With NATO or against NATO, no neutrality allowed?

Former Bolivian president Evo Morales described NATO as something that should be eliminated, linking the alliance to imperialistic wars and the plundering of natural resources.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is popular, out of habit, among the more cohesive mass of simpletons whose votes settle the outcomes of elections in countries such as my own Great Britain. However, in fact, the US-led bloc is detrimental to the national interests of any country whose obligations lie elsewhere abroad and not in propping up America-centric strategies.

The Bushism and Neoconservatism of NATO

An increasingly immature and intellectually bankrupt attitude is guiding Western foreign policy, with leaders seemingly less and less familiar with the normal behaviour expected in diplomacy. There seems to be absolutely no appreciation of the complexity of other countries' foreign policy, as Western governments think in black and white terms. You are with them, or you are against them.

You are either supporting democracy, in which case you support all countries joining NATO or being forced to comply with the US government's policies (what Pakistan's Imran Khan called being their slaves), or you are siding with the dictators and the terrorists. One must collude with and enchain their nation to the American master, or they are to be condemned and their legitimacy somehow questioned.

The reign of the neoconservatives, who gave rise to George W. Bush's maxim, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists", overrides all Western foreign policy thought, rather than being rejected as it should have been when it led to the terrorist blowback problems in Afghanistan and Iraq. The NATO powers are increasingly obsessed by the idea that everyone must join them, and that there can be no neutrality anymore. Even Switzerland seems to have somehow been pressured into aborting its neutral status.

What is happening now poses an existential threat to the Global South. The US will demand that they all join NATO, whether officially or unofficially, aligning with the West. Those who do not ally with them will be deemed to be authoritarian despots - a qualification that is met solely if you do not support American military deployment on your territory.

The NATO of the South

The 120 countries of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) are all perpetual candidates for violent regime-change and chaos, as the US supported in Ukraine in 2014 in an action that ultimately led to the current conflict underway in that country. What the assassinated former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi called a "NATO of the South" was and is a necessity, because the non-aligned countries remain the most vulnerable to wars of aggression and regime-change attempts by the West.

Both Muammar Gaddafi and Hugo Chavez, the latter also being an advocate of South-South cooperation and mutual defence, perished under conditions that suggest the United States gave the orders for their deaths. If true, it is because, even without Russia and China, a cooperative Global South represents a potentially insurmountable military obstacle to the Western imperialism and parasitism against the sovereign natural resources of the colonised nations.

Yes, without being able to, metaphorically, suck the blood of the people of the Global South, the Global North and NATO are deprived of the raw materials that provide for their supreme military strength. They cannot have these countries outside their control and, in future, even nonalignment and pacifism in the oppressed South will be increasingly seen by NATO as hostile as the Western powers seek to enslave them as servants.

Pacifism is not the way. A good course for non-aligned countries is to build an intimidating network of defences to repel NATO attack, develop economic self-sufficiency to resist sanctions, and nationalise so as to return control of natural resources to the people.