Black Agenda Report
Black Agenda Report
News, commentary and analysis from the black left.

  • Home
  • Africa
  • African America
  • Education
  • Environment
  • International
  • Media and Culture
  • Political Economy
  • Radio
  • US Politics
  • War and Empire
  • omnibus

NATO Was Founded to Crush Communist, Socialist, and Anti-colonial Movements Worldwide
Ann Garrison, BAR Contributing Editor
16 Apr 2025
nato logo

NATO was never a good idea gone wrong. It was founded to crush communist, socialist, and anti-colonial movements in Europe and around the world.

Medea Benjamin and David Swanson explain NATO’s supremely violent history in NATO: What You Need to Know.

The organization was born on April 4, 1949, when foreign ministers from 12 nations came together in Washington, D.C. to sign the 1100-page North Atlantic Treaty. Its original members were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The treaty proclaimed its commitment to peace and the principles of the UN Charter, but “the real glue that brought NATO countries together was opposition to communism and socialism.”

It was created not only to counter the USSR, but also to defeat European communist and socialist movements and crush revolutionary, anti-colonial struggles. At the time of its founding, Britain, France, Belgium, and Portugal were waging vicious campaigns to try to hold on to their African colonies.

The USSR didn’t create the Warsaw Pact until six years later, in May 1955, in response to NATO. The previous year, it had actually asked to join, fearing the revival of German militarism, which had cost between 20 and 30 million Russian lives in World War 2. A shared commitment to preventing another war in Europe, regardless of ideological differences, could of course have changed history, averting the nuclear arms race, but that would have undermined NATO's fundamental purpose.

“NATO also had an economic purpose,” Benjamin and Swanson write. “In its founding ‘Strategic Concept’ paper, NATO conceived the integration of its members to be ‘not just military, but also political, economic, and psychological. NATO countries were expected to disseminate an anti-communist worldview and to promote pro-capitalist, free trade economies.’"

No nation could join NATO without privatizing its economy. In 1997, then Senator Joe Biden told Poland that it would have to privatize its large state-owned enterprises like banks, the energy sector, the state airline, the state copper producer, and the state telecommunications monopoly.

US political leaders before Donald Trump have complained about NATO members not carrying their weight financially, but the alliance has fortified US economic interests favoring privatization, dollar hegemony, and prevention of bilateral trade agreements between member nations and the Soviet Union and then Russia. Europe accordingly acquiesced to US destruction of the Nordstream2 pipeline.

The weapons manufacturers of NATO nations, most of all those of the US, have also greatly benefited by sales to other NATO members, as have Israel’s. A section of the book on NATO and Israel details their exchange of military technologies.

Nations like Romania were made to understand that they could join only after making huge purchases of US weapons.

NATO expansion after the collapse of the Soviet Union

In 1991, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the people of NATO nations all expected a peace dividend that of course never came. Instead of disbanding, NATO grew from its original 12 members to 32. In keeping with its founding ideology, it requires applicants to practice liberal democracy and market economy and contribute to NATO’s military operations.

Expansion actually met some resistance within the US foreign policy establishment, including the US Senate, with concerns ranging from increased costs, military over-extension overseas, and the consequences of poisoning relations with Russia by adding former Soviet nations.

Expansionists, however, always prevailed. The dissolution of the USSR eliminated the ideological competition, but the US drive for global hegemony proceeded apace. NATO, with its European junior partners, cloaked it in the seemingly moral guise of “the international community.”

Russia asked several more times to join NATO, but that was out of the question because it could not have been expected to subject itself to US military command, as the USA’s European partners dutifully did. “Every NATO member nation is required to serve under U.S. command during NATO wars, whereas the U.S. military has never agreed to obey any other nation’s command.”

Promises to expand toward Russia’s borders were never codified in a formal military treaty, but according to declassified US, Soviet, German, British, and French documents posted in the National Security Archive at George Washington University, Western leaders gave multiple assurances not to expand to the USSR’s borders to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and 1991.

All those promises were of course broken, and despite the advice of prominent foreign policy experts, Bill Clinton aggressively pursued NATO enlargement and expansion. When Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined in 1999, NATO made its way right up against Russia’s borders.

In 2004, it admitted seven more countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Albania and Croatia followed in 2009, Montenegro in 2017, and North Macedonia in 2020.

Prominent US government officials, and Vladimir Putin, all warned that this would eventually lead to confrontation with Russia, as it ultimately did, so far by proxy, in Ukraine.

The Ukraine War united more of Europe behind NATO, with formerly neutral Finland joining in 2023, Sweden in 2024, and both countries’ weapons industries benefiting as a result.

Finland had already sent troops to join NATO in Afghanistan, and Sweden had participated in NATO missions in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. Swedish fighter jets and support planes took part in the bombing and covert invasion of Libya in 2011.

“Against whom is this expansion intended?” Vladimir Putin asked. “And what happened to the assurances our Western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?”

The answer seemed to be, again, that Russia could not have been expected to subordinate its military to US command. NATO and the military industries also needed enemies, as they now have in both Russia and China.

NATO’s history of aggression

NATO’s presentation of itself as a defensive pact has always been a lie. “Its readiness to act as a junior partner in U.S. aggression,” Benjamin and Swanson write, “poses an implicit threat of devastating military violence to any countries involved in international disputes with the United States or other NATO members.”

They recount the sordid history of the US/NATO and its junior European partners, which, with Russia in disarray, waged war on Yugoslavia, a nominally socialist nation and leader of the Non-Aligned Movement. The propaganda campaign about humanitarian intervention to stop ethnic persecution became a blueprint for future illegal bombing campaigns like those in Libya and Syria. “What U.S. leaders took away from their ‘success’ in Kosovo was that legality, humanity, and truth are no match for CIA-manufactured chaos and lies, and they doubled down on that strategy to plunge the U.S. and the world into endless war, with a subservient NATO along for the ride.”

Although there was some division over the US War on Iraq, unity emerged behind the destruction of Libya, which, like Iraq, Syria, and Iran, had nationalized its oil resources. “Altogether, 14 NATO countries took part in the war on Libya, along with Sweden, Jordan, Qatar, and the UAE.”

Destroying Libya was in keeping with NATO’s founding goal of crushing anti-colonial movements because Gaddafi had used his oil wealth to provide free health care and education to his people, fund projects to give African countries more control of their natural resources, and co-found the African Union, envisioning it as a military alliance and common market with a single currency.

A white organization with junior “partners” of color

Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty limits new members of NATO to European nations that are invited by NATO to join it, but it has junior partners of color. Its Mediterranean Dialogue includes Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia, and its Istanbul Cooperation Initiative includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Its “Partners Across the Globe” include Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. These include some of the most brutal, authoritarian, oppressive, and dictatorial regimes on the planet, making a farce of NATO’s claim to be defending democracy and human rights around the world.

In a chapter on NATO and international law, Benjamin and Swanson make it clear that NATO, and most of all the US, have never respected it, but that they maintain a pretense of global citizenship by acting in coalition, aka as a gang: “If attacking Yugoslavia or Afghanistan or Libya is illegal, then it remains illegal even if you bring together a big gang of governments to do it with you.”

In a chapter on NATO and nuclear weapons, they make it clear that NATO, again with the US in the lead, have thoroughly disregarded every attempt at nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

Throughout the book they make the point that NATO, a US-dominated military alliance that threatens life on earth, is an unelected body accountable to no one. Its workings and decisions are anything but transparent and far from the eyes of citizens who elect the leaders of its members.

Alternatives

“Ukraine,” Benjamin and Swanson write, “is being treated as a sacrifice zone, and Finland should expect nothing else.” That makes further escalation sound like a grim inevitability, but, as longtime peace activists, they of course offer alternatives. These include pushing for adherence to global treaties, military and nuclear divestment movements, and nonviolent civilian resistance.

Montenegro, for example, set out to build an enormous NATO training ground, far too large for the entire military of Montenegro, but local residents put their bodies on the line as human shields to prevent it. “They organized events, handed in petitions, put up billboards, met with government officials, marched, protested, and—as of this moment—seem to have finally succeeded in eliminating the plans to destroy their mountain plateau for NATO.”

This battle, they point out, was waged on environmental and cultural grounds, and there are many such battles to be waged against NATO. Its member nations’ claims to be on the forefront of battling climate change could not be more hypocritical, given the carbon costs of its wars.

However, with the Doomsday clock closer to midnight than ever, the battle against NATO’s very existence and its trajectory is a battle for life itself.

Ann Garrison is a Black Agenda Report Contributing Editor based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize for her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes region. She can be reached at [email protected]. You can help support her work on Patreon.

NATO
Fortress Europe
Collective West

Do you need and appreciate Black Agenda Report articles. Please click on the DONATE icon, and help us out, if you can.


Related Stories

Essam Elkorghli
NATO’s Depleted Uranium: The Health Consequences of Freedom and Democracy in Iraq, Libya and the Former Yugoslavia
23 April 2025
NATO’s depleted uranium weapons leave a deadly legacy—cancer, birth defects, and environmental ruin in war-torn regions.
Clau O'Brien Moscoso
"We Want to Live in Peace!": Perú Grapples with Violence as SOUTHCOM Expands
16 October 2024
The conditions in Peru have continued to decline as the country's bad actors work at the behest of neocolonial forces - SOUTHCOM via the US, NA
Essam Elkorghli , Matteo Capasso
Planning Crimes: 2024 NATO Summit’s Agenda
17 July 2024
This year's NATO Summit was a show of the West's commitment to warmongering and its plans to wreak havoc around the world to maintain its domin
Black Alliance For Peace
Afghanistan News Update #22 May 27th, 2024
05 June 2024
Afghans for a Better Tomorrow discuss the current state of Afghanistan and their work organizing against U.S. imperialism.
Margaret Kimberley, BAR Executive Editor and Senior Columnist
Biden Sliding Towards World War III
29 May 2024
The idea of a world war should not be relegated to science fiction.
Joe Biden collage
K.J. Noh 
US Readies 'Transnational Kill Chain' For Taiwan Proxy War
13 March 2024
The U.S. is putting into place the final pieces to spark another proxy war, this time in Taiwan.
Genocide Convention
Margaret Kimberley, BAR Executive Editor and Senior Columnist
South Africa's Case at ICJ Also Exposes the US and the West
17 January 2024
South Africa's charge of genocide against Israel proves that this very serious word should be used more often instead of being treated as a rar
On the International Day of Peace September 21st, The U.S./EU/NATO Axis of Domination Reaffirmed Its’ Commitment to the Weapon of War
​​​​​​​ Ajamu Baraka, BAR editor and columnist
On the International Day of Peace September 21st, The U.S./EU/NATO Axis of Domination Reaffirmed Its’ Commitment to the Weapon of War
28 September 2022
"End Racism: Build Peace" was the theme of the 2022 International Day of Peace.
Latin Americans Reject Resource Plundering by Same NATO Countries Fueling Military Conflict in Ukraine
Camila Escalante
Latin Americans Reject Resource Plundering by Same NATO Countries Fueling Military Conflict in Ukraine
14 September 2022
Liberals in the U.S.
Pan-Africanism Yes! U.S. AFRICOM and NATO No!
Abayomi Azikiwe
Pan-Africanism Yes! U.S. AFRICOM and NATO No!
31 May 2022
Pan-African solidarity and the struggle against imperialism are key in advancing the condition of African states and peoples.

More Stories


  • Margaret Kimberley, BAR Executive Editor and Senior Columnist
    Ryan Coogler, Shedeur Sanders, Karmelo Anthony, and Rodney Hinton, Jr
    07 May 2025
    Black people who are among the rich and famous garner praise and love, and so do those who are in distress. But concerns for the masses of people and their struggles are often missing.
  • Editors, The Black Agenda Review
    LETTER: Thank you, Mr. Howe, Ama Ata Aidoo, 1967
    07 May 2025
    Ama Ata Aidoo lands a knock-out blow to white neocolonial anti-African revisionism.
  • Jon Jeter
    The Only Language the White Settler Speaks: Ohio Police Say Grieving Black Father Avenges Son’s Slaying By Killing One of Theirs
    07 May 2025
    The killing of Timothy Thomas in 2001 ignited Cincinnati’s long-simmering tensions over police violence. This struggle continues today, forcing a painful question: When justice is denied, does…
  • Raymond Nat Turner, BAR poet-in-residence
    DOGE— Department Of Grifter Enrichment
    07 May 2025
    "DOGE— Department Of Grifter Enrichment" is the latest from BAR's Poet-in-Residence.
  • Roberto Sirvent, BAR Book Forum Editor
    BAR Book Forum: Brittany Friedman’s Book, “Carceral Apartheid”
    07 May 2025
    In this series, we ask acclaimed authors to answer five questions about their book. This week’s featured author is Brittany Friedman. Friedman is assistant professor of sociology at the University of…
  • Load More
Subscribe
connect with us
about us
contact us