NATO 2030 Constitutes a Plot against Sovereignty, for Globalization and for a New World War
PARIS, June 15, 2021 (EIRNS)—Among the “accomplishments” at the short NATO annual summit of June 14 was the approval of the “NATO 2030 Agenda,” a radical proposal for a vast reform of NATO’s strategy, to replace the previous such document 10 years ago, when the alleged “threat” by China and Russia against the Alliance was not yet identified.
The implications of this reform are such that last March, a group of some 40 retired generals and colonels of the French Army Center for Inter-army Evaluations (CRI), risked publishing a scathing report in a major magazine, Capital, accusing the proposed reform of 1) violation of national sovereignty, 2) globalization the NATO structure, and 3) trying to bring Europe onboard with a U.S. war against Russia and China. On May 28, it was the French Defense Ministry which told the media that the French response to a proposal circulated by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, calling for a €20 billion increase in spending for NATO, based on that report was: “No, thank you.” The Defense Ministry was furious to learn about the proposal from the media, and asked whether NATO were now demanding the dilution of the national sovereignty of all member states in NATO, because France would not be able to modernize its own defense while assuming such costs for NATO. Macron said he would insist on further explanations from NATO.
The context for the 2030 agenda is the need to reinforce unity among the allies, in order to deal with a highly degraded strategic environment due to the double threat from Russia and China. Entitled “United for a New Era,” it is actually a proposal for a kind of political putsch by NATO. NATO, they claim, has been able to organize, since 2014, when Russia allegedly “annexed” Crimea, “the most important reinforcement of a collective defense ever to have been carried out in a generation.” The challenge is now to be able to “carry out a political adaptation to accompany the progress carried out in the military sphere.”
In its introductory remarks, the report says NATO is called upon to become
“strengthen its role as the unique and essential forum to which Allies turn on all major national security challenges.... Allies should strive to hold national policies to the line of policy developed at NATO. ... NATO should institute a practice of intra-Alliance consultations ahead of meetings of other international organizations ... speaking with one voice on global affairs. It calls for consultations ... before or informally on the margins of meetings of e.g., the United Nations, G20, and other fora....”
To establish full unity, the report proposes to increase the number of foreign and defense ministerials, as well as cooperation between NATO and the EU, above the heads of nation-states, by creating an institutional channel of political liaison between the international staff of the Alliance and the European External Action Service, the EU’s diplomatic agency.
With the pretext of responding more swiftly to current threats, it is proposed that the rule of unanimity, through which decisions in the North Atlantic Council are adopted to this day, be abrogated, such that “It should consider bolstering the Secretary General’s chief executive role in order to make decisions on routine matters and to bring difficult issues into the open at an early stage.” It is also proposed that “NATO should create a more structured mechanism to support the establishment of coalitions inside existing Alliance structures and should examine ways to time-limit decision making in crisis.”
Finally, the report also announces the worldwide expansion of NATO. “NATO’s Open Door Policy should be upheld and reinvigorated,” it says, listing the countries which NATO is cultivating for partnerships or memberships: Sweden and Finland, in the north; Georgia, Ukraine, and Bosnia Herzegovina, in the east; Tunisia and Jordan in the Mediterranean and in Africa; partnerships with the EU and the G5 Sahel. Also targeted is the Indo-Pacific, where reinforced partnerships are envisaged with Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea, in existing organizations: NATO+4, NATO-Pacific partnership, or NATO/Quad dialogue. “NATO should begin internal discussions about a possible future partnership with India.”
However, these partnerships will not be like those in the past. “Partnership cannot be a substitute to membership, which alone carries the benefit of Article 5. ... While preserving the distinction between Allies and partners and the decision-making autonomy of Allies, NATO must leverage and develop partnerships in a more deliberative and proactive manner to actively shape the security environment and promote NATO goals in support of its core tasks and missions.”