• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

In a column several weeks ago, we expressed the opinion that the real
target of NATO is not puny Yugoslavia, but that huge continental expanse
known as Russia. We pointed out that NATO had formed a string of
political-military partnerships with nations bordering Russia — from
Lithuania and the Ukraine in Europe to Georgia and Azerbaijan in the
Caucasus. We quoted NATO’s own publication as our source of
information. Subsequent to that column, NATO had its 50th anniversary
hoopla in Washington in which it proclaimed its new mandate as
Globocop. There wasn’t much of an objection from Congress, which has
yet to ratify this new NATO treaty that commits America’s military
forces to support NATO in its new aggressive geopolitical Strategic
Concept.

As we all know, NATO is not a global charity. Humanitarianism is
merely a convenient propaganda front created to gain popular support for
its present war against Yugoslavia and its future humanitarian wars.
There is little doubt that NATO knew what the consequences of its
bombing would be: retaliation against the Kosovars and their mass
expulsion from Kosovo. NATO also knew that neither Milosevic, nor any
other Serbian leader, could accept its blunt ultimatum, thus
precipitating a war. The war was needed to serve notice on future
enemies that NATO had the military means to impose its will
unconditionally, and that it was better to surrender than fight.

But let’s get real. Behind all of the hypocritical rhetoric about
human rights is a much more powerful motivation. What is really at
stake is not ethnic harmony, but enormous economic wealth in the form of
oil and other minerals.

NATO is the military front for the Council on Foreign Relations,
which is supported by such corporate giants as Chase Manhattan, Exxon,
United Technologies, Lucent, Xerox, AT&T, J.P. Morgan, Chevron, Texaco,
Shell, Newsweek, Time Warner, Mobil, Pennzoil, and a hundred more
companies. These corporate entities apparently approve of the CFR as an
instrument of foreign policy. Its directors and members are the
individuals who have made the decision to go to war. All of the major
players in the Clinton administration are from the CFR. These are the
policy makers who voted for war against Yugoslavia. The CFR and NATO
share the same world vision and operate in concert.

Mortimer Zuckerman, owner of U.S. News and World Report, is a member
of the CFR. He frequently writes editorials in his magazine. The May
10 editorial is entitled “The big game gets bigger. Russia will gain
wealth and influence if it controls Caspian Sea oil.” After taking note
of Russia’s present weakness in Europe, he writes, “But in southern
Eurasia, off the political radar of the West, Russia is making much of
its limited resources in a region of weaker states where it still
retains influence and remains welcome. We had better wake up to the
dangers or one day the certainties on which we base our prosperity will
be certainties no more.”

Apparently, the oil and gas reserves in that area of the world are
valued up to $4 trillion, and that’s why NATO is venturing so far off
its North Atlantic base to form partnerships with those Eurasian nations
that sit on that wealth. NATO and its CFR corporate sponsors want to be
able to use American military assets to assure their ability to control
that area should there be “ethnic disharmony” or “human rights
violations.” Who would be the enemy in that area?

Zuckerman writes, “The competition for dominance in the Caspian will
be the 21st century version of the 19th century covert duel between the
Russian and British empires for control of central Asia.” Zuckerman
asks, “What are we doing about it?” His solution: “The first and most
critical strategic step is clearly for the United States to ensure that
multiple pipelines will be built out of the Caspian region, including at
least one main export pipeline that would go through Turkey, a crucial
ally.”

Aha, now we know why NATO is not concerned over how Turkey is
treating its Kurdish dissidents. Forget about humanitarianism and
ethnic cleansing. We need Turkey for NATO’s Eurasian strategy.

Finally, Zuckerman writes, “There is anxiety that American opposition
to Russia might play into the hands of the even more undemocratic and
anti-Western nationalist politicians waiting for a crisis in Moscow.
These are reasonable arguments — but make no mistake about it, the
risks pale by comparison with the risks we run if Russia wins the
biggest game while we sit on the sidelines.”

There you have it in a nutshell. We must risk nuclear World War III
in order to gain political and military control of natural resources on
Russia’s borders. I wonder how we would feel if a group of foreign
powers, armed with bombers and nuclear missiles, began surrounding the
United States with its intention of gaining control over the natural
resources in our backyard. I think we might begin to behave like the
Russians who have good reason not to trust NATO. All they have to do is
read Mortimer Zuckerman’s editorial to know exactly what NATO is
thinking and planning.

Meanwhile, the mad bomber keeps bombing Belgrade, accidentally
hitting the Chinese embassy, killing three people, wounding 20.
American pilots are being used by NATO to kill innocent people and
permanently damage America’s moral standing in the world. And Congress
can’t do a thing but provide Clinton with more money to continue the
bombing. Never has the Congress been more divided and confused in its
deliberations.

What has actually happened is that America has become a colony of
NATO, which can now use American men and women and our military assets
to carry out its Strategic Concept without the consent of the American
people, forcibly paid for by the American taxpayer. Is there a better
definition of a colony?

Meanwhile, we’d better start asking on what do we base our
prosperity? On the resources of other nations, or on economic freedom
and the resourcefulness of the American people? Mort Zuckerman has got
it wrong. We don’t need to control everybody else’s resources in order
to be prosperous. Nor should it be the policy of our government to
prevent Russia from gaining wealth from the resources in its own
backyard. A prosperous Russia would not be a threat to our own
prosperity.


Samuel L. Blumenfeld is the author of eight books on education,
including “Homeschooling: A Parents Guide to Teaching Children.” His
books are available on Amazon.com.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.