Second in a four-part series on the 70th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.<\/p>\n
The first installment<\/a> in this series discussed how NATO was set up partly to blunt the European Left. The other major factor driving the creation of NATO was a desire to bolster colonial authority and bring the world under a US geopolitical umbrella.<\/p>\n From the outset Canadian officials had an incredibly expansive definition of NATO\u2019s supposed defensive character, which says an \u201cattack against one ally is considered as an attack against all allies.\u201d As part of the Parliamentary debate over NATO external minister Lester Pearson said: \u201cThere<\/a> is no better way of ensuring the security of the Pacific Ocean at this particular moment than by working out, between the great democratic powers, a security arrangement the effects of which will be felt all over the world, including the Pacific area.\u201d Two years later he said: \u201cThe<\/a> defence of the Middle East is vital to the successful defence of Europe and north Atlantic area.\u201d In 1953 Pearson went even further: \u201cThere<\/a> is now only a relatively small [5000 kilometre] geographical gap between southeast Asia and the area covered by the North Atlantic treaty, which goes to the eastern boundaries of Turkey.\u201d<\/p>\n In one sense the popular portrayal of NATO as a defensive arrangement was apt. After Europe\u2019s second Great War the colonial powers were economically weak while anti-colonial movements could increasingly garner outside…<\/p>\n<\/div>\n