Entre avui i demà, els estats membres de l’OTAN celebren els seixanta anys de vida d’aquesta organització de defensa en actes commemoratius a Estrasburg i a Kehl i Baden-Baden, significativament ciutats colindants de dos estats, França i Alemanya, que havien estat enemics durant segles.
Ara justament fa deu anys vaig publicar a la Revista de Catalunya, número 139, corresponent a l’abril del 1999, un article titulat “El nou ordre europeu, la política de seguretat i el dret d’autodeterminació”. El contingut del text ha quedat depassat pels esdeveniments però continuo pensant que l’OTAN és l’única organització político-militar global sobre la qual són possibles mesures de control democràtic en relació a les seves actuacions. Els estats membres han de convenir sobre l’estratègia a seguir respecte a les altres potències militars rivals, la implantació efectiva de la llibertat de mercat i del model d’estat constitucional en els països on hom ha operat, el respecte als drets humans i en concret els de les minories nacionals i les regles de conducta militar en els conflictes on intervenen les seves forces.
Catalunya no hi té cap paper en política de defensa ja que l’Estat espanyol monopolitza aquest àmbit competencial, però si algun dia el nostre país fos independent de la mateixa manera que hauríem de demanar la nostra admissió a la Unió Europea, també hauríem de voler un lloc a l’OTAN. L’aptitud militar dels catalans -històricament reconeguda- ha deixat pas en les darreres dècades al desinterès, i fins i tot l’animadversió, envers tot allò que estigui relacionat amb l’activitat de defensa. També en aquest terreny hem d’invertir la tendència si volem tenir un estat propi i començar a tenir una visió pròpia sobre aquestes matèries. Una entitat pionera en aquesta tasca és el Centre d’Estudis Estratègics de Catalunya (www.ceec-cat.org).
En els darrers deu anys l’OTAN ha anat incorporant nous estats membres, sobretot de l’Europa de l’Est, avui mateix Croàcia (el contrapès de Sèrbia -aliat tradicional de Rússia- i Albània -estat pària de majoria musulmana-). Ucraïna i Geòrgia hauran d’esperar atesa la pressió que exerceix l’imperi rus. França s’ha reintegrat al comandament militar, acceptant aparentment la supremacia dels USA, però Sarkozy segueix el secular doble joc del Quai d’Orsay (com molt bé detalla David Pryce-Jones en el seu llibre “Un siècle de trahision”, Éditions Denoël, París, 2008). Els estats europeus són reticents a seguir el parer d’Obama d’intensificar l’acció a l’Afganistan, com si el gihadisme que allí hi fa cova no fos una amenaça per les ciutats europees -inclosa Barcelona-. Henry Kissinger va publicar a Le Monde el proppassat 14 de març un article al respecte: “Quelle estratégie afghane ?”
Post Scriptum, 30 de maig del 2017.
Jean-Thomas Lesueur, analista de l’Institut Thomas More, exposa en un article a Le Figaro publicat el 25 d’aqueix mateix mes la deficient i decreixent capacitat militar dels estats europeus i el perill que aqueixa obsolescència suposa per la defensa de les societats obertes occidentals.
Post Scriptum, 11 de juliol del 2018.
Davant la cimera de l’OTAN d’avui i demà Le Figaro publica un dossier sobre els principals reptes que afronta l’organització. Mentre que Le Monde fa una crònica exhaustiva dels prolegòmens centrats en la controvèrsia respecte la influència russa.
Post Scriptum, 17 de desembre del 2019.
Avui, Lev Stesin publica un report als Perspectives Papers número 1,374 del BESA Center titulat: “NATO Must Survive“, del qual val la pena reproduir-ne l’extracte:
The recent urgent push by NATO to provide a defensive framework to Poland and the Baltic states is by no means a false alarm intended merely to shore up a sense of common purpose during a period of crisis. It reflects a serious threat that must be addressed.
Seventy years ago, at the dawn of the Cold War, NATO was forged as a pan-Atlantic alliance to resist Soviet aggression. From its outset, the US served as its main pillar, providing the bulk of military and economic support. All members of the alliance joined voluntarily, however, and shared a common interest in resisting the Soviets.
The reemergence of Russia as a belligerent force has, ironically, created the most serious rift in the alliance since its inception. Turkey, once its weakest and most vulnerable member, has begun asserting itself as a major independent political player. Russia, its northern neighbor and centuries-old enemy, is no longer considered by Ankara a threat to its stability and ambitions. This new friendship goes far beyond politics. Military ties between the two countries are flourishing, culminating with the purchase by Turkey of Russian-made S-400 batteries despite vehement NATO and US objections.
But that is not the only issue NATO is facing. President Donald Trump is demanding that the European allies contribute more. France wants Europe to have a more independent say in NATO affairs, but does not possess the means to support such a plan. Germany wants to engage Russia economically and resist its expansionist moves, but refuses to contribute more military spending.
All these mutually exclusive ideas put together have plunged the alliance into deep crisis even as it faces the very enemy it was originally created to confront.
There is a tendency to dismiss the latest scramble by NATO to strengthen its eastern defenses as a publicity stunt devoid of substance or real danger. These voices claim this latest battle cry is purely for internal consumption to invigorate the ailing alliance and instill a common purpose. Why, they ask, would Russia attack the Baltic states? The idea sounds absurd. But ten years ago, an imminent military conflict with tens of thousands of casualties in the heart of Europe was difficult to imagine, yet that nightmare became a reality for Ukraine.
Russia wants to create a continuous buffer zone of instability between itself and NATO. That zone consists of slowly simmering conflicts (eastern Ukraine, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia) that Russia controls and can reignite at will. This gives Moscow great leverage and blocks many of the newly independent states from departing its sphere of influence.
Another element, which many in the West tend to underestimate, is the Kremlin’s anger at the former republics, particularly the three Baltic states. This anger reflects Russia’s envy of their economic progress since gaining independence. Moscow would like to teach them a lesson.
Just as the Soviets did years ago, Russia is depicting the Baltic states as fascist entities. Under the Soviets, the goal was to assimilate them with an influx of Russian-speaking settlers. Today the Russian propaganda machine portrays those countries as Nazi allies that have not repented that evil association. The Russian leadership is rational, and is adept at sensing weakness even an ocean away. Putin knows full well that NATO’s failure to defend the Baltic states would be a death knell to the alliance.
NATO needs to exist. As long as Russia has imperial ambitions, there must be a unified military force in Europe to counterbalance it. It is also clear that NATO in its current form will not survive the test of time. Europeans need to contribute more in terms of both funds and manpower. Turkey must be expelled, as its interests are at conflict with those of the rest of the members. It is more a foe than a friend. The Russian threat remains real, and it is urgent that NATO survive as a potent military force to counterbalance it.
Post Scriptum, 26 de febrer del 2022.
Ahir, l’OTAN va fer públic el seu posicionament sobre “Relations with Ukraine:
A sovereign, independent and stable Ukraine, firmly committed to democracy and the rule of law, is key to Euro-Atlantic security. Relations between NATO and Ukraine date back to the early 1990s and have since developed into one of the most substantial of NATO’s partnerships. Since 2014, in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, cooperation has been intensified in critical areas.
Dialogue and cooperation started when newly independent Ukraine joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (1991) and the Partnership for Peace programme (1994).
Relations were strengthened with the signing of the 1997 Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, which established the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC) to take cooperation forward.
Since 2009, the NUC has overseen Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration process, including reforms under the Annual National Programme (ANP).
Cooperation has deepened over time and is mutually beneficial, with Ukraine actively contributing to NATO-led operations and missions.
Priority is given to support for comprehensive reform in the security and defence sector, which is vital for Ukraine’s democratic development and for strengthening its ability to defend itself.
Since the NATO Summit in Warsaw in July 2016, NATO’s practical support for Ukraine is set out in the Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP) for Ukraine.
In June 2017, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted legislation reinstating membership in NATO as a strategic foreign and security policy objective. In 2019, a corresponding amendment to Ukraine’s Constitution entered into force.
In September 2020, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy approved Ukraine’s new National Security Strategy, which provides for the development of the distinctive partnership with NATO with the aim of membership in NATO.
In response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, NATO has reinforced its support for capability development and capacity-building in Ukraine. The Allies condemn and will not recognise Russia’s illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea, and its destabilising and aggressive activities in eastern Ukraine and the Black Sea region.
NATO has increased its presence in the Black Sea and stepped up maritime cooperation with Ukraine and Georgia.
NATO condemns in the strongest possible terms Russia’s attack on Ukraine of February 2022, which is entirely unjustified and unprovoked. This is a grave violation of international law and a serious threat to Euro-Atlantic security.
The Alliance also condemns Russia’s decision to extend recognition to the separatist regions of eastern Ukraine.
NATO Allies call on Russia to immediately cease its military action and withdraw all its forces from in and around Ukraine.
NATO stands with the people of Ukraine and its legitimate, democratically elected president, parliament and government. The Alliance will always maintain its full support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders. Russia is now facing severe costs and consequences imposed by the whole international community.
Us ha agradat aquest article? Compartiu-lo!