NATO AT 70 TIME TO DISBAND NATO Print
Justice News
Posted by Joan Russow
Wednesday, 03 April 2019 21:40
 
Image result for image nato expansion
 
 
 
 
 
AT LEAST 12 REASONS FOR DISBANDING NATO 
 
BY JOAN RUSSOW
 
GLOBAL OMPLIANCE RESEARCH PROJECT 
 
 
 1
IGNORING YEARS OF  COMMITMENT TO REDUCE THE MILITARY BUDGET
 
 
In 1976, all member states made this assessment of the military budget: 
 
The waste and misuse of resources in war and armaments should be prevented. All countries should make a firm commitment to promote complete disarmament under strict and effective in International control, in particular in the field of nuclear disarmament. Part of the resources thus released should be utilized so as to achieve a better quality of life for humanity and particularly the people of developing countries" (II, 12 Habitat 1).  (ii 12. Habitat 1) 
 
In 2019 currently the global community spends over 1.73 trillion billion on the military budget at a time when the right to housing, the right to food, the right to health care, the right to equality of all, the right to education, the right to safe drinking water, and the right to a safe environment have not been fulfilled.
in 2018 and had a total military budget 1043 and it is estimated that it will rise by 100 billion because of US demand to SPEND 2 % OF GDP
 
2. 
RENEGING ON COMMITMENT: NATO EXPANSION
 
Provocative eastern expansion after promising Russia to that, if Russia agreed to the unification of Germany, NATO would not move one more inch to the East. 
 
 
3. 
DESTABILIZING OTHER NATIONS
 
NATO destabilized an area by offering one state an association with NATO; In 2006, during the election in El Salvador, Bush offered the Right-wing party in El Salvador a special association with NATO; this association intimidated both Nicaragua and Honduras (2006 Article in the Nicaraguan newspaper). 
 
ENGAGING IN PROPAGANDA FOR WAR
WAR GAMES AND MILITARY EXERCISES, INTERNATIONAL ARMS TRADE EXHIBITION
 
Over the years, NATO has engaged in provocation for war through war games. culminating in 2018 the exercise, code-named Trident Juncture.
A NATO is conducting its largest military exercise since the end of the cold war — close to the arctic circle in Norway — the alliance wants to keep the high north an area of low tension, NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg said of the exercise. Yet code-named Trident Juncture, has drawn Moscow's ire, accusing the alliance of stoking tensions in the region.
Nearly 50,000 NATO soldiers — including about 2,000 Canadians — backed by some 250 aircraft, 65 ships and up to 10,000 vehicles from all 29 NATO countries, they began massive war games which involve land, sea, air and cyber capabilities.
Every NATO state has ratified the legally binding 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political rights (ICCPR and under Article 20 “propaganda for war is prohibited.” 
NATO has engaged in war games, such as Exercise Trident Fury, which have been flagrant displays of militarism flouting the rules related to the prohibition of the propaganda of war under the International Covenant on Civil 
Article 20 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law. 
 
 
5.
INITIATING OR BEING COMPLICIT IN ACTS OF AGGRESSION AGAINST OTHER STATES,
 
NATO states have been complicit or responsible for using the following pretexts for aggressive interventions in other sovereign states with or without UNSC approval
“human security" (Iraq 1991), "humanitarian intervention" (Kosovo, 1999), “self-defense” (Afghanistan 2001), "pre-emptive/ preventive" attack (Iraq, 2003) "responsibility to protect (Haiti, 2004, Libya, 2011) or "will to intervene" (Mali, 2013). each time the pretext was discredited, a new pretext emerged.
 
1991 GULF WAR US and its allies used cluster bombs in gulf war operation desert storm Desert Shield (1990–91) — American buildup prior to Gulf War 
Desert Storm (1991) — Gulf War 
 
1999 KOSOVO 
. First, NATO’s decision to engage in large-scale military action without prior security council OPERATION Allied Force At the international Court of justice (ICJ) NAT0 refused to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ.  I attended a NATO Headquarters’ international press Conference and asked the NATO spokesman, Jaime Shea, “if NATO leaders would also refuse to respect the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity; He responded that NATO had created the ICJ
1999 CASE AGAINST NATO IAN BROMLY JEAN PUY 
Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. United States of America) 
 
 
2001 AFGHANISTAN SELF DEFENCE the following nations were involved in the War in Afghanistan: 
Resolution 1386 (2001) Adopted by the Security Council at its 4443rd meeting, on 20 December 2001 The Security Council, reaffirming its previous resolutions on Afghanistan, in particular its resolutions 1378 (2001) of 14 November 2001 and 1383 (2001) of 6 December 2001, 
, and reaffirming also its resolutions 1368 (2001) of 12 September 2001 and 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001, UNSC gave conditional support to NATO;
• to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and respecting the Charter. NATO failed to respect the conditions because NATO’s ISAF violated the Convention Against Torture ISAF by transferring prisoners to states that permit torture 
 
 
NATIONS 
 
2003 IRAQ ALMOST HALF OF THE STATES IN THE COALITION OF THE WILING WERE MEMBERS OF NATO CONTRIBUTION TO CREATION OF ISIS 
 
Operation Iraqi Freedom 
• Former UN chief Kofi Annan blamed the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq for the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS), warning that the Middle East must evolve and adapt for lasting peace. 
 
DEFYING THE SECURITY IN COUNCIL 2003 
• The Security Council did not authorize the March 20, 2003 attack on Iraq. It unanimously passed Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, calling for new inspections intended to find and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. (The Arms Control Association provides a chronology of previous weapons inspections in Iraq.) Iraq accepted the renewed inspections, which were to be carried out by UNMOVIC and the IAEA. 
 
2011 LIBYA 
In 2004, Responsibility To Protect (R2P) was used in Haiti.  In august 2005. at the UN, the G77 group of 130 developing states had great reservations about the responsibility to protect (R2P). They anticipated that R2P would most likely be used against them
it eventually was used against Libya. 
the US and NATO allies decried the Libyan treatment of its citizens while engaging in illegal and aggressive violent acts of war against citizens of other countries and dismissing the consequences as ``collateral damage`` 
 
yet, engaging in an illegal and aggressive war, by US and its allies is not deemed to be a crime against humanity; in Max Boot’s term it is “A Savage War of Peace” or in Obama`s term, “a just  war” 
 
 Concern grew as Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, said he believed the military action was in breach of international law. "We consider that intervention by the coalition in what is essentially an internal civil war is not sanctioned by the UN security council resolution," he said. Russia abstained from the vote which resulted in resolution 1973. 
• Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none 
 
 
against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures.
in august 2005. at the UN, the G77 group of 130 developing states had great reservations about the responsibility to protect (R2p). They anticipated that R2P would most likely be used against them.  they knew it was used in Haiti…
it eventually was used against Libya. 
The US and NATO allies decried the Libyan treatment of its citizens while engaging in illegal and aggressive violent acts of war against citizens of other countries and dismissing the consequences as ``collateral damage``
 
 
 
 
6. 
BYPASSING CHAPTER VI OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS- PEACEFUL RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES,
• NATO ignored chapter vi - peaceful resolution of disputes, of the Charter of the United Nations, and the provisioning in chapter VI disputes to take to the international court of justice. p. NATO has failed to act on the commitment made under the platform of action of the UN Conference of Women this [encourage diplomacy, [preventive diplomacy,] negotiation and peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the charter of the united nations, in particular article 2, paragraphs 3 and 4] (art. 147 b., advance draft, platform of action, the UN Conference on Women, may 15); 
 
7. 
DEFYING INTERNATIONAL LAW, BY NOTCOMPLYING WITH CONVENTIONS THE SUPPORTING INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS TO ROOT OUT TERRORISM, IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS
 
Resolution 1386 (2001) Adopted by the Security Council at its 4443rd meeting, on 20 December 2001 The Security Council, reaffirmed its previous resolutions on Afghanistan, in particular its resolutions 1378 (2001) of 14 November 2001 and 1383 (2001) of 6 December 2001, and reaffirming also its resolutions 1368 (2001) of 12 September 2001 and 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001, 5 
 
 
• to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, 
 
CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE ISAF VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE BY TRANSFERRING PRISONERS TO STATES THAT PERMIT TORTURE 
 
7.
USING PROHIBITED CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS AND NEW WEAPONS
 
 
DEPLETED URANIUM
Depleted Uranium or DU [1] encased bombs that have been used since 1991 by US and NATO forces knowing well that the use of DU weapons is illegal being weapons of mass destruction [WMD] and amounts to War Crimes. 
Article 35. BASIC RULES. 1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited. 2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment. 
****DRONES 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977. 
Article 35. BASIC RULES. 1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited. 2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or 6 
 
may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment. 
Article 36 -- New weapons in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, a High Contracting Party is under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law applicable to the High Contracting Party. 
 
8. 
BEING A NUCLEAR WEAPONS ORGANIZATION AND UNDERMINING THE TREATY ON THE PROHIBITION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 
• It commits NATO to the goal of creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons – but reconfirms that, as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, NATO will remain a nuclear Alliance. (from NATO site) 
 
 
 
 
IN 2016 The US has stated that the treaty to ban nuclear weapons would be ineffective, with adverse consequences for security and would hinder the implementation of Article VI of the US constitution on international treaties.
It is, rather, NATO`s nuclear policy which contravenes Article VI, as well as some of the Thirteen Steps Towards Nuclear Disarmament, and has consequences for common security:
1) nuclear weapons must be maintained indefinitely
2) We will improve their use and accuracy (modernize them)
3) We can use them first.
4) We can target non-nuclear weapon states
5) We can threaten to use them
6) We can keep them in Europe, as they are now doing
7) We can launch some on 15 minutes warning.
8) We say “they are essential for peace
 
Over the years there have been regular visits of us nuclear powered and nuclear arms capable vessels the us has a policy of neither confirm or deny 
 
 
15,350 nuclear weapons remain in the arsenals of 9 States, approximately 1,800 of which are on “high alert” status and can be launched within minutes; 
 
NATO countries failed to support the /international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons 
http://www.icanw.org/why-a-ban/positions 
e NATO has condoned the possession of nuclear weapons by "friendly states², but has been willing to entertain strikes on the nuclear facilities of a" NATO-designed rogue states "and risk the release of radiation. 
US HAS A FIRST USE NUCLEAR POLICY ASA DETERRENCE AGAINST THE USE OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS https://fsi.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/51-3_12_Sagan_author_proof.pdf 
 
****CHEMICAL WEAPONS 
Most of the vast available literature on chemical weapons, their characteristics and numbers, are quite general in nature but tend to focus on the status of chemical weapons creation and stockpiling by rogue 7 
 
states. The researchers were met with almost complete silence when trying to ascertain the status of chemical weapon stockpiling and preparation for military uses by NATO forces (a similar situation exists as regards the individual Alliance partners) even where their use is foreseen only in defensive situations. The exceptional secrecy of the subject is proven by the generic and evasive substance of the analysis and documents produced on the topic by the most accredited research centers on arms control (e.g. SIPRI). Such silence, seen as necessary on significant points, seems disproportional with respect to the topic. Maybe - because of the contiguity of the N (nuclear) – on the B (biological) and, as here we are interested in, on the C (chemical) a curtain has left. But this sounds to be a legacy of the Cold War, excessive and dangerous both from a military point of view and from a political one. http://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/99-01/labanca.pdf 
 
9. 
FAILING TO REALLOCATE EXORBITANT MILITARY SPENDING ETC
EXORBITANT MILITARY BUDGETS
 
 
 
The NATO states collectively spend Approximately 60% of the current 1.75 trillion global military budget in contravention of years of international Commitments are reallocate military expenses. 
 
For example, 1976 assessment of the military budget….
 
the waste and misuse of resources in war and armaments should be prevented. all countries should make a firm commitment to promote 
complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, in particular in the field of nuclear arms. … part of the resources thus released should be utilized so as to achieve. a better quality of life for humanity ( Habitat I)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Currently the global community spends 1.73 trillion billion on the military budget at a when the right to housing, the right to food, the right to education, water, sanitation health etc 
 
NATO states, in 2018  had a total military budget $1043 and it is estimated that it will rise by100 billion because of us pressurefrom the US  to raise it to 2 % of GDP
 
 
http://www.canadianpeacecongress.ca/nato/f-35-dangers-far-beyond-costs-and-corruption/#more-79 
A single Air Force F-35A costs a whopping $148 million. One Marine Corps F-35B costs an unbelievable $251 million. A lone Navy F-35C costs a mind-boggling $337 million. Average the three models together, and a “generic” F-35 costs $178 million. 
The F-35 program is driven by the United States military and its NATO allies. In 1997, Canada signed onto the Joint Strike Fighter program, which was developed as a vehicle for the United States to capture international funding for a replacement jet fighter. Canada’s initial investment in 1997 was $10 million. In 2001 the JSF contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin, who developed what is now known as the F-35. By 2010, the international procurement process was 8 
 
underway and Stephen Harper announced that Canada would purchase 65 fighter jets, through an untendered purchase. 
The member states of the United Nations spend 1.7 trillion per year on the 
military budget at a time when many basic and fundamental rights have not been fulfilled: the right to affordable and safe housing; the right to unadulterated food (pesticide-free and genetically engineered-free food); the right to safe drinking water; the right to a safe environment; the right to universally accessible, not for profit health care; and the right to free and accessible education. 
 
10. 
CONDONING THE EXEMPTION OF MILITARY CONTRIBUTIONS TOGREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION
 
The Pentagon’s Hidden Contribution to Climate Change 
by gar smith – January 18, 2016 
http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/elistread/the_pentagons_hidden_impact_on_climate_change/ 
World’s single greatest institutional consumer of fossil fuels remains exempt from reporting its pollution 
But there is another looming threat that needs to be addressed. Put simply: War and militarism also fuel climate change, and the Pentagon is one of the biggest culprits. 
The Pentagon occupies 6,000 bases in the US and more than 1,000 bases (the exact number is disputed) in 60-plus foreign countries. According to its Fiscal Year 2010 Base Structure Report, the Pentagon’s global empire includes 9 
 
more than 539,000 facilities at 5,000 sites covering more than 28 million acres. 
 
11.
PROPAGATING UNTENABLE MYTHS AND RHETORIC OF PEACE AND COERCING CONFORMITY PARTNERS FOR PEACE 22 COUNTRIES
 
 
Thirteen former member states of the PIP (namely Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia), have subsequently joined NATO.
Current members[edit]
Former republics of the Soviet Union[edit]
  Armenia (October 5, 1994)[5]
  Azerbaijan (May 4, 1994)[5]
  Belarus (January 11, 1995)[5]
  Georgia (March 23, 1994)[5]
  Kazakhstan (May 27, 1994)[5]
  Kyrgyzstan (June 1, 1994)[5]
  Moldova (March 16, 1994)[5]
  Russia (June 22, 1994)[5]
  Tajikistan (February 20, 2002)[5]
  Turkmenistan (May 10, 1994)[5]
  Ukraine (February 8, 1994)[5]
  Uzbekistan (July 13, 1994)[5]
Former republics of Yugoslavia[edit]
  Bosnia and Herzegovina (December 14, 2006)[5]
  North Macedonia[a] (November 15, 1995)[5]
  Serbia (December 14, 2006)[5]
European Union members[edit]
  Austria (February 10, 1995)[5]
  Finland (May 9, 1994)[5]
  Ireland (December 1, 1999)[5]
  Malta (joined April 26, 1995;[5][6] withdrew on October 27, 1996;[7] reactivated its membership on March 20, 2008;[8] this was accepted by NATO on April 3, 2008.[9])
  Sweden (May 9, 1994)[5]
 
• 
o
2.1.1Former republics of the Soviet Union
2.1.2Former republics of Yugoslavia
2.1.3European Union members
2.1.4European Free Trade Association member
o 2.2Membership history
o 2.3Aspiring members
o 2.4Former members
2.4.1Countries that became full NATO members on March 12, 1999
2.4.2Countries that became full NATO members on March 29, 2004
2.4.3Countries that became full NATO members on April 1, 2009
2.4.4Country that became full NATO member on June 5, 2017
3See also
4References
5External links
Activities[edit]
NATO builds relationships with partners through military-to-military cooperation on training, exercises, disaster planning and response, science and environmental issues, professionalization, policy planning, and relations with civilian government.[4]
 
12.
PERCEIVING NATO MEMBERS TO BE BEYOND THE JUDGMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
• For more than half a century since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, states have largely failed to bring to justice those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. With the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the world has begun to fulfill the post-World War II promise of “never again.” 
 
PHILIPPE Kirsch the first  President  of ICC stated that the ICC would only take on the case if the state does not have a credible national judicial system to press charges against the perpetrator. 
 
Would this provision not exclude the leaders of NATO states and make them immune to prosecution?
 
 
world’s first permanent, international judicial body capable of bringing perpetrators to justice and providing redress to victims when states are unable or unwilling to do so. 
 
Last Updated on Thursday, 04 April 2019 21:01