NATO Is the Problem, Not the Solution
July 11, 2018
Roger Kotila / Personal Opinion
Commentary: A Democratic World Federalists proposal titled "NATO & the Community of the Democracies" being developed for the November 2018 Paris Peace Forum claims to promote world peace through a world federation, but actually calls for increased militarization -- the opposite of the DWF's world federalist vision. Why not a "new UN" rather than keeping the old UN? The Earth Constitution provides a model for a world federal union government.
Special to Environmentalists Against War
NATO Is the Problem, Not the Solution
Roger Kotila / Personal Opinion
Friends: Here's my analysis of US/NATO in a letter I wrote to some World Federalists colleagues. It's a bit lengthy, but may explain the need at the geopolitical level for enforceable world law, a position that world federalists advocate. US/NATO, in my opinion, rejects international law for themselves. Here is a letter I sent to some individuals who think NATO might be "helpful" -- a view I strongly oppose. I've highlighted some key points:
SAN FRANCISCO (July 9, 2018) -- I am very troubled by this Proposal titled "NATO & the Community of the Democracies" being developed for the November 2018 Paris Peace Forum. The Proposal claims to be for world peace via (eventually) forming a world federation, but the actual Proposal moves away from a world federal union governing structure and calls for increased militarization -- the opposite of the Democratic World Federalists' (DWF) world federalist vision.
The Proposal fails to address the core issue of a defective UN Charter, which is DWF's focus, and instead requests that DWF offer public support for a militant organization (NATO) responsible for world crimes.
Illegal wars against Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria have brought unthinkable horror to millions of innocent families in the Middle East, victims of an illegal "regime change" scheme using covert operations and war that brought violent chaos to those nations targeted to be overthrown.
The UN Charter's P-5 veto power means that the US/NATO cannot be held accountable for its illegal war crimes and crimes against humanity. No one goes to jail. The Proposal to use NATO's governing structure (e.g., the NATO Parliament and "Court") is basically the same as putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
Why not a "new UN" rather than keeping the old UN?
DWF advocates Charter review, the sooner the better. We will only get a "new UN" with a new world charter. The Earth Constitution provides a model for a world federal union government.
By contrast, the "Community of Democracy" Proposal invites the UN Security Council to continue to be in charge of "peace and security," but now to be working with NATO. This seems untenable to me, since one of the main defects in the Charter (veto of the P-5) remains operative, and NATO is a war machine not a global peace system.
The UN is a confederation, not a federation, yet Chris's proposal keeps the UN as it is, Security Council and all. As we know, the P-5 are the leading weapons dealers in the whole world. Under their "watch" it's been war after war after war.
Where I think "NATO & the Community of Democracies" goes wrong:
(1) If anything, the Proposal draws attention away from the desperate need for a new Charter. The Charter is the heart and soul of a failed geopolitical system which is tainted by war after war after war. The UN geopolitical system is so badly designed that the nuclear nations refuse to give up their nukes.
Chris's Proposal will only intensify the nuclear arms race as Russia and China will not feel safe -- they know that the US has 800 foreign military bases and worry that they are being encircled by the US/NATO, a fear not unjustified.
(2) NATO is the problem, not the solution. By international legal and moral standards, NATO could be considered a war criminal -- or what I term a world criminal. US/NATO has participated in illegal wars and invasions that have turned the Middle East into a nightmare for the millions of people living there. It is the cause of the refugee crisis in Europe.
(3) Unlike the Earth Constitution, the Proposal lacks a well-designed World Judiciary system. It refers to NATO having a "Court" but with no meaningful details. It seems obvious that this plan has no intention of prosecuting war criminals especially if they are from "democratic" countries doing the crimes and violating international law.
(4) The Proposal assumes that the United States is a "democracy" when in reality it is an oligarchy pretending to be a democracy, hence the US would not qualify for the "Community of Democracies."
(5) The Proposal claims that democracies are "peaceful." This is a common myth, or outright lie. It fails to recognize that the biggest war mongers in modern times are the United States and its NATO allies. It does not address economic war. It has no provisions to outlaw covert operations and false flag operations used for example by the US, Great Britain, & Israel to overthrow governments that get in the way of Empire ambitions or prefer socialist economies instead of privatization schemes.
America's neocon's openly talk of Empire -- ruling the world militarily through "full spectrum dominance." This violence-based scheme is already underway with the biggest military budgets ever. THERE ARE NO PLANS FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT. NONE. NOT FOR THE NEXT THIRTY YEARS!
How could a "NATO & the Community of Democracies" stop an (illegal) invasion of Iran when the criminals are in NATO itself? This is the fox guarding the hen house.
America's CIA has been described as "organized crime" in a powerful book by Douglas Valentine. Professor Rebecca Gordon's "American Nuremberg" describes in sickening detail "The US Officials Who Should Stand Trial for Post-9/11 War Crimes." Are these the leaders of the free world we should give even more power to -- by making it easier for NATO to be utilized for war and threats of war?
(6) A "Peacebuilding Commission" or a "UN Emergency Peace Service" or "rapid reaction unit" would be of little use if its own members (in the Community of the Democracies) are the culprits who secretly plot to overthrow governments by both covert and overt means.
(7) Basically, this Proposal would give the "keys to the kingdom" to the nations who routinely flout world peace, and who routinely ignore the UN, and who routinely quit treaty based agreements when they no longer suit their purposes.
(8) The Proposal, by changing the voting system to a "qualified-majority" makes it easier for the NATO generals to go to war.
(9) The Proposal says nothing about outlawing war, instead seems to encourage militarism for security. Yet world federalists know that militarism is a dead end. That's why we want a world system without national armies and without nuclear weapons, vital goals which will require a well designed World Federation with a top notch world constitution.
Who is to stop the US with its 30-year plan to spend billions of dollars on "nuclear modernization" which the Pentagon calls its Life Extension Program but should be called its Life Extinction Program? Certain not the UN with its fatally flawed Charter.
(10) The Proposal has no obvious system to deal with multinational corporations and international banking which have failed to bring economic justice to the 90%. One can die by war or nukes, but one can also suffer an early death from poverty.
That's it for my concerns about "NATO & the Community of Democracies." Why not go for what world federalists know is needed, rather than continue to accept plans that shy away from what is really needed to make the world truly safe and prosperous?
Note: (Personal opinion, not the official view of DWF)
Democratic World Federalists
55 New Montgomery Street #225
San Francisco, CA 94105-3421
P: (415) 227-4880 Office
Roger Kotila is a retired psychologist, a full time activist, and editor at Earth Federation News & Views. He is working to promote a democratic federal world union by means of the Earth Constitution designed to replace the obsolete UN Charter. He was recently elected President of Democratic World Federalists in San Francisco.