North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Under Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Black African slave trade was restored by NATO in Africa.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a military alliance founded in 1949 to combat the spread of communism in Central Europe from the Soviet Union.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO has departed immensely from its original purpose. Once a bulwark against Soviet communism, it is now a bulwark of globalism, neoconservatism, Islamism, and imperialism. President Donald Trump was highly critical of how the United States has been saddled with the bulk of the cost throughout its history while Europe has not paid its agreed upon mandated share of defense costs.

NATO's official website states its political motive under Orwellian language: "NATO promotes democratic values and enables members to consult and cooperate on defence and security-related issues to solve problems, build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict." Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has waged two wars of aggression, one against Serbia to carve out the state of Kosovo, and another in Libya which resulted in chaos and the return of the slave trade in Black Africans. Its current secretary is Jens Stoltenberg of Norway.

2Post Cold War

After the Kosovo bombing, the use of NATO to wage aggressive war called the organizations reason for existence into question again. Some called for the abolishment of the organization, stating that it had lost it original purpose.

NATO began to look for its new goal in the 21 century. After the attacks on the World Trade Centers and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, NATO countries quickly responded by aiding the United States, as they had promised in Article Five of their founding treaty. AWACS airplanes were sent on surveillance, and NATO began its first and only article five mission to this day, Operation Active Endeavor, which was a Maritime mission to protect the Mediterranean from terrorist operations and drug and WMD trafficking.

After the end of the Cold War, European defense spending had weakened and its military lacked technology and modernization. In 2002, NATO met for its annual summit, which was held in Prague. The 19 country alliance made a list of improvements that its members needed to make in order to effectively fight the war on terror, these improvements called for, among other thing, a NATO Military Concept for Defense against Terrorism. NATO members also took steps to modernize there forces, all 19 countries agreed to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense. NATO also agreed on its new focus, terrorism. As Spain's former prime minister José María Aznar, said, “Jihadism has replaced Communism, as Communism replaced Nazism, as an existential threat to the liberal democracies.”

NATO expansion and Russia

After the collapse of the Warsaw Pact despite assurances to the Russian Federation that it would not do so, NATO expanded to Central European countries, these included Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania, resulting in an organization of 26 nations. This spark of expansion was seen as an offensive move by Russia and caused a rift in the NATO, Russia relations. The Russian lower house released to the press a statement, "At present we are debating the draft statement of the State Duma which we are planning to adopt in connection with NATO's expansion in Europe. Our opinion is equivocal that this act is erroneous. I think that this is a big historical mistake on the part of western states."

President Putin remarked in 2021, "As for NATO’s enlargement and the advancement of NATO infrastructure towards Russia’s borders, this is a matter of paramount significance as far as the security of Russians and Russia goes...I do not want to use harsh words, but they simply spat upon our interests."

Afghanistan

See also: Rape of Afghanistan

NATO took command and co-ordination of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in August 2003. When NATO and some non-member states joined (such as Australia and Japan), the initial mission was limited to Kabul, but soon expanded. In 2006, when NATO took over full command over the Afghanistan operation, the Taliban began a major campaign. Commanders complained that their forces were being restricted by national restrictions, and that they needed more troops. In November 2006, at another NATO summit in Riga, NATO countries removed 15% of restrictions placed on troops. NATO called on member governments to provide more troops to their mission in Afghanistan, but several countries had their resources stretched thin in Kosovo, as well as their mission in Iraq of training the new Iraqi government's security force.

The Financial Times wrote:

"After the fall of Kabul, EU defence and security officials have been strikingly critical of the US decision to send home its troops, arguing it has weakened Nato and raised questions about Europe’s security dependence on Washington."

Lord Peter Ricketts, the UK’s former national security adviser, said. “It looks like Nato has been completely overtaken by American unilateral decisions...The Afghanistan operation was always going to end some time, it was never going to go on forever, but the manner in which it’s been done has been humiliating and damaging to Nato.”

Libyan uprising 2011

See also: Libyan war and Obama war crimes

In 2011 NATO lent its name to Western globalists to wage a war of aggression in Libya totally outside NATO's purview and mission. As a direct consequence of NATO's illegal intervention, the black African slave trade was reborn in Africa.

UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973 of March 17, 2011 followed on the heels of Gaddafi's public threat on March 2, 2011 to throw western oil companies out of Libya, and his invitation on March 14 to Chinese, Russian, and Indian firms to produce Libyan oil in their place. China, Russia, India and Brazil all abstained on UNSC Resolution 1973.

File:Libya helicopter tigre NATO.jpg

Resolution 1973 authorized strict limitations, according to international law, on NATO as the organization with responsibility for the implementation of the resolution. Particularly, it provides only for a naval blockade enforcing the arms embargo, and enforcement of a no-fly zone. On March 29, 2011, Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin commented after a meeting with NATO officials in Brussels, Belgium, that Russia expressed deep concern over the interpretation of the Security Council's resolution, as some countries have effectively turned it into an approval for ground operations.

“

Moscow has many questions about how the UN Security Council’s resolution is being carried out...First of all, there are reports that civilians have been killed in the air strikes. This is odd if you consider the message of the resolution, which says that the foreign forces’ actions should protect civilians. So it’s hard to comprehend how you can protect civilians by killing them....we demanded that the UN Security Council be fully informed about the actions of the alliance in Libya at all times... We have reports of air strikes against convoys far from the front line. This is a far cry from the UN Security Council resolution.

”

Despite France taking the lead role in the intervention, the Congressional Research Service reports, "Only the United States and NATO possess the command and control capabilities necessary for coalition operations enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya." France only recently rejoined the NATO alliance, in 2008, after a 40-year absence. The Congressional Research Service, which analyzes information and prepares reports for members of Congress, also states,

NATO air strike on Tripoli, Libya.

“

In spite of statements underscoring NATO unity on steps announced to date, the initial planning and operational phases were also marked by significant levels of discord within Europe and NATO on the aims and future direction of the mission. A key point of contention was reportedly the amount of flexibility that NATO forces would be granted to protect civilians and civilian areas, as called for in paragraph 4 of UNSCR 1973. Reports indicate that French officials insisted on maintaining the ability to strike ground forces that threatened civilian areas, while their Turkish counterparts vocally opposed any targeting of ground forces. Adding to the strain within NATO, NATO ally Germany abstained from UNSCR 1973 and, opposed to any potential combat operation, on March 23, withdrew its naval assets in the Mediterranean from NATO command. Throughout the first week of operations, other European allies contributing to the mission, including Italy and Norway, expressed increasing frustration with the lack of agreement within NATO, with Norway refusing to deploy its fighter jets unless under they were under NATO command and control.

”

Of Nato's 28 members, 14 are said to be "actively participating," but only 6 have provided military support. Of the 22-country Arab League, whose appeal prompted the United Nations to vote on intervention, only Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are involved. Of the 192 members of the UN General Assembly, who all have a legal "responsibility to protect" civilians attacked by their own governments, only Sweden has responded.

NATO planes and ships have been striking cities and military installations in Libya since mid-March, 2011. Allied military officials have spoken in recent weeks of the need for escalation to help protect Libyan civilians and have called for Gaddafi to step down. Libyan officials have said that NATO is picking sides in a civil war and complained that strikes on Gaddafi's Tripoli compound are attempts to assassinate the leader of a sovereign country. NATO launched its largest airstrike against Moammar Gaddafi's regime on May 24, 2011, with at least 15 massive explosions rocking the Libyan capital. [1]

History

File:FormerSoDDRNATO.JPG

Former United States Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld addressing NATO

NATO originally was not part of President Franklin Roosevelt's 'Grand Design' for the post-World War II era, which included the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund. Roosevelt's original intention was to institutionalize the military alliance of the Big Three - the United States, the British Empire, and Russia - to keep the peace after the defeat of the Axis Powers. The failure of Soviet-communist occupied countries to adhere to the right of self-determination and hold elections caused the Angelo-American alliance to dust off the 1941 Atlantic Charter and formalize it into a treaty organization. By 1950, the United Nations was at war with itself, where the UN Security Council voted to send "UN troops" to combat the Soviet-backed North Korean regime, a Resolution the Soviet Union could have easily vetoed.

The NATO alliance is in no way a military adjunct arm of the UN Security Council, which progressives in government and fake news media attempted to create the illusion during the Obama administration's Libyan War. NATO was created to defend Europe, not to wage offensive war in Africa.

Beginning

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was established shortly after World War II in 1949. The original members consisted of ten European countries, the United States, and Canada. These countries formed the alliance to further the goal of security in the North Atlantic region, and they did this by ingraining the principal that an attack against one member would be considered an attack against all. Therefore, all would respond with support to the attacked nation. In 1952 NATO began its first round of enlargement of the early alliances history, letting in Greece and Turkey.

Cold War

File:NATO1.gif

NATO committee.

NATO acceptance of European countries in 1955 led Soviet Russia to set up a counter organization, The Warsaw Treaty Organization (or Warsaw Pact). Common defense, the ongoing MAD strategy, and economic crisis led the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact to its demise. NATO's transatlantic relations and prevention were key to the end of the Cold War, and the beginning of an interlinking of United States and European policies, which still remains to this day.

Post-Cold War

To assent to the reunification of Germany, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev ultimately agreed to a proposal from then U.S. Secretary of State James Baker (DOS) that a reunited Germany would be part of NATO but the military alliance would not move “one inch” to the east, that is, absorb any of the former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO.

On Feb. 9, 1990, Baker said: “We consider that the consultations and discussions in the framework of the 2+4 mechanism should give a guarantee that the reunification of Germany will not lead to the enlargement of NATO’s military organization to the East.” On the next day, then German Chancellor Helmut Kohl said: “We consider that NATO should not enlarge its sphere of activity.” Gorbachev’s mistake was not to get it in writing as a legally-binding agreement.

“U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous ‘not one inch eastward’ assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents … The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels. … The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of ‘pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.’ … President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (‘I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests.’”

In May 1995 President Bill Clinton was invited to Moscow for the 50th anniversary celebrations of the victory over Hitler. In Moscow, Russian President Boris Yeltsin berated Clinton about NATO expansion, seeing “nothing but humiliation” for Russia: “For me to agree to the borders of NATO expanding towards those of Russia – that would constitute a betrayal on my part of the Russian people.”

After the Soviet Union collapsed depriving NATO of its original reason for existence, skeptics of the alliance included liberals as much as conservatives. In 1998, 10 Democratic Senators joined nine Republicans in opposing the first, fateful round of NATO enlargement, which would soon extend the alliance to Russia’s border. Among the dissenters was Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota. In between voting against the first Iraq war in 1991 and the second after Sept. 11, Sen. Wellstone warned that expanding NATO would jeopardize Europe’s hard-won gains. “There is peace between states in Europe, between nations in Europe, for the first time in centuries,” he said. “We do not have a divided Europe, and I worry about a NATO expansion which could redivide Europe and again poison relations with Russia.”

Vladimir Putin assumed office as the president of Russia on the last day of 1999. In an interview with David Frost broadcast on the BBC on March 13, 2000, Putin expressed his desire to see Russia join NATO:

Frost: Tell me about your views on NATO, if you would. Do you see NATO as a potential partner, or rival, or an enemy? Putin: Russia is a part of European culture. I simply cannot see my country isolated from Europe, from what we often describe as the civilized world. That is why it is hard for me to regard NATO as an enemy. I think that such a perception has nothing good in store for Russia and the rest of the world. ... We strive for equal cooperation, partnership, we believe that it is possible to speak even about higher levels of integration with NATO. But only, I repeat, if Russia is an equal partner. As you know, we constantly express our negative attitude to NATO's expansion to the East. ... Frost: Is it possible that Russia will ever join NATO? Putin: Why not? I do not rule out such a possibility. I repeat, on condition that Russia's interests are going to be taken into account, if Russia becomes a full-fledged partner. I want to specially emphasize this. ... When we say that we object to NATO's expansion to the East, we are not expressing any special ambitions of our own, ambitions in respect of some regions of the world. ... By the way, we have never declared any part of the world a zone of our national interests. Personally, I prefer to speak about strategic partnership. The zone of strategic interests of any particular region means first of all the interests of the people who live in that region. ...

Within hours after the September 11, 2001 attacks, Vladimir Putin was the first foreign leader to call President George W. Bush and offer sympathy and support for what became the first invocation of NATO Article V, "an attack against one is an attack against all." Putin announced a five-point plan to support the war on terror, pledging that the Russian government would (1) share intelligence with their American counterparts, (2) open Russian airspace for flights providing humanitarian assistance (3) cooperate with Russia's Central Asian allies in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan to provide similar kinds of airspace access to American flights, (4) participate in international search and rescue efforts, and (5) increase direct assistance -humanitarian as well as military assistance -- to the Afghan Northern Alliance. The intelligence Putin shared, including data that helped American forces find their way around Kabul and logistical information about Afghanistan’s topography and caves, contributed to the success of operation and rout of the Taliban. Two weeks after the attacks, Putin was invited to make a speech to a Special Session of the Bundestag, the first ever by a Russian head of state to the German parliament. Among the numerous subjects Putin addressed in fluent German was peace and stability in the common European home:

"But what are we lacking today for cooperation to be efficient? In spite of all the positive achievements of the past decades, we have not yet developed an efficient mechanism for working together. The coordinating agencies set up so far do not offer Russia real opportunities for taking part in drafting and taking decision. Today decisions are often taken, in principle, without our participation, and we are only urged afterwards to support such decisions. After that they talk again about loyalty to NATO. They even say that such decisions cannot be implemented without Russia. Let us ask ourselves: is this normal? Is this true partnership? Yes, the assertion of democratic principles in international relations, the ability to find a correct decision and readiness for compromise are a difficult thing. But then, it was the Europeans who were the first to understand how important it is to look for consensus over and above national egoism. We agree with that! All these are good ideas. However, the quality of decisions that are taken, their efficiency and, ultimately, European and international security in general depend on the extent to which we succeed today in translating these obvious principles into practical politics. It seemed just recently that a truly common home would shortly rise on the continent, a home in which the Europeans would not be divided into eastern or western, northern or southern. However, these divides will remain, primarily because we have never fully shed many of the Cold War stereotypes and cliches. Today we must say once and for all: the Cold War is done with! We have entered a new stage of development. We understand that without a modern, sound and sustainable security architecture we will never be able to create an atmosphere of trust on the continent, and without that atmosphere of trust there can be no united Greater Europe! Today we must say that we renounce our stereotypes and ambitions and from now on will jointly work for the security of the people of Europe and the world as a whole.

In 2004 the Baltic states - Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia joined NATO, setting up for the first time a common border between the Russian Federation and a NATO state. Three years later, at the Munich Security Conference, Putin declared, “We have the right to ask: against whom is this [NATO] expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them.” In 2008 NATO said Ukraine and Georgia would become members. Four other Eastern European states joined NATO in 2009.

Kosovo bombing

See also: Clinton administration

In 1998, President Bill Clinton attempted to justify NATO's continued existence as a distraction from the impeachment movement against him. Under Clinton, the United States led its NATO allies on a bombing campaign allegedly to stop Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević's ethnic cleansing of the Albanians inside of Kosovo. The mission in Kosovo did not go as well as planned. After the air strikes, havoc reigned over Kosovo, abuses continued and human rights organizations listed abuses committed by the Alliance members during the campaign. In an attempt to solve the violence, NATO countries and the United Nations took on a mission to stabilize and reconstruct the country. The NATO intervention was illegal, destructive, and based on fraudulent claims.

Apartment building burns in Belgrade in 1999. The building caught fire as residents were cooking with firewood during a power blackout after NATO air raids on power grid in Serbia.

James Bissett, a former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania, wrote: "the Central Intelligence Agency assisted by the British Special Air Service were training KLA members in Albania and in the summer of 1998 sending them back into Kosovo to assassinate Serbian mayors, ambush Serbian policemen and intimidate hesitant Kosovo Albanians. The aim was to destabilize Kosovo and overthrow Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic... The hope was that with Kosovo in flames NATO could intervene ..."

NATO deliberately bombed the People's Republic of China (PRC) embassy in Belgrade, which provoked a militarization of the PRC in subsequent decades.

NATO War Crimes

According to Professor Robert Hayden from the University of Pittsburgh:

NATO's attacks have been aimed against civilian targets since literally the first night of the bombing, when a tractor factory in the Belgrade suburb of Rakovica was destroyed by cruise missiles. Since then NATO targets have included roads, railroad tracks and bridges hundreds of miles from Kosovo, power plants, factories of many kinds, food processing and sugar processing plants, water pumping stations, cigarette factories, central heating plants for civilian apartment blocks, television studios, post offices, non-military government administrative buildings, ski resorts, government official residences, oil refineries, civilian airports, gas stations, and chemical plants. NATO's strategy is not to attack Yugoslavia's army directly, but rather to destroy Yugoslavia itself, in order to weaken the army. With this strategy it is military losses that are "collateral damage," because most of the attacks are aimed at civilian targets.

The level of damage done to clearly non-military infrastructural targets in Serbia would seem to render NATO military commanders and at least some NATO political leaders liable to the same charge that was made against Ratko Mladi and Radovan Karadi by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), "extensive destruction of property:" that they individually and in concert with others planned, instigated, ordered or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of the extensive, wanton and unlawful destruction of ... property, not justified by military necessity or knew or had reason to know that subordinates were about to destroy or permit others to destroy ... property or had done so and failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent this destruction or to punish the perpetrators thereof."

The war supposedly in defense of human rights has produced war crimes by NATO, and a civilian casualty rate that is at least three time higher than the casualty rate of the "intolerable" violations of human rights that NATO was supposedly acting to correct.

NATO Members

NATO spending in 2018.

NATO Member	NATO Summit	Expansion Year
Belgium	Founder	Original Member, 1949
Canada	Founder	Original Member, 1949
Denmark	Founder	Original Member, 1949
France	Founder	Original Member, 1949
Iceland	Founder	Original Member, 1949
Italy	Founder	Original Member, 1949
Luxembourg	Founder	Original Member, 1949
Netherlands	Founder	Original Member, 1949
Norway	Founder	Original Member, 1949
Portugal	Founder	Original Member, 1949
United Kingdom	Founder	Original Member, 1949
United States	Founder	Original Member, 1949
Greece		First Round, 1952
Turkey		First Round, 1952
Germany		Second Round, 1955
Spain		Third Round, 1982
Czech Republic	Washington, D.C.	Fourth Round, 1999
Hungary	Washington, D.C.	Fourth Round, 1999
Poland	Washington, D.C.	Fourth Round, 1999
Bulgaria	Washington, D.C.	Fifth Round, 2004
Estonia	Istanbul, Turkey	Fifth Round, 2004
Latvia	Istanbul, Turkey	Fifth Round, 2004
Lithuania	Istanbul, Turkey	Fifth Round, 2004
Romania	Istanbul, Turkey	Fifth Round, 2004
Slovakia	Istanbul, Turkey	Fifth Round, 2004
Slovenia	Istanbul, Turkey	Fifth Round, 2004
Albania	Bucharest, Romania	Sixth Round, 2008
Croatia	Bucharest, Romania	Sixth Round, 2008
Montenegro		Seventh Round, 2017

See also

• Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

External links

• NATO's Official Website
• 1949 NATO Treaty, full text
• Clinton Wag the Dog -- No Kosovo Genocide, German Foreign Office Report, January 6, 1999.
• Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia.
• The U.S.-NATO Military Intervention in Kosovo. Triggering ethnic conflict as a pretext for intervention.
• NATO and Rebel Atrocities in Libya: by Stephen Lendman. July 14, 2011. Stephen Lendman