Returning to the Worst Days of the Cold War

Blatant and brutal power politics, which we do not need

Interview with Hans Christof Graf von Sponeck by Silvia Cattori (Excerpt)

Hans von Sponeck: Nato is an instrument of the Cold War; for many years Nato was looking for a new mission, for a new role. The only thing the allies knew was that they have a military responsibility but, with the end of the Cold War in Europe, that responsibility no longer existed and was no longer necessary. So there was this desperate search for a new role.
I personally think that it is extremely dangerous that Nato now presents itself as a democratic instrument for western democracies while, in fact, it is a tool in the hands of the United States to implement the Project for the New American Century. Neoconservatives in the United States made this famous proposal in the 1990s – while the Bush administration converted it into its national security strategy of 2002 and subsequent years – and Nato is supposed to assist its implementation. The responsible politicians that recently met in Munich should have rejected this concept.
Mr Vladimir Putin, the Russian President, for once did not mince his words and expressed plainly what many of us feel. Of course, those who follow a different agenda rejected his suggestions. However, there is a reality in what Mr Putin said.
I am convinced that, due to this militarised politization of Nato, we have taken a big step backwards to what is not only a Cold War atmosphere between major powers, but also, and this is the tragedy, to an increase in defence spending in many countries including China, Russia, and Western Europe. This spending has already been greatly increased in numerous countries, and it can serve no other purpose than escalating the polarisation between different groups around the world.
The world beyond Central Europe and North America is no longer willing to accept a western one-sided policy. The public no longer accepts the requirements of last century’s military and economic powers. Their days are over and, if we do not take this into account, we will only make things worse.
To me, the key words at the moment are dialogue and diplomacy. We have to accomplish this in a clearly multilateral spirit, not in the spirit of a superpower, which is anything but a superpower be it economically, politically or morally, let alone ethically.
Even if there is a little bit of superpower spirit left in the United States because of its military power, it is not going to be enough to save the Pax Americana. Pax Americana is a thing of the past and the sooner we recognise this in Europe and prepare ourselves for multilateral cooperation – which is something different from the bilateral or Nato type cooperation – the better it will be.

Silvia Cattori: Nato is taking part in wars of occupation – in contradiction to its own Charter – and, in collaboration with the CIA, it is involved in secret criminal operations: What I think of in this context are the abductions of suspects to secret prisons. If Europe continues to submit itself to and accepts the installation of American anti-missile systems in Nato member states, might this not lead to confrontation, or even to the return to the worst days of Cold War?
Hans von Sponeck: It is insane. There is no excuse, and Condoleezza Rice’s argument according to which Russia had no reason to worry about ten anti-missile systems to be stationed in Poland and in the Czech Republic is so dishonest. If ten can be placed today, twenty might be placed tomorrow. The very fact that these anti-missile systems are positioned at the border of the former USSR, or Russia, is already enough to intensify the reasons for confrontation between Russia and the West, let alone China.
We are creating and we are shaping tomorrow’s enemy. I, and with me many others around the globe, cannot accept this development. We do not count, however, we are weak, we are considered naïve, we are considered “blue-eyed people”, as the Americans have often called us, who do not understand the global vision.
Well, if we are living in a democracy, then I have the right to understand this global vision, but I am not informed about it. I am just asked to rely on the good will and on the good intentions of a government like the one in Washington. But I cannot do so, we cannot do so, because we have been disappointed over and over again by misinformation, by brutal dishonesty, by power politics that only served one party. I am far from accepting this and, therefore, I regard the whole policy of convincing the Czech and Polish governments to have these antimissile systems as extremely dangerous and misplaced. That is nothing but blatant and brutal power politics, which we do not need and which we will fight against. It is nothing that peace, future internationalism and the consolidation of nations and progress need – in the spirit of the UN Charter and other international laws.

Source: Interview with Silvia Cattori, in Current Concerns Nr. 6/2007 (Excerpt)

The missile shield is a danger for peace and security in Europe

The latest US plans for building a radar station in Czechia and a missile base in Poland have sparked large-scale discussions also in the media and among the people of Slovakia. The reason is that Slovakia, bordering Russia directly, would be threatened directly by a Russian reaction, as the Russian president Putin has already declared.
Additionally, the planned erection of the US anti-missile shield can create a new arms spiral between Nato and Russia which could further deteriorate our already low standard of living in the near future.
We have to explain to our foreign readers that in our country almost nobody believes that the new missile shield is meant to protect against attacks from Iran or North Corea – which the Nato has declared repeatedly. Our population still remembers the inhumane bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 by Nato air forces.
What we in Slovakia feel very sad about is that there is no unity within the government regarding this important question: Prime Minister Robert Fico opposes the missile shield, but Foreign Minister Ján Kubis supports it at home and abroad.
But this does not change the fact that the majority of the population of Slovakia clearly opposes the missile shield.
Dr. Zoltán Adorján, Bratislava, Slovakia

“They say it openly: America wants to build a global missile defense system. This would be a worldwide system consisting of many regional and local subsystems, ready for use whenever the Americans feel threatened and so consider war or perform military operations. They could use this mobile shield to protect their troops.” Consisting of four components – sea-based, land-based, air-launched and in space – the US could use the system anywhere.“ This implies that their troops would be immune from any retaliation. Whatever they did, right or wrong, I’d say they could do it with full impunity.” The defense shield would favour military interventions: “One power can do what it wants, the others are at its mercy.”
States like Russia or China would not take such a situation lying down and would start deploying anti-anti-missile systems and enhancing their potential for attack. “The whole process will destabilize international security. What is it good for?”
Roman Kuzniar, Director of the Polish Institute of Foreign Policy

As the U.S. seeks to encircle Russia with a string of “color revolutions” from Ukraine to Georgia to the wilds of Central Asia, a geopolitical game is being played out, one that involves an increasing risk of violent conflict. The volatile mix of ethnic, religious, and political feuds that make life dangerous in the former Soviet republics is a veritable sandbox for the American regime-changers to play in, and the amount of trouble they can cause is considerable. The War Party’s relentless campaign to further humiliate an empire already humbled and shattered is playing with fire – nuclear fire, to be exact. The Cold War was a bad idea to begin with; its revival is an even worse one.

Source: Justin Raimondo. To Russia, With Hate. The War Party targets the Kremlin. www.antiwar.com, April 18, 2007

More than half of the Polish population (56%) think that the US shield should not be erected on Polish territory. The number of opponents has risen by seven percent in the last six months, being now twice as large as the number of proponents.
Source: Der Standard, March 31, 2007

“The population is not only sceptical but rejects the current American policy regarding the missile shield”.
Dr. Nora Krausova, Slovakia

“I oppose a missile shield. It raises the danger of war!”
Professor Vencent Csabik, Bratislava, Slovakia (he will soon publish a book on the nuclear question after the Second World War)

“The military base would be granted an extraterritorial status. Hence, the Polish Government has to think twice if it can or wants to accept this total power of decision for the Americans.”
Maria Wagrowska, former editor in chief of the journal Polish Forces, military expert to the Center of International Relations (CSM) in Warsaw. Source: Der Standard, March 1, 2007

The inhabitants of the western Bohemian community of Trokavec, 20 km south-east of Pilzen, have dismissed the erection of an American radar station in a local referendum. 72 of 89 voters took part in the vote, 71 voted against the project. Trokavec is only two kilometers off the projected location on the training ground of Brdy.
Source: Der Standard, March 21, 2007

“The missilie shield is very bad for us. It will lead to a new arms race and raise the danger of war. It is a new Cold War starting. We do not have a voice. The people oppose it.”
Viera Svenkova, Bratislava, Slovakia

“The project is dangerous, because it can lead to a new arms race. [...] The people will not simply forget that the government has started negotiations with the US while 70% of the people oppose building a missile shield. This should not happen in a real democracy, these are attributes of a dictatorship.”
Jan Tamas, Head of the Czech Humanistic Party Source: Der Standard, May 2, 2007