Democracy or NATO?

by Brian A. Mitchell on January 17, 2018

Let’s learn from the history of not even socialist, but countries who wanted merely to be economically independent, militarily neutralist or non aligned, but democratically elected popular governments that wanted to nationalise some of their economies, or institute land reforms in order to feed their peoples. Many such countries have been intervened in and overthrown by the US and Britain, such as Cheddi Jagan’s (formerly British) Guiana, Jacobo Arbenz’s Guatemela, Mohammad Mossadeq’s Iran, Salvador Allende’s Chile, to mention just a few. Let us be fully aware that even a parliament with a massive popular majority of genuine socialist MPs elected by the overwhelming majority of the British population to carry out genuine socialist reforms, is likely sooner or later to see parliament and the constitution suspended, a state of emergency declared, public gatherings prohibited, mass arrests of any opposition, British tanks on the streets, NATO helicopter gunships in the air, and US missiles, even the threat of nuclear obliteration.

Don’t be daft, it couldn’t happen here! OK let’s leave Tellytubby land and settle on reality. A condition of Britain and other European countries receiving US Marshall Aid after the war was that they cooperated militarily and economically with the United States. In order to keep themselves in power, pseudo-socialist governments (some calling themselves ”social democrats”, nice catchy name that!) of Europe and Britain pandered to US dollars and voted the way the US required in any UN, NATO or other negotiations, agreements or elections.

How many European countries have secret treaties or agreements which are not openly written into their constitutions that forces of another NATO country have the right to intervene if the interests of NATO or the US are considered to be threatened – eg. by the coming to power of a genuine socialist, neutralist or militarily non-aligned government, or one that wanted to remove US nuclear weapons and bases, or get out of NATO?

“Do you know what would have happened then? You may read about this in the Bonn Treaty on relations between the FRG and the Western powers… the rights of the Allies …a state of emergency. According to this treaty the Federal Government ‘in case of serious violation of public security and order’ shall first use its police force and if it cannot restore order and, in addition, in the opinion of the three powers, a threat arises to the armed forces of the Western allies, their commanders have a right immediately to take respective protective measures, including the use of arms, needed for removing this threat. You see that even ‘a serious threat of violation of the free, democratic order’ is sufficient to impose a state of emergency. …if there was an uprising in the FRG threatening the Constitution and the FRG’s NATO membership the Americans would the very next day intervene in our country.”

(Henri Nannan, publisher, in his journal Der Stern, FRG, Jan 1982.)

“In case the Federal Republic [of Germany] and the European Defence Community are unable to deal with the situation which is created by… subversion of the liberal democratic basic order [ie: capitalism], a serious disturbance of public order, or a grave threat of any of these events, and which in the opinion of the Three Powers endangers the security of their forces, the Three Powers may, …proclaim a state of emergency… Independently of a state of emergency, any military commander may, if his forces are imminently menaced, take such immediate action appropriate… to remove the danger.”

(From Article 5 of the Bonn Treaty.)

“…including the ability to deal with a serious disturbance of public security and order.”

(From Article 5 of the ”Convention On Relations Between The Three Powers And The Federal Republic Of Germany” as amended by the Paris Agreements of October 1954.)

“In the present situation it is certainly the internal unrest, sabotage and civil war type conflicts, that is, local disturbances in their broadest sense, which under certain circumstances could most of all endanger the Eastern borders of the NATO bloc.”

(Wilhelm von Schramm, Der Deutsche Soldat, 1961.)

“The draft of the committee enables the executive to deploy the armed Bundeswehr inside the country and to misuse it for internal political aims – without having obtained the sanction of parliamentary authority. The armed forces may not only be deployed for police tasks, but also internally ‘with weapons’. The decision rests with the federal government because if any such action becomes topical it is always possible to say that ‘the situation required this sort of immediate action’.”

(Frankfurter Rundschau, 26 April 1965.)

When discussions on ratifying the North Atlantic Treaty were held, US Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Dean Acheson stated that one of NATO’s chief aims was to prevent what it called aggression “by an election or a coup” or of ”conquest through persuasion” [ie: popular election of a genuine socialist government]. And the NATO Commander in Chief in Central Europe in 1956 referred to NATO as a shield against the ”infiltration of ideas” [ie: socialism again]. Various NATO ”leaks” to the press in 1970 stated that the US in Europe could resort to sabotage and subversion and other warfare in the event of what is called ”emergency situations” and if necessary take full power and bring any weapons onto a country’s territory, including chemical and biological weapons, use all information available and suppress any movement ”threatening US strategic interests.” [ie: threatening US imperialism]. A US document published by the Italian press in 1981 showed that of over 23,000 missile targets, only about 2,500 were in Warsaw Pact countries. The rest were in the “free” western world.

So if a genuine socialist government is elected to power by an overwhelming majority, it would sooner or later be crushed militarily.

Soon after Marshall Aid was agreed by the US Congress, Britain and the US had secret talks on NATO in the Pentagon in 1949. These discussions were only made public in 1979. In the documents of these discussions NATO’s class war policy clearly stated that:

“The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties [ie: Capitalism] is threatened.”

(From Clause 4 of the Constitution of the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO).)

In US government esoteric political language this ”affect security,” and ”threatened” means that if the security of capitalism and the domination of the rich is threatened, and that ”consult together” means that there will be military intervention.

Thus the European capitalist leaders have given the US and NATO the right to intervene diplomatically, economically, and militarily in any “political change favourable to an aggressor”, with “aggressor” meaning genuine socialism, in any NATO country. In other words, the election of any real socialist government or any government committed to and actually implementing political or military neutralist, non aligned or disarmament in Britain or any other European country. And “territorial integrity” includes colonial or neo-colonial territories. The people of the British Commonwealth territory of the tiny island of Grenada know full well the meaning of this application of NATOs Clause 4.

It is also important to understand and point out that this means that it is only necessary that the “political independence or security” of any NATO dominated country is judged to be “threatened” not only by the country concerned, but by “any one of them”.

“Article Four is even more important. This, with no regional limitations, provides that if there is any situation anywhere which appears to affect the security of any member, they will all consult on what action to take… If developments in [for instance Burma, Malaya, Indonesia or Vietnam] led America, Britain or France to feel her security was threatened, she could call a conference of Atlantic Powers… Should the Italian Government fear that Communist sabotage threatened its political independence, it could call a meeting of the Atlantic Powers with the possibility that joint action would be taken to meet the danger.”

(Daily Telegraph March 23 1949.)

There is no doubt that, in the event of civil unrest, which is what they would call socialism, in any European country not being able to be contained by the forces of “law and order” of that country, the US would intervene militarily and overthrow any socialist minded government. With the collusion of European so-called “democratic socialist” governments (ie: social reformists) and NATO, the US has given itself the right to be the world’s anti-Socialist policeman and to intervene militarily and overthrow governments implementing mild land and agricultural reform; as it has done many times in the world in the last 150 or more years.

A group of wealthy and powerful people which has such fears and responds to them with such catastrophic contingency plans is already on the slippery slope to a repetition of the rise of Fascism as in Germany in the 1920s and 30s and devastating world wars as in 1914 and 1939, and all imperialist wars ever since, ultimately to a nuclear catastrophe.

It is so clear to so many that capitalism has been as unbeneficial, to say the least, to the vast overwhelming majority of society as the slavery and the feudal serfdom that led to capitalism. This is most apparent from the socio-economic understandings of the Classical Economists and Political Economists of the days of Adam Smith, David Ricardo and especially the most recent – Karl Marx.

It will be an utter waste of humanity to continue to tolerate the occasional labour governments that have been in power since before the war when, as has continually happened, the opposition, the conservative and liberal parties of the capitalists, overturns and reverses any remotely socialist policies, leaving us as badly off, now even worse than before. How many times are we going to allow this to happen. Haven’t we learned anything in the last hundred years?

We need more politically educated working people. We need to learn that a genuine permanent socialist government, instead of now and then, that needs to be in power in Britain for some four consecutive parliaments with an overwhelming popular majority that really understands that socialism is the only answer. To let the Tories to come to power after four or five years of Labour Government, when capitalists have sabotaged any socio-economic policies Labour has managed to implement, as they certainly will as they have done in the past, will be just another total loss and lead to an extension of capitalist misery. A classical example is the Zinoviev letter, emanating from the Conservatives through MI6 purporting to be Soviet instructions for subversion of the army and for civil war in Britain, published by the press a few days before the 1924 General Election, when Labour lost overwhelmingly, and because the controversy was over a weekend, there was no time to counter their ridiculous lies that always tries to vilify anything to do with socialism.

On this note, this is where opponents try to deride socialism, meaning its example in the USSR, saying “see, it collapsed.” And so it did for the time being, but not because of any particular defect of socialism; more due to a crushing arms race and economic warfare. This derision is like saying, at the time of early attempts at manned flight by the Wright brothers, or Edison’s early attempts to construct the light bulb: “see, it doesn’t work.” Often their derision is “see, Marxism doesn’t work,” completely missing the fact that Marxism is nothing about communism at all; it is a thorough explanation of capitalism. There isn’t any blueprint for constructing socialism. It is up to the people in whatever country to build and run genuine socialism once they know how impossibly inhuman and obsolete capitalism is. There is no rule book. Only Marx’s condemnation of capitalism and lessons learned from the experience of other countries.

Brian was born in the bombed out wartime East End of London and developed an interest in political books early on. He worked in various technical fields for 20 years, all of which thoroughly bored him. He entered academic life (History and Classical Economics) and became an independent journalist, worked for the ANC (secret at the time) until the end of apartheid, and was a trade union representative in a large hospital. He is now retired and still works (when able) as an independent journalist.

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

ari February 8, 2018 at 2:17 pm

nato just bunch of europen decendent try to rebuild the old roman emipre, you will thing i am crazy but i have faith one day nato will go to war againts my country israel

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: