NATO Has Got to Go

 

By David Starr

 

The United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have continued to ignore the chance for immediate negotiations to stop the Russian–Ukraine war. Thus, they ignore a chance for peace.

 

 The U.S./NATO alliance continues to push for a military solution to the war. In mid-to-late June 2023, the alliance put on a show of strength with a new round of war games. Germany invited the U.S. and other nations of the alliance to simulate an air war over most of Europe. John Wojcik, Editor-in-Chief of the People’s World, wrote that it was “the biggest war provocation in history in its airspace…”

 

Wojcik added that it involved “10,000 armed participants from 25 countries.” The U.S. sent “2,000 Air National Guard members and more than 100 of the 250 jet fighters that [participated].” The alliance also used ships to “close in on European coastlines in their massive simulation of what they say NATO would have to do if it were necessary to defend an attack from–or mount an attack on–Russia, China, or anyone else.”

 

When the rest of the world is trying to cool tensions, the alliance continues to follow the script of imperial expansion with victims of the war not high on its list of priorities. Wojcik quoted the U.S. Ambassador to Germany, Amy Gutmann: 

 

“We will show beyond a shadow of a doubt the ability and swiftness of our allied force in NATO as a first responder. I would be pretty surprised if any world leader was not taking note of what this shows in terms of the spirit of this alliance, which means the strength of this alliance.”

 

Gutmann shows more proof that peace is not a priority for the alliance, despite reassurances from U.S. officials that the U.S. supposedly prioritizes an avoidance of nuclear war. It’s very odd, and cynical, that further fueling the Russia–Ukraine war is at the same time a way to avoid nuclear war. Quite the contrary.

 

Another imperial shill from the U.S., Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth, said on TV, and Wojcik quotes, that it’s “clear to the world that the U.S. military is the fiercest and most powerful in the world with a capability of dealing lethal blows that is greater than anyone else’s lethality.” Bragging about your military might while ignoring a chance for peace? Wormuth also made no mention of the victims of the war, Ukrainian and Russian.

 

Not everyone was exactly happy about the war games (or war provocations) in Germany. Germans came out to protest the military exercises. Editors of the People’s Dispatch wrote the following: 

 

“On June 10, hundreds of activists from various anti-imperialist and anti-war groups as well as the Communist Party of Germany (DKP) marched to the Wunstorf Air Base in Hannover to protest the NATO’s Air Defender exercise scheduled from June 12-23. A vigil was also held at the Spandahlem Air Base near Trier, which will also serve as a base for the exercise. Die Linke [a Leftist party] organized protests against the NATO exercise on June 11.” 

 

The protests condemned the U.S./NATO alliances’ hunger for war. In particular, NATO was condemned for its belligerence. There were calls for a ceasefire and negotiations between Russia and Ukraine; also, the removal of the U.S.’s nuclear weapons from Germany.

 

In European countries, overall, many are not glorifying the war and its’ escalation. Quite the contrary, most are not happy about the conflict. It has affected many where millions are struggling to cope with inflation and an energy crisis, the latter which was brought on by sanctions on cheap Russian oil. There’s been an increase in military spending at the expense of cutting social programs.

 

Quoting from the People’s Dispatch on Die Linke’s statement of June 12 about the provocations and the fueling of the war: “This military saber rattling is irresponsible! We will not adapt to war and the military as tools of foreign policy.”

 

There have been assurances from the West, for example, by the media, that NATO could play a progressive and democratic role in the world. Further, there have been progressives and members on the left who seemingly glorify NATO and the prospects of it playing a positive role. This is prompted by the Russia-Ukraine war, where NATO may be viewed as a “liberating” force to aid Ukraine. 

 

But not according to Josefina Martinez and Diego Lotito, writing in Left Voice: “NATO is an imperialist war machine at the service of US and European expansionism. In our time we will undoubtedly see increasing confrontations between world powers, as shown by the war in Ukraine.”

 

What is the purpose of NATO, specifically? Established in 1949, its original function was to provide security for its member countries in Western Europe in case of Soviet expansionism. (Although, Stalinism unfortunately was dominant in the USSR at the time. While there were positive factors in the USSR’s history, Stalin and some in his inner circle imposed a deformed version of socialism in that country.) NATO’s original members were Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United States. Years later in 1952, Greece and Turkey were admitted, eventually followed by West Germany (1955) and Spain (1982).

 

The Warsaw Pact was established by the Communist Bloc in 1955 to counter the existence of NATO. Its original members were Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania and the Soviet Union. In 1989 and 1990, the Communist Bloc dissolved and in turn the dissolving of the Warsaw Pact.

 

Now, there are about 30 members in NATO, with former socialist countries joining beginning in the late 1990s. 

 

With the Warsaw Pact dissolved, it would have made sense for NATO to dissolve; if one is talking about mutual agreements and being ethical about it. In February 1990, James Baker, Secretary of State in the administration of U.S. President George H.W. Bush, promised Soviet leader Mickael Gorbachev that NATO would expand “not one inch” towards the East. This was based on an agreement that Germany would be reunified. 

 

But the Bush administration contradicted Baker’s promise. Bush retorted: “To hell with that!” Additionally, it is said that Bush told German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, “We prevailed, they didn’t. We can’t let the Soviets snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.”   So, based on a lie, NATO expanded right to Russia’s borders. Given that the West, especially the United States, has a historical pattern of breaking promises and agreements, one could say that Gorbachev should have known better, instead of being naïve.

 

Quoting from Solidarity magazine, in a piece written by Adam Adelpour, Mircea Geoana, NATO Deputy Secretary General said in June 2022 that “NATO is a defensive alliance whose primary responsibility is to protect one billion citizens in Europe and North America. And, “NATO exists to deter any aggression, defend our people, our democratic values, prevent conflict, and allow people to have ideas, to prosper and to fulfill their lives and their dreams.” Compared to this rhetoric, Adelpour wrote, “NATO’s history shows this couldn’t be further from the truth.”

 

Adelpour then provides examples of NATO’s imperial debacles:

 

“NATO was anything but democratic. It included the Portuguese Salazar dictatorship amongst its first 12 members. 

 

“When the Greek military launched a coup and seized power in 1967 the right-wing Greek Colonels had the backing of NATO until they were overthrown in 1974.

 

“France waged bloody wars to defend its colonial empire in Algeria and Indochina while it was a NATO member, with US backing.”

 

Adelpour continued, citing “out of area operations” by NATO when it bombed Yugoslavia, particularly an 11-week bombing campaign against Serbia. According to Martinez and Lotito, writing in Left Voice, “Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro were bombed by 600 planes from thirteen countries, resulting in the deaths of 2,500 to 5,700 civilians with thousands of others injured, and tremendous material and environmental damage caused by the use of uranium bombs.” They mention NATO’s reason for this was to stop ethnic cleansing by the Serbs. (Bosnians and Croatians also committed vile acts, so Serbia doesn’t have a monopoly on killing others.)

 

Adelpour wrote that “NATO’s foreign intervention reached new heights when it began running the occupation of Afghanistan after the earlier US invasion.” The 20-year war “killed tens of thousands” with the country in tatters and the retaking of power by the fanatical Taliban.

 

Emphasizing the obvious due to attacking other countries, Adelpour wrote, that “NATO is not ‘defensive’ or ‘democratic’. NATO is a US-dominated, imperialist alliance willing to carry out overseas invasions.” Adelpour added that NATO expansion eastward inevitably led to war. It heavily armed Ukraine and pushed for NATO membership for the war-torn country. And Ukrainian President Zelensky has gone along with it. But what is the real reason for it? Perhaps Zelensky has been threatened by Ukrainian Nazis; and has been pushed by the U.S./NATO alliance to continue the war. Or perhaps not.

 

Another imperial intervention by NATO was in Libya. This started in March 2011, with the United Nation’s Security Council approving the action with 10 nations in Favor and five abstaining. But the Security Council’s intent was to have an immediate ceasefire between Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and his forces vs. opposition forces, with Islamic fanatics taking over them. 

 

A no-fly zone was imposed in Libyan airspace, and the tightening of sanctions against Gaddafi’s government. Then, there was the inevitable bombing of Libya by NATO forces. The U.S. and Britain fired over 110 tomahawk cruise missiles with their respective navies; plus, the imposition of a naval blockade. The French Air Force, the British Royal Air Force, and the Royal Canadian Air Force conducted sorties across Libya. No NATO ground forces were employed in Libya.

 

There was a disagreement on the number of civilians killed in Libya. According to the Libyan government and media, over a total of 3,000 civilians were killed. NATO denied most of the killings. The UN Human Rights Council claimed in a report that only 60 civilians were killed by NATO bombing. The Council concluded that the bombing campaign was “precise” and there was an effort to avoid civilian casualties. So, 3,000 killed vs. 60 killed. Considering NATO’s handiwork in other actions, the latter figure sounds suspect.

 

There was a lot of criticism worldwide of NATO’s imperial intervention. It was asserted that NATO’s objective was not humanitarian, but a way to exploit Libya’s vast resources. Among the international leaders who spoke out were Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, South African President Jacob Zuma, Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe, Raul Castro’s government in Cuba, Daniel Ortega’s government in Nicaragua, etc.

 

There wasn’t much sympathy in the west for Gaddafi. For example, Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State under the Obama administration, boasted, “We came, we saw, he died.” She, then, laughed about it. Pretty, damn cruel. But Clinton is an imperialist.

 

Regardless of assurances from NATO members, the real reasons for NATO’s belligerence are hardly mentioned; but there are exceptions. For example, Adelpour wrote in Solidarity that former advisor to Bill Clinton, Zbigniew Brzezinski, revealed the goals of U.S. policy in relation to NATO: this is “to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence amongst the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected and to keep the barbarians from coming together.” Brzezinski was referring to Russia and China as “barbarians.”

 

The U.S./NATO alliance seems to be particularly fixated on China. Adelpour: “In a NATO strategy paper published in June [2022], China is mentioned more than Russia–over 180 times.

 

“The US is using the war in Ukraine to make an example of Russia and demonstrate its willingness to use military force to threaten China.”

 

NATO’s hypocrisy showed through its “moral” rhetoric when it condemned Russian President Vladimir Putin of asserting “dangerous” rhetoric when he announced that Russia will station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus. While this sounds rather crazy, how many nuclear-capable weapons does the U.S./NATO alliance have in other countries, like in Western Europe, and in Eastern Europe (Support for Nuclear Operations With Conventional Air Tactics program)? How about Ukraine itself?

 

No one is totally innocent when looking at the Russia-Ukraine war. So, even the U.S./NATO alliance is not. Further, with the Warsaw Pact gone, it’s time for NATO to also dissolve. NATO has got to go.