Harry Targ
History
of NATOs Founding
After the
founding of NATO and its establishment as a military arm of the West, the
Truman administration adopted the policy recommendations in National Security
Council Document 68 (NSC 68) in 1950 which declared that military spending for
the indefinite future would be the number one priority of every presidential
administration.
As Western
European economies reconstructed, Marshall Plan aid programs were shut down and
military assistance to Europe was launched. Greece and Turkey joined NATO in
1952, and fueling the flames of Cold War, West Germany was admitted to NATO in
1955. (This stimulated the Soviet Union to construct its own alliance system,
the Warsaw Pact, with countries from Eastern Europe).
During the
Cold War NATO continued as the only unified Western military command structure
against the “Soviet threat.” While forces and funds only represented a portion
of the U.S. global military presence, the alliance constituted a “trip wire”
signifying to the Soviets that any attack on targets in Western Europe would
set off World War III. NATO thus provided the deterrent threat of “massive
retaliation” in the face of first-strike attack.
With the
collapse of the former Warsaw Pact regimes between 1989 and 1991, the tearing
down of the symbolic Berlin Wall in 1989, and finally the collapse of the
Soviet Union itself in 1991, the purpose for maintaining a NATO alliance
presumably had passed. However, this was not to be.
After
the Collapse of the Soviet Threat
In the next
twenty years after the Soviet collapse, membership in the alliance doubled. New
members included most of the former Warsaw Pact countries. The functions and
activities of NATO were redefined.
NATO
programs included air surveillance during the crises accompanying the Gulf War
and the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia. In 1995, NATO sent 60,000
troops to Bosnia and in 1999 it carried out brutal bombing campaigns in Serbia
with 38,000 sorties. NATO forces became part of the U.S. led military coalition
that launched the war on Afghanistan in 2001. In 2011 a massive NATO air war on
Libya played a critical role in the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime.
An official
history of NATO described the changes in its mission: “In 1991 as in 1949, NATO
was to be the foundation stone for a larger, pan-European security
architecture.” The post-Cold War mission of NATO combines “military might,
diplomacy, and post-conflict stabilization.”
And
the Meanings of NATO
The NATO
history boldly concludes that the alliance was founded on defense in the 1950s
and détente with the Soviet Union in the 1960s. With the collapse of Communism
in the 1990s it became a “tool for the stabilization of Eastern Europe and
Central Asia through incorporation of new Partners and Allies.” The 21st
century vision of NATO has expanded further: “extending peace through the
strategic projection of security.” This new mission, the history said, was
forced upon NATO because of the failure of nation-states and extremism.
Reviewing
this brief history of NATO, observers can reasonably draw different conclusions
about NATO’s role in the world than from those who celebrate its world role.
First, NATO’s mission to defend Europe from aggression against “International
Communism” was completed with the “fall of Communism.” Second, the alliance was
regional, that is pertaining to Europe and North America, and now it is global.
Third, NATO was about security and defense. Now it is about global
transformation. Fourth, as its biggest supporter in terms of troops, supplies
and budget (22-25%), NATO is an instrument of United States foreign policy.
Fifth, as a creation of Europe and North America, it has become an enforcer of
the interests of member countries against, what Vijay Prashad calls, the
“darker nations” of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Sixth, NATO has become
the 21st century military instrumentality of global imperialism. And finally,
there is growing evidence that larger and larger portions of the world’s people
have begun to stand up against NATO.
The
Cognitive Domain is a new space of competition, beyond the land, maritime, air,
cybernetic and spatial domains.© NATO Innovation Hub
Harry
Truman on free
institutions versus totalitarian ones:
At the
present moment in world history nearly every nation must choose between
alternative ways of life. The choice is too often not a free one.
One way
of life is based upon the will of the majority, and is distinguished by free
institutions, representative government, free elections, guarantees of
individual liberty, freedom of speech and religion, and freedom from political
oppression.
The
second way of life is based upon the will of a minority forcibly imposed upon
the majority. It relies upon terror and oppression, a controlled press and
radio; fixed elections, and the suppression of personal freedoms.
I believe
that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are
resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.
I believe
that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own
way. (from the
Truman Doctrine speech, March 12, 1947)
And President
Biden’s articulation of the struggle between democracy and
authoritarianism:
“It is
clear, absolutely clear … this is a battle between the utility of democracies
in the 21st century and autocracies,” Biden said. “That’s what’s at stake here.
We’ve got to prove democracy works.” https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/25/politics/biden-autocracies-versus-democracies/index.html)
And NATO’S Conception of Cognitive
Warfare:
In
cognitive warfare, the human mind becomes the battlefield. The aim is to change
not only what people think, but how they think and act. Waged successfully, it
shapes and influences individual and group beliefs and behaviours to favour an
aggressor’s tactical or strategic objectives. In its extreme form, it has the
potential to fracture and fragment an entire society, so that it no longer has
the collective will to resist an adversary’s intentions. An opponent could
conceivably subdue a society without resorting to outright force or coercion.
In
cognitive warfare, the human mind becomes the battlefield. The aim is to change
not only what people think, but how they think and act. Waged successfully, it
shapes and influences individual and group beliefs and behaviours to favour an
aggressor’s tactical or strategic objectives. In its extreme form, it has the
potential to fracture and fragment an entire society, so that it no longer has
the collective will to resist an adversary’s intentions. An opponent could
conceivably subdue a society without resorting to outright force or coercion. https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2021/05/20/countering-cognitive-warfare-awareness-and-resilience/index.html)
The
Meaning of Cognitive Warfare
This NATO
document, of course, is addressing the world of international relations but the
concept of “cognitive warfare” seems to parallel efforts “to change not only
what people think, but how they think and act.” This project animates the
efforts of media conglomerates-print, electronic, social media platforms.
Changing how people think and act has its historic roots in campaigns to
convince citizens to support wars, consume cigarettes, forget climate
disasters, and to find flaws in populations because of class, race, gender,
sexual preference, and/or religion. Creating images of enemies is central
to launching wars. The processes of “branding” are similar in all realms
of human experience.
And
The Media
The media and political, economic, educational, religious, and entertainment institutions shape our consciousness. People are told, inspired, coerced, and manipulated to think in certain ways, usually ways that support the economic and political interests of the rich and powerful. Sometimes theoretical arguments about “ideological hegemony” are too abstract or too immobilizing. However, specific efforts at thought control can be understood and identified. And campaigns to challenge them are feasible.
On
Ideology
The economic
and political structure of capitalism requires “an ideology, a consciousness,
a way in which the citizenry can be taught to accept the system as it is. This
ideology has many branches but one root, the maintenance and enhancement of the
capitalist economic system. The elements of the dominant political ideology
include:
privileging
individualism over community; conceptualizing society as a brutal state of
nature controlled only by countervailing force; acceptance of the idea that
humans are at base greedy; and, finally, the belief that the avariciousness of
human nature requires police force and laws at home and armies overseas.
The
Battle of Ideas Matter
Statements
by prominent Americans from the nineteenth century on have celebrated American
exceptionalism. The frequency and intensity of such messages have been
correlated with the rising of challenges to economic and political hegemony and
orthodoxies that have arisen to challenge the status quo. As Howard Zinn and
others have vividly pointed out resistance has been as much a fabric of US
history as celebration. But to challenge resistance educational, information,
and cultural institutions have intensified the prevailing mythologies. This
cognitive warfare, of course, always includes efforts to censure uncomfortable
and challenging alternatives.
So today,
the US is faced with global challenges as its support of Israel, Ukraine and
NATO are resisted. And more and more citizens are questioning rising militarism
and police repression. It is in response to all this that the frank NATO call
for a “cognitive war” was raised.
And for
those of us who work for peace and justice it is worth remembering that the
battle over ideas matter; in educational, media, cultural, and religious
institutions.
