Nilantha Ilangamuwa

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), widely regarded as the most notorious and venomous military alliance in history, celebrated its 75th anniversary in Washington this week, amidst claims of establishing global peace. However, NATO’s actions have often spread war across continents in pursuit of supremacy.

Following a disastrous performance in the presidential debate, President Joe Biden unsurprisingly announced increased military aid to Ukraine, targeting their ‘designated enemy’ at the expense of this small European nation. NATO’s ambitions are clear: to weaken Russia through proxy wars and to provoke China into potential conflict in Asia.

However, finding examples where NATO has truly ensured peaceful lives for ordinary people, rather than pursuing its broader goal of supremacy through alliances with enemies of its enemies, remains challenging.NATO must be held accountable for its violations of international law and its failure to protect unarmed civilians in nearly every conflict it has engaged in since its inception.

While NATO celebrated its 75th anniversary, mainstream media barely acknowledged the 25th anniversary of NATO’s intervention in Yugoslavia—a glaring failure of this war-oriented alliance.June 10 marks the 25th anniversary of the end of NATO’s bombing campaign in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, initiated without UN Security Council approval and lasting 78 days.

NATO dropped 22,000 tonnes of bombs, including 15 tonnes of depleted uranium, resulting in over 2,500 deaths, including 79 children, and displacing over a million residents. The aftermath included long-term health and environmental impacts from depleted uranium munitions. In the decade following the bombing, approximately 30,000 people in Serbia developed cancer, with over 10,000 deaths.

Studies indicate increased cancer rates and other serious health issues among children born after 1999. Three thousand victims have filed lawsuits against NATO, despite the alliance claiming immunity based on agreements with Serbia and Montenegro.

Serbian experts dispute this, stating that no agreements grant NATO immunity for past war crimes. NATO’s attempts to evade accountability only accentuate its war crimes and the suffering it caused.Since its establishment, NATO’s military operations have frequently resulted in chaos and trauma rather than peace and stability.

From April 1992 to December 1995, the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina erupted among its three main ethnic groups over their future and territorial divisions. Shortly before the outbreak of war in Bosnia, NATO hastily recognised Bosnia and Herzegovina’s independence, exacerbating ethnic conflicts in the region. NATO launched extensive airstrikes against Bosnian Serbs, eventually compelling the three ethnic groups to sign the Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

As a consequence, 278,000 civilians perished, over 2 million people became refugees, and the war inflicted more than £5.1 billion in direct economic losses, with the majority of economic facilities destroyed.The Kosovo War, ignited by ethnic tensions and led by the US-backed NATO without UN authorisation, lasted from March 24, 1999, to June 10, 1999.

The three-month bombing campaign caused 1,800 civilian deaths, 6,000 injuries, and substantial infrastructure damage, amounting to economic losses of £150 billion. This marked NATO’s first offensive war against a sovereign state without UN approval, marking a shift towards interventionism and expansionism.

NATO’s actions violated international law, including the UN Charter and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, through the use of force against Belgrade. Despite this, no NATO member has been fully held accountable for their actions, in stark contrast to incidents involving their erstwhile ‘puppets,’ such as the swift hanging of Saddam Hussein of Iraq by Western forces or the extrajudicial killing of Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, famously remarked on by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with, ‘We came, we saw, he died.’In Afghanistan, the US-led NATO coalition launched a war against al-Qaida and the Taliban on October 7, 2001, in response to the September 11 attacks.

The two-decade-long conflict ended abruptly with the withdrawal of US and NATO forces in May 2021, resulting in 241,000 deaths, including 71,000 civilians, and displacing millions.

The war generated significant economic losses, averaging approximately £45 million per day, and led to social disorder in Afghanistan, with 72% of the population living below the poverty line and 3.5 million children deprived of education.

A new report issued this Monday by the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) revealed shocking statistics: over 24% of Afghan children aged 5-17 experience anxiety, while 15% suffer from depression in this war-torn country.

This is the legacy left behind by those who claimed they could guarantee a peaceful life under a rule-based system founded on democratic norms. During this period, terrorist networks such as the East Turkestan Islamic Movement and Al-Qaeda expanded, worsening regional instability. This pattern of devastation persisted in Iraq and Libya, where NATO interventions resulted in substantial civilian casualties and prolonged instability.

NATO’s actions consistently undermined peace and security, earning it a reputation as a war machine rather than a force for peace.However, in Ukraine, NATO finds itself in disarray, having underestimated Russia’s determination to defend its interests while overestimating its ability to expand its military alliance to Moscow’s doorstep. The strategy of flooding Ukraine with weaponry for swift victory has backfired, with Russia proving resilient in defence.

As the conflict drags on, NATO member states face escalating costs and inflationary debt, while Ukraine depletes its fighting-age soldiers. Western leaders, deeply invested in the conflict, encounter diminishing confidence in Ukraine’s capacity to reclaim territories without escalating the conflict and potentially involving NATO troops— a move that lacks public support.In recent months, Russia has made incremental territorial gains, advancing in the Kharkiv Oblast and compelling Ukrainian forces to retreat from a neighbourhood in ChasivYar, Donetsk.

However, the lack of significant progress has raised doubts about Russia’s capabilities. While struggling to maintain the frontline, Ukraine has targeted Russian ships, energy depots, and border regions with drones, resulting in casualties. Two and a half years into the conflict, neither side appears capable of achieving a military solution.

Ukraine faces substantial challenges in reclaiming captured territories, while Russia’s aggression has bolstered NATO’s resolve, which now pledges long-term support for Kyiv. A viable resolution entails bringing both parties to the negotiating table. Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi have expressed support for dialogue.

Russia’s allies should urge President Vladimir Putin to cease hostilities and engage earnestly in negotiations, while Ukraine’s supporters should encourage Kyiv to consider peace talks— although NATO vehemently opposes this idea.

With American elections looming, a Trump victory could pave the way for a negotiated settlement, whereas a Biden re-election might prolong the conflict, potentially transforming Ukraine into another Afghanistan or Vietnam. Meanwhile, Russia’s economy has strengthened despite sanctions, buoyed by trade partnerships with China and India.

Historians might view the US-led NATO expansion as a strategic failure that catalysed the formation of an alliance among BRICS nations to counter NATO. President Xi Jinping perceives Putin as pivotal in opposing the United States and its allies, although a new Trump administration could potentially avert broader conflict and repair relations with adversaries.

The summit’s news report highlighted NATO and its Indo-Pacific partners— Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand— launching four joint projects aimed at deepening cooperation, announced by US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan at the NATO Defence Industry Forum.

Amidst the celebration of this military alliance, Asia faces the daunting task of safeguarding its position against a coalition adept at leveraging proxies to achieve its objectives. This historical pattern resonates with poignant examples throughout history.

Asia’s imperative now is to cultivate robust trade relationships and settle territorial disputes through constructive dialogue, preempting external interference. History presents a stark choice: yield to foreign ambitions, akin to the post-World War II tragedies and subsequent killing fields from Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and West Asia to present-day conflicts in Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, or thrive together in dignified coexistence.

The path to a peaceful future hinges on a unified commitment to peace and saying no to NATO and its proxies. Better the devil you know than the angel you don’t.

(The writer is a journalist and author. Views are personal)