That NATO is a front for the justification of US military intervention may seem like an alarmist statement and one that it is not possible to substantiate for many. However, in their excellent primer two US activists provide ample evidence that such a view is something of an understatement, given the role that NATO play, writes Steve Bishop
That NATO is a front for the justification of US military intervention may seem like an alarmist statement and one that it is not possible to substantiate for many. However, in their excellent primer NATO – What You Need To Know, US activists, Medea Bemjamin and David Swanson, provide ample evidence that such a view is something of an understatement, given the role that NATO plays.
In eleven, relatively short chapters they cover the ground from the formation of NATO; its history of aggression; relationship to the UN and international law; its role in promoting nuclear weapons; current plans; and the possible alternatives to an organisation which drives an arms race, fuels conflict and increases the risk of nuclear war.
The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington DC on 4 April 1949 when 12 foreign ministers came together to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The introduction to the Treaty affirms the faith of the partners in the Charter of the United Nations “and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.” Significantly, approaches from the Soviet Union to join, only four years earlier the major wartime force and ally in the defeat of Nazism, were rejected.
The addition of West Germany to the alliance in 1955, provocatively bordering the German Democratic Republic, led to the creation of the Warsaw Treaty Organisation by the Soviet Union and its allies in Eastern Europe. The battle lines of the Cold War were effectively drawn.
The Soviet Union provided a counterweight to the worst excesses of US militarism for over three decades. If the book has one weakness it is in its failure to recognise the significance of that role. However, the authors do acknowledge that the defeat of the Soviet Union in 1991 opened the doors to NATO expanding exponentially. This was in spite of promises made by US Secretary of State, James Baker, to Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, in 1990 that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward”.
However, as Benjamin and Swanson note, this was only the first of many broken promises with Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in the NATO camp by 1998 quickly followed by the addition in 2004 of a further seven countries, including the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, formerly part of the Soviet Union and the sites of Russian missile bases until 1995.
As Benjamin and Swanson point out,
“Whether intended or not, every country in Eastern Europe that joins NATO increases the threat felt by Russia, taking all of Europe and the entire world a step closer to the danger of a civilization ending nuclear war.” (p.29)
This proves especially pertinent in relation to the current conflict in Ukraine. The authors outline not only how NATO has consciously expanded its membership and operations to encroach on Russia’s borders but how Ukraine has been actively targeted as key to the US strategy of “containing” Russia. Not only did the US actively sabotage any chance that the Minsk accords of 2015 may have had of success but actively undermined a peace agreement mediated by Turkey in March 2022 deploying then UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, as a stooge to deliver the message to President Zelensky that the “collective West” would not support the agreement.
The extent of NATO aggression in the dismemberment of the former Yugoslavia, in Afghanistan, in Iraq and Libya is covered in detail and the willingness of the alliance to flout the United Nations Charter in pursuit of essentially US military aims is extensively covered.
Current NATO hostility towards both Russia and China is cited by the authors as a present danger, quoting, in particular, from a NATO report in 2020 which states,
“NATO must devote much more time, political resources and action to the security challenges posed by China – based on an assessment of its national capabilities, economic heft and the stated ideological goals of its leaders.” (p.123)
These are hardly the words of an organisation which purports to be a purely defensive alliance!
The authors conclude with a summary of alternatives to the constant push towards military conflict, which NATO encourages and its members largely fall in line with. Countries can become neutral rather than being part of a military alliance. The Non-Aligned Movement has a long history of activism while advocating for peace and disarmament. Stepping back from renewing nuclear weapons systems could also be a consideration.
The authors stress that mass action will be the key to shifting the drive to war and making peace the prime consideration in relations between nations. In the final words of the authors themselves,
“If we are to prevent another devastating global conflict and move toward a world that is not based on military alliances but on win-win, peaceful cooperation among nations, our task is clear: We must build a global grassroots movement to Say No to NATO and No to War.” (p.145)
If there are pieces missing in your understanding of the role and purpose of NATO this handy primer will certainly plug those gaps.
This article appeared in our latest journal
Steve Bishop is a Liberation member
Support our work – donate, become a member, affiliate your local organisation’s branch or volunteer
The views expressed in the articles published on this website do not necessarily represent those of Liberation
