G-EWGZMLLNG0
blog name png 2020 B red

Life Experience

NATO has failed. NATO 75th Anniversary 4 April 2024

Nato cluster bomb

NATO cluster bomb used in NATO bombing of Serbia/Yugoslavia

NATO 75th Anniversary, 4 April 2024
NATO has failed
Where did NATO go wrong?

For the past 25 years NATO leaders and NATO have been pursuing a different policy from that originally set out in the NATO treaty of 1945. 
The original treaty aimed particularly to defend Alliance members against the perceived Russian threat. It is now clear that we are in an armed confrontation with Russia which is not only costing huge sums militarily but has resulted in a huge hike in oil and gas prices which has very adversely impacted every person in Europe. It has put all Alliance members at risk.
For 70 years NATO’s policy of deterrence through strength and diplomacy was effective against Russia. However, 25 years ago NATO changed its policy from that of pure deterrence to an unpublicised policy of provocation  and aggression which has resulted in the present failure.
In 1999 NATO, in a flagrant breach of international law, set out to destroy the infrastructure of Serbia in an 79 day round-the-clock bombing campaign in what was called the Kosovo War. Serbia was, of course, in the Russian sphere of influence and it was a calculated risk that Russia would not move militarily to defend its ally. Russia took no action but it must have greatly annoyed the Russian leadership.
Since 1999 NATO has encouraged and accepted countries around the Russian border to join NATO so that Russia must have increasingly felt itself surrounded and weakened by expansionist NATO. To add to Russia’s sense of insecurity the fact that NATO forces exercised along its border parading in tanks cannot have been reassuring. At some point Russia was bound to feel the need to assert itself.
What was the change in NATO policy? How did it come about? How is it that the policy is known by almost no-one?
The following is an account I wrote in 2000 which answers these questions.

The “New NATO Treaty” and the Manipulation of the UK Parliament
The transformation of Britain’s defence and foreign policies

In June [2000] German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer and Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping appeared before the German Federal Constitutional Court. They were charged with infringing the German constitution by signing a new NATO agreement without consulting parliament on a matter of foreign policy. A ruling is expected autumn 2001.
Here in the UK Tony Blair experienced no problems in bringing about a totally undemocratic transformation of Britain’s defence and foreign policy. By means of a deceptive use of language he introduced to parliament what was, in effect, a new NATO treaty, yet parliament asked not a single question about the changes.
On 24 April 1999 Tony Blair was in Washington where he signed a formal agreement with other NATO leaders which spells out how NATO would cease to fight only in the defence of NATO countries and would be willing to initiate war for a whole range of other purposes, and not merely in Europe and North America, but throughout the world. In other words NATO would change from a defensive alliance to an aggressive alliance fighting to further its interests.
The document Tony Blair signed bears the title, The Alliance’s Strategic Concept. By not announcing the document as a treaty its authors and signatories intended to hide from MPs and the public its huge significance and escape the need for ratification.
However, The Alliance’s Strategic Concept document clearly wipes out and replaces the 1949 NATO Treaty. It states, “The Strategic Concept will govern the Alliance’s security and defence policy, its operational concepts, its conventional and nuclear force posture and its collective defence arrangements.”
All Tony Blair told Parliament on 26 April 1999 was that with Robin Cook and George Robertson he had attended the NATO summit in Washington and, “Copies of the Washington Declaration, the alliance’s new strategic concept, the summit communique, and other summit documents are being placed in the library of the House.” End of discussion. No-one knew what he was talking about, so no-one raised any questions.
Blatant dishonesty
The hypocrisy and dishonesty of the Alliance’s Strategic Concept is breathtaking and tells us a great deal about the characters of its signatories. As the document was being signed the bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO countries was at its height. We were bombing civilian targets, and were in contravention of several international treaties and the Charter of the United Nations. The UK Government had taken no vote to go to war. Yet the document reaffirmed that the Alliance was “based on common values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.” It stated, “the Alliance will continue to respect the legitimate security interests of others, and seek the peaceful resolution of disputes as set out in the Charter of the United Nations.”
As the bombs fell on Yugoslavia the new NATO document also confirmed its commitment to “the peaceful resolution of disputes, in which no country would be able to intimidate or coerce any other through the threat or use of force.”
But the document does spell out new eventualities which NATO sees as possible reasons or excuses for taking military action. NATO’s new Strategic Concept talks of “non-Article 5 crisis response operations.” This is the kind of language that attempts to draw a veil over the brutal truth.
“Article 5” refers to the core sentence of the 1949 NATO Treaty. “The parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe and North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” It affirmed that NATO was a purely defensive alliance and that its area of action was limited to the stated territory. Also, as defensive war is the only kind sanctioned by the United Nations. (Article 51) it established NATO within the scope of United Nations Charter.
The vague and anodyne language of this new document spells out NATO’S self-given permission to carry out “non-Article 5 crisis response operations.” Plainly expressed, NATO will wage war, (bomb, destroy, dominate, take control) anywhere in the world, for an array of reasons or pretences that could occur – and which, in fact, already are occurring around the world.
Nothing in the United Nations Charter could possibly sanction military action for NATO’s “non-Article 5” stated purposes. NATO, therefore, clearly intend to override the United Nations’ Charter and dismiss the authority of the United Nations.
NATO’s new Strategic Concept sees the world as its area of operation and asserts the right to take military action in support of trade. “Alliance security must take account of the global context. . . . the disruption of the flow of vital resources. . . the uncontrolled movement of large numbers of people, humanitarian emergencies. . . Essential tasks will include controlling, protecting, and defending territory.”
NATO control of territory is the opposite of democracy, and is currently being demonstrated in Kosovo and Bosnia where the appointed High Representatives (dictators) rule by decree. In the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia the carrot of desperately needed aid, following NATO’s destruction of Yugoslavia’s industry, ensures economic subjugation and with the deportation of Mr Milosevic to the Hague shows how NATO can even overrule a nation’s constitution.
The bombing of Yugoslavia demonstrated the new NATO treaty or strategic concept, in action. It showed that NATO sees taking military, economic and political control of other countries as a legitimate activity. It shows NATO, no longer in awe of Russia, taking on new roles to ensure the continued expansion of the arms trade. It shows NATO as the amoral military enforcer for the new NATO imperialism. It is indifferent to the principles of the United Nations Charter, truth, justice, openness and accountability.
David Roberts, 2000.

Footnote
The NATO assault on Serbia
“The NATO bombing killed about 1,000 members of the Yugoslav security forces in addition to between 489 and 528 civilians. It destroyed or damaged bridges, industrial plants, hospitals, schools, cultural monuments, and private businesses, as well as barracks and military installations.”
Wikipedia, retrieved 4 4 2024.

Please consider sharing this post

More on similar interests

David Roberts

Writer, publisher, music promoter

Born in 1942, I now have time to enjoy life more widely and reflect on my experience, interests, and contemporary events.

David Roberts

Special
Explore
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
Scroll to Top