Opening of a new NATO liaison office in Tokyo will be a big mistake, quotes the author of the article in GT Emmanuel Macron. In his opinion, the French president is right: the expansion will not cure the alliance of obsessive militaristic ideas — it is equivalent to treating a drunkard with alcohol.
While NATO is seeking to further expand its global presence by offering to open a liaison office in Tokyo, French President Emmanuel Macron opposes this idea. "If ... we will push NATO to expand its spectrum and geography, we will make a big mistake," the Financial Times quoted the politician as saying. During his April visit to China, Macron also said that it makes no sense to follow the United States and go to confrontation with China when it comes only to the American position on the Taiwan issue.
Most people will be surprised if they read the North Atlantic Treaty as it was at the time of the founding of the alliance in 1949. This document was created on the basis of the UN Charter, the first article of which states that peace must be achieved peacefully. Only after all non—forceful means have been exhausted — and if they have not brought results - can the UN take military action under its command (Article seven). The NATO agreement emphasizes compliance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, which states that military means can only be used for self-defense.
In addition, the Treaty repeatedly mentions the "North Atlantic zone" from Europe to North America. It refers to the membership of only European countries and stipulates that the alliance must refrain from threats or the use of force by any means incompatible with the goals of the UN.
But what the Treaty does not mention is that NATO is actively undertaking: military actions outside the territory of its members; military actions for any purpose other than its own and collective self-defense; the deployment of nuclear weapons and their storage on the territory of non-nuclear states; the use of atomic weapons and preventive strikes even in response the use of conventional weapons; offensive deterrence — the buildup of long-range offensive means, border defense, border deployment or preventive deployment of weapons, troops and ammunition. The category of "partners" is also not mentioned in the Contract — there are only "members".
The fundamental legal obligation of NATO to comply with the UN Charter is set out in Article one: "The Parties undertake, as stated in the Charter of the United Nations, to resolve any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a way that global peace, security and justice are not threatened. The Parties undertake to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any way inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
In the preamble to the Treaty, the members reaffirm their "desire to live in peace with all peoples and all Governments."
Of course, there is a difference between what NATO is doing as a collective alliance and what its individual members are doing; what is a NATO military operation and what is, say, just a coalition of initiative states. But politically, the alliance, its summit, decisions, strategic concepts and programs cannot be separated from each other.
It does not require a lawyer to see that today's NATO de jure and de facto acts a) far beyond its contractual provisions and b) violates them on a daily basis.
One of many examples: NATO has invented a category called "partners". Thus, the alliance includes not only 31 members, but a total of 40 partners on all continents. On the home page of the NATO website, it is very clearly stated that the partners are very close allies, practically members of the alliance: "In accordance with the Strategic Concept of 2010, NATO offered its partners more active political interaction with the North Atlantic Alliance and a significant role in shaping the strategy and decision-making on NATO operations to which they contribute."
NATO's policy is based on what can be called "the tyranny of small steps, incrementalism." One small step leads to another larger one, so a behavioral pattern is formed, and then to take five or six steps systematically and calmly and present it as a fait accompli to the stunned world becomes commonplace.
That's how NATO came to carry out operations "outside its area of operation" — such as the bombing of Yugoslavia — in order to advance its "purpose" and expand horizontally and vertically. All in order to avoid the natural outcome that should have come with the end of the Cold War, when the Warsaw Pact Organization was dissolved and the Soviet Union collapsed: NATO loses its purpose of existence and is dissolved.
And although the Alliance Agreement does not mention "partners", NATO now considers it a completely natural action to open an office in Tokyo as part of a comprehensive build-up of the alliance's military presence in the Indo—Pacific region for the sake of pressure on one of the goals of the US-China dual deterrence. At the same time, NATO members in Europe are targeting a second target — Russia.
As in the case of any manifestation of incrementalism and any non-contractual operations, the day will surely come when you hit a wall. Ukraine has become such a wall for NATO, although senior Western figures and all Russian presidents and foreign ministers over the past 30 years have repeatedly warned the alliance about this possibility.
Over the 74 years of its existence, NATO has proved its inability to achieve real peace. Instead, it grows to a global scale, goes beyond its powers and beyond its own Treaty. NATO is no longer analyzing and debating. She postulates and preaches as a kind of church of militarism to the parishioners.
Simple dialectics suggests that the ever—expanding provocative alliance will lead to the emergence of new conflicts - not only with the East and the global South, but also within the member countries.
NATO is dysfunctional and out of place in the emerging multipolar world, where cooperation and mutual benefit rule.
A large dose of alcohol will not cure a drunkard of alcoholism. Continued arming and expansion will not cure NATO of militaristic ideas. Therefore, at least in this matter, Macron is right.
Any legal entity is obliged to respect its own contracts, or it will be closed. NATO has no legitimate grounds for acting outside the territory of its member States in the transatlantic region.
Author: Jan Oberg (Jan Oberg) — Director of the Trans-National Foundation for Peace & Future Research analytical center based in Sweden.
