Article

2023-07-21 International-UN-NGOs

Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.
by Oleg Krivoshapov

[REGNUM] The Senate of the US Congress, during a vote on July 19, rejected an amendment to the country's draft defense budget for the 2023-2024 fiscal year (October 1, 2023 - September 30, 2024), obliging Washington to declare war if Article 5 of the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO) Collective Defense Treaty comes into force. This is reported by the TASS agency with reference to the website of the US Senate.

The upper house of the US legislature required 60 votes to pass the amendment. However, 16 people voted for it, while 83 were against it. The author of the amendment is a Republican from Kentucky Rand Paul.

At the same time, the US Senate approved another legislative initiative related to NATO: it prohibits any president of the country from making a decision on the country's withdrawal from NATO without the approval of Congress. The bill received 65 votes in favor and 28 against.

As TASS noted, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, who co-authored this amendment with Republican Marco Rubio , reacted to the vote on his Twitter as follows : “America is strong on its own, but with allies it is even stronger. Congress supports this historic alliance . "

"READ THE US CONSTITUTION!"
“The United States is already above all international agreements, ” ironically American political scientist Dmitry Drobnitsky . - This is on very many issues and de jure so - in the States there are relevant laws.

This situation, as the expert explains, means that US laws in the United States itself are given unconditional priority over international agreements. And Congress has always resisted attempts to take away relevant rights and put international agreements above US law.

“Under different presidents, such attempts were made at different times. The first was under Woodrow Wilson - to put international rules a little higher than the decisions of the US Congress, - says the interlocutor of IA Regnum. “But Congress did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which is why the United States never entered the League of Nations.”

“As a rule, relatively liberal presidents try, on the one hand, to “shake” the supremacy of Congress in matters of war, peace and US obligations, on the other hand, to make the United States a more global power,” Drobnitsky notes . “In particular, the United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of very many international organizations in relation to its military personnel, government employees, citizens in general.”

In the case of the July 19 vote, Congress effectively confirmed that relations with international organizations, including NATO, are under its control. This also applies to the question of participation in the war.

“Again, the declaration of war is also a matter for Congress under the American constitution,” the expert clarifies. "Another thing is that the President of the United States, in the event of a direct attack on the country, must take all the measures necessary to repel the aggression. But all the same, the issue of starting a war is submitted to Congress. Even if, relatively speaking, they began to bomb Texas, according to the letter of the law, the president must still go to Congress with permission to act. And those actions that he has already taken, "retroactively" are also authorized through Congress.

So the US Congress, as the interlocutor of IA Regnum notes , took a simple and obvious step: it confirmed its right both to conclude the corresponding bloc alliances and to change them in matters of war and peace.

"READ THE NATO CHARTER!"
As for the position of the US Congress regarding the often mentioned thesis from the NATO Charter, according to which an attack on one of the members of the alliance means an attack on all, then everything is not simple here either, the political scientist notes.

“It is commonly said that Article 5 assumes that an attack on one member of NATO is an attack on all. But they usually don’t read the text further, says Drobnitsky. "Article Five does not require all countries to declare war or take military action against the one who attacked. It obliges to immediately begin consultations, after which the country takes the necessary actions to help the victim of aggression in accordance with its understanding and capabilities. That is, it does not oblige anyone to immediately put forward troops or start some kind of action.

Professor of the Department of European Studies of the Faculty of International Relations of St. Petersburg State University Natalya Eremina agrees with this assessment. She notes that the specifics of the ratification of the decision on the direct participation of any NATO country in hostilities depend on the legal specifics of this country.

“That is, the laws of different NATO countries have their own nuances, including which government representatives have the right to the last word,” she points out. “And a reaction is possible up to the entry into hostilities.”

The interlocutor of IA Regnum recalls that since 1949, when the NATO bloc arose, it was a reflection of the bipolar system that existed at that time. And the main purpose of the alliance was the military-political presence of the United States in Europe as a counterbalance to the USSR.

“And if we assume that the United States is leaving NATO, then the alliance will not exist in principle,” the expert argues.

At the same time, the United Kingdom, Germany, Poland, the Baltic republics, and the Czech Republic show extremely high interest in the US military presence, according to Eremina.

“Without NATO, Euro-Atlantic security is impossible, and yet the United States and its European allies built it, and not “collective” or “global” security,” the expert points out.

At the same time, as Professor Eremina notes, the new waves of NATO expansion that took place after the collapse of the bipolar world were anticipated and accompanied by powerful media campaigns that inspired European officials of certain levels and the mass audience with the idea that NATO is, in essence, a guaranteed reliable American shield behind which one can hide.

“But now the United States is making it clear that they will not be responsible for the affairs of Europe, but they will not leave NATO, because it is beneficial for them, ” the interlocutor argues. - And in the event of a war involving NATO, the European countries of the alliance will be at the forefront of the attack. Moreover, this is beneficial for the States, given that these same countries of the alliance will be forced to replenish them with orders from the United States when their stocks of weapons and equipment are depleted, which we are already seeing in the course of European deliveries to Ukraine .

SHOCK AND AWE MORE EUROPEAN
At the same time, in Germany, which is the most important military and strategic ally of the States in Europe, there is complete confidence in the reliability of protection from the United States, says German political scientist Alexander Rahr.

“In Germany, they firmly believe that in the event of an attack by a third country on it, America automatically enters the war, defending Germany - this has been established since the 1950s by the German security and defense doctrine,” the expert notes. “The Americans are assuring the Germans that they will do just that.”

That is why, notes Rahr, German society experienced a shock a few years ago when US President Donald Trump spoke about the possibility of dissolving NATO, and French President Emmanuel Macron announced the “brain death” of the organization.

“If there is now a debate in the United States that it is not necessary to apply NATO Article No. 5 in the event of an attack on a NATO member country, this will again plunge Germany into a deep shock and will possibly have an impact on the future policy of Berlin,” the political scientist shares his thoughts.

Posted by badanov 2023-07-21 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11126 views ] Top

04:16 Airandee
03:45 Besoeker
02:18 Skidmark
02:16 Skidmark
02:15 Grom the Affective
02:12 Grom the Affective
02:08 Grom the Affective
02:03 Grom the Affective
02:03 Grom the Affective
02:01 Grom the Affective
01:34 Grom the Affective
00:22 Anguper Hupomosing9418