WPA1 lS nA1C?

Ìn news on May 17, 2010 from NATO headquarters in Brussels, it was reported that a NATO appointed commission had made
recommendations to the North Atlantic Council of NATO about its' future direction. The recommendations made by the commission, reiterate
the direction that NATO has been going in since the end of the Cold War, becoming more offensively engaged in the world outside of
traditional European boundaries, and for a large variety of reasons. (1)
This is in stark contrast to what NATO was formed as originally, and although one of the recommendations of the commission was for more
transparency, there has been little openness or transparency about what NATO has become now, and what it is being used for, in contrast to
what it was historically,
NATO was formed in 1949 as a military alliance of the U.S., Canada and Western European countries created to counter the Soviet threat.
Although the Soviet Union was broken apart in the early 1990's, NATO surprisingly was left intact, though the reason for it's existence was
gone. What NATO began to be used for was offensive actions, first in the Bosnia and Kosovo conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, and then
increasingly in other countries, outside of Europe.
Although it has been stated that NATO is striving for more transparency about what it is, in fact there has been little transparency about
what is occurring with NATO and what it means to the U.S. and other member nations of NATO. Some of the primary questions regarding
NATO at this point, is who controls NATO, who is making the military mission decisions for NATO and what is NATO being used for.
Although it continues to be presented in media reports that the individual member nations and their governments have sole and nationally
sovereign control over NATO, as was the case historically, that has not been the case since 2003. Ìn fact the largest degree of control and
decisionmaking power in NATO resides in the European Union as an organization. On March 17, 2003, the Berlin Plus Agreements were
signed. These gave the European Union rights to use NATO as a military force for the European Union and any military decisions they would
Ìn the Berlin Plus Framework Agreements, the EU was given the power for use of NATO for any missions it as an organization chose, and
had the power to disallow the use of NATO for any mission it did not agree to, even if all the member nations of NATO agreed to the mission.
As noted in the NATO document, "NATO-EU Security Cooperation¨, "in regard to "NATO-EU cooperation, "Berlin Plus allows the EU
assured access to NATO operational planning, presumption of availability to the EU of NATO capabilities and common assets, NATO
European command options for EU-led operations (including the European role of Deputy SACEUR), and adaptation of the NATO defense
planning system to incorporate the availability of forces for EU operations.¨ (2)
This basically grants the European Union, an organization within Europe, access to any NATO personnel from any country to be
commanded by European commanders in European Union chosen missions. That includes the United States and Canada, neither of whom
are members of the European Union, as is true of some other NATO members.
Also at issue is the legality of the rights of the European Union as an organization. As noted in the document, "Some Legal Ìssues
Concerning the EU-NATO Berlin Plus Agreement¨, this was a right and a power that the European Union does not legally possess, since as
an organization comprised of nations and not a nation itself, it had no treaty-making rights. (3)
What the Berlin Plus Agreements did was serve to cut the individual power and control of all the sovereign member nations and their
militaries and their sole national power to decide how NATO would be deployed militarily. The primary power and control was shifted to the
organization of the European Union. This served to cut the individual national control of the European nations who belonged to the European
Union and unnecessarily duplicate their function, both as individual nations and as members of the EU. Ìn the case of those nations who are
members of NATO, but not the European Union, including the U.S. and Canada, this resulted in the European Union, which they do not
belong to, being allowed to override their input as individual nations and use their troops and funds for military missions that they have no
decisionmaking rights for.
One of the reasons for European Union control of NATO was stated to be because it served to fulfill the European Union's increased
powers in terms of security that were part of the European Union Maastricht Treaty. However, that also calls into question what the European
Union itself is being used for as it increasingly serves to cut the national sovereign power and control from the individual nations of Europe
and concentrate it within a small central group within the European Union.
Ìt also appears that certain nations in Europe, particularly Germany and France, who have a treaty that serves to integrate their foreign
affairs decisionmaking, used another member nation military organization in Europe, Eurocorps, to threaten the U.S. with the threat that if the
United States did not agree to let NATO be attached to the EU, for decisionmaking control by the EU, then Europe by itself, headed by
Germany and France, would develop it's own European centric multinational military organization. This would serve to cut out NATO and the
involvement of the United States and Canada.
Eurocorps, which started as a joint German-French military force had expanded to include Belgium and Luxembourg at the time of the
Berlin Plus Agreements. On the Eurocorps website it describes itself as "A Force for the European Union and the Atlantic Alliance¨. (4)
On May 29, 1999, France and Germany suggested putting Eurocorps as an intervention force at the EU's disposal for use in case of a
crisis. The other member states accepted it and it was then officially suggested to the EU at the Cologne summit on June 3rd and 4th,
1999.This means that the European Union as a body has the right to use not only Eurocorps, but now NATO both as European Union forces,
giving the EU two multinational forces to use for any military missions it chooses and for no valid reason. (5)
On the website describing Eurocorps it states that it is a force not only for the EU, but for the "Atlantic Alliance¨. Eurocorps has no
representation by the U.S. and Canada, and the question is in what way does Eurocorps represent the U.S. and Canada in order to be able
to present itself as a "force for the Atlantic Alliance¨? As well, there is already a force for the Atlantic Alliance, NATO, so why is Eurocorps
claiming that they are a force for the Atlantic Alliance?
Ìt also appears that the threat of a "separate European force¨ distinct from NATO that was being made by the governments of Germany
and France with their connection of Eurocorps to the European Union served to deceptively force the Berlin Plus Agreements in 2003.
Ìn a "background briefing on informal NATO ministerial¨ on October 8, 2003, a senior U.S. administration official reported that under the
Berlin Plus agreement it was understood that NATO would "support the EU as it develops it's European Security and Defense Ìdentity. But it
will support under the understanding that the European Union remains a partner. Ìt won't seek to duplicate military headquarters. Ìt won't
seek to become a rival to NATO in a security sense. And we thought in March of this year, when we signed the Berlin Plus agreements, that
we had that straight. And that when EU undertook a security mission, it would actually borrow NATO resources so that the operational
planning would be done at SHAPE (NATO European Command Headquarters) and the operational commander would be the SHAPE Deputy
Supreme Allied Commander. And that's the way we did it in Macedonia, when the EU went into Macedonia at the end of March.
But when the ink was barely dry (on the Berlin Plus agreements), you had this summit on April 29 of France, Germany, Belgium and
Luxembourg and they said let's create an independent EU military headquarters, let's think about an Article 5-like clause for the EU
constitution, let's think about our own SHAPE. All those issues are being debated now in the Ìnter-governmental Conference as they look at
finalizing the EU constitution.¨ (6)
What this senior U.S. administration official was saying was that the governments of Germany, France, Belgium and Luxembourg lied
about not forming a separate military force that was connected to the EU, something that has not only remained in Eurocorps, but in fact
Eurocorps has broadened it's reach and mission since. Also as noted by this U.S. government official, it was presented to and understood by
U.S. officials that to the extent that the European Union had security concerns it would turn to NATO headquarters and the military
decisionmaking would be made by NATO, comprised of the militaries of the individual member nations. Ìnstead as noted, the military
decisionmaking, contrary to understanding, was taken by the European Union entirely, leaving the member nations of NATO who form NATO
with no military control over their own military forces in NATO operations and leaving nations who are not part of the European Union, such
as the United States and Canada, with no representation in decisionmaking connected to EU use of NATO at all.
What is being seen in both member nation military organizations NATO and Eurocorps is increasing use of not only member nations but
other nations, directed by NATO and Eurocorps, for a wide variety of offensive military actions in other countries, for an ever larger number of
reasons. Ìn the case of NATO this includes ÌSAF troops who are troops from countries who are not NATO members but whom NATO
commands and directs in NATO missions. These troops are funded by NATO member countries in NATO missions, and these ÌSAF
contributing nations have no input whatsoever in how their national military forces will be used by NATO.
The reasons for these offensive actions, as outlined in the recommendations made in the report on May 17, 2010, include environmental
reasons, to protect oil investments, to build up unstable nations who are experiencing violence and other reasons that have historically never
given foreign militaries the right to invade and occupy other countries. These actions have been increasing in scope since the 1990's when
NATO was first used offensively in Yugoslavia. At the same time, the decisionmaking for these actions is being concentrated in a small group
of people within the EU hierarchy, rather than in all the national governments whose military forces are being used.
NATO during this time period has undergone an immense "transformation¨ as it is described in NATO and that includes in it's connections
to the United States. Ìn wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, NATO as a body, on September 12, 2001, before the United States had
even declared it an act of war, determined as a body, that the September 11, 2001 attacks constituted an act of war against the United
States. This decision by NATO, as a body, resulted in categorizing the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 as an act of war, rather than
a crime. Ìn the wake of September 11, 2001, European NATO forces flew reconnaissance flights over the United States for a number of
months afterwards as a security measure decided by NATO. They fully supported, as a body, military action against Afghanistan as a result
of the categorization of the September 11, 2001 attacks as an act of war against the United States. The military response in Afghanistan to
the September 11, 2001 attacks, have been from the start a NATO mission, as it continues to be. (7)
As well, increasing number of European NATO commanders began moving into the United States, creating a new NATO military
headquarters here. Historically NATO was focused on Europe, with U.S. forces stationed in Europe to protect against possible Soviet
attacks. Now increasing numbers of European NATO personnel are moving into the United States, though no reason has been given by
NATO as to why they would need to be headquartered here or be moving here in increasing numbers.
The connecting of NATO control and decisionmaking to the European Union and cutting the individual control and power of the individual
nations of Europe, is seeing a parallel in the United States with the disestablishment of the Atlantic Command of NATO in 2003. With the
creation of a new NATO command in the United States, the role of the individual nations in NATO was being changed from one of member
nations in control of NATO to increasingly less national control over NATO by the member nations who formed it, and less individual national
control as individual nations were being increasingly integrated into the international NATO.
Ìn a speech when USJFCOM Admiral Edmund Giambastiani took command of the new Allied Command Transformation, Giambastiani,
stated, "A key element of ACT (Allied Command Transformation) is it's relationship with the U.S. Joint Forces Command, which is also the
U.S. agent for transformational change. NATO has had a longstanding, close and deepening relationship with the U.S. Joint Forces
This link will be crucial to ensuring that both commands generate new ideas and identify new ways of operating and ensuring that NATO
forces are jointly integrated and interoperable with all Alliance forces undergoing transformation.¨ (8)
What is being described by Admiral Giambastiani is the use of the European Union and it's connections to NATO to not only take power
and control from the individual nations in NATO decisionmaking, but to increasingly dissolve the individual nation's military control in and of
itself, within the NATO alliance and integrate them into one military unit, thus destroying fully national separate military units. This is occurring
increasingly in NATO with both NATO troops and the non NATO ÌSAF forces that NATO commands. (9)
What has been described as occurring in NATO is "transformation¨. Another military alliance that has undergone a similar "transformation¨
is the U.S. ÷ Japanese one. Ìn 2005, both nations signed the "U.S. ÷ Japan Alliance: Transformation and Realignment for the Future¨. (10)
This transformation mirrors some of the transformation changes occurring with NATO. This so called bilateral alliance is really just a one
way relationship that notes all the responsibilities that the U.S. has for Japan's defense, while Japan has no obligations or responsibilities for
the United States in this supposedly and described as "bilateral relationship and alliance¨.
Ìt is noted in this new transformation that as part of the transformation, Japan and US forces will be increasingly integrated as is occurring
with NATO forces and that Japan and the US will share bilateral defense and military planning not only related to Japan but for the region.
That would mean that the government of Japan, which has been increasingly belligerent to it's neighbors in the area, for instance claiming
rights to contested islands that other nations have also claimed, would be granted bilateral status in regard to military decisionmaking and of
U.S. troops in Asia. At the same time, this new transformation arrangement increases interoperability between the two militaries and calls for
shared use of both nations' military bases in Asia.
This transformation arrangement calls for movement of US troops out of some Japanese bases to the Pacific island of Guam, but it also
calls for the training of Japanese Self Defense Forces in both Guam and the United States. And the shared use of US military facilities by
both U.S. and Japanese troops, not only in Japan, but in places like Guam as well. This serves to move Japanese military forces in the
United States, as is currently occurring with NATO forces and in an increasingly integrated fashion. At the same time, unlike NATO which
has a bilateral relationship and claimed it was moving military personnel into the U.S. to help protect the US as part of a bilateral relationship,
Japan has no bilateral commitment to defend the United States, so the question is why would Japanese military self defense forces be
training or moving into bases as a military force in Guam and the United States at all?
These actions overall, in NATO and with the U.S. and Japan, as well as military changes overall worldwide that are serving to make
militaries more "interoperable¨ and "like each other¨ and "integrated¨ are serving to cut the sovereign national power and control that
individual nations and governments have over their militaries.
Ìt appears the military organization NATO, as well as Eurocorps, as well as new transformation alliance agreements, are being used as
instruments to take the power and control from individual nations over their militaries and to use them militarily against other countries.
This is occurring at the same time that Germany and Japan are increasingly gaining hegemonic economic and political control over their
regions, Germany in Europe and Japan in Asia. Ìn the case of Germany, the German government had a tremendous degree of input into the
writing of the Maastricht Treaty which gave the EU increased power and control at the expense of the individual nations of Europe, and has
backed the increasing concentration of power within the European Union.

1Ŧ hLLpť//wwwŦnaLoŦlnL/naLo_sLaLlc/asseLs/pdf/pdf_2010_03/20100317_100317_experLsreporLŦpd
2. http://www.nato-pa.int/default.asp?SHORTCUT=675
3. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mnp/nord/2004/00000073/00000001/art00002
4. http://www.eurocorps.org/home_page/home.php?lang_default=ENG
6. http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3013
7. http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2002/s020911c.htm
8. http://www.act.nato.int/multimedia/speeches/2003/sact%20actpresentation_091903.htm
9. http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2003/06-june/e0618a.htm
10. http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/scc/doc0510.html

1hls arLlcle ls parL of an overall slLe on Cermanv and !apan worldwlde heaemonv aLť

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful