Following the collapse of the Soviet bloc, many hoped for a new world order where peace prevails, war is rendered pointless, and law regulates the international scene. Unfortunately, the US started looking for new enemies, if just an excuse to keep NATO alive after the disintegration of its archrival, the Warsaw Pact. NATO was going to fight terrorism, US neo-cons told us. Their argument was comical, for you don't fight terrorism with large armies. You don't fight fundamentalism with intercontinental ballistic missiles. All you need to fight extremists is intelligence and virtue, but that wasn't something the neo-cons wanted to consider. The US had NATO expand its membership to include 26 countries, including former members of the Socialist bloc and Soviet Union. The neo-cons' holy book, known as the Project for the New American Century, called for complete US hegemony over the entire world, by peaceful or military means. The recent NATO summit, held in Bucharest 2-4 April, was the largest ever in the organisation's history. Its agenda focussed mainly on the admission of two former Soviet republics, Ukraine and Georgia, as members. Before heading out to Bucharest, President Bush once again told the world that terrorism was the main challenge for NATO, asking the organisation to send more troops to Afghanistan. Even the US media found Bush's words preposterous. Do we really need to fire a $10 million missile to kill a camel in the desert? US commentators wondered. President Bush, undaunted by the criticism, still portrays the Taliban as a major threat to world peace, a threat that needs to be confronted with all the military power and might of NATO. Bush's remarks may be absurd, but we have every reason to worry. Why exactly is Bush building up the capabilities of NATO? Who does he intend to use NATO against? NATO is not exactly equipped to stamp out terrorism or fundamentalism. So who exactly is the real enemy?
