Started by wiktorkovalski, May 18, 2015, 11:38:41 PM
Quote from: wiktorkovalski on May 18, 2015, 11:38:41 PMEU and NATO policy today very often contradicts national interests of their member-states. Moreover it doesn't reflect the real needs and views of ordinary people that want to leave in peace. This fact can be proved by the existence of opposite points of view on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's and European Union's activity.For example in Italy a public campaign "No to war, No to NATO" has been started to collect signatures for a withdrawal from NATO. The initiative, supported by certain members of Parliament and public figures, was presented on April 21 at a Symposium held in the Senate of the Republic.Among other problems the speakers stressed was the high cost of membership, that costs Italy to 52 million euros a day. Military experts are sure that in reality, this amount is much higher. Moreover, in addition to important economic component there is the moral aspect: "the hands of NATO, that is, our hands bombed Yugoslavia, and Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Libya," - said writer and journalist Manlio Dinucci, an expert on military issues, one of the initiators of the campaign.For most people it is obvious that NATO has taken the course of confrontation. And the results of such policy supported by the Italian officials are seen very clearly today. One of them is thousands of migrants from Libya where NATO has its boots on the ground. It turned out that the Italian membership in the Alliance destroys the internal security of the country itself. The only way to stop migrants illegally arriving in Italy is to stop war in Libya that automatically means to stop supporting NATO killing people in this country. Why should Italy remain a member of NATO if it is so dangerous for it? It should be noted that European Union tries to resolve the problem. The European Commission on May 13 proposed the first ever activation of the emergency mechanism to help Member states confronted with a sudden influx of migrants. By the end of May, the Commission will propose a temporary distribution mechanism for persons in clear need of international protection within the EU. A proposal for a permanent EU system for relocation in emergency situations of mass influxes will follow by the end of 2015. But this and such measures will be taken to fight with the consequences of the problem, but not with the causes.In some other member-states even officials understand that the organization provides an opportunity to establish the hegemony of the US, which have 850 military bases around the world, some of them are NATO." Only in Italy there are 150 bases of NATO. Many real patriots of their countries see the necessity to limit the NATO activity.Building of a NATO permanent base on the Czech territory would not raise the country's security, Chief-of-Staff Petr Pavel told journalists. He added "I believe our country would not feel safer if there were bases with foreign soldiers on its territory.European countries that are not yet NATO member-states also clearly understand the negative side of such membership. In an interview for Finnish television, Finland's Finance Minister in March voiced his view that now is not the right time for Finland to join the Western military alliance, Finnish Broadcasting Company YLE reported.The words of European high level officials show the great difference in US' and Europe's understanding of the NATO role and its activity in Europe and outside the region.