Column: NATO reaches an agreement with Russia and hopes for peace

Wednesday, April, 2, 2008; 12:00 AM | 3 | | Print

Share


This week, The North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the government of Russia reached an agreement that will allow NATO transit rights through Russia into Afghanistan, enabling NATO forces to enter the war-torn country through a northern gateway, a strategic advantage intended to give peacekeeping forces an edge while fighting the Taliban.

This news comes as the annual NATO summit kicks off in Bucharest, Romania. Hot topics on the table include setting up a fast-track membership for Georgia and the Ukraine, former Soviet states that Russia considers of great national interest.

President Bush has pledged to fully support the new states' memberships, but the Kremlin has responded firmly in the opposite direction, alleging that allowing Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO would fundamentally upset the current European balance of power. With Putin and Bush expected to meet this week, our president is expected to sternly defend the former Soviet states' intention to join NATO, an honorable act for a liberal democracy. Upon stepping back and looking at a world map, however, the picture gains clarity. Although we gladly welcome two democratic governments to the table, we are doing so for the wrong reasons.

The United States of America does not care about international democracy. We have placed Georgia and the Ukraine on the NATO waiting list, not as a nod to their respective forms of government, but rather their geographic location. The Ukraine serves as an essential strategic gateway to the eastern reaches of Europe, and Georgia practically opens the door to the southern reaches of the continent, home to our most reviled enemy: the looming storm cloud known as "terror." In the interest of further securing our status as operators of the Middle Eastern oil empire, we are working fiercely to wrest economic control from the region.

In Iraq, we do so in the name of spreading democracy. Obviously, this is not the case, nor was it the case when the White House first proposed its invasion of another sovereign state; I believe it had something to do with weapons of mass destruction.

Continue Reading: 12 Next » 

Leave a comment 3 Comments Write a letter to the editor

Engrish | # April 2, 2008 @ 4:16 AM — Flag Comment

Stop the presses! American foreign policy is about securing our national interest?

Reply to this Top


Peebles | # April 2, 2008 @ 12:38 PM — Flag Comment

Yes, yes, old news. I just want a little more transparency. Is that too much to ask?

Reply to this Top


Kyle Minor | # April 2, 2008 @ 12:56 PM — Flag Comment

The only thing the American government will ever do is grow LESS transparent - regardless of which party is in power. Such is the peril of the republican system - you have to put your faith in the guy you elect.

Reply to this Top