Who's Online

We have 341 guests online

Popular

3397 readings
NATO 60th Anniversary 2009; Time to Disband NATO Long Over Due PDF Print E-mail
Peace News
Posted by admin
Sunday, 29 March 2009 02:13
NATO 60th Anniversary 2009; Time to Disband NATO Long Over Due

PEJ News - Joan Russow PhD - Global Compliance Research Project

NATO, must be Disbanded for Contributing to the Scourge of War, and For Defying Peremptory Norms



While, on April 4, 2009, the NATO state leaders are poised to celebrate the 60th Anniversary Conference of NATO in Strasbourg and Baden Baden, the majority of states of the United Nations would probably be more inclined to celebrate the demise of NATO.



NATO is a provocative Dangerous Institution which has perpetuated the scourge of war, and conflict through both its existence and its expansion. The NATO states collectively spend approximately 70% of the current 1.473 trillion. global military budget.



World Military Spending: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending




NATO must be disbanded for the following reasons:

While, President Obama is calling for “a world without nuclear weapons”, NATO has even convinced members that the permission to keep nuclear weapons in Europe may be a pre-requisite for “having a say in NATO”.

 

NATO is a provocative, dangerous institution that has perpetuated the scourge of war, and conflict through both its existence and its expansion. The NATO states collectively spend approximately 70% of the current 1.473 trillion global military budget. in contravention of years of international commitments to reallocate military expense

World Military Spending: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending



* NATO has condoned the possession of nuclear weapons by "friendly states², but has been willing to entertain strikes on the nuclear facilities of "NATO-designed rogue states" and risk the release of radiation;

*NATO, through its engaging in numerous military interventions and occupations such as Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, has contributed to and condoned, rather than prevented the scourge of war in defiance of the principal objective of the Charter of the United Nations;

*NATO has not abandoned the option of a "first use of nuclear weapons policy", has failed to act on its undertaking under the General Assembly Resolution entitled the Condemnation of Nuclear War A/RES/38/75, 1983 "to condemn the formulation, propounding, dissemination and propaganda of political and military doctrines and concepts intended to provide 'legitimacy' for the first use of nuclear weapons and in general to justify the 'admissibility' of unleashing nuclear war (2, Condemnation of Nuclear War General Assembly Resolution A/RES/38/75, 1983;

* NATO has been using depleted uranium [the effect of which in part is similar to that of a nuclear weapon], has failed to act on its undertaking to deem "that the use of nuclear weapons would be a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and a crime against humanity², ( Resolutions 1653 (XVI) of 24 November, 1961, 33/71 B of 14 December, 1978, 34/83 G of 11 December, 1979, 35/152 D of 12 December, 1980 and 36/92 I of 9 December, 1981;

*NATO, through using depleted uranium, which could be deemed to have the effect of a nuclear weapon, has disregarded the decision of the International Court of Justice that the use or the threat to use nuclear weapons is contrary to International humanitarian law (World Court Project, 1996);

*NATO has violated the Geneva Protocols on prohibited weapons;

*NATO has undermined the United Nations through contributing to the failure (i) to discharge obligations under International Conventions, Treaties, and Covenants, (ii) to act through Commitments made under Conference Action Plans and (iii) to fulfill expectations created through General Assembly Resolutions;

*NATO has condoned the misinterpretation of Article 51 - self-defence- in the Charter of the United Nations in its support for the invasion of a sovereign state, and has used the pretext of "human security" and "humanitarian intervention" and "preemptive/preventive" aggression to justify the invasion and occupation of other states;

*NATO has continually ignored Chapter VI - Peaceful Resolution of Disputes, of the Charter of the United Nations, and the provision in Chapter VI to take disputes to the International Court of Justice;

*NATO has failed to act on the commitment made under the Platform of Action of the UN Conference of Women To [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, UN Conference on Women, May 15);

*NATO has failed to discharge its obligations under the Convention entitled (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva, 1949) to protect "persons taking no active part in the hostilities²;

* NATO has violated the Convention Against Torture;

* NATO has failed to discharge its obligations under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights to "prohibit any propaganda of war", Article 20, and to "prohibit any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (Article 20 -2);

* NATO has failed to fulfill the undertaking under the General Assembly Resolution entitled the Declaration on the Use of Scientific and Technological Progress in the Interests of Peace and for the Benefit of Humanity, 1975) to prevent scientific and technological achievements entailing dangers for the civil and political rights of the individual or of the group and for human dignity;

* NATO has failed to discharge its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child to ensure respect for the rules of international humanitarian law relevant to the child in armed conflict (Art. 18, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989);

* NATO campaign has failed to fulfill the expectation under the General Assembly Resolution, entitled "Effects of Atomic Radiation" to prevent harmful effects on present and future generations, resulting from the levels of radiation to which man humans are exposed;

*NATO has failed to discharge its obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity to prevent the loss or reduction of biodiversity in a region rich in biodiversity, and has contributed to irreversible environmental devastation;

*NATO has failed to act on a commitment to eliminate the production of weapons of mass destruction at the United Nations Conference on Humans and the Environment (UNCHE, 1972) [through its continued support for the mining and distribution of uranium both for civil nuclear reactors and for nuclear weapons];

*NATO has failed to act on its undertaking under numerous UN General Assembly Resolutions such as the General Assembly Resolution in 1981, to reduce the military budget and to reallocate the funds thus saved to economic and social development, particularly for the benefit of developing countries;

*NATO has engaged in war games such as Exercise Trident Fury, which have been a flagrant display of militarism and which flaunt the norm related to the prohibition of the propaganda of war under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

 

 

While, on April 4, 2009, the NATO state leaders were poised to celebrate the 60th Anniversary Conference of NATO in Strasbourg and Baden Baden, the majority of states of the United Nations would probably be more inclined to celebrate the demise of NATO.

 

See Disband NATO petition : http://www.petitiononline.com/z9m2x3nb/petition.html

 

Foreign Minister Wants US Nukes out of Germany

Reacting to Obama's vision of a nuclear-free world, German Foreign Minister Steinmeier has called for American nuclear weapons to be removed from Germany. His stance is in opposition to Chancellor Merkel, who wants to keep the bombs to secure Germany's say in NATO.

US President Barack Obama's recent calls for "a world without nuclear weapons" may have been slammed by some critics as dangerously naive. But it has prompted German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier to come up with his own, more achievable goal: a Germany without American nuclear weapons.

"These weapons are militarily obsolete today," Steinmeier told SPIEGEL, explaining that he would take steps to ensure that the remaining US warheads "are removed from Germany." Disarmament involving "weapons in this category" also needs to be an issue on the agenda at the disarmament conference which the US is planning, Steinmeier said.

 DPA

The German air force base at Büchel: American nuclear weapons are still stored in Germany.With his remarks, Steinmeier, who is the center-left Social Democratic Party's official candidate for chancellor in September general elections, is taking the opposite stance from Chancellor Angela Merkel. The German leader told the German parliament, the Bundestag, shortly before the recent NATO summit, that the German government still fully supported the NATO doctrine of "nuclear sharing," whereby non-nuclear states such as Germany host third-party nukes in order to get more say in decision-making. Hosting American nuclear weapons secures Berlin's "influence in the defense alliance, including in this highly sensitive area," said Merkel, who was already aware of Obama's pending no-nukes initiative at the time.

Sources in the Defense Ministry, which is under the control of Merkel's center-right Christian Democrats, also said that only countries which host US nuclear bombs could "have a serious say" within NATO.

However opponents of nuclear sharing currently have a majority in the Bundestag. The far-left Left Party and the Greens want nuclear weapons out of Germany, as do the Social Democrats' defense experts. After Obama's speech, Guido Westerwelle, the leader of the business-friendly Free Democratic Party, also called for the warheads to be "removed."

 

 

During the Cold War, the then-West German government in Bonn managed to acquire a certain amount of decision-making power relating to American nuclear weapons. Thousands of US warheads were stored in West Germany at the time.

After German reunification in 1990, however, the US withdrew almost all its warheads from Europe. Nowadays US bombs are still stored in Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey, as well as Germany, where they are kept in a Bundeswehr air base in Büchel in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate. Altogether around 100 American nukes are stored in Europe. However a commission of experts told US Defense Secretary Robert Gates last December that the warheads have "no military value" and that storing them safely consumes "enormous sums of money."

NATO's Nuclear Planning Group, which in the past only included countries with nuclear weapons, now includes all the alliance's member states except France. States such as Greece and Canada which abandoned nuclear sharing years ago, still participate in the group on equal terms.

dgs -- spiegel

 





NATO States collectively spend 70% of the estimated $1.473 global annual military budget in contravention of years of international commitments to reallocate military expenses.



* NATO has condoned the possession of nuclear weapons by "friendly states', but has been willing to entertain strikes on the nuclear facilities of "NATO designed rogue states" and risk the release of radiation.



*NATO, through its engaging in numerous military interventions and occupations such as Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, has contributed to and condoned, rather than prevented the scourge of war in defiance of the principal objective of the Charter of the United Nations


 

Last Updated on Saturday, 06 April 2019 00:53
 

Latest News