NATO is endangering our security

by Gabriel Galice, Daniele Ganser and Hans von Sponeck

Si vis pacem, cole iusticiam
[If you desire peace,
cultivate justice]
The motto of the ILO
(International Labour Organisation)

NATO is massing troops and weapons on Russia’s doorstep. It is important for us to express our concern about propaganda that distorts the real threats weighing on peace. This insidious propaganda produces imaginary enemies to justify the increase in military expenditure, the conquest of new territories or “market shares”, the assumption of control over the energy supply, and the disintegration of democracy.
No, Russia is not the aggressor and in no way threatens the Baltic States, Poland, or Sweden. During the implosion of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, the US and its allies committed the strategic error of not re-establishing the international security architecture. The Paris Charter (1990), which promised peace for Europe, went unheeded.
In his book “The Grand Chessboard – American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives”, Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1997 raised the question of whether Russia should be integrated into NATO and the EU. Finally, he decided to give priority to tactical security rather than to strategic peace, knowing well that this would trigger Russian reactions. He called for the integration of Ukraine – one of the five “geopolitical pivots” in Eurasia – into NATO and the EU.
In 2010, Charles A. Kupchan, a professor at Georgetown University, proposed to integrate the Russians into NATO.1 The promise made by the US to the Russians on the occasion of the German reunification, namely that NATO would not be extended further east, was “forgotten”. That enabled the Western powers to continually repulse, humiliate, and zero in on the various Russian leaders. Whatever we think of the Russian regime, in the eyes of the West the main mistake of Vladimir Putin (and of many other countries in the world) is that he is no longer submitting the western claim to hegemonise.
After the illegal war against Iraq, the numerical expansion of the NATO member countries and the enlargement of their range of action in all directions, after all this, the fall of Gaddafi in Libya and the coup in Ukraine meant the crossing of the red line that provoked Russian and Chinese resistance. After all, they had already established the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) after the first expansion of NATO. The operations in Libya and Ukraine, as well as the Western support of the “rebels” determined to overthrow the Syrian regime (from 2006 onwards, according to Time Magazine of 19 December 2006), led the Russians to support the autonomy of the Crimea and to get militarily involved in Syria.
Although it is widely known that the CIA oversaw the French presidential elections in 2012, and that the NSA is spying on companies, organisations, and individuals all over the world, it is now good form to attribute direct intervention in the American, French, and German elections to Russian leaders.
The European countries are intensifying their adjustment to US foreign policy, including the embargo against Russia. President François Hollande is reinforcing the reintegration of France into the military command of NATO, which Nicolas Sarkozy had initiated.
And what about the neutral countries? Sweden is reintroducing compulsory military service. At the same time, a report entitled “Cold War in the Far North” is being broadcast on Arte.2 The Swedish General Staff once collaborated with NATO and the USA – without the knowledge of the government of Olof Palme, who was ready for a detente with Moscow ... and who was then assassinated. Does Swiss membership in the Nato Organisation Partnership for Peace (PfP) correspond to the neutrality of the country? Daniele Ganser quotes the former US Secretary of Defense William Perry: “The difference between NATO membership and participation in the NATO Initiative Partnership for Peace must be made thinner than a piece of paper.”3 Swiss military aircraft fly over the Baltic Sea together with NATO aircraft.
No, NATO as an offensive alliance does not contribute to our security. Let us rely on the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), let us take up talks with Russia, and implement Articles 46 and 47 of the UN Charter, by means of which a general staff panel will be appointed to assist the Security Council.
Gabriel Galice, President of the
Geneva International Peace Research
Institute GIPRI, Author of “Lettres helvètes 2010–2014”
Daniele Ganser, historian and peace
researcher, author of “NATO’s Secret Armies; Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe” and “Illegal wars – How Nato countries undermine UN”
Hans von Sponeck, former UN Assistant Secretary-General
1)    www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/2010-05-01/natos-final-frontier
2)    www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv6IdWT2P8Q)
3)    Ganser, Daniele. Illegale Kriege – Wie die Nato-Länder die Uno sabotieren. (Illegal wars – How Nato countries undermine UN) Zurich, 2017, p. 28
(Translation by Current Concerns)

[Translate to en:] Artikel 46 und 47 der Charta der Vereinten Nationen

[]

Artikel 46

Die Pläne für die Anwendung von Waffengewalt werden vom Sicherheitsrat mit Unterstützung des Generalstabsausschusses aufgestellt.

Artikel 47

(1) Es wird ein Generalstabsausschuss eingesetzt, um den Sicherheitsrat in allen Fragen zu beraten und zu unterstützen, die dessen militärische Bedürfnisse zur Wahrung des Weltfriedens und der internationalen Sicherheit, den Einsatz und die Führung der dem Sicherheitsrat zur Verfügung gestellten Streitkräfte, die Rüstungsregelung und eine etwaige Abrüstung betreffen.
(2) Der Generalstabsausschuss besteht aus den Generalstabschefs der ständigen Mitglieder des Sicherheitsrats oder ihren Vertretern. Ein nicht ständig im Ausschuss vertretenes Mitglied der Vereinten Nationen wird vom Ausschuss eingeladen, sich ihm zu assoziieren, wenn die Mitarbeit dieses Mitglieds für die wirksame Durchführung der Aufgaben des Ausschusses erforderlich ist.
(3) Der Generalstabsausschuss ist unter der Autorität des Sicherheitsrats für die strategische Leitung aller dem Sicherheitsrat zur Verfügung gestellten Streitkräfte verantwortlich. Die Fragen bezüglich der Führung dieser Streitkräfte werden später geregelt.
(4) Der Generalstabsausschuss kann mit Ermächtigung des Sicherheitsrats nach Konsultation mit geeigneten regionalen Einrichtungen regionale Unterausschüsse einsetzen.