As NATO concludes its largest-ever summit in
Chicago, we host a debate on whether the trans-Atlantic military
alliance should exist at all and its new agreement to hand over control
to Afghan forces next year. "When you’re a hammer, everything looks like
a nail. When you’re a military alliance, every problem looks like it
requires a military solution," argues Phyllis Bennis, an author and
fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. "NATO
is a giant, big hammer. The problem is, Afghanistan is not a nail,
Libya is not a nail. These are political problems that need to be dealt
with politically. And by empowering ... a military alliance, NATO
is really serving to undermine the goal of the United Nations Charter,
which speaks of the importance of regional organizations, in political
terms, for nonviolent resolution of disputes, not to put such a primacy
and privilege on military regional institutions that really reflect the
most powerful parts of the world." Speaking in support of NATO, Stan Sloan, a 30-year security analyst at the CIA
and former senior specialist at the Congressional Research Service,
counters: "I believe that having allies in this alliance for the United
States serves our interests, serves our national interests. ... [NATO]
has always been a political alliance. ... I think as long as the member
states regard cooperation among them as valuable and even necessary if
they have to use military force, they will continue to judge that we
need the alliance."Video
Source: Democracy Now!
Author: ---
No comments:
Post a Comment