Another Percolating Question: "Why Are Hands Off! Rallies Supporting NATO?"
/
Another question that has come in after A Little Beacon Blog published the FAQs that have been coming in for this rally is: “Why is NATO in the flyer? I support everything else, but this doesn’t make sense.”
Let’s figure this out.
The first question came in as a response to a reader asking if they needed to register to the event. Upon reading that, more than one reader wrote into ALBB to warn against registering into any protest. “RSVP for protesting is kind of a red flag in my opinion. That doesn’t feel like true protesting.”
Another local resident reached out to express concern that many of today’s “Hands Off!” protests around NY State are organized by Indivisible (@IndivisibleNet on Twitter), an organization known to be “liberal Zionist” that often registers people participating at its protests. “Beacon’s protest isn’t listed on the Indivisible flyer for today, but the graphic design and list of demands are identical,” the reader said. “Our solidarity must include Palestine. Be safe!”
Max Blumenthall, editor of The Grayzone, an independent news and investigative journalism source on politics and empire, said as he retweeted CodePink’s opionion: “The ‘Hands Off’ protests planned for today call for Trump to take his hands off NATO, the permanent war alliance that is a boon for the arms industry, and which has destroyed several countries through regime change wars. Just like the original pussyhat rallies, this one is pro-war.”
Another resident in Beacon agreed with Max, saying “NATO killed the dream of a unified Africa and they should never be forgiven. Just cross out where it says NATO and write Gaza and you should be all set.”
Code Pink’s Opinion
CodePink laid out their opinion in a blog post, and we have republished it in full here.
Medea Benjamin and David Swanson are coauthors of the book NATO: What You Need to Know.
By Medea Benjamin and David Swanson
We are passionate supporters of all but one of the items on the Hands Off agenda for the April 5 rallies. We couldn’t agree more that the corrupt U.S. government should stop destroying, privatizing, firing, and giving away the post office, schools, land, Social Security, healthcare, environmental protections, and all sorts of essential public services. But we are deeply disturbed to see NATO (The North Atlantic Treaty Organization) on the list of items that we are rallying to protect.
Many people believe that NATO is a peace-loving, defensive alliance, but the opposite is true. During the past 30 years, NATO has fomented a vast arc of violence stretching from Libya to Afghanistan, leaving villages bombed, infrastructure destroyed, and countless dead.
Originally formed in opposition to the Soviet Union, NATO not only failed to disband with the fall of the Soviet Union, but it increased from 16 members in 1991 to 32 members today. Despite promises not to expand eastward, it ploughed ahead against the advice of senior, experienced U.S. diplomats who warned that this would inflame tensions with Russia. While Russia bears full responsibility for invading Ukraine, in violation of the UN Charter, we cannot deny the disastrous role played by NATO in provoking and then prolonging the war in Ukraine. Two years ago, then NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg admitted that insisting on NATO membership for Ukraine had brought on the Ukraine war. “[Putin] went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders,” he said.
The inclusion of NATO in the Hands Off list contradicts the basic Hands Off agenda. Right now, at the bidding of President Trump, NATO is openly and aggressively pressuring its member nations to move money from healthcare, retirement funds, and clean energy to weapons and militarism. Watch a video of the Secretary General of NATO publicly telling the European Union to move money from healthcare and retirement to war. It should be clear which side of the Hands Off agenda NATO is on.
NATO is a destabilizing, law-breaking force for militarization and war provocation. Its existence makes wars, including nuclear wars, more likely. Its hostility toward the few significant militaries in the world that are not among its members fuels arms races and conflicts. The commitment of NATO members to join each others’ wars and NATO’s pursuit of enemies far from the North Atlantic risk global destruction.
We would be happy to expand the Hands Off demands to international issues, such as Hands Off Palestine or Yemen or Greenland or Panama or Canada. But we do object to including a destructive institution like NATO, an institution that systematically and grossly violates the commitment to settle disputes peacefully contained in the UN Charter. If we are truly committed to human needs and the environment, as well as peace, diplomacy, and the UN Charter, then we should eliminate NATO from the Hands Off agenda.
We should go beyond that. We should recognize that while many government agencies are being unfairly cut and need to be defended, one enormous agency that makes up over half of federal discretionary spending is being drastically increased and needs to be cut. That is the Pentagon. The U.S. government spends more on war and war preparation than on all other discretionary items combined. Of 230 other countries, the U.S. spends more on militarism than 227 of them combined. Russia and China spend a combined 21% of what the U.S. and its allies spend on war. Of 230 other countries, the U.S. exports more weaponry than 228 of them combined. The U.S. spends more on war per capita than any other nation, except Israel.
This is not normal or acceptable, or compatible with funding human and environmental needs. NATO has taught people to measure military spending as a percentage of a nation's economy, as if war were a public service to be maximized. Trump has recently switched from demanding 2% of economies for war to 3%, and then almost immediately to 5%. There's no logical limit.
Companies that profit from war, like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, will always push for more military spending. So will NATO. While NATO allies consider Russia their most immediate and direct threat, their long-term adversary is China. The constant search for enemies leads to a vicious cycle of arms races. But there is a different path: the pursuit of disarmament negotiations, the rule of law and global cooperation. If we pursued that path, we could move massive amounts of money away from weapons to invest in addressing the non-optional dangers of climate, disease, and poverty.
The rational and moral international piece of the Hands Off agenda should be to eliminate both NATO and the voracious militarism that threaten the future of life on this planet.
