View Full Version : NATOís Worldwide Expansion in the Post-Cold World Era

04-30-2013, 05:20 PM
Essay published 3 days ago:

NATO’s Worldwide Expansion in the Post-Cold World Era

One of the most significant developments of the post-Cold War era, and certainly the most ominous, is the transformation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a military bloc created by the United States during the genesis of the Cold War in 1949, into one that has grown to encompass the entirety of Europe, has expanded military partnerships throughout the world and has waged war on three continents.

In 2006 Kurt Volker, at the time with the State Department and two years afterwards U.S. ambassador to NATO, boasted that the year before NATO had been “engaged in eight simultaneous operations on four continents.”

Two years later the State Department’s Daniel Fried told the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs’ Subcommittee on Europe:

“When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, NATO was an Alliance of 16 members and no partners. Today, NATO has 26 members – with 2 new invitees, prospective membership for others, and over 20 partners in Europe and Eurasia, seven in the Mediterranean, four in the Persian Gulf, and others from around the world.”

Although then-Secretary of State James Baker had assured Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev at the time of German reunification in 1990 that NATO would not be moved one inch eastward, the very act of merger occurring as it did led to the German Democratic Republic being absorbed not only into the Federal Republic but NATO and hence the latter immediately moving east to the borders of Poland and Czechoslovakia and closer to that of the Soviet Union.

The two invited nations Fried mentioned above are Albania and Croatia, which became full members of the military bloc in 2009, completing a decade of expansion that saw NATO membership grow by 75 percent from 16 to 28. NATO expansion to the east has provided the Pentagon and its Western allies with air bases and other military facilities in Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and Romania for wars to the east and south.

Macedonia, which would also have been absorbed in 2009 except for the name dispute with NATO member Greece, is now in a new category of nations being groomed for full NATO membership the alliance refers to as aspirant countries. The others currently are Bosnia, Georgia and Montenegro.

With the Partnership for Peace program that was used to promote twelve new Eastern European into NATO between 1999 and 2009 – every non-Soviet member of the Warsaw Pact and three former Soviet republics (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) – the Mediterranean Dialogue, the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative and, as of last year, the newly formed Partners Across the Globe (whose initial members are Afghanistan, Australia, Iraq, Japan, Mongolia, New Zealand, Pakistan and South Korea), NATO members and partners number at least 70 nations, well over a third of those in the world.

In January of 2012 a meeting of NATO’s Military Committee Chiefs of Defense Staff was conducted with top military representatives of 67 nations.

The Partners Across the Globe and longer-standing military partnerships are slated to grow in all parts of the world. Among the more than 50 nations that have provided NATO with troop contingents for the war in South Asia are additional Asia-Pacific states not covered by other international NATO partnership formats like the Partnership for Peace (22 nations in Europe, the South Caucasus and Central Asia), the Mediterranean Dialogue (seven nations in North Africa and the Middle East, with Libya to be the eighth) and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, which targets the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates).

Those Asian states – Malaysia, Singapore and Tonga – are likely the next candidates for the new global partnership, as are Latin American troop providers like El Salvador and Colombia. The inclusion of the last-named marks the expansion of NATO, through memberships and partnerships, to all six inhabited continents.

Iraq and Yemen are likely prospects for inclusion in the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. Mediterranean Dialogue members Jordan and Morocco applied for membership in the Gulf Cooperation Council (which is composed of the Arab world’s other six monarchies) during NATO’s war against Libya in 2011, for which Gulf Cooperation Council and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative members Qatar and the United Arab Emirates supplied dozens of warplanes.

If the West succeeds in effecting the overthrow of the Syrian government, Syria and Lebanon will be targeted for membership in NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue. (As will Palestine if and when it is recognized by the United Nations.) With the new administration in Cyprus confirming its intention to immediately join the Partnership for Peace, every nation in the Mediterranean Sea Basin will be a NATO member and partner. The integration of Cyprus will also complete the process of recruiting every European nation (excluding mini-states Andorra, Lichtenstein, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican) into the NATO orbit.

In the past three years there also has been discussion about NATO establishing a collective partnership arrangement, which could include individual partnerships as well, with the ten members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which are, in addition to Malaysia and Singapore, mentioned above, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, the Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand.

Similar efforts have been made by NATO to forge a collective partnership with the 54-member African Union. All African nations are members of the African Union except for Morocco and the fledgling state of South Sudan. All African countries except Egypt are in the area of responsibility of U.S. Africa Command, which before achieving full operational capacity in 2008 was created and developed by U.S. European Command, whose top military commander is simultaneously that of NATO.

The current NATO secretary general has bruited the intention to cultivate formal relations with India and China, likely to be based on the bilateral NATO-Russia Council model.

There has been discussion in recent years, including an explicit call by a Portuguese foreign minister for precisely such an initiative, for NATO to expand into the South Atlantic as well by building military partnerships with countries like Brazil and South Africa. (Six warships with the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 held exercises with the South African navy in 2007 in the course of circumnavigating the African continent. Also in that year the same NATO naval force conducted operations in the Caribbean, the first time alliance warships entered that sea.)

In conjunction with the U.S., NATO is striving to assemble the remnants of defunct or dormant Cold War-era military blocs in the Asia-Pacific region, all modeled after NATO itself – the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO), the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and the Security Treaty between Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America (ANZUS) – to replicate in the east against China what NATO expansion has accomplished in Europe over the past 14 years in relation to Russia: its exclusion, isolation and encirclement by military bases, naval forces and interceptor missile installations.

As the Pentagon and NATO are implementing plans to deploy land-based interceptor missiles in Romania and Poland and sea-based equivalents on guided missile warships in, first, the Mediterranean and plausibly afterward in the Black, Baltic and Norwegian Seas, so the U.S. has recruited Japan, South Korea and Australia into its global sea- and land-based missile shield grid, with a recent report indicating the Pentagon plans to add the Philippines to the list with the deployment there of an Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance interceptor missile mobile system of the sort already stationed in Japan, Israel and Turkey.

Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and other NATO leaders routinely assert that the European Phased Adaptive Approach missile system is aimed not only against Iran but North Korea – and Syria. In April of this year Rasmussen became the first NATO secretary general to visit South Korea. Days earlier his second-in-command, Deputy Secretary General Alexander Vershbow, spoke of the possibility of invoking NATO’s Article 5 mutual military assistance clause against North Korea.

Since 1999 the North Atlantic bloc has waged air and ground wars in Europe (Yugoslavia) , Asia (Afghanistan and across the border in Pakistan) and Africa (Libya), as well as running comprehensive naval surveillance, interdiction, boarding and assault operations in the Mediterranean Sea (Active Endeavor) and in the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean (Ocean Shield) and airlift operations for African troops into the Darfur region of western Sudan and into war-torn Somalia.

Post-Cold War NATO has repeatedly and without disguise identified its purview and its area of operations to be international in scope, and over the past 22 years its efforts to achieve that objective have steadily accelerated to the point where the military alliance is well poised to supplant the United Nations as the main, indeed the exclusive, arbiter of conflicts not only between but within nations throughout the world. A U.S.-dominated armed bloc which includes three nuclear powers and accounts for an estimated 70 percent of global military spending has expanded deployments, operations and partnerships around the planet.

Four years ago Hans von Sponeck, former UN Assistant Secretary General and UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, wrote a scathing denunciation called The United Nations and NATO: Which security and for whom? for a Swiss journal in which, in a section called “21st century NATO incompatible with UN Charter,” he stated:

“In 1999, NATO acknowledged that it was seeking to orient itself according to a new fundamental strategic concept. From a narrow military defense alliance it was to become a broad-based alliance for the protection of the vital resources needs of its members. Besides the defense of member states’ borders, it set itself new purposes such as assured access to energy sources and the right to intervene in ‘movements of large numbers of persons’ and in conflicts far from the boarders of NATO countries. The readiness of the new alliance to include other countries, particularly those that had previously been part of the Soviet Union, shows how the character of this military alliance has altered.”

“[T]he United Nations monopoly of the use of force, especially as specified in Article 51 of the Charter, was no longer accepted according to the 1999 NATO doctrine.

“NATO’s territorial scope, until then limited to the Euro-Atlantic region, was expanded by its member to encompass the whole world in keeping with a strategic context that was global in its sweep.”

For the past 18 years NATO has been attempting to supersede and ultimately replace the United Nations, as von Sponeck warned, initially by promoting itself as the military wing of the UN by leading multinational military forces under post-conflict mandates in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia – 60,000 troops in the first and 50,000 in the second case at peak strength. (The first two missions followed, respectively, a NATO bombing campaign against the Bosnian Serb Republic and 78-day air war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, to be sure.) A comparable situation existed in Iraq, with NATO supporting the foreign occupation of the nation from 2004-2011. In fact all the post-Cold War NATO inductees – Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia – were compelled to supply troops for Iraq as proof of their loyalty to NATO before and shortly after their accession.

And for Afghanistan. But unlike the NATO missions in the above former Yugoslav territories, that in Afghanistan was to an active war zone, constituting NATO’s first ground war and first war outside Europe.

After the military alliance took over the International Security Assistance Force, it came to command almost all of the 152,000 foreign troops in the nation and soldiers from over 50 Troop Contributing Nations (the official designation) . Armed forces from that many nations had never before fought in one war, much less under a single command and in one nation.

Those nations are:

All 28 current NATO members: The U.S., Albania, Belgium, Britain, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Turkey.

Partnership for Peace adjuncts: Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Finland, Georgia, Ireland, Macedonia, Montenegro, Sweden, Switzerland and Ukraine.

Others: Australia (Partners Across the Globe), Bahrain (Istanbul Cooperation Initiative), El Salvador, Jordan (Mediterranean Dialogue), Malaysia, Mongolia (Partners Across the Globe), New Zealand (Partners Across the Globe), Singapore, South Korea (Partners Across the Globe), Tonga and the United Arab Emirates (Istanbul Cooperation Initiative).

Several additional nations supplied military and security personnel to serve under NATO command in Afghanistan without being formal Troop Contributing Nations such as Colombia, Egypt (Mediterranean Dialogue), Japan (Partners Across the Globe), Moldova (Partnership for Peace) and no doubt others. Efforts were made by the U.S. and NATO to secure troop contributions from such nations as Bangladesh and Kazakhstan.

The governments and militaries of Afghanistan itself and neighboring Pakistan are linked to NATO under the Afghanistan- Pakistan- International Security Assistance Force Tripartite Commission.

NATO has air and other military bases in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Those three nations have also been used by NATO as part of the Northern Distribution Network and other transit routes that include as well Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Iraq, Latvia, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Oman, Romania, Russia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, etc.

The war in Afghanistan, the longest in the nation’s history as well as in that of the U.S., has supplied NATO with an almost 12-year opportunity to consolidate an international military network and to develop the operational and command integration of the armed forces of almost 60 nations. This is the global NATO that among others the Obama administration’s first ambassador to the alliance, Ivo Daalder, has openly touted under that exact name since the beginning of this century.

Many NATO members and partners, particularly former Soviet federal republics in the Baltic Sea region and in the South Caucasus, have used the Afghan war to gain combat experience for their armed forces to be used in conflicts in their own neighborhoods: Georgia, for example, in preparing for any resumption of armed conflict with South Ossetia and Russia such as occurred in August 2008.

Just as NATO has followed the U.S. into the Balkans and Afghanistan, into the global interceptor missile system and so-called energy security (in fact energy war) initiatives, so it has joined Washington in the new scramble in the Arctic Ocean, cyber warfare operations and the attempt to command the world’s strategic shipping lanes and choke points.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, its name now archaic as most of its members and all of its dozens of partners do not border the Atlantic Ocean, north or south, is well advanced in its U.S.-crafted mission to expand into history’s largest and first international military bloc and an unprecedented threat to world peace.

Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages

Stop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status: [email protected]


It would seem Colombia deserves the title "Cain of America" that we earned while supporting the Brits against Argentina during the Falkland War.
Only country in South America to side with this terrorist cartel.

I'm applying for Andorran citizenship as soon as I can x.x

04-30-2013, 05:36 PM
this is all obvious. the US is trying to expand it's sphere of influence to counter the growing power of China. it's a logical move in my opinion.

04-30-2013, 09:37 PM
From their perspective it is, but as the article points out, this new geopolitical setting is certainly: "history’s largest and first international military bloc and an unprecedented threat to world peace."

04-30-2013, 09:39 PM
From their perspective it is, but as the article points out, this new geopolitical setting is certainly: "history’s largest and first international military bloc and an unprecedented threat to world peace."

That title belongs to Britain I'm afraid.

04-30-2013, 09:41 PM
The British Empire depended on its fleets and there were large ares of the world where it had little capacity, most notably the Americas, West Africa, Central and Eastern Europe...

NATO today, is far more powerful than any previous military alliance.

04-30-2013, 09:53 PM
Good to see Colombia is a US ally.

04-30-2013, 10:00 PM
Good to see Colombia is a US ally.

It is the most important piece of the Anglo-American thalassocracy in South America.

The Colombian Armed Forces now sport the largest Black hawk helicopter fleet in the subcontinent, while their Armed Forces share mutual training and equipment with the American, British and Israeli militaries

Note from 2012
“Cooperation with Colombia will be expanded"
At the end of his Tuesday meeting with the President of Colombia, Israel’s Minister of Defense said cooperation would be expanded

“Defense cooperation between Israel and Colombia will be expanded,” said Minister of Defense Ehud Barak on Tuesday, after a meeting with Colombian President Juan Santos.

Barak stated that both countries are struggling against terrorism, and that defense cooperation between the countries would expand. Barak told President Santos: "Colombia is a true friend to Israel, and I will work to expand the cooperation between the countries into the fields of technology, industry, agriculture, education, and the promotion of excellence.” Minister of Defense Barak detailed the situation in the Middle East to the president, and noted the uncertainty stemming from the regional upheavals.

Barak operated towards promoting the exports of the defense industries throughout his meetings with the heads of the Colombian government. Colombia is considered a large client of the Israeli defense industries, and was involved in large deals in recent years. These include the acquisition of innovated and upgraded Kfir aircraft and the conversion of Azeri aircraft into refueling aircraft, with both projects headed by Israel Aerospace Industries.

With regards to the negotiations with the Palestinians, Minister Barak said: “Israel wants to advance the negotiations with the Palestinians to reach a two-state solution for both peoples. We expect the Palestinians to enter true negotiations, in order to reach an arrangement for both sides, without pre-conditions.”

Regarding the Iranian subject, Barak told the Colombian President, “this is the time for harsh sanctions against Iran. It is more than just a threat to Israel, but a threat to the entire global order. The goal should be to halt Iran's plan to obtain nuclear weapons.”
Barak will head from Colombia to a series of meetings in Washington DC with the US Secretary of Defense and intelligence officials. Barak previously visited Washington just several weeks ago; the Iranian issue is expected to be brought up during the meetings.


Former president Uribe even called Colombia "the Israel of Latin America"... Continental shame.

05-01-2013, 09:20 PM
Another perspective:


Benefits and risks NATO transit deal brings to Central Asian countries

NATO has found a way to bypass Taliban-controlled routes from Pakistan to transport its equipment and supplies to and from Afghanistan. The alliance sealed a deal with Kazakhstan allowing transit through Kazakhstan's Caspian port in Aktau as part of the 2014 troops withdrawal.

According to Kazakhstanís President Nursultan Nazarbayev, the country is now preparing to expand the transit potential for NATO freights.

Some experts fear that the deal may hit the security balance in the region.

Earlier our correspondent Inga Kazakova talked to Dosym Satpayev, a director of risks assessments group and political scientist from Kazakhstan, and asked him what the country could gain from a NATO base.

NATO has recently agreed the transit deals with Kazakhstan allowing the transit of supplies for NATO and coalition forces as part of the 2014 Afghanistan troops withdrawal. What will Kazakhstan gain from the deal?

Iíd like to say that NATO agreed transit deals not only with Kazakhstan, but with different Central Asian countries. If we speak about the interests of Kazakhstan, Iíd like to remind that our republic has a very good cooperation with NATO in the framework of a program Partnership for Peace. This program is acting from the beginning of the 90íes.

It means that our country tried to save very good partnership with the US and other members of NATO. And Iíd like to emphasize that for Kazakhstan it is more important to save some geopolitical balance in the Central Asian region. Thatís why Kazakhstan cooperates not only with China, with Russia but we tried to have very good relations NATO too.

The agreement reduces the allianceís use of Taliban threatened routes from Pakistan. Does this involve any potential risks for Kazakhstan?

Yes, youíre right. It is a very important question. Iíd like to say that now a lot of expats in Kazakhstan, in Uzbekistan and in Tajikistan speak about some threats for the Central Asia region after 2014. But I believe that more risks are connected not with Taliban. I believe that we have more dangers from the radical organizations in Afghanistan consisting of citizens of the Central Asian countries. For example, the Islamic movement of Uzbekistan.

And for example, recently the President of Uzbekistan Ruslan Karimov and the President of Russia Vladimir Putin had some meetings and this topic was one of the very important, I mean the threat from the terrorist organizations from Afghanistan and some connections of these organizations with local groups in the Central Asian countries. And Iíd like to say that in Kazakhstan, for example, for the last two or three years we can see increase in the level of terrorist activity. And thatís why a lot of people in Kazakhstan are read that in the nearest one or two years in future this level will increase further.

How will the deal affect the Central Asiaís strategic and military importance?

Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries will try to develop very good relations with NATO. Moreover, some of these countries, for example Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, as far as I know, hope to receive arms and military equipment in the framework of transits of supplies for the NATO. Iíd like to say that Kazakhstan, as well as most of the other Central Asian countries try to support geopolitical balance in the region. This means that these countries try to cooperate with the USA in balance with Russia and China. I believe this is very effective and very profitable foreign policy for all countries in our region.

Lately NATO claimed that the similar transit centre that Russia set up in Ulyanovsk is not being used because it is too expensive. Considering this fact, how could Kazakhstan transit deal affect Russia-Kazakhstan relations?
Iím not sure that there will be some conflicts between Russia and Kazakhstan because our republic is not going to establish an American military base. Oo, we speak only about the transit base in some temporary framework. And we need to remember that Kazakhstan is an independent state. It means that we have our foreign policy and we have our own list of priority strategic partners. And yes, of course, NATO and the USA these are one of our partners, not only Russia. Moscow knows about the traditional foreign policy of the Kazakhstan, I mean multi-vectored policy. Thatís why I believe that in the future we will not see strong and bloody conflicts between our countries.

Video available at: http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_05_01/Benefits-and-risks-NATO-transit-deal-brings-to-Central-Asian-countries/