NATO: A history marked by conflict and controversy

Dipak Kurmi

(The writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com)

This week in Washington, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) marked its 75th anniversary, touting its mission to uphold global peace. Despite these claims, NATO’s history is marred by conflicts that span continents, driven by its quest for dominance. Following a lacklustre showing in the presidential debate, President Joe Biden announced additional military aid to Ukraine. This move further embroils the small European nation in NATO’s strategy to undermine Russia through proxy warfare. Additionally, NATO’s ambitions extend to Asia, where it seeks to antagonize China into potential conflict.

Despite NATO’s claims of promoting global peace, finding genuine examples of the alliance ensuring peaceful lives for ordinary people remains difficult. More often, NATO’s actions align with its broader goal of maintaining supremacy through strategic alliances, often with questionable partners. NATO must be held accountable for its violations of international law and its repeated failures to protect unarmed civilians in almost every conflict it has been involved in since its inception. While NATO marked its 75th anniversary with much fanfare, mainstream media largely overlooked the 25th anniversary of NATO’s intervention in Yugoslavia—an intervention that highlights the alliance’s war-centric approach. June 10 commemorates the end of NATO’s 78-day bombing campaign in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, an operation launched without the UN Security Council’s approval. NATO dropped 22,000 tonnes of bombs, including 15 tonnes of depleted uranium, resulting in over 2,500 deaths, including 79 children, and displacing more than a million people. The aftermath of the campaign saw long-term health and environmental consequences from the depleted uranium munitions. In the decade following the bombing, around 30,000 people in Serbia developed cancer, with over 10,000 fatalities. Studies have also shown increased cancer rates and other severe health issues among children born after 1999. Despite NATO claiming immunity based on agreements with Serbia and Montenegro, around 3,000 victims have filed lawsuits against the alliance.

Serbian experts challenge NATO’s claims of immunity, asserting that no agreements absolve the alliance from responsibility for past war crimes. NATO’s attempts to avoid accountability only highlight its transgressions and the suffering inflicted on countless individuals. Since its inception, NATO’s military interventions have often led to chaos and trauma rather than fostering peace and stability. One such instance is the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which raged from April 1992 to December 1995 among the country’s three main ethnic groups over their future and territorial divisions. Just before the conflict erupted, NATO quickly recognized Bosnia and Herzegovina’s independence, intensifying the ethnic strife in the region. NATO then conducted extensive airstrikes against Bosnian Serb forces, ultimately pressuring the warring factions to sign the Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

As a result of the conflict, 278,000 civilians lost their lives, over 2 million people were displaced, and the war caused more than £5.1 billion in direct economic losses, with most economic facilities destroyed. The Kosovo War, fueled by ethnic tensions and spearheaded by US-backed NATO forces without UN authorization, spanned from March 24, 1999, to June 10, 1999. The three-month bombing campaign resulted in 1,800 civilian deaths, 6,000 injuries, and extensive infrastructure damage, leading to economic losses of £150 billion. This marked NATO’s first offensive war against a sovereign state without UN approval, signalling a shift towards a policy of interventionism and expansionism.

NATO’s actions breached international law, including the UN Charter and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, by using force against Belgrade. Despite these violations, no NATO member has been fully held accountable for their actions. This stands in stark contrast to the swift retribution faced by figures like Saddam Hussein of Iraq, who was quickly hanged by Western forces, or Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, who was extrajudicially killed—a moment infamously summarized by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with, “We came, we saw, he died.” In Afghanistan, the US-led NATO coalition initiated a war against al-Qaida and the Taliban on October 7, 2001, in response to the September 11 attacks.  The two-decade-long conflict came to an abrupt end with the withdrawal of US and NATO forces in May 2021. This war resulted in 241,000 deaths, including 71,000 civilians, and displaced millions of people.

The war inflicted severe economic losses, averaging about £45 million per day, and plunged Afghanistan into social chaos. Currently, 72% of the population lives below the poverty line, and 3.5 million children are deprived of education. A recent report from the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), released this Monday, disclosed alarming statistics: over 24% of Afghan children aged 5–17 suffer from anxiety, and 15% are afflicted by depression in this war-ravaged nation.

This is the legacy of those who promised to ensure peaceful lives under a rule-based system grounded in democratic principles. During this period, terrorist networks like the East Turkestan Islamic Movement and Al-Qaeda flourished, exacerbating regional instability. This destructive pattern continued in Iraq and Libya, where NATO interventions led to significant civilian casualties and enduring instability.

NATO’s actions have repeatedly destabilized peace and security, solidifying its image as a war machine rather than a peacekeeping force. In Ukraine, NATO now faces turmoil, having misjudged Russia’s resolve to protect its interests and overestimated its capacity to extend its military alliance to Russia’s borders. The plan to inundate Ukraine with weapons for a quick triumph has backfired, as Russia has demonstrated formidable resilience in defence.

As the conflict prolongs, NATO member states grapple with rising costs and inflationary debt, while Ukraine exhausts its supply of combat-ready soldiers. Western leaders, heavily committed to the conflict, are increasingly losing confidence in Ukraine’s ability to reclaim lost territories without escalating the situation and potentially involving NATO troops—a step that lacks public backing. Recently, Russia has made gradual territorial advances, progressing in the Kharkiv Oblast and forcing Ukrainian troops to withdraw from a neighbourhood in Chasiv Yar, Donetsk.

Despite ongoing efforts, significant progress remains elusive, casting doubt on Russia’s military capabilities. Ukraine, while struggling to hold its ground, has employed drones to target Russian ships, energy facilities, and border regions, resulting in casualties. Two and a half years into the conflict, neither side seems poised to achieve a decisive military victory. Ukraine faces formidable challenges in retaking occupied territories, while Russia’s assertiveness has strengthened NATO’s commitment, with long-term support pledged to Kyiv. A viable resolution necessitates bringing both parties to the negotiating table. Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi have expressed support for dialogue. Allies of Russia should urge President Vladimir Putin to halt hostilities and engage sincerely in peace talks, while advocates for Ukraine should encourage Kyiv to consider diplomatic negotiations—despite NATO’s firm opposition to this approach.

As the American elections approach, a Trump victory could open avenues for a negotiated settlement, while a Biden re-election might extend the conflict, possibly turning Ukraine into another Afghanistan or Vietnam-like quagmire. Meanwhile, despite sanctions, Russia’s economy has shown resilience, bolstered by robust trade partnerships with China and India.

Historians may interpret the US-led NATO expansion as a strategic misstep that prompted the formation of a counter-alliance among BRICS nations. President Xi Jinping views Putin as instrumental in opposing the United States and its allies, although a new Trump administration could potentially mitigate broader conflicts and mend relations with adversaries. During the summit, news reports highlighted NATO and its Indo-Pacific partners—Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand—launching four collaborative projects aimed at strengthening cooperation. US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan announced these initiatives at the NATO Defence Industry Forum. Amidst the celebration of this military alliance, Asia faces the challenge of defending its interests against a coalition adept at using proxies to achieve its goals. This historical pattern echoes throughout significant episodes of history.

Asia must now prioritize cultivating strong trade partnerships and resolving territorial disputes through constructive dialogue, preempting external interference. History presents a clear lesson: either succumb to foreign ambitions, as witnessed in the tragedies following World War II—from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia to ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria—or choose to prosper together in dignified coexistence. The path to a peaceful future depends on a collective dedication to peace and a firm stance against NATO and its proxies. It’s often wiser to deal with known challenges than to risk uncertain alternatives.