To all- please ping me to Canadian topics.
Canada Ping!
Posted on 09/15/2014 9:23:19 PM PDT by DTA
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was meant to be a purely defensive organization. When the Brussels Treaty of 1948 established the European Defence Alliance of five European countries, it was Canada’s Minister of Foreign affairs, Louis St. Laurent, who proposed the alliance be expanded to include the United States and Canada.
One year later, in April 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was born. The primary purpose of the new organization was to defend member states from any attack from the Soviet Union and to act in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
NATO was born in the aftermath of the Second World War. Its founders were painfully aware that having reached the mid-point of the 20th century there had already been two world wars and the dropping of the atom bomb on civilian cities. They were determined that war and violence should not become the norm in resolving disputes and it was in this spirit that Article I of the treaty was conceived.
Article I of the Treaty made this abundantly clear. It read:
“The parties undertake, as set out forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved, by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered… and to refrain from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”
For fifty years NATO was successful in deterring aggression against the West. A combination of conventional forces and the nuclear bomb created a mutual understanding that armed conflict between the two opposing powers was not an option. Critically important, however, was Article I itself because it was a guarantee to the Soviet Union that it would never be attacked by NATO forces. Article I acted as a safety blanket for the Soviets.
Ironically, the fall of the Soviet empire did not foretell the beginning of a new age of peace and security in Europe. On the contrary, the empire’s demise caused a crisis in NATO. After the Warsaw Pact armies had returned home what was the justification of maintaining such an expensive and powerful military force in Europe. NATO’s response was – business as usual- a continuation of the Cold war. As the respected former United States Ambassador to Moscow, George F Kennan wrote in 1987…”Were the Soviet Union, to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military industrial complex would have to remain substantially unchanged until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.” Until his death Kennan continued to deplore NATO’s hostile encirclement of Russia.
In fact, NATO didn’t have to find another adversary it just pretended nothing had changed and acted accordingly. NATO’s behaviour towards Russia speaks for itself; a record marked by duplicity, double standards and hypocrisy. One of its first acts was to convert the Alliance from a purely defensive organization to one that could intervene militarily to resolve international disputes by force. The opportunity for this transformation occurred with the 78 day bombing of Serbia in March 1999 carried out by NATO without authorization from the UN Security Council. Later, in violation of UN Resolution 1244 reaffirming Serbia’s sovereignty over Kosovo, NATO recognized the unilateral declaration of Kosovo independence – declared without any pretence of a referendum.
During the bombing on NATO’s 50th birthday, US President Bill Clinton announced a new role for NATO – from now he declared, in effect, that NATO could intervene wherever and whenever it decided to do so. Article I of the treaty presumably had been nullified by Presidential decree. The NATO treaty had been turned upside down. In the same month NATO admitted Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO thus breaking the promise made to Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev that if Russia allowed a united Germany into NATO the organization would never expand eastward.
The current crisis in Ukraine threatens global security and at worst has the potential for nuclear catastrophe. At best it signals a continuation of the Cold War. Sadly, the crisis is completely unnecessary and the responsibility lies entirely in the hands of the United States – led NATO powers. The almost virulent propaganda onslaught blaming Russia for the instability and violence in Ukraine simply ignores reality and the facts.
NATO, spurred on by the United States, has been determined since the collapse of the Soviet Union to surround Russia with hostile NATO members. The first attempt to win Ukraine over to the West through the Orange Revolution in 2004 failed but NATO kept trying and now has “let slip the dogs of war” on that unfortunate country.
It was inevitable that NATO’s expansion eastward would at some point run into hostile Russian reaction. The attack on South Ossetia in 2008 by the US armed and trained Georgian military was the last straw and Russia finally showed its teeth and crushed the Georgian offensive in 48 hours. The Russians then added insult to injury by recognizing the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. President Putin had warned that the illegal recognition of Kosovo independence would set a dangerous precedent and endanger the international framework of peace and security. Obviously his warning was unheeded and now the Cold War has started again. This was not supposed to happen.
It is time for the citizenry of the NATO countries to demand that the principles contained in the original NATO treaty be honoured and that Article I be followed. Bellicose statements, sanctions and other warlike moves (however futile) are not helpful in reaching a peaceful solution. NATO’s Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen should stop threatening Russia and instead reaffirm to the world that Article 1 of the treaty will be enforced.
(James Bissett is a former Canadian diplomat. He was Canada’s ambassador to Yugoslavia, Albania, and Bulgaria)
ping
Interesting analysis from an undoubtedly marxist, pacifist apologist.
You will never see author James Bissett drink a glass of water.
Vodka is all east bloc Comrade Commissars ... drink.
Interesting connection between today’s Ukraine conflict and the bad precedent set by NATO and Clinton regarding Kosovo.
When did Libya move to the North Atlantic?
On 12 September, NATO decided that, if it is determined that the attack against the United States was directed from abroad, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.
This is the first time in the Alliance's history that Article 5 has been invoked.
I get your point, Libya was the last Obama Regime destabilization that obtained UN authorization for the use of force, and the Obamanation obtained that by promising Russia not to use US (and NATO) air power against Gaddafi himself.
Needless to say, several Security Council members will see that the US never gets UN approval for use of force again.
Interestingly, it's Turkey that is the shill NATO aggressor in the ME/North Africa, conveniently hobbling the US in it's efforts in Afghanistan while protecting Islamic terrorists and the newly forming Caliphate and allying with the Neo Nazis in the EU. Fortunately, Russia took up the slack and helped us resupply our troops in Afghanistan, while Turkey wouldn't let us cross their territory to do so.
Yeah, NATO is really valuable, .... to the Islamic "Rebel" causes in the Eastern Hemisphere.
NATO lost its way when the Balkan operation began. I still don't know which NATO nation was attacked by Serbia. Anyone?
Nevertheless even in Afghanistan, when clearly a NATO country was attacked, the response by most signatories was tepid. Traditional US allies went in heavy, the rest, not so much.
Well, UK was there, Germany is castrated anyway and France was a bit disappointing. But as we talked about once - it is disrespectful to exclude smaller countries. How Many POGs is an Estonian soldier taking foot patrols in Helmand worth? How about Latvian SOF taking motorcycles from Taliban and achieving their mission at 10+ ?
There was another NATO country that paid a large butchers bill in Afghanistan.
This might be of interest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc6t6HLt7vA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckfXr1EHO9U
To all- please ping me to Canadian topics.
Canada Ping!
Commie parrot. Yawn!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.