NATO 60th ANNIVERSARY; IS NATO¹S MISSION IN AFGHANISTAN MORE TO SAVE NATO OR
AFGHANISTAN?

Joan Russow, Ph.D, Global Compliance Research Project.

While, on April 4, 2009, the NATO state leaders are celebrating 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.

For years, NATO state leaders touted the international and multilateral
aspect of the operation, by even proclaiming that the operation is under the
AEGIS of the United Nations.

NATO has deluded the public for years that NATO involvement in Afghanistan
was part of an internationally sanctioned, without conditions, mission. The
UN Security Council did not pass a resolution authorizing the invasion and
occupation of Afghanistan. NATO did assist the US in the intervention and
occupation of Afghanistan under the US-led "Operation Enduring Freedom".
There was a conditional sanctioning by the UN Security Council of a NATO's
International Security Force (ISAF) which operated under the US-led
"Operation Enduring Freedom". This Force, oft described as a peacekeeping
force, was sanctioned in UN Security Council resolutions only if the Force's
actions were in keeping with the Charter of the United Nations. Under UN
Charter, one of the purposes of the United Nations is the following:

"To establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations
arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be
maintained,...²

The US, in its US-led Operation Enduring Freedom, and the US-led Operation
Iraqi Freedom, have been found to have violated the Convention against
Torture, [with at least 600 credible complaints having been filed], and have
yet to be assessed on its violation of the Geneva Protocol II on banned
weapons systems such as depleted uranium, and on its violation of
environmental instruments.



In addition, it would be difficult to understand why the UN Security Council
would authorize a campaign which itself was based on a violation of the
Charter of the United Nations. NATO had condoned the violation of the
Charter of the United Nations when it accepted the US misinterpretation of
Article 51 - self-defence clause - as justification of the US act of revenge
on Afghanistan. If the NATO states had respected the rule of law, they would
have refused to support the US act of revenge and called for respect for the
rule of international law. This respect should have entailed support
of Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations and to seek justice
through the International Court of Justice.


NATO has presumably taken over the US-led operation "Enduring Freedom" in
Afghanistan, and NATO has incorrectly been referred to as being an
international organization, when in fact, NATO represents just barely more
than 19 states.



INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR COMPENSATION TO AFGHANISTAN

The current "mission", described as a 3D - defence, development, and
diplomacy - mission violates a fundamental international principle that a
belligerent state should never be involved in on-the-ground reconstruction.
They must, however, be involved in paying compensation so that
reconstruction can occur. Currently NATO states, as belligerents, are
involved in a 3B campaign: BOMB, BRUTE, AND BRIBE OPERATION.



Instead, an international fund of compensation should be set up: this fund
should draw resources for compensation from the NATO states and from any
other states that have contributed to the destruction of Afghanistan.


NATO 60th ANNIVERSARY: TIME TO DISBAND NATO PETITION:

This Petition may be signed at
 http://www.petitiononline.com/z9m2x3nb/petition.html

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