As so often, the Americans are proving a menace on the international stage.

And the term humbug is wholly inadequate to describe the reproaches that President Bush heaps on the Russians.

As are reckless and irresponsible to describe the use of the U.S. military to carry humanitarian aid to Georgia. That is the way conflicts can escalate.

It is easy to imagine the frenzy in Washington if Russia treated the U.S.'s Latin American neighbours as though they were within its sphere of influence.

One question has been lingering for years.

Whatever made Washington think it could keep pushing Nato right up to Russia's border without provoking conflict?

Some European governments have long been uneasy about this provocative strategy, but never the United States.

This dangerous recruitment drive started under President Clinton.

Now we have Poland and the Czech Republic agreeing to U.S. missile and radar sites.

Almost beyond belief, Nato is wooing the Ukraine.

Yet, as anyone with an ounce of history knows, fear of encirclement has characterised Russia for centuries - after so many invasions from east, west and south.

This fear has a deep hold on the country's psyche. This is not just being ignored by the U.S., it is being flouted.

The problem about Nato is that it may be a multi-nation alliance in theory, but Washington has always led it by the nose, being the dominant power, by virtue of size, funds and military technology.

There is also a curious fear that if we upset the Americans they might lose interest in Europe and become isolationist. If only!

Few would have believed that East-West relations should have so declined 20 years after the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

Nato itself has been a principle cause. With the collapse of Communism, the organisation lost its principal purpose.

But anyone familiar with large international organisations knows that no great military and bureaucratic machine is ever easily persuaded to dismantle itself or even shrink.

Jobs, pensions, prestigious appointments, fringe benefits, visa privileges and all the other comforts of officialdom were at stake.

So Nato set about devising a new role - expansion to the east.

This fitted all too well with Washington's expansionist instincts.

Every quarter of the globe is regarded as the business of the U.S.

Everyone is seen as needing American guidance, to say nothing of lectures on human rights and the rule of law (from the creators of Guantanamo Bay).

The expansionist urge gained impetus from the 'neo-cons' in the late 1990s, with their 'Project for the New American Century', in which they lamented a lack of forcefulness in Washington's policies.

Commanding huge sums of money, not least from the defence contractors, they succeeded in getting their pawn into the Oval Office and themselves into key government posts.

The American defence industry has good reason for backing the drive to the east.

The former Soviet satellites could be offered American military technology, naturally on comfortable terms.

The 'industrial-military complex', which a disillusioned President Eisenhower warned against nearly half-a-century ago, is alive and well.

Now we are in a position as if the Cold War had never ended.

Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has announced that the current conflict does not mean that Georgia may not yet become a Nato member.

He seems happy, like Bush, to strengthen the hardliners in the Kremlin.

In the course of its relentless expansion, Nato has acquired dangerous commitments.

The alliance is pledged to come to the aid of any member under threat.

Thus, we assume a responsibility for the policies of an array of former Soviet satellites, many of them traditionally unfriendly to Russia.

The belief that because these countries are now democracies they are bound to behave responsibly is absurdly optimistic.

We cannot be certain that none of the new Nato states - nine of them resentful, former Soviet satellites - may not drag us into conflict with Russia.

The position of Russian passport-holders in the Baltic states, a remnant from the Soviet conquest in World War II, has already been seen as a potential source of trouble.

Baiting the Bear is not only dangerous, it is wholly unnecessary.

Russia will do as it pleases - which may sometimes be disagreeable - when it thinks its own security is at stake.

It is hard to see why President Bush, of all people, should be surprised, let alone shocked.

• If you are looking for the voice of calm reason, you will certainly not find it in David Cameron, breaking off from his holiday to clarify the Tory position on the current conflict.

He declares that the path to Nato membership for Georgia and the Ukraine should be 'accelerated'.

The kindest conclusion is that the poor fellow has got a touch of sunstroke.

Source >  Mail Online

Copyright © - EFFEDIEFFE - all rights reserved.
Link a questo articolo : http://www.effedieffe.com/content/view/4173/152/