What happens when we are ALL in?
I think that the Great Military Minds sitting in the hallowed halls of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Brussels clearly owe a debt of gratitude to our illustrious Prime Minister for his steadfast refusal to sign up.
Kostunica, in telling the world that he is against Serbia’s joining NATO, is actually positing himself as a safeguard of the alliance’s continuity. If we were ALL members, then who would we oppose? Who would the alliance bully into submission? From whom would NATO protect us? If we were all members in this heretofore rather exclusive club, how could we be the envy of the rest of the world – if the rest of the world also carries the club card?
In other words, what is it the point of everyone driving a Mercedes when there are no Yugo owners in front of whom we could parade ourselves with big gloating smiles?
In an attempt to understand this vexing conundrum, I looked into the definition of military alliances. According to Wikipedia:
“A military alliance is an agreement between two, or more, military factions; related to wartime planning, commitments, or contingencies; such agreements can be both defensive and offensive. Military alliances often involve non-military agreements, in addition to their primary purpose.”
It is therefore to be accepted that the very existence of such an alliance is symbiotic with and determined by the existence of an opposing force. In fact, the relationship is more than symbiotic: it is in fact mutual and reciprocal – one cannot be without the other. It is like Yin and Yang, lawn and lawn mower, sign and signifier, prey and predator.
When all is said and done, when the campaign is over and the NATO Sales Team has successfully pitched the Whole World, only one thing will endure which will give a purpose and establish any meaning for NATO. One man stands between existence and extinctions for the NATOcrats, NATOphiles, and NATOlogists.
Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister.