Europe, Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines, Middle East & North Africa | Analysis

POLITICS: NATO Seeks To Re-Invent Itself

Analysis By Hilmi Toros

FETHIYE, Jun 28 2004 (IPS) - Created against a Soviet-dominated eastern European communism that has since gone capitalist, NATO is trying to re-invent itself amid questions whether it can succeed or even survive.

As the North Atlantic Treaty organisation (NATO) began its two-day summit (Jun. 28-29) in a sprawling cosmopolitan Istanbul ringed by security steel, it now included former eastern European enemies as members, while it attempted to deepen its collaboration with Russia, once the arch enemy.

NATO was the bastion against the expansion of Soviet-led communism that had conquered all of eastern Europe after World War II, was seen as a credible threat in countries such as Italy and Greece. It sent man to space first, and promised to "bury" capitalism.

With all that history by now, who then is the current enemy? Who needs NATO? What should it do – if it needs to go on?

While 26 leaders from U.S. President Bush to NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer attempted to revive an organisation that lost its unity last year as France and Germany opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, people in the countryside speak out.

"NATO was created to serve U.S. interests," says Bulent Karasu, a doctor at a private clinic in this tourist paradise in southern Turkey. "And it just does that. It hasn’t done anything without U.S. consent. Why can’t it protect the Palestinians?"

German Dirk Heinen, who runs a restaurant at Fethiye’s Ece Saray Marina adds: "Every NATO member should have equal voice. If it has to have any credibility, NATO should be the forum against U.S. domination. It should originate and coordinate policy and move from military and political to humanitarian fields."

According to Guy Pilbeam, a former mayor of Stratford-upon-Avon in Britain who owns a summer house on an island off Fethiye, it is unfortunate that "the NATO psyche attempts to resolve issues militarily."

But NATO, in the view of its Secretary-General, is undergoing needed "transformation" and will emerge "new" in various areas. "We will create a NATO that brings security where it’s needed," Scheffer says.

The organisation has already moved beyond the confines of its members, dipping into Bosnia where it calmed waters but has yet to get indicted and elusive top war criminals; and to Afghanistan where it keeps security and will supervise elections this September. NATO also acted in Kosovo, a bit late.

And NATO in Iraq now? "Yes, please" from the Bush administration trying to extricate itself from an imbroglio ahead of the November presidential election. But "Non, merci" to any full-scale NATO involvement as France and Germany put limits to the alliance whose cornerstone had been unity.

Above all, with its former enemies now inside its fold, NATO is attempting to acquire a bigger role in the war on "international terrorism" through a 22,000-strong rapid action NATO response force, although there has yet to be a universally accepted definition of terrorism. It also will move into combating illicit drug traffic across borders, and to check proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Politically, it is attempting to open up a dialogue with the Middle East and Mediterranean countries in the U.S.-led ‘greater Middle Eastern ‘initiative’. And it is seeking cooperation with countries in the Balkans and in Central Asia once under Soviet domination.

The very terror NATO is priming itself to fight was evident in host Turkey, already wracked by two suicide bombs in Istanbul attributed to al-Qaeda-linked groups. The bombs killed 60 at the British consulate and at the HSBC bank last November. A bomb went off before the arrival of President Bush in capital Ankara, and a suicide bomb in a bus killed four in Istanbul on the eve of the NATO parley.

As AWACS patrolled the skies, Turkey deployed thousands of security forces, and closed the Bosphorus Straits that meander between Asia and Europe to some shipping. The bustling city of 12 million faced unseen traffic restrictions and appeared closed. Tens of thousands, including NGOs from Europe have protested against the NATO summit for weeks.

Doubts persist over the future of NATO among people it is designed to protect against enemies barely visible until they strike.

"You cannot combat terrorism with regular troops or conventional forces," says Ilnur Cevik, editor of the Turkish Daily News. "It is time the NATO countries set up a new force to fight terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. These forces should be able to use clandestine methods to fight the terrorists and beat them at their own game."

Former Turkish ambassador Ozdem Sanberk notes that the United States may shift from collective commitments like NATO to ad hoc "coalitions of the willing" as in Iraq, and "this could pave the way for the U.S. losing its interest in the alliance and NATO losing its raison d’etre and eventually vanishing."

As it faces an uncertain feature but also as a sign that it had its utility in upholding Western interests in the Cold War, a soldier in this town comes to NATO’s defence. "Why all the fuss?" he asks. "It saved us from communism. And it helped modernise our military."