October 30, 2023
NATO, RIP
NATO, RIP!
The revenant of NATO, however, remains here — at great expense!
The events of the past weeks and, in particular, those of Saturday 28.10.2023 constitute the epicrisis and the death certificate of “the greatest military alliance in the history of the world”.
If the constant positions of Orbán or the declarations of Fico were the clear symptoms of a terminal illness in the patient NATO, Erdoğan’s Saturday declarations were the signature upon the death certificate of the screen through which, until yesterday, the USA exercised its hegemonic power over the world.
To establish the premises we shall have to take another look at the NATO Treaty… on which occasion we come at once to the following conclusions:
1. The obligation “all for one, one for all” provided by art. 5 is not an obligation of the signatory parties but an option!
2. Decisions concerning NATO enlargement are taken “by unanimous agreement” (art. 10).
3. There is no provision in the NATO Treaty making possible the exclusion of one or more members from the Alliance.
Let us take them in turn…
Concretely, art. 5 provides that “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, (GREAT ATTENTION!!!)
if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
I return and underline: “(…) if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force”.
In other words, the attacking of a member may bring “assistance” “by taking forthwith”, “individually and in concert with the other Parties”, “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force”.
The assistance is not obligatory, nor is it necessarily military — a fact confirmed by several specialists in the field.
Mai’a K. Davis Cross, professor of political science and international affairs at Northeastern University, said that if a triggering event occurs, NATO members “meet to discuss whether they agree that the actions on the ground justify invoking Article 5”, and at that moment “They have to reach a CONSENSUS on this, so it is not a matter of a formal vote. Consensus can mean that no government opposes invoking Article 5.” Which makes it possible that NATO members might not reach a consensus on a direct military response to a Russian attack. “There is no automatic response of any kind, in any circumstance”, says Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
In the second place, even if NATO members reach a consensus and invoke Article 5, each member may decide individually what it would wish to contribute, militarily or otherwise.
The content of Article 5 “is in fact a kind of authorisation for the alliance to decide how to act, collectively or individually”, says Charles Kupchan, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and professor at Georgetown University.
(Quotations taken from Poynter.org — Translation and adaptation B.T.I.)
Moreover, it is written explicitly in the treaty that NATO enlargement must be done BY UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT.
As I was saying, the exclusion of a member country is not provided for in any way in the treaty; but even if such an exclusion were forced, THE DECISION TO EXCLUDE WOULD LIKEWISE HAVE TO BE TAKEN “BY UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT” — which, again, is scarcely likely to happen, for which reason Turkey (or any other “undisciplined pupil”) will remain a member *sine die*, going on to block any action from within…
Now, “UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT” has long been history in NATO… which makes “the greatest alliance in the world” itself become history. A useless history (Article 5 was invoked only once, and that was on 11 September 2001…) and an extremely costly one.
Without doubt, if until now the positions of Hungary, Slovakia or even Poland raised a question mark over the possibility of reaching a “UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT”, after Saturday’s declarations by Erdoğan it becomes evident that UNANIMITY HAS BECOME ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE IN NATO!
And that means that NATO, de facto, died on Saturday.
Its ghost remains, however — the REVENANT OF NATO continuing to impress only the children of the third world and the little misses of the politically correct press.
We shall live through a military-geostrategic Halloween for many years yet, a grotesque spectacle, useless, without finality, but on the other hand extremely expensive!
What ought we to understand from today onwards?
That we are on our own, alone responsible for our fate!
And that for a small or medium country such as ours it is not weapons that speak (not even those 32 F-35s that will come in over 10 years!), but intelligence and diplomacy.
That is why perhaps we Romanians ought to understand, in a diplomatic-geostrategic key as well, the word of the Lord who exhorted us:
“be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (Matthew 10:16)
That is, not the other way round, not as we do today!
Dan MV Chitic
Find the post on FacebookThe Facebook archive keeps no permanent addresses for posts, and this entry has no photograph from which an address could be rebuilt. The button above opens directly a search by a phrase from the text, on the author’s page.
Comments
Have your say. Comments appear once approved.