It was April 1999 when NATO decided to modify its nature as a military alliance and adopt new objectives, as well as to establish its future undertakings on the margin of and without UN Security Council authorization.
But previously, in 1995, and skirting around that world organization, it bombed Serb positions in Bosnia Herzegovina, thus changing the course of a distant war, given that that Republic was not a member of the military pact and the problem between the factions was internal in nature.
If NATO had abided by Article 1 of its own founding statutes, which stipulate preference for a peaceful resolution of disputes, it would not have taken the side of one of the parties, thus prejudicing the other and destroying a country, as was finally the case, when in 1999 it took another aggressive step, also against the Republic of Yugoslavia, with 80 days of bombardments of that country, this time on the pretext of the violation of the rights of Albanian Kosovars, previously described as terrorists by the West itself, led by the United States.
Once that punishable act, executed without any previous declaration of hostilities and without any motive whatsoever was an accomplished fact, festivities were organized in Washington DC for the 50th anniversary of the Alliance. Here, NATOÂs new Strategic Concept was approved, by which it declared itself the defender of security and democratic values in the Euro-Atlantic environment, as well as part of the battle against genocide, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Is that reminiscent of something? The increase in and variety of propositions meant that NATO entered the 21st century reinforced by more members in its ranks and a diffuse plan of action, but adaptable to different contingencies and enemies.
During that Washington Summit, the organization announced its disjunction from the UN, already underway, an act which gained form and protection at the end of 2002 with the creation of a rapid reaction force capable of undertaking combat missions in any part of the world.
And so, nothing new or sudden was agreed shortly before the end of 2010 in Lisbon. What is, once again, described as a new strategy to replace the one agreed in 1999, which consecrates NATOÂs determination to proceed to act in any place where crises and conflicts might arise which Â in theory, only in theory Â suppose any threat to the security of the members of that pact.
Shortly after the bloc was created in 1949, the NATO Defense Doctrine proposed guarantees of the capacity to undertake strategic bombings including the rapid transportation of an atomic bomb. That is primordially a U.S. responsibility, with help, insofar as possible, from other nations.
In that way, the U.S. government, displaying colossal irresponsibility, has up to 7,500 nuclear warheads deployed in Europe. The Federation of American Scientists states that, although technically U.S. property, nuclear bombs stored in NATO bases are intended to be dropped by aircraft from the host country. In other words, Italy, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands.
Experts who have been able to closely investigate this matter believe that some 200 nuclear warheads were left behind (not counting those of Britain and France) after they were gradually withdrawn in the face of huge protests in Europe in the 1980s, or on account of treaties signed with the USSR. There were more than 400 under the Bush presidency, just two years ago.
Some experts on the issue are convinced that the real U.S. motive for giving life to NATO was to place its nuclear weapons on the European continent. Accurate or exaggerated, maintaining them contravenes the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968, which bans both the manufacture of such offensive weapons and transferring their technology or the weapons themselves.
Shortly before the November NATO Summit in Lisbon, a group of parliamentarians from countries where those dangerous weapons are based, called on President Barack Obama to withdraw them. Chancellor Angela Merkel added her voice to the petition, but after a slight run in with Nicolas Sarkozy, who was against the proposal, she backed down.
So the globalized NATO maintains ability to perpetuate those nuclear arsenals on European sites.
The text signed in Lisbon by 28 heads of state and government states that while these weapons exist, NATO will continue being a nuclear alliance, despite the difficulty of understanding the need to retain those armaments in order to combat, as it confirms, "extremism, terrorism, and transnational illegal activities such as trafficking in arms, narcotics and people," or the threat of cyber attacks.
Once again the praxis suggests other intentions. An Associated Press cable, datelined May 26, 2005, cites the then NATO chief, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, saying that the alliance and the European Union intended to "increase cooperation to ensure security beyond NATO’s borders in Europe, Africa and Central Asia."
One month earlier, speaking on the German Deutsche Welle radio station, he said "Â
both NATO and the European Union are making efforts to be better prepared for missions beyond the area in an attempt to adapt to the rapid change in the security environment."
All that effort to destroy Yugoslavia or get hold of Kosovo, now a nest of drug traffickers and criminals of every kind, by supporting its declaration of independence, can be explained by the fact that almost as soon as the army of the former Federation had withdrawn from that enclave, the United States established there the largest military base that it has outside of its borders, and which is responsible for protecting the oil route.
Given similar antecedents and developments, it is worth adding some observations from Gennady Zyuganov, leader of the Russian communists: "Let us remember that NATO was created on April 4, 1949 with the objective of protecting Europe from the Âred hordesÂ to the East. Although, even then, one of the NATO leaders acknowledged that the blocÂs real objective was "to keep America in, Germany down and Russia out of Europe."
NATO is becoming a supranational body which is trying to do away with the system of international law that emerged after World War II, crushing the UN under its weight. Back in 1993 Zbigniew BrzezinskiÂ
openly stated that that "if America wants to control the worldÂ
it must establish its supremacy over Eurasia, particularly its Âwestern periphery (the European Union), its heart (Russia) and over the Near East and Central Asia and their oil reserves."
In other words, there is nothing new under the sun, colorful parasols or not.
December 2, 2010