NATO at 75. A Diamond Anniversary of Security by Fair Means or Foul

0

„The aim of all is but to nurse the life
With honour, wealth, and ease, in waning age;
And in this aim there is such thwarting strife,
That one for all, or all for one we gage;
As life for honour in fell battle’s rage;
Honour for wealth; and oft that wealth doth cost
The death of all, and all together lost.”

– William Shakespeare, from the poem The Rape of Lucrece [1]

Seventy-five years ago, major states in Europe and North America forged a global military alliance known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).[2]

This alliance was conceived, according to its stated purpose, “to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members by political and military means. Collective defence is at the heart of the Alliance and creates a spirit of solidarity and cohesion among its members.” [3]

Awesome! However, its applied operations in the last 25 years – namely the military incursions in Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan (2001-2021), and Libya (2011) – on reflection, seemed to do little to address the personal freedoms and securities of the big boys on the global stage. It wasn’t exactly helpful to the unfortunate souls on the ground of their righteous rage for justice.[4][5][6]

Most recently, NATO has driven Russia to a military incursion in Ukraine and fight for more than a year, where the Ukrainians fight and die, and NATO’s grand service has been to keep supplying them with more arms, which it looks now that they only use to keep the war going on a little longer.[7]

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the former Soviet Union made it clear that they were not comfortable having the countries between Germany and Russia joining NATO. In that time frame, NATO, absorbing a number of Central and Eastern European countries, and consequently doubling the number of its members.[8][9]

We are currently in a situation unmatched since the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, with the threat of a nuclear exchange being plotted as the final desperate act before admitting defeat. A move that would be fatal for all living beings.[10]

On this hour of the Global Research News Hour, we take a reflective look on NATO’s 48th anniversary, what the United States led organization is really all about, and why we would all be well-advised to pursue a new, different and cheaper approach to ailing our fears.

In our first half hour, we talk with activist, author, and Canadian foreign policy critic Yves Engler. He explains NATO’s true background, and why Canada should leave it. In our second half hour, journalist Rick Rozoff takes a larger look at NATO and where it is headed. Finally, we hear from peace activist Ajamu Baraka about what is threatening about NATO from a Black Radical Perspective.

Yves Engler is one of Canada’s foremost Canadian foreign policy critics and dissidents. He is the author of ten books on Canadian foreign policy including Canada’s Long Fight Against Democracy (with Owen Schalk) (2024) and Stand on Guard for Whom?: A People’s History of the Canadian Military (2021). His articles have appeared at globalresearch.ca, rabble.ca, canadiandimension.com, and on his own site yvesengler.com.

Rick Rozoff, renowned author and geopolitical analyst, actively involved in opposing war, militarism and interventionism for over fifty years. He manages the Anti-Bellum and For peace, against war website. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization

Ajamu Baraka is Chairman of the Coordinating Committee of the Black Alliance for Peace and an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report. Baraka serves on the Executive Committee of the U.S. Peace Council and leadership body of the U.S. based United National Anti-War Coalition (UNAC) and the Steering Committee of the Black is Back Coalition.

Transcript of Yves Engler, April 3, 2024

Global Research: We start the program by considering Canada’s role in it. On this question we talked to Yves Engler the activist, author and Canadian Foreign Policy critic. I asked him why forming a defensive military alliance was any worse than joining it in the field as in World War 2.

Yves Engler: Well, concretely, if you go back to the founding of NATO, NATO led Canada into sending troops to Europe to help block indigenous communism and socialism. So, to basically blunt the Left in Western Europe which was very strong at the end of World War II. Communists would have won in Italy the first election if the Americans hadn’t intervened. They had 30 percent of the vote in France and a bunch of the ministers in the government. Kind of similar dynamic in Greece. And so, what NATO was initially conceived as, was as a tool to blunt the Left. It was a perception that communism was the way of the future. And Lester Pearson, who was then Canada’s Foreign Minister around the creation of NATO, he was open about this, even in the House of Commons. I’ve quoted his speech many times where he actually says – he said that the communists were taking over all elements of society including the kindergartens, and we needed NATO to blunt that. So, that was an element. And we stationed thousands of troops in Western Europe and obviously many tens of thousands of US troops were stationed in Western Europe partly as part of that process.

The other part of the process was it was about bringing the decolonizing – the colonial powers were weakened during World War II. And the US was in ascendance and it was about bringing the geopolitical order under a US-led umbrella and to sort of have a – let’s call it a fake decolonization where the decolonization, to the extent that it happened would, you know, be with US dominance.

But concretely, we began providing all kinds of weapons to the colonial powers in the 1950s as they were suppressing independence movements in, you know, the Kikuyu in Kenya, in The Congo, obviously the French in Algeria, that was the most egregious example when it was the 400,000 French troops in Algeria, Canada was giving – giving, not selling – giving bullets and the like to the French, knowing full well where the French were using those weapons.

So, that formal alliance that Canada was – three countries, Canada, the US, and Britain – were the three countries that initiated the initial secret talks to form NATO. Some people say NATO was a Canadian idea. That basically brought Canada into a deepening alliance around colonialism, protecting the elite structure within Western Europe. And that’s the history of it. And then you, you know, fast forward into today and NATO is a tool that has been used to justify Canada bombing Yugoslavia, you know, in the late 1990s, bombing Libya in 2011. Stationing troops on Russia’s border. It is used to justify expanding military spending. It’s not the only tool or alliance, but it is a central one in justifying a more militaristic, Washington-centred Canadian foreign policy.

GR: Does this membership in NATO then curtail Canadian sovereignty in any way?

YE: I mean, it doesn’t formally. But it does, it’s a – I would see it more as a tool in the hands of the pro-imperialist, pro-militarist elements of Canadian society. And it regularly gets brought up as that, you know, we’re part of this alliance, we have to support the alliance, we have to send troops to Russia’s border. We’re part of the alliance, the alliance is getting ready to bomb Libya, we have to participate. That’s kind of how it’s used.

Most instances – because you know, they frame it as a defensive alliance and it’s not, of course – they – and you know, if there is a NATO member that is attacked, we are technically responsible to defend that member. Now how you defend that member is up for discussion. Do you send one troop? Do you send 10,000 troops? There’s all kinds of ways in which you could parse that out. But in the practical world where NATO is not a defensive alliance, where it’s a belligerent alliance in the real world, the contributions – you know, Canada didn’t need to lead the bombing of Libya in 2011. Some NATO members didn’t participate in the bombing of – and the war, not just bombing, we had special forces and naval vessels that were part of that war. They didn’t even participate.

So, it doesn’t – you know, in a sense, I wouldn’t emphasize this idea that it impinges on Canadian sovereignty. In fact, I would say that NORAD in many ways is a more clear-cut impingement on sovereignty than NATO is. But in practical reality, NATO becomes, I would say undercuts the popular ethos that is somewhat ambivalent toward military spending and ambivalent towards joining US-led wars which I think the Canadian public is somewhat ambivalent towards both of those things. And NATO basically strengthens the hands of those who, you know, want more participation. So, to call it undercut – undermining sovereignty, I don’t know if I would use that language exactly. But certainly, it undercuts a ambiguousness or – sorry, ambivalenceness towards militarism and US imperialism.

GR: You mentioned earlier that this NATO was basically put down the Left as it started to emerge following 1945. But the NDP, has it been consistently supportive of this NATO? How do you – you know, because that’s a party of the Left in Canada. So, how –

YE: Yeah.

GR: – do you kind of string those two things together?

YE: The CCF was, before – immediately, the CCF leadership backed NATO. Now the CCF was the predecessor to the NDP. And it took a pro-NATO position. It actually subverted internal democracy in – there was a convention coming up in 1950 and they – the leadership came out in favour before allowing members to have that discussion. And for years, more than a decade, two decades almost, NATO was the most contentious issue at CCF and then later NDP conventions. Where the sort of activist base, peace-minded base of the party, increasingly pushed the Canada-out-of-NATO position. And then, they finally won that in the 1966 – I believe it was – convention. The party had a Canada-out-of-NATO position for about 20 years. And then, when Ed Broadbent in 1987 looked like he had a real shot at becoming prime minister, the media started really kind of raising this Canada-out-of-NATO policy of the NDP and sort of made like an issue of the matter. And Broadbent basically, without ever passing it at a convention, just kind of like was able to toss out this policy and re-wrote the policy to say that basically the party didn’t have a Canada-NATO position. It was never formally withdrawn and there was never a vote. So, you know, the NDP voted for the bombing of Libya in 2011, same thing with Yugoslavia. Even Svend Robinson, who is certainly the most left-wing foreign affairs critic in NDP history, he even went on – he supported the bombing of Yugoslavia for the first part. He changed his course I think like 40 or 50 days into the bombing campaign, but he initially endorses it. So, the NDP has been pro-NATO.

Now the, you know, big factions of the sort of social democratic world within Western Europe have also been pro-NATO. And so, it was, you know, sort of anti-communist, you know, in the sense of the French Communist Party or the Italian Communist Party in the 1940s and 1950s. But yeah, so, you know, I don’t think that that’s – there’s no necessary contradiction between the NDP/CCF being supportive of NATO, and NATO having this element of its history. It’s no longer important to the alliance today, but an element of its history of having been a tool of weakening the Western European Left or more specifically the Western European communist movement.

GR: Okay. Like, let’s suppose you’re the Prime Minister for a second and, you know, you have the opportunity to take us out of NATO, but you got to consider that a lot of the people who might support that like want NATO completely gone, not just, ‘We’re out of it.’ Because, if we’re out of it, then you know, NATO is still going to carry on doing what they’re doing, except how much influence will we have as an independent nation. At least in NATO, within NATO we can sit at the table and say, ‘Well, okay, let’s break up NATO. But in the meantime, you know, I’m going to stay there.’ You know what I’m saying? It’s like, having an influence at the table, is that, you know basically – like even to the – you might be able to moderate or eliminate the use of nuclear weapons within the house, so to speak. So, how-

YE: Yeah, it –

GR: – how do you respond to that?

YE: Well, it was the other way around, in fact. On the nuclear weapons question is a good one on that front, because the reason why the Canadian government has been so opposed to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons which – I forget the exact number now – but I think it’s like a 130 countries have signed or more than 130 countries have endorsed it and it came into operation after 50 countries formally endorsed it and that was about two years ago. I’m not sure what the number is up to now, it’s probably – I think it’s like 60 or 60-something. It’s an effort to abolish nuclear weapons. A general assembly votes, it’s more than two thirds of countries in the world support these votes. And the Canadian government, which we of course don’t have nuclear weapons. And I think, you know, even Canada outside of NATO may still not take up the nuclear question like I would like to see it.

But the major obstacle – and the Canadian officials have even stated this – that we can’t endorse the bid to abolish nuclear weapons because we are a part of an alliance where nuclear weapons are part of the military strategy. NATO has a working group on nuclear weapons that, you know, incorporates the use of nuclear weapons as part of their military strategies. If the Canadian government withdrew from NATO, its margin for maneuver on taking, you know, clear anti-nuclear policies which they claim to support, right? The Trudeau government claims to support abolishing nuclear weapons. But yet, they won’t actually sign onto an international treaty that’s trying to do that. So, NATO becomes an obstacle to that kind of thing.

Now the more general question – I mean, you know, who do we send into NATO? You know, it’s Canadian generals and Canadian military figures, right? These are not, you know, peace activists who are going in and making the case for demilitarization. These are military officials and some of them are, you know, global affairs diplomats.

A large part is, you know, military officials. And it’s a body for them to organize themselves collectively, internationally. It’s a body for them to, you know, ramp themselves up really, in terms of taking ever more militaristic positions. No, I don’t think that there is any sort of sensible position that is like, ‘Let’s keep, you know, continue to have a seat at the table to make the case against militarism. If Canada was to withdraw from NATO, that would have massive reverberations on the alliance. I mean, thinking you know, if in a short-term perspective, if Canada tried to do that, you had some sort of left-wing government try to do that, the Americans would try to overthrow the Canadian government. I mean, it would be – the implications would be so significant with that.

Now if it was done as part of a process of building and rebuilding and to work for us – that would not just be within Canada, that would be, you know, within all the NATO countries. For the most part, those anti-war movements have been fairly weak. I mean, the recent response to the destruction of Gaza has rekindled some anti-war organization and mobilization. But if you go back six months, we were in a very weak point. If we build this anti-NATO position, I know, you know, there’s a big NATO summit in Washington D.C. in July and a big protest planned in the US against that. And so, you know, if we build – put on the political agenda Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Poland, wherever that, you know, out-of-NATO kind of position. You know, if Canada, you know, let’s say ten years down the road, five years down the road, whereas you know, the movement is building and Canada withdraws and that can help spur the forces within Poland and Germany and France calling for withdrawal.

That, to me, is the kind of realistic scenario which Canada-out-of-NATO would play out and it could have quite a, you know, beneficial effect on unravelling the whole alliance, even though of course it only just be one country withdrawn.

GR: Before you go, is there anything you want to say to tell listeners about your recent book, co-written with Owen Schalk called “Canada’s Fight Against Democracy”?

YE: No, it’s just – it’s a – details 20-plus coups that Canada has been involved with. You know, half of those are sort of passively supportive, like against Mosaddegh in Iran or Arbenz in Guatemala. And then, other examples are more active. The most clear-cut example, of course, is against the Aristide in the Haitian government in 2004, but also against Allende in Chile and Lumumba and Kwame Nkrumah and the like. And it’s a book that I think, you know, it’s some history that is important history, but it also tells us a lot about this whole business about foreign interference that we’re – there’s a huge storm about foreign interference. And we don’t really talk about Canada’s interference abroad and that book, I think, may question some of this whole concern about foreign interference. And then, it also, it I think helps to understand whether these – you know, we’re at conflict with China and Russia and Iran and they say it’s because those are authoritarian countries and we believe in democracy. And you say, ‘Well, we’ve been involved with trying to overthrow 20 different governments. Are we really concerned about democracy?’ So, it makes you – I think helps understand that these conflicts with China and Russia and Iran maybe are about something else besides just the question of democracy versus authoritarianism. So, I think the book, you know, helps people make sense of some of the current foreign policy, but it’s also, I think, just an important history.

I just did a few events in Southern Ontario. There’s a couple upcoming events in Kingston, in Saskatoon. And then, I’m going to be doing events out in Vancouver, Vancouver Island, and then throughout the prairies in early and mid-June. So, anyone listening you can check out my website for upcoming information on the events.

GR: Okay. Always a pleasure having you on. Thank you very much for appearing on the show, Yves.

YE: Thank you.

Transcript of Rick Rozoff, March 26, 2024

Global Research: It’s been said that the real reason an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not really to end the war. The allied Soviet Union had said they were preparing an invasion in early-August 1945, so the US figured it would drop the bombs first and thereby send the message that they had won the war by forcing Japan’s surrender. But they were also warning the Soviet Union about their awesome arsenal that could be targeting them. I bring this up, because I suspect the role of NATO to defend the world from the Soviet threat maybe – may not be accurate either. There is another story behind building up NATO. What in your view is the real reason NATO came into existence?

Rick Rozoff: It was a shift in World War II where the Western powers, US, Britain, French Resistance and Free French and such like continued the War, but shifted from waging war against the Axis powers, Germany, Italy, Romania, and so forth, towards the Soviet Union. I mean, it’s quite simply that. And Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was, you know, the top commander of allied forces in Europe during World War II became the first supreme allied commander of NATO when NATO was set up in 1949. So, it was a very smooth transition, down to the very same, you know, top commander.

World War II did not, in that sense, end so much as it was reconfigured and directed eastward, that’s my read on it. And of course, it was 75 years ago next month that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was established, initially with 12 members. All 12 of which, with the exception of Italy, could lay claim to being on the North Atlantic Ocean, by the way. Italy, if you really wanted to stretch the point also, you know, through being in the Mediterranean which is an inlet of the Atlantic Ocean. Of course, now you’re looking – well, I don’t want to jump too far ahead – but you’re looking at NATO which has grown appreciably where the majority of its members are nowhere near the North Atlantic Ocean.

GR: So, basically you’re saying that – I mean, like the alliance, you know, to fight off Hitler, I mean I guess they felt they had a good thing coming, so… But, I guess there’s somehow that solidarity or whatever. Let’s just hold onto this and just direct it towards the Big Red Bear. Is that essentially what you’re saying?

RR: That’s exactly what happened. And they pivoted, to use the popular expression, on a dime. It didn’t take very long. Almost immediately after V-E Day and certainly after V-J Day, you know, Victory in Europe, Victory Over Japan that you alluded to, then the Soviet Union became the replacement for the Third Reich and Mussolini.

And so, the military apparatus that the United States had established during the years from 1943-45 in Italy and in Germany and France and then the Low Countries, Benelux Countries, then became the foundation for NATO which remained and remains to this day, by the way, where the supreme allied commander of NATO has always been an American general or admiral. So, that much has not changed from 1949, or for that matter from 1945, until the current day.

GR: So, during the Cold War, I mean, was there anything, you know, about NATO – because, I mean, you started criticizing NATO before the fall of the Berlin Wall as I understand it. So, what were you finding objectionable back in the Cold War era that set you off?

RR: I wouldn’t want to put too fine a point on this because I think, you know, it’s going to distract from talking about post-Cold War NATO. And there are people out there who may want to defend NATO up until 1989 or up until 1991, and my argument is really not with them so much anymore, because as interesting as that is, I think we have more pressing concerns to be honest, Michael. And I personally feel that it was meant as a display of American military might in Europe, not only against the Soviet Union, its allies, and Eastern Europe, but also against political parties in countries like France, Belgium, Italy, Communist Party in the first instance, that may have wanted to reach some rapprochement with the Soviet Union and the permanent deployment of US – and the US, you know, Sixth Fleet is still based in Italy. And the US still has nuclear weapons in five European countries and suchlike. But this is all the result of using NATO to position the US Military for a permanent presence in Europe, first of all against the Soviet Union, then again the Soviet successor state: Russia.

Yet also, you know, you mention nuclear weapons. I believe it was as early as 1951, which is to say, only two years after the founding of NATO that the US moved nuclear weapons into Europe, into Britain initially, under NATO auspices and why NATO continues to maintain tactical nuclear weapons in Belgium, in The Netherlands, Italy, Germany, and Turkey under what NATO calls “burden sharing,” or “nuclear sharing” arrangements.

GR: Well, NATO underwent a transformation after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of communism, because it otherwise would no longer have a reason to continue, but it did. What do you know about what the thinkers at the top were thinking? I mean, how and when did they come to the conclusion that NATO would now be an aggressive force behind human rights. I mean, subsequently attacking people in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya?

RR: The 1989 speech by President H.W. Bush in Mainz, Germany whence the expression – it’s actually sometimes published with – the expression I’m going to mention in a second – as it’s titled, “A Europe Whole and Free,” sometimes “Europe Whole, Free, and at Peace.” And this is after the, you know, the dismantling of the Wall in Berlin and the beginning of the reunification of Germany. So, the point is clear coming from Washington, coming from the White House, that Europe was to be “united,” — the exact word – there was to be a continental system, you know, if I’m not going too far astray, comparable to those of Napoleon Bonaparte, or for that matter, Hitler, that would unite the entire European continent under one military command.

That has been NATO’s objective since 1989. Certainly since 1991 with the formal dissolution of the Warsaw Pact which itself, by the way, was founded six years after NATO and in reaction to not only NATO being founded, but Germany, West Germany, the Southern Republic of Germany, being brought into NATO the preceding year. Contrary to the Potsdam, you know, Accords reached by Britain, United States, and the Soviet Union at the end of World War II.

So, what NATO has accomplished in the interim and is now going to celebrate in all its splendour in July in the United States in Washington at its 75th anniversary summit, is that indeed, the entire European continent, with the exception of Russia and Belarus, have now been brought under NATO command.

GR: But NATO is not just a military force. It seems to me it’s a parasite. There are components of NATO that involve industry and jobs and a whole economic and financial infrastructure has grown around NATO. So, there would be massive losses of jobs and a shrinking of a tax base meaning, you know, social programs as well would be compromised. Can you address these sorts of concerns about some who would resist ending NATO or getting out of NATO?

RR: I mean, you’re correct about the fact that the NATO countries – I mean, let’s look at some arithmetic: the annual collective military spending – this is official, right, through defence ministries and the Defense Department in the United States. It excludes, you know, a good deal other military-related spending. But the official numbers, with the US leading the way by a long shot to the tune of something like 68 percent, but nevertheless, NATO countries account for $1.3 trillion in military spending per annum. This is as compared to, for example, Russia maybe $60 billion, you know, a small fraction of that. The population combined or collective population, NATO countries, now with Sweden joining, is 1 billion. You know, Russia is 150 million, if I remember right. So, to place these matters in perspective.

The other thing that needs to be mentioned – and this is the NATO summit in Washington in the Summer – will be the second time a NATO summit has been held in the capital of the United States. That symbolism is not to be missed. There was only one other summit in the United States and it was here in Chicago in 2012. But the first summit in Washington, the first in the United States, was in 1999 to mark the 50th anniversary of the creation of NATO. This one will mark the 75th anniversary.

Fifty years ago – I’m sorry, not 50 years ago but 25 years ago in 1999, when NATO met in Washington Nato had 16 members. When it finishes its summit this July in Washington, it will have 32 members, which is to say twice as many as it had in 1999 when it launched its first full fledged war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

In the interim also, starting in the 1990s – you read an excerpt which I assumed was mine, it sounded very much like mine at the beginning of the programme – NATO has, in addition to those 32 full members, partners in the neighbourhood of probably 40 officially. And if you want to include the fact that NATO considers the African Union to be a collective partner, it has a liaison office next to that of the African Union in Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia. But officially, they have 40 members who, together with the – not 40 members, 40 partners – who, together with the 32 members, some of these are countries, are on all six inhabited continents, bar none. And as there are military personnel in Antarctica from NATO countries, you can throw that one in for good measure and all the continents in the world even have NATO presence.

That is something that is so historically unprecedented in scale and scope and ambition and nature, that it really puzzles me and I have to admit it makes me despondent sometimes that for 25 years I’ve been trying to alert people to this, to the scale of it. And I feel that people are either indifferent to it, they downplay it, they mock it. Global Research is not immune itself from running articles that suggest that, you know, NATO is a paper tiger, paper pussycat in one person’s parlance, and so forth. I’ll state my claim, and I hope I’m not wrong, that NATO is a deadly serious business and a real threat to world peace. And if it is, and it has been for the past 25 years, then I think the peace movement and other forces in the world have been grossly negligent in taking this one on.

GR: Going forward then, what would you assume NATO’s next targets would be if there’s no resistance? And you know, what kinds of – how do you expect their development to evolve over the next two or three years?

RR: You know, they’re very open about these matters. There’s nothing esoteric about them. Go to the NATO website. They have two features today and one is at the Moldova [SIC] solidifying its relationship with NATO. It’s going to join. But you know, as a precondition for joining, it cannot have foreign troops on its territory, nor can it have unresolved territorial disputes. And Transnistria, you know, fills, you know, both those – checks both of those boxes off. So, it would be necessary. And Transnistria is surrounded by Moldova in the West, Ukraine on the East, it would be necessary to expel the Russian peacekeeping force of the couple thousand troops, and then reincorporate Transnistria into Moldova in order for it to join NATO. But you know, those movements – that movement is well under way.

The general secretary of NATO, as you may know, has just recently made a trip to the three South Caucasus nations of Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia. Armenia has suspended its membership in the Collective Security Treaty Organization, I would argue justifiably, you know, given Russia’s unwillingness to defend it against attacks from Azerbaijan. And so, what are they doing? They’re wrapping up – they’re doing a mopping up operation. They are absorbing what’s left of the former Soviet Union, except for, at least the moment, Belarus and Russia itself. They’ve already incorporated, of course, some 15 years ago they incorporated – more than that, 17 years ago – they – 20 years ago they incorporated three former Soviet Union republics, you know, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuanian. They, you know, ensconced themselves deeply in the three countries I’ve just mentioned in the South Caucasus. Ukraine I don’t have to tell you about. And Moldova, that’s the former Soviet Union.

So, they have not only – there was a statement by George W. Bush during the round of massive NATO expansions in the early part of the century where, at one NATO summit, seven countries joined at one time. Again, that’s totally unprecedented. Two of those former Yugoslav federal republics and three of them former Soviet republics. There was a statement attributed to George W. Bush saying, “The Warsaw Pact has now become NATO, in fact.”

GR: Rick Rozoff, thank you very much for your intelligent and eloquent analysis.

RR: Yeah, I wish I had better news to bring you, my friend. You know, we sit back and we allow military monoliths of this scale to spread over the last, you know, 33 years and we effectively do nothing about it. You know, they’re not going to be held in check unless we hold them in check. And we have to sound the alarm that the existence of a military bloc of 70-some odd countries on all continents is something that really should ring some bells and really should raise some alarms and people should really commit themselves to looking into it and doing what they can to reign this thing in until it can be dismantled.

 

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg.

 

The programme is also broadcast weekly (Monday, 1-2pm ET) by the Progressive Radio Network in the US.

The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs Global Research News Hour excerpts infrequently during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Notes:

https://shakespeare.mit.edu/Poetry/RapeOfLucrece.html

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_224204.htm

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_68144.htm

The War on Yugoslavia 25 Years Later: NATO’s Blueprint For the Conflicts of the Twenty First Century

Anniversary of US/NATO invasion of Afghanistan. “Graveyard of Empires.” Birthplace of Opium Tragedy

The US Hand in Libya’s Tragedy

The US-NATO Orchestrated War in Ukraine: Kiev’s Rift with Neighbors Widens as It Continues Flooding EU with Cheap Grain

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52044.htm

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/are-we-closer-to-nuclear-armageddon-than-any-time-since-1962-as-biden-suggested/

The original source of this article is Global Research

Susține Anonimus.roDacă te regăsești și crezi, sprijină activitatea Anonimus.ro și presa liberă și independentă! Nu suntem finanțați de partide sau companii, nu avem interese politice sau economice, ADEVĂRUL ESTE SINGURUL NOSTRU SCOP!

LĂSAȚI UN MESAJ

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Acest site folosește Akismet pentru a reduce spamul. Află cum sunt procesate datele comentariilor tale.