed on holidays.

How the public rallied around such a clueless lot is beyond my imagination. There was nothing pragmatic in the response by that administration it was pure revenge and jumping on an opportunity to frame Iraq for 9/11 and establish a permanent police presence in the ME. Both Iraq and Afghanistan look more like Gaza than freedom and democracy. Occupations don't work. You can't force people to like you by pointing guns at them especially when you kill their women and children. That's why France wont send those extra troops south because they know this (Algeria).

Posted by: Sam | Apr 5 2008 10:35 utc | 11

@ Cloned Poster

Listened to Escobar but he didn't mention the main difference between the Hakim movement and the Sadr movement. The former promoted the Iran model with rule by cleric whereas the latter promoted rule by the people. That is why Hakim is in the government and Sadr sits on the sidelines. Given that the US constitution promotes the separation of Church and State that's quite a statement by the Bush administration in giving the red carpet treatment to Hakim in Washingtion.

Posted by: Sam | Apr 5 2008 11:16 utc | 12

Thanks Cloned Poster, I've seen a couple of this particular youtube channel with the brand entitled, 'TheRealNews', do some pretty interesting stuff, I haven't subscribed to em yet, as they miss details such as what sam mentions in hir's #12, but they are headed in the right direction. Something/someone to keep an eye on in the near future.

Posted by: | Apr 5 2008 15:23 utc | 13

the man who came to dinner

Still, foreign policies are often driven more by national interests than personalities, and Russia's increasing influence in Europe reflects more its economic power than military might. It supplies a quarter of Europe's natural gas and oil and is growing so rapidly that it has become a major player in the European economy.

"What we're seeing in Europe is interest in what Russia can give European countries and particularly European business," Celeste A. Wallander, a Georgetown University specialist, said by phone. "European business is very interested in Russia . . . and the business interests are very important in foreign policy."

More at Firedoglake

Posted by: dan of steele | Apr 5 2008 21:15 utc | 14

Doh' that was me at #13

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 6 2008 0:46 utc | 15

The comments to this entry are closed.