Nato decision was a mistake

Peace researcher criticises call for casus foederis

The Frankfurt-based peace researcher Professor Ernst-Otto Czempiel considers the decision taken by NATO to invoke Article 5, in response to the terror attack on the U.S., to be a breach of the NATO treaty.

Question: NATO announced that the terror attack was a case for collective defence. Is this an adequate reaction?

Czempiel: The NATO treaty provides for the casus foederis in the event of an armed attack on the territorial integrity of a member state of NATO. However, this has not happened. We are dealing with a case not defined by the NATO treaty.

How do you assess the decision from the perspective of European interests?

It would have been quite sufficient if the other NATO members had declared their solidarity and announced their willingness to co-operate with the U.S. So one can assume that the United States, in their reaction to the attack, is also pursuing political goals unrelated to the attack itself, namely getting her allies to back up American policy and involving them in conflicts which they have not yet been involved in.

The decision was a mistake, then?

It was an unwise decision by the Europeans. The U.S. will anyhow react to the attack in whatever way they see fit. They have involved NATO to strengthen their leadership within the alliance.

But by invoking casus foederis are the Europeans then not in the best position to influence U.S. policy?

No, they are not. Take the example of the consultations on the planned U.S. defence shield. The Americans simply said, either you support us or you do not, in which case we will go it alone. This is the style of American leadership, in particular under President Bush.

Should Germany then have been the only European state to speak out against the NATO decision?

It is very unlikely that the German government had any choice. The Germans owe the U.S. a lot from the days of the Cold War. I am not talking about a mistake of the German government here, but of a mistake the Europeans have made. America is trying to redefine the alliance as a world-wide operational interventionist military force. We have just taken another step in this direction.

And what is the significance of the NATO-decision for the conflict as a whole? The terrorist attack on America must also be seen as a response to the imperial world leadership policy of America. This is something the Europeans just cannot influence. Why, then, should they bear the consequences of this policy? This attack probably would not have taken place if Bush had not totally reversed Clintons Middle East policy.

Are you saying that the activities of terrorist groups depend on the policy that different U.S. administrations pursue?

There is no direct causal relationship, but indirectly the two are connected. Terrorism can only thrive on the acceptance of its successes among those it addresses. If you look at how people in Arab countries triumph at such attacks, then you see that it is not too far-fetched to perceive a connection between U.S. policy in the Middle East and the terrorist activities we are currently witnessing.

Couldnt a conservative politician like President Bush afford to react more cau tiously as he is not likely to be accused of lacking patriotism?

I dont think so. In contrast to the Democrats, the prevailing attitude with Republicans is a unilateral, if not autistic militarism. These circles are going to exploit the recent events not only to react to the terrorist attack, but to also seize the opportunity and try to solve various political and strategic problems which have been top of their list for a long time, perhaps, for example, the destruction of Iraq. Now it can all be done in one go. And if the Europeans are drawn into this, then this will inevitably lead to the globalisation of terror.

Can terrorists be influenced by military?

Of course not, if only for the simple reason that no one knows where they are. And they can decide where they will strike next. First New York, tomorrow maybe Saarbrücken, and then perhaps Kairo. The former head of the CIA, Robert Gates, was absolutely right when he said terrorism can only be overcome when you solve the problems that cause it: the unsolved conflicts.