Friday, 3 April 2009

NATO Must Go


NATO is 60 today and is widely regarded as useless. It should be disbanded for the following reasons:

* NATO States collectively spend 70% of the estimated $1.473 global annual military budget in contravention of years of international commitments to reallocate military expenses.

* NATO has condoned the possession of nuclear weapons by "friendly states', but has been willing to entertain strikes on the nuclear facilities of "NATO designed rogue states" and risk the release of radiation.

* NATO, through its engaging in numerous military interventions and occupations such as Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, has contributed to and condoned, rather than prevented the scourge of war in defiance of the principal objective of the Charter of the United Nations

* NATO has not abandoned the option of a "first use of nuclear weapons policy" has failed to act on its undertaking under the General Assembly resolution entitled the Condemnation of Nuclear War A/RES/38/75, 1983 "to condemn the formulation, propounding, dissemination and propaganda of political and military doctrines and concepts intended to provide 'legitimacy' for the first use of nuclear weapons and in general to justify the 'admissibility' of unleashing nuclear war (2 Condemnation of Nuclear War General Assembly Resolution A/RES/38/75, 1983

* NATO has been using depleted uranium [the effect of which in part is similar to that of a nuclear weapon] has failed to act on its undertaking to deem "that the use of nuclear weapons would be a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and a crime against humanity, ( resolutions 1653 (XVI) of 24 November 1961, 33/71 B of 14 December 1978, 34/83 G of 11 December 1979, 35/152 D of 12 December 1980 and 36/92 I of 9 December 1981,

* NATO through using Depleted Uranium, which could be deemed to have the effect of a nuclear weapon, has disregarded the decision of the International Court of Justice that the use or the threat to use nuclear weapons is contrary to International humanitarian law (World Court Project, 1996)

* NATO has violated the Geneva protocols on prohibited weapons

* NATO has undermined the United Nations through contributing to the failure (i) to discharge obligations under International Conventions, Treaties, and Covenants, (ii) to act through Commitments made under conference action plans and (iii) to fulfill expectations created through General Assembly Resolutions

* NATO has condoned the misinterpretation of Article 51- self defence- in the Charter of the United Nations in its support for the invasion of a sovereign state, and has used the pretext of "human security" and "humanitarian intervention" and "preemptive/preventive" aggression to justify the invasion and occupation of other states;

* NATO has continually ignored Chapter VI- Peaceful Resolution of Disputes, of the Charter of the United Nations, and the provision in Chapter VI to take disputes to the International Court of Justice;

2 comments:

  1. Quite apart from the Afghan issue, which is fast becoming the Achilles' heel of western military cooperation, there are worries about the aims and purposes of the newer allies in eastern Europe. The Polish foreign minister, Radek Sikorsky, believes Nato should concentrate less on Afghanistan and more on containing and confronting resurgent Russia. Against that, western European critics believe it is folly to offer the prospect of eventual membership to Ukraine and Georgia, since few allies would agree to come to their defence against Russia, despite the principle of an attack against one is an attack against all in Article 5 of the founding charter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good summary mate but I Can think of another twenty reasons

    ReplyDelete