Joan Roelofs

Calling the aggressive US foreign policies “unilateralist” does not take into account the “bananazation” of the world. In the classical “banana republic,” the United States controls crucial foreign and/or domestic policies of another nation through ties with its military and intelligence institutions. Only now, there is some resistance in the lands where bananas grow, while “social democratic,” “neutral,” and reputedly “pacifist” countries of Western Europe are slipping into this status. While ordinary citizens have strong anti-war feelings and continue protesting, the military, political, and corporate elites of Europe have increasingly become dependents or confederates of the US military-industrial complex.

            The empire is created by many bonds, including economics, culture, philanthropy, and non-governmental organizations. Military hegemony often disappears from the discussion, yet it is of enormous dimensions. The latest DOD Base Structure Report lists 770 US military bases in 39 countries, 302 in Germany alone. The latter includes installations such as ski areas, golf courses, and girl scout camps. While these might seem benign, they signal the normalization of the occupation and its integration into the daily life of foreign nations. In addition to fixed bases there are floating, flying, orbiting, and diving parts of the arsenal.  

            Political influence is exerted on 150 nations through their participation in US military training programs, supervised by the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs. These include International Military Education and Training (IMET), now joined by Expanded IMET (E-IMET), which is more overtly political. It claims to help achieve US national security through “active promotion of democratic values,” and enrolls not only military personnel, but also “civilian leaders” who may or may not hold governmental positions. In recent years Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCET), which prepares Special Operations Forces, has increased in importance. Training is also provided for all militaries purchasing US armaments, or receiving loans for such purchases.

            Education occurs in the participating countries and at many institutions in the US, such as the infamous “School of the Americas,” now renamed Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC). Participants also attend courses in third countries; the George C. Marshall Center in Germany serves Europeans and others. A stated objective of these programs is “interoperability,” furthered by political compliance with US policy. Thus, WHINSEC claims to be benign because “public administration” courses are included, but this is obviously to prepare our trainees for their tasks after they have taken over governments. Yet another military-political mentoring process is the “sistering” of US National Guard units with the militaries of various nations.

            Obviously, our various military alliances are aimed at “interoperability.” These have been supplemented by less formal get-togethers, such as the Global War on Terror, Counter-Narcotics Training, Small Arms Destruction, and anti-piracy activities, e.g., in the Mediterranean. Regional coordination as in the recently announced African command add to the many channels for leadership and control of foreign military forces.

            The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a vast empire in itself. In tune with contemporary institutional styles, it includes not only the ever expanding group of treaty members, but also networks, partnerships, associates and guests; military contingents from Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea are invited to NATO events. A special status, “Partnership in Peace,” aids expansion to Eastern Europe, Asia, and the Mediterranean, and also within Western Europe. It is like a coffee date with NATO. Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, Austria, Finland (and Russia) are NATO’s “partners in peace,” and their military and civilian personnel receive instruction at the Marshall Center in democratic processes, human rights, and civil-military relations, as well as military training. Partners choose from a “menu” how far they want to go with NATO. Options include joint missions, combating terrorism, crisis response in the NATO Reaction Force (NRF), controlling mines and small arms, disaster rescue, and scientific cooperation.

            NATO also has a “dialogue” with seven Mediterranean partners: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia. However, it is very welcoming and seeks engagement with all Middle Eastern countries through the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. The rest of the world has not been neglected; the US military’s pursuit of partnership with India and throughout Africa is currently intense.

            The alliance is supposed to abide by its own treaty obligations, which includes the provision that signatories “undertake to settle international disputes by peaceful means and to refrain from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN Charter.” As its aggressive “out of area” activities have been well reported, they will not be discussed here, except to note that they have been multilateral, with willing participation of NATO members and humanitarian organizations. Our allies have also avoided recourse to UN organs designed to sanction aggression and threats of invasion.

            NATO has escalated bananazation by downplaying its military essence and claiming that it is simply the premier organization of democratic nations. The new idea is that security is no longer a territorial issue­--everything is relevant to it. Any policy of any nation, concerning economics, human rights, environment, secession movements, etc., may be a cause of terrorism or create an external threat that needs to be thwarted in advance, by NATO.

            In Western Europe, NATO has always been a political and economic force. Its military bases have served as a sentinels, similar to the “red” armies in Eastern Europe, only NATO’s encouraged good behavior in accordance with US interests. A major purpose was to forestall rebellion, whether armed or electoral. This was a genuine possibility in post-war Europe, as after the defeat of the fascist parties there were few political forces other than socialists and communists with any credibility. Construction of the Christian Democratic tendency took some time. The covert “fallback” armies, code-named “Gladio,” were additional insurance, and existed in “neutral” non-NATO countries as well.

            Economic activity surrounding bases, often situated in depressed areas, mollified the locals, while weapons procurement furthered military Keynsianism. Western Europe spent more on its military establishments than would have been the case without NATO, especially since the “threat of invasion” by USSR was widely regarded as a pretext. Fear of an independent German military was a more likely reason for joining the military alliance. Social Democratic governments could point to the treaty organization’s compulsory requirement for expenditures, thereby silencing some of their unhappy constituents.

            Gradually, NATO became a bureaucratic fixture, making connections with military, political, scientific, and corporate elites. It met with welcoming assurance the temporary elected governments of Europe. Christian Democrats and other conservatives were already in the military camp; Social Democrats, Greens, and even Communists became “pragmatic.” Hardcore NATO opponents, such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) in Great Britain or the current Socialist Left Party (SV) of Norway were faced with the choice of compromise or gradual extinction.

            Supranational institutions are an important tool in the bananazation of Europe. The bureaucrats constantly increase their power relative to the temporary elected governments and their now provincial-appearing political parties. The opposition to NATO, despite massive demonstrations from its beginning, and despite the former Green-led anti-missile protests, has not had enough political power to derail NATO’s expanding influence. At the same time, young (potential) radicals find excitement as part of the European-wide or United Nations agencies and their topical commissions, e.g., environment or human rights. Others staff the multinational “civil society” non-governmental organizations (NGOs). With more opportunities in politics and elsewhere for women and minorities, there are fewer angry, talented recruits for mass-based protest movements and parties. The plodding local work in traditional parties is not so attractive, especially since traditional sexist and racist prejudices may persist there.

            NGO people work closely with NATO, which is deeply involved in humanitarian work of all kinds, not merely disaster (natural or man-made) relief. The new doctrine states that everything affects security—human rights, health care, environment, etc.—and the military is best equipped to fix things. Recently, the US European Command Medical Civilian Assistance Program fixed people’s teeth in Rwanda and Botswana, on the theory that “. . . by exposing local civilian populations to positive contacts with US military members, the United States hopes to strengthen counter-terrorism capabilities.” A NATO policy document has announced a campaign to encourage NGOs to hire more military people as directors or staff.

            NATO’s science wing goes way beyond military matters. Its grants supported diverse university research in Eastern Europe after the collapse of government financing for education, science, and culture. Now that everything affects security, NATO sponsors research in women’s reproductive choices, sustainable development, leather tanning effluent toxicity, landscape architecture, and stained glass preservation. Many projects must be conducted jointly by teams including NATO member and PIP nationals, facilitating the mentoring of initiates.

            The closer integration of the European Union (despite the rejection of its Constitution) has meant that neutrality is no longer a possibility for EU members, whether or not they are in NATO. The EU is an associate of NATO, and participates in its “out of area” operations. Sweden and Finland are even considering going all the way and joining NATO, ending their coffee date status.