A critical analysis of the Washington Declaration adopted by NATO on the 75th Anniversary of its constitution

By Jorge Morales Pedraza

1- Introduction

The North Atlantic Organization, also known as "NATO or Alliance," was constituted on April 4, 1949, in Washington DC, USA, after ratifying the so-called "Washington Treaty" by the following countries: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, and the USA.

Why was NATO created? NATO was created to have a united Western front against the Soviet threat to Western Europe after the end of World War II and in response to a period of political and military tension between two opposing blocs, one led by the United States[1] and the second by the Soviet Union, known as the "Cold War." The Soviet bloc sought to expand its influence on Western Europe and other countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean. In contrast, the Western bloc wanted to contain the advance of soviet influence in Western Europe, with the assistance of NATO, leaving the responsibility to the USA to contain the Soviet expansion in Asia, Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean regions.

Source: Sakshi Gupta

Fig.1 NATO countries

2-?The Washington Treaty

The Washington Treaty has 14 articles with a clear defensive character. According to Article 1 of the Washington Treaty, "the Parties undertake, as established in the Charter of the United Nations, to resolve by peaceful means any international dispute in which they may be involved so that peace and international security, as well as justice, are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from resorting to the threat or use of force in any form that is incompatible with the purposes of the United Nations." In other words, NATO will try to resolve by peaceful means any dispute or conflict in which the Alliance will be involved and will refrain from threat or use of military force against any other country in any form incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 2 of the Washington Treaty states that the Parties "shall seek to eliminate conflicts in their international economic policies and encourage economic collaboration between several or all of the Parties." In other words, NATO will try to avoid economic conflicts between its members and with other countries and avoid adopting economic sanctions against non-member states of the Alliance in case of a conflict among them.

Article 5 of the Washington Treaty identifies the area of application of the Treaty provisions. According to Article 5, "an armed attack against one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

·???????? on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France[2], on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;

·???????? on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

According to Article 5, the Treaty will be applied in the territory of its members in Europe or North America, in the territory of Türkiye, and in the islands of any member in the area of the Atlantic North of the Tropic of Cancer, including the armed forces, military ships or aircraft of any member when located in these areas or on the territories mentioned above or in any area in Europe in which occupation forces of any member are deployed at the date of entry into force of the Treaty or in the Mediterranean Sea or the area of the North Atlantic and north of the Tropic of Cancer. In other words, the Washington Treaty cannot be applied outside these areas. According to this Article, NATO has no mandate to act in a conflict outside the territories mentioned in this Article.

According to Article 6 of the Washington Treaty, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

·???????? on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Türkiye or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;

·???????? on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Article 6 clearly defines what is considered an armed attack against a NATO member and which are the territories where the Treaty provisions can be applied.

According to Article 8, "each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty." According to Article 8, each Party undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty."

Under Article 10, "the Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession." According to this Article, NATO cannot invite any State outside the European region to accede to the Treaty.

3- NATO participation in armed conflicts

Although NATO was created to guarantee the security of Western Europe and North America, including the territory of Türkiye and the islands under the jurisdiction of either Party in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer, the Alliance has participated in conflicts after the fall of the USSR in 1991, and in countries that were not members of the Alliance, or whose territories were located outside the areas mentioned in Article 5, or without a United Nations mandate. In addition, these countries did not threaten to attack or attack any NATO member.

In violation of its own constituent Treaty, NATO has participated in the following armed conflicts, most of which took place outside its zone of action and against countries that did not threaten or attack any NATO member:

1.?????? Gulf War (1990-1991): NATO carried out Operations Anchord Guard (sea defense) and Ace Guard (air defense) in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The participation of NATO in the Gulf War violates the provisions of Article 5 because the? Gulf area is outside the NATO defense zone, according to the Washington Treaty. Besides, Iraq did not threaten the use of force or attack any NATO member, and Kuwait is not a member of the Alliance, so NATO's participation in this military conflict violates the Washington Treaty provisions.

2.?????? Fall of the USSR (1991): After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO carried out two air transport operations of humanitarian aid to former Soviet countries. Neither the USSR nor the countries that were formed after the disintegration of that country were parties to the Washington Treaty, nor did they threaten the use of force or use it against any NATO member. Therefore, NATO's intervention in the disintegration process of the USSR, even if it were to carry out humanitarian assistance, can be considered a violation of the Washington Treaty if said help was not explicitly requested by any of the new states that emerged after the disintegration of the USSR.

3.?????? Libya (Operation Agile Genie): In response to United Nations sanctions against Libya, NATO carried out an air surveillance operation in the Mediterranean Sea to monitor air routes, which can be considered a defensive action under the provisions of the Washington Treaty. On March 23, 2011, NATO took control of the arms embargo decreed in resolutions 1970 and 1973 of the United Nations Security Council, and on March 31, it also assumed command of all the operations that were taking place in Libya. These last activities of NATO in Libya could be considered a violation of the Washington Treaty provisions because Libya did not threaten the use of force or attack any NATO member, and its territory is located outside the area under the protection of the Alliance.

4.?????? NATO bombing of Yugoslavia: The 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, also known by its code name "Operation Allied Force," was an undeclared war between most NATO members and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The attacks took place from March 24 to June 11, 1999. The bombing of Yugoslavia constituted NATO's second major war after Operation Deliberate Force[3].

The operation was initiated unilaterally by NATO, without prior authorization from the United Nations Security Council, so from the media and several States, it has been considered that the bombings constituted acts of war crimes carried out in violation of the Washington Treaty provisions. The bombings killed 462 soldiers, 114 special police, between 1,200 and 5,700 Yugoslav civilians, and three Chinese journalists. Two NATO soldiers were also killed in a non-combat helicopter crash.

5.?????? The Kosovo War. Kosovo, a majority Albanian province in Serbia, sought independence. Ethnic and political tensions increased, and clashes occurred between Serbian military forces and Albanian separatists from the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). Without Serbia threatening or attacking any NATO member, the Alliance carried out an aerial bombing campaign against Serbia's military targets in Kosovo and Serbia in 1999. After 78 days of bombing, a peace agreement was reached in June 1999. Serbian military forces withdrew from Kosovo, and the administration of the province passed to the United Nations and NATO. NATO's action in the region without a threat or military action against a member of the Alliance violates the Washington Treaty provisions.

In 2008, Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia unilaterally, although all countries, including some NATO members, did not recognize it. NATO maintained a presence in Kosovo to ensure security and stability, violating the Washington Treaty provisions because Kosovo is not a member of the Alliance, does not pose a direct threat to any NATO members, and has not been recognized as an independent country by the international community.

6.?????? The Afghanistan War: NATO has been involved in Afghanistan for several decades, and its involvement has evolved during this period. Below is a summary of the key NATO activities in this war:

o?? Invasion of Afghanistan (2001): Following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the USA, NATO activated Article 5 of the ?Washington Treaty, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all. This led to Operation Enduring Freedom, in which NATO forces collaborated with Afghan forces to overthrow the Taliban regime and pursue Al Qaeda. However, NATO's actions in a non-Treaty territory are undoubtedly a clear violation of the provisions of the Washington Treaty because the war was carried out in a country outside the territory covered by the Alliance.

o?? Combat and transition mission (2001-2014): NATO-led the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which focused on stabilization and building Afghan capabilities. This NATO activity also violates the Washington Treaty provisions for the abovementioned reason. In 2014, NATO officially ended combat operations and transferred responsibility for security to the Afghan government. These NATO activities in the territory of a non-member of the Washington Treaty can be considered a violation of its provisions.

o?? Continued Support and Phased Out (2014-2021): Despite withdrawing most of its troops in 2014, NATO promised to fund Afghan forces until 2024, violating the Washington Treaty provisions. In 2021, the United States announced its complete withdrawal from Afghanistan, and NATO also began to withdraw, canceling all military aid.

o?? Return of the Taliban (2021): The Taliban's takeover of Kabul represented a military and political defeat for the USA and NATO, a failure of the role it played in the country, which brought serious security consequences for NATO members and global security; and a clear violation of the provisions of the Washington Treaty.

7.?????? The fight against ISIS: Since the beginning of the fight against terrorism after September 11, 2001, NATO's role in the fight against terrorism has evolved. During the early years of the fight against terrorism, NATO focused on military operations abroad, such as ISAF in Afghanistan, a region outside its zone of action in a clear violation of the Washington Treaty provisions. Subsequently, NATO realized the importance of preventing terrorism and combating radicalization in its area of action. Due to this, in 2005, NATO adopted a Counter-Terrorism Strategy through which it recognized the importance of preventing and combating radicalization within its members. In the years since, NATO has worked to strengthen its ability to fight terrorism, both abroad and at home. In 2014, NATO established the Center of Excellence for Defense Against Cyber Attacks, focusing on combating terrorist cyber-attacks on its members. In recent years, NATO has also worked to strengthen cooperation with partner countries and international organizations in the fight against terrorism. In particular, NATO has worked to strengthen cooperation between NATO and the African Union in the fight against terrorism in Africa. It is important to note that any NATO activities in Africa outside the Mediterranean Sea area can be considered a violation of the Washington Treaty provisions.

4- The Washington Declaration

On July 10, 11, and 12, 2024, the so-called "Washington Summit" was held in Washington DC, USA, to celebrate the 75th Anniversary of NATO, created in 1949 "to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." (Article 1 of the Washington Treaty).

As a result of this Summit, NATO members adopted the so-called "Washington Declaration," through which they remain the strongest Alliance in history. "We stand in unity and solidarity in the face of a brutal war of aggression on the European continent and at a critical time for our security. We reaffirm the enduring transatlantic bond between our nations. NATO remains the unique, essential, and indispensable transatlantic forum to consult, coordinate, and act on all matters related to our individual and collective security."

According to the members of the Alliance, "NATO is a defensive Alliance. Our commitment to defend one another and every inch of Allied territory at all times, as enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, is iron-clad. We will continue to ensure our collective defence against all threats and from all directions, based on a 360-degree approach, to fulfil NATO's three core tasks of deterrence and defence, crisis prevention and management, and cooperative security. We are bound together by shared values: individual liberty, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. We adhere to international law and to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and are committed to upholding the rules-based international order."

When analyzing the content of the Washington Declaration, it is essential to highlight the following elements:

4.1- Due to the classification of NATO as a defensive Alliance, the Declaration adopted should reflect the main threats to the security of its members and how these threats will be neutralized by implementing first non-military measures and proposals. If the other party rejects these measures and proposals or does not permit the end of the conflict, then the Alliance should indicate what are the military actions that should be implemented by the Alliance to ensure the security of its members. However, the Declaration adopted only sets out the military measures that the Alliance will adopt to neutralize these threats to the security of its members casting doubt on the defensive character of the Alliance.?

4.2- According to Article 1 of the Washington Treaty, NATO undertakes "to resolve by peaceful means any international controversy in which it may be involved so that international peace and security, as well as justice, are not jeopardized, and to refrain from in its international relations to resort to the threat or use of force in any manner that is incompatible with the purposes of the United Nations."

According to point 2 of the Washington Declaration, all NATO participation in different conflicts has not only been carried out after the disintegration of the USSR in 1991 but has been characterized by the use of military force instead of peaceful means to resolve any international controversy in which the Alliance was involved. According to Article 2 of the Washington Treaty, the Alliance should "contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being.

None of the conflicts in which NATO has been involved after 1991 has done so by applying Articles 1 and 2 of the Washington Treaty. On the contrary, NATO acted using military force in favor of one of the parties, clearly violating the content of the two Articles mentioned above.

4.3- The Washington Declaration adopted at the 75th Anniversary NATO Summit has 38 paragraphs and an Annex. What is striking is the fact that at least nine of them (24% of the total), in four subparagraphs and the annex, address the war between Ukraine (NATO) and Russia, two countries that are not members of the Alliance and that none of them, especially Russia, a country considered by the Alliance as "an adversary," have not threatened directly to attack or attacked any member of the Alliance. However, despite what was stated above and violating the provisions of the Washington Treaty, NATO, declaring itself not a party to that conflict, provides financial resources, weapons, ammunition, logistics, intelligence information, and military advice, without which Ukraine could not confront Russia militarily.

4.4- Furthermore, although for many experts, military, and politicians, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is, in reality, a conflict between NATO and Russia that is taking place on the territory of Ukraine, none of the 38 paragraphs that make up the approved Declaration mention any proposal to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine (NATO), ignoring the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of the Washington Treaty. On the contrary, NATO, with its financial, political, and military support to Ukraine in order to defeat Russia, is also responsible for the unnecessary prolongation of the conflict.

Based on these two Articles, NATO should refrain from participating in a conflict where members of the Alliance are not involved[4]. Instead, NATO should promote and support all efforts that various countries, including Hungary and Türkiye, two NATO members, Russia, China, The African Union, and Ukraine, among others, have presented to try to begin negotiations to end the Russia-Ukraine (NATO) conflict, as happened in Istanbul in April 2022, just two months after the start of the conflict. Regrettably, the negotiations were broken unilaterally by Ukraine at the request of the United Kingdom, a NATO member, speaking on behalf of the United States, the EU, and other NATO members, despite that officially, neither of them has declared war on Russia; on the contrary, they have insisted that they are not parties to this conflict.

4.5- Another element to take into account is the following: NATO, in violation of the Washington Treaty provisions, carried out military operations in several Balkan countries and bombed Serbia and its capital, Belgrade, for more than two months; although these countries attacked are no members of the Alliance, nor was there a United Nations mandate that justified NATO's participation in those bombings, nor had Serbia or any other Balkan countries threatened to attack or attacked any member of the Alliance.

4.6-?The approved Washington Declaration has an annex dedicated entirely to the Russia-Ukraine (NATO) conflict, ignoring that these two countries are not NATO members. It is important to stress that the Alliance has made no effort to end the Russia-Ukraine (NATO) conflict through diplomatic negotiations, as would be appropriate if NATO complies with its obligations under Articles 1 and 2 of the Washington Treaty. On the contrary, the annex only talks about the different forms and obligations the Alliance would assume to finance the military support of Ukraine to achieve a military victory in its conflict with Russia.

4.7-?Paragraph 1 of the adopted Washington Declaration states that "NATO is a defensive Alliance" with the commitment "to defend one another and every inch of Allied territory at all times, as enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, is iron-clad . We will continue to ensure our collective defense against all threats and from all directions, based on a 360-degree approach, to fulfill NATO's three core tasks of deterrence and defence, crisis prevention and management, and cooperative security. We are bound together by shared values: individual liberty, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. "We adhere to international law and to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and are committed to upholding the rules-based international order.

However, the Alliance has participated in military conflicts in territories outside the North Atlantic region and Europe, thus violating Article 1 of the Washington Treaty. Furthermore, some of these actions have been carried out without the authorization of the United Nations Security Council, violating international law and the principles of the United Nations Charter and, therefore, violating the provisions of Article 1 of the Washington Treaty.

4.8- Although Russia has not threatened or militarily attacked any NATO member, the Alliance considers Russia "the most significant and direct threat to Allies' security," ignoring that NATO expansion towards the east has increased the threat to Russia's security due to its classification by the Alliance as an "adversary country." Since 1991, NATO has ignored all Russian warnings that the move of the Alliance toward the east violates all commitments made on this issue before, increasing the threat to Russia's security and, for this reason, Russia will be forced to respond by military means. This means that the Alliance was aware that their movement toward the east could provoke a military response by Russia, as it happened on February 22, 2022. For this reason, NATO is also responsible for what is happening in Ukraine.

4.9-?Paragraph 4 of the Washington Declaration mentions the conflicts in Africa and the Middle East and how these conflicts affect the security of the Alliance members. When addressing the different conflicts in these regions, there are no proposals on how to resolve these conflicts following the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of the Washington Treaty, but only military and security measures that will be adopted to counteract these threats to the security of its members. The application of any measures in territories outside the territories mentioned in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty must be considered a violation of the Treaty provisions.?

4.10-?One subparagraph of paragraph 7 of the Washington Declaration dangerously talks about "investing in our Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear defense capabilities required to effectively operate in all environments." That subparagraph not only ignores the position of several of its members regarding chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons but also manipulates reality. What is more important, if NATO is considered a defense Alliance, is the absence of any initiative to resolve the threats these weapons pose to the security of its members. The actual situation concerning these three types of weapons of mass destruction is the following:

a)??Chemical weapons: Concerning chemical weapons, it is important to take into account the following information provided by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in 2024:

o?? State parties: 193; Signatory State: 1 (Israel); non-signatory States: 3 (Egypt, North Korea, and South Sudan);

o?? Stockpile Destruction: The World's declared chemical weapons stockpiles were 100% destroyed; Total declared stockpiles of chemical agents: 72,304 metric tons; Total destroyed stockpiles of chemical agents: 72,304 metric tons. This means that all chemical agents have also been destroyed;

o?? Chemical Weapons Production Facilities (CWPF): Declared: 97; Destroyed: 74; Converted for peaceful purpose: 23. Remaining inspectable facilities/sites: 4; States with inspectable facilities/sites: 3; Inspections since the entry into force of the Convention: 523;

o?? Chemical Weapons Destruction Facilities ( CWDF): Inspections since the entry into force of the Convention: 2,056; States with inspectable facilities/sites: 1; Inspectable facilities/sites: 1;

o?? Old Chemical Weapons (OCW): Inspections since the entry into force of the Convention: 179; States with inspectable facilities/sites: 9; Inspectable facilities/sites: 11;

o?? Abandoned Chemical Weapons (ACW): Inspections since the entry into force of the Convention: 163; States with inspectable facilities/sites: 2; Inspectable facilities/sites: 1;

o?? Industry Inspections: Industrial facilities subject to inspection: 5,022;

o?? Schedule 1: Inspections since the entry into force of the Convention: 356; States with declared facilities: 24; Inspectable facilities: 28;

o?? Schedule 2: Inspections since the entry into force of the Convention: 1,066; States with declared plant sites: 24; Inspectable plant sites: 226;

o?? Schedule 3: Inspections since the entry into force of the Convention: 532; States with declared plant sites: 29; Inspectable plant sites: 360;

o?? Other Chemical Production Facilities (OCPF): Inspections since the Convention's entry into force: 2,648; States with declared plant sites: 80; Inspectable plant sites: 4,408.

Based on the data offered above, the following can be concluded:

o?? All declared chemical weapons and chemical agents that can be used to produce a chemical weapon have been destroyed. Until today, the existence of chemical weapons in a State Party violating the Convention provisions has not been proven;

o?? There is only one State with facilities for the destruction of chemical weapons, and this is subject to routine inspections;

o?? There are no chemical weapons storage facilities in any State Party;

o?? All facilities that operate using the three types of materials that allow the production of chemical weapons are subject to routine inspections, as well as other facilities in all State Parties, which make the production of chemical weapons impossible without being detected;

For this reason, the reference to investment for the improvement of NATO's chemical defense capabilities is very questionable and problematic since there is no possibility of massive use of chemical weapons or substances that allow their production in 193 States. Nevertheless, if a potential attack using this type of weapon is detected, there are international mechanisms to sanction the country that has used them. Without a doubt, the use of chemical weapons of any type represents a clear violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention.[5] Because of this, it makes no sense to invest in NATO's preparation to neutralize a hypothetical chemical weapons attack. Instead, NATO should not only condemn the use of these weapons by any State but coordinate actions with all States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention to condemn the aggressor by applying all types of political, economic, financial, and military sanctions until the violating State comply with its obligations and submit to OPCW inspections[6] the undeclared facilities that were used for the production of chemical weapons utilized in the conflict.

Based on what has been said above, the possible use of chemical weapons in Ukraine denounced by Russian troops should be investigated, and the country that used them, whether it is Ukraine, most likely, or Russia, less likely, should be condemned and subject to international sanctions. The attacked country should submit a request to the OPCW Executive Council to investigate the possible use of chemical weapons in Ukraine.

b) Biological weapons: Concerning biological weapons, it is important to take into account the following: There is a Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) that prohibits the use of biological weapons that entered into force on March 26, 1975, and which has already been signed and ratified by 187 countries, including Russia, Ukraine, and all NATO members.

The main problems that the Convention has are the following:

§? The BTWC is an international treaty that prohibits the development, production, and stockpiling of biological weapons and toxins. Currently, it has the participation of 187 states, but its effectiveness is limited due to the lack of a formal verification process to monitor compliance. Below are some relevant aspects that must be taken into account:

o?? Scientific and technological advances: The technological barriers to acquiring and using biological weapons have decreased significantly since the VII Review Conference. The rapid evolution of life sciences and biotechnology increases the likelihood of future advances. The BTWC must monitor these developments to prevent their misuse.

o?? Biotechnology and risks: Biotechnology has become a potential target for biological weapons. Research should be carried out to determine whether there are undocumented risks in existing treaties and laws related to damage to equipment, supplies, or materials associated with the bioeconomy.

o?? Education and outreach: There is a growing need to educate and raise awareness in the scientific community about the objectives of the BTWC.

There is no international organization that routinely inspects all the facilities where biological weapons could be produced in its State Parties since the United States, Russia, and other NATO countries, among other small group of State Parties, oppose the creation of this organization;

Since such an organization does not exist, it is not possible to execute an inspection plan covering all existing facilities where it is possible to produce a biological weapon in all BTWC State Parties;

At the moment, there is no possibility of modifying the current BTWC or of adopting a new Convention or Treaty, which includes the creation of an international organization that carries out routine inspections of all existing facilities in all State Parties that may be used for the production of this type of weapons. The USA, supported by a small number of Western countries, is firmly opposed to the creation of such an international organization and the adoption of a system of routine inspections of all facilities where it is possible to produce a biological weapon.

In summary, while the BTWC is an important step in preventing biological weapons, continued vigilance is required to ensure compliance and address emerging challenges. An international organization must also be created to implement a system of routine inspections of all facilities where biological weapons may be produced.

Based on what has been said, NATO members should, on the one hand, invest in biological weapons defense capabilities and, on the other, present proposals to strengthen the BTWC by establishing a routine inspection system covering all declared biological facilities in all of its State Parties.

c)?Nuclear weapons: Regarding nuclear weapons, NATO's position is clear. According to paragraph 9, "Nuclear deterrence is the cornerstone of Alliance security. The fundamental purpose of NATO's nuclear capability is to preserve peace, prevent coercion and deter aggression. As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance. NATO reaffirms its commitment to all the decisions, principles, and commitments with regard to NATO's nuclear deterrence, arms control policy and non-proliferation and disarmament objectives as stated in the 2022 Strategic Concept and 2023 Vilnius Communiqué. Arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation have been made and should continue to make an essential contribution to achieving the Alliance's security objectives and to ensuring strategic stability and our collective security. NATO remains committed to taking all necessary steps to ensure the credibility, effectiveness, safety, and security of the Alliance's nuclear deterrence mission, including by modernising its nuclear capabilities, strengthening its nuclear planning capability, and adapting as necessary."

Based on what has been said before, NATO will support the possession of nuclear weapons by its members as long as this type of weapon exists. This is a logical position. However, taking into account the position of several NATO members who are in favor of the destruction of all nuclear weapons by all nuclear weapon states, NATO members should submit proposals to eliminate all nuclear weapons in all NATO non-nuclear weapon states and to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in all NATO nuclear weapon states in a step-to-step process.

Paragraph 9 also talks about arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation but does not say what measures NATO will propose to increase arms control in order to prevent the diversion of arms from the recipient country to the black market or to a country or armed groups classified as "terrorist or illegal groups" that operate in several countries, as is currently the case with some of the weapons that NATO delivers to Ukraine so that it can confront Russia, but which end up in the hands of terrorist or illegal organizations or on the black market as has been denounced by different Western media and by the Secretary General of NATO himself.

Regrettably, there is no reference in the paragraph mentioned above to specific measures that NATO intends to adopt to strengthen the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons regime. Although it considers Iran as a destabilizing source of actions that affect the security of Europe and the North Atlantic, it says nothing about the need to restart negotiations to put the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action (JCPOA) or an updated version of this agreement back into force. JCPOA was adopted in 2015 to ensure that the Iranian nuclear program is implemented exclusively for peaceful purposes[7] but was suspended after the unilateral and unjustifiable withdrawal of the USA from this agreement in 2018. For this reason, not only the USA is responsible for what is happening regarding the Iran nuclear program, but also several member states of the Alliance.

According to the IAEA, until 2018, Iran had complied with most of the Agency's demands on specific aspects of its nuclear program that required clarification, and its nuclear facilities were subject to routine inspections at a greater intensity than required as a State Party to the NPT. In the adopted Washington Declaration, there is no proposal to restart the negotiations on implementing the JCPOA to ensure the peaceful use of nuclear energy in Iran or to consider an updated version of the mentioned agreement.

There is also no paragraph in the Washington Declaration adopted suggesting concrete measures proposed by NATO to prevent the growth and modernization of nuclear weapons in possession of all nuclear weapon states, and on the steps that should be taken as well as the measures that should be adopted to restart negotiations to reduce nuclear weapon arsenals in all nuclear weapon states, particularly between the USA and Russia, and subsequently move towards achieving the destruction of all nuclear weapons in a step to step process. The possession of nuclear weapons by Russia, China, Pakistan, India, and the DPRK theoretically represents a security threat to NATO members, but no action or proposal is presented to reduce this threat.

4.11-?As stated in paragraph 17 of the Washington Declaration, NATO believes that "Russia bears sole responsibility for its war of aggression against Ukraine, a blatant violation of international law, including the UN Charter." Unsurprisingly, the Washington Declaration completely ignores the Alliance's own violation of international law in its involvement in the Russia-Ukraine (NATO) conflict, the reasons why Russia initiated the so-called "Special Military Operation" in Ukraine, the period of civil war in Ukraine after the 2014 coup d'état (2014-2022) and the failure of the implementation of the Minks I and II Protocols to stop the civil war in the Donbas region. The Washington Declaration states that "there can be no impunity for Russian forces' and officials' abuses and violations of human rights, war crimes, and other violations of international law. Russia is responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians and has caused extensive damage to civilian infrastructure. We condemn in the strongest possible terms Russia's horrific attacks on the Ukrainian people, including on hospitals, on July 8. "Russia must immediately stop this war and completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its forces from Ukraine in line with UN General Assembly resolutions."

Curiously, the Washington Declaration adopted does not say anything about the brutality of the Ukrainian troops during the civil war unleashed in the country after the coup d'état of 2014, the massive and brutal attacks of the Ukrainian armed forces against their own citizens during the period 2014-2022, and the destruction of civilian facilities in the Donbas region during the period mentioned above, a period in which more than 14,000 civilians died as a result of the Ukraine armed forces attacks against the Ukrainian civilian population living in the Donbas region. All violations of international humanitarian law and war crimes committed by both Russian and Ukrainian military forces must be subject to impartial international investigation, and those responsible for these acts must be brought to trial in both countries.

In paragraph 17 of the Washington Declaration, the following is also stated: "We will never recognize Russia's illegal annexations of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea. "We also call on Russia to withdraw all of its forces from the Republic of Moldova and Georgia, stationed there without their consent." It is important to highlight the following elements:

o?? NATO assumes a position contrary to the one adopted in the war against Serbia by forcing it, through the use of military force, to withdraw its armed forces from Kosovo, occupy this Serbian province recognized as such by the international community, and accept the result of a memorandum, carried out under NATO military occupation, and in which the independence of Kosovo was agreed against the will of the Serbian government. NATO has no mandate to participate in an armed conflict where no Alliance member is directly involved. Kosovo and Serbia are not members of NATO. Thus, all activities of NATO carried out in the Balkan war can be considered a violation of Articles 1 and 2 of the Washington Treaty.

o?? In paragraph 17 of the Washington Declaration, NATO refers to the situation of the Republic of Moldova and Georgia, countries that are not members of the Alliance, and therefore has nothing to say about the relationship of these two countries with Russia, which is also not a member of the Alliance.

o?? The rejection of NATO of Russia's illegal annexations of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, is a situation that has nothing to do with the Alliance because Ukraine is not a NATO member. For this reason, the Alliance has nothing to say on this issue. This issue should be solved between Russia and Ukraine, considering the wishes of the population involved, and the military situation of the front line. In the Russia-Ukraine case, NATO should adopt the same position assumed in the Kosovo issue.

4.12-?Paragraph 18 of the Washington Declarations stated, "Russia seeks to fundamentally reconfigure the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. The all-domain threat Russia poses to NATO will persist into the long term. Russia is rebuilding and expanding its military capabilities and continues its airspace violations and provocative activities. We stand in solidarity with all Allies affected by these actions. NATO does not seek confrontation, and poses no threat to Russia. "We remain willing to maintain channels of communication with Moscow to mitigate risk and prevent escalation."

However, nothing is said in paragraph 18 about the Russian position on the future of European security, as submitted at the end of 2021, and on the expansion of Russian military capabilities due to NATO's expansion to the borders of Russia, the deployment of Alliance troops and offensive weapons in countries bordering Russia, and the open participation of NATO in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, where no members of the Alliance are involved. Since Ukraine is not a member of NATO, it has no obligation to help this country financially and militarily if the Alliance truly does not want confrontation with Russia, as stated in this paragraph.

On the contrary, according to Articles 1 and 2 of the Washington Treaty, NATO should support all efforts made by all parties to stop the conflict, begin negotiations to end it and reshape the European security structure without excluding Russia because this country is a European country.

The claim that the Alliance wishes to maintain communication channels with Russia is also questionable since there is no indication of any attempt by NATO to discuss with Russia a diplomatic solution to the war in Ukraine or to stop its aid to this country in order to seek a diplomatic solution to this conflict or on the future European security structure. On the contrary, there are no indications of NATO's intent to discuss the end of the Russia-Ukraine (NATO) conflict with Russia or the future European security structure. All communication channels between NATO and Russia have been closed, clearly violating Articles 1 and 2 of the Washington Treaty and paragraph 18 of the Washington Declaration.

4.13- Paragraph 19 of the Washington Declaration reflects NATO's double standards. As is well known, the United States has nuclear weapons deployed in Italy, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Türkiye as part of the Alliance's nuclear deterrence policy. According to NATO, such nuclear deployment does not threaten Russia, considered an Alliance adversary. Still, when Russia, for the same reason, deploys nuclear weapons in Belarus, this deployment represents a threat to NATO members, and that is why the international community must condemn this action by Russia, ignoring what the USA did with the same purpose. According to NATO, Russia must be forced to withdraw these weapons without requesting the USA to withdraw its nuclear weapons deployed in several NATO members.

Paragraph 19 of the Washington Declaration states, "Russia has violated, selectively implemented, and walked away from longstanding arms control obligations and commitments, thereby undermining the global arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation architecture."

That is a gross manipulation of reality. It seems that NATO has forgotten that it was the USA and not Russia that withdrew from the latest nuclear arms limitation and arms control treaties with Russia and other international treaties on arms control, such as the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, the rejection of the USA of the Arms Trade Treaty, the withdrawal of the USA from the Treaty on Open Sky of 2002, the unilateral withdrawal of the USA of the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action (JCPOA) with Iran in 2018, the USA withdrawal of the Anti-Ballistic Treaty (ABM Treaty) of 1972, among others.

It is important to highlight that paragraph 19 raises the deep concern of NATO "by the reported use of chemical weapons by Russia against Ukrainian forces," without taking into account what was stated in point 4.8 (a) that Russia has destroyed all chemical weapons in its possession and its facilities capable of producing chemical weapons have been destroyed or transformed to peaceful uses and are subject to routine inspection by the OPCW, so it is very unlikely that Russia has used a weapon it does not possess and against its own troops and in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention.?

As is known, the complaint of the possible use of chemical weapons in the Russia-Ukraine (NATO) conflict was made by the Russian troops affected by this alleged attack with said weapons, so it is very difficult to believe that it was the Russian armed forces themselves that have used chemical weapons against their own troops. If chemical weapons were indeed used in the Russia-Ukraine (NATO) conflict, it is most likely that it was the Ukrainian armed forces that, in violation of the CWC, used them to stop the advance of Russian troops at several points of the front line, creating a difficult situation to the Ukrainian armed forces. In a difficult situation in any war, the armed forces of a country that has lost the strategic initiative is the one that uses all types of weapons, prohibited or not, to try to stop enemy forces.?

4.14-?Paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Washington Declaration again insist that Russian actions against NATO, such as "sabotage, acts of violence, provocations at Allied borders, instrumentalisation of irregular migration, malicious cyber activities, electronic interference, disinformation campaigns and malignant political influence, as well as economic coercion will not stop Allies ' resolve and support to Ukraine," but without presenting evidence of these alleged Russian actions. At the same time, NATO does not mention in this paragraph the blowing up of the Stream-2 gas pipeline, suspected to have been carried out by the USA or UK with other NATO member support, the terrorist attack on the CROCUS theater in Russia, a terrorist attacks possibly involving the Ukrainian security forces assisted by some NATO member security forces, a frustrated terrorist attack against an aircraft carrier in the city of Murmansk and against three senior officials of the Ministry of Defense in the capital, Moscow, plans of which they have directly accused the Ukrainian special forces assisted by some NATO member security forces, the attack on civilian facilities in the Crimea and Belgorod regions by Ukrainian forces assisted by some NATO member security forces, among others.

In other words, the Washington Declaration, when analyzing possible terrorist acts related to the Russia-Ukraine (NATO) conflict, only mention and condemn those that Russia supposedly is responsible for, even without evidence, but avoids mentioning and condemning those carried out by Ukraine and NATO against Russia, and which are the measures and proposals to impede that these illegal actions are carried in the future by all parties involved directly or indirectly.

4.15- In paragraph 23 of the Washington Declaration, NATO asks the countries of the international community not to help Russia in any way in its war against Ukraine. It condemns the countries that are offering such help, ignoring that NATO itself and its partners (around 52 states), without any war declaration against Russia, are helping Ukraine financially and militarily to defeat Russia. However, it is important to note that Ukraine is not a member of the Alliance, and the NATO Secretary General has repeatedly declared that the Alliance is not part of the conflict.

4.16-?Paragraph 24 of the Washington Declaration mentions Belarus. It condemns its support for Russia in the Russia-Ukraine (NATO) conflict. Still, Belarus is not a member of NATO and, therefore, does not need NATO approval for its actions and decisions in international policy. Despite that, NATO and the EU have adopted a group of sanctions against Belarus due to its support to Russia in the conflict. Nor does NATO mention the threats to Belarus' security posed by the deployment of Alliance troops and offensive weapons near its borders with Poland and the Baltic States, taking into consideration that these countries within NATO are the ones that have adopted a very aggressive policy against Russia and Belarus.

4.17-?Paragraph 25 of the Washington Declaration speaks of support for Russia in the Russia-Ukraine (NATO) conflict from two countries not members of the Alliance, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and Iran, ignoring again that more than 50 countries are supporting Ukraine in the Russia-Ukraine (NATO) conflict, and although none of them have declared war on Russia. On the contrary, they have repeatedly declared that they have no intention of becoming part of that conflict.

4.18-?Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Washington Declaration set out NATO's demands regarding China's policy concerning the conflict in Ukraine and its political, economic, military, commercial, and unlimited cooperation relations with Russia. Once again, NATO interferes in the internal affairs of a country that is not a member of the Alliance, located very far from the territory covered by the Treaty, without borders with any of its members, and its international actions do not represent a direct threat to the security of any of its members.

In the adopted Declaration, NATO tells China what it should and should not do in its relations with Russia due to the impact that these relations could have on the Russia-Ukraine (NATO) conflict, ignoring the support that the Alliance offers to Ukraine not only from a financial point of view but what is more important from a military point of view unnecessary prolonging the conflict with the negative impact that it has for Ukraine. The same position that NATO asks China to adopt in its relations with Russia is the one the Alliance should adopt in the Russia-Ukraine (NATO) conflict.

4.19-?Paragraph 30 of the Washington Declaration reflects NATO's interest in intervening in some way in the conflict that the USA, the EU, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand maintain with China, the DPRK, and other countries in the region, even though NATO's territory of action is very far away from Asia. The extension of NATO's zone of influence to encompass the Indo-Pacific area without modifying the Washington Treaty violates its provisions, and therefore, the Alliance must refrain from interfering in the conflict with China unless the Alliance is ready to submit concrete proposals to solve any future conflict by peaceful means avoiding an economic war between China and the USA, which will affect almost all international community members.

On the other hand, it must be remembered that the United States has some 400 military bases in some of the countries mentioned above located in the Indo-Pacific region, with some 300,000 soldiers and 60% of the Pacific fleet deployed. It is evident that it is not China that threatens the region's countries indicated in this paragraph but the USA and its allies to China. China is considering the deployment of North American troops in several countries in the region and its attempt to form military blocks with its allies in the region to contain China, a direct threat to its own security.

The intention of the USA to involve NATO countries in its future confrontation with China violates the provisions of the Washington Treaty and increases the threat to China's security. In addition, the political and military support of the USA to Taiwan violates the principle of "One China" accepted by the US government. The USA's supply of different types of offensive weapons to Taiwan and its political support to a part of the Chinese territory increases the tension in the region and represents a clear violation of the USA-China principle of "One China."

4.20-?Paragraph 32 of the Washington Declaration refers to NATO's actions in the Middle East and Africa, two areas outside the territory under the Alliance's jurisdiction, so its activities in these two regions, if any, should be carried out respecting the provisions of the Washington Treaty.

4.21- The annex to the Washington Declaration entitled "Pledge of Long-Term Security Assistance for Ukraine" clearly demonstrates NATO's direct participation as an active part of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia since, without its help, Ukraine would not be able to maintain the war against Russia. The annex mentioned above details how NATO will support Ukraine in its conflict with Russia next year and the resources that will be granted so that Ukraine can subdue Russia and defeat it militarily. In this annex, NATO does not present any proposal to begin negotiations for a ceasefire agreement and to start negotiations for a treaty to ensure the security of Ukraine, Russia, and Europe, as requested by Washington Treaty provisions.

?5.?Conclusions

Regarding the content of the Washington Declaration, the following can be stated: It is a document that reflects the military objectives, purposes, interests, and actions of its members to defend themselves from outside security threats.

The Washington Declaration only contains references to the security threats to its members and how these threats will be faced from the military perspective, but without including any proposal or measures on how to eliminate or reduce these threats by political and diplomatic means and not by military force, as provided in Articles 1 and 2 of the Washington Treaty. In addressing those threats, NATO attempts to extend its radius of action beyond the one established by the Washington Treaty to support the United States in its confrontation with China, ignoring the provisions of the Washington Treaty, specifically the provisions of Article 6. Any actions carried out by the Alliance outside the area of application of the Treaty provisions will represent a violation of its provisions.

NATO, when criticizing the behaviors and actions of certain countries in the international field, countries that generally oppose US policies, such as Russia, China, Iran, Belarus, the DPRK, and most of the Global South countries, among others, ignore their own actions, many of them violating the provisions of the Washington Treaty, and the actions of its members and allies contrary to international law and the Charter of United Nations, such as the USA, the UK, France, Israel, among others.

In the Washington Declaration, there are nine paragraphs, four subparagraphs, and an annex addressing and defining NATO's position in the case of the Russia-Ukraine (NATO) conflict, although the Alliance has repeated many times that it is not a party to the conflict mentioned above, Russia and Ukraine are not members of the Alliance, and their conflict does not directly affect any NATO member. For this reason, the involvement of NATO in the Russia and Ukraine (NATO) conflict violates Articles 1 and 2 of the Washington Treaty.

?

[1] The Western bloc, including NATO, was headed by the USA, and the Soviet bloc, including the Warsaw Pact, was headed by the USSR and included the countries of Eastern Europe.

[2] On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council noted that insofar as the former Algerian Departments of France were concerned, the relevant clauses of this Treaty had become inapplicable as from July 3, 1962.

[3] Operation Deliberate Force was an air campaign carried out by NATO in 1995 in response to actions against the civilian population carried out by the Serb forces in Bosnia and the Croatian army during Operation Storm within the framework of the Bosnian phase of the Yugoslav wars. NATO's action in this operation is a clear violation of the provisions of the Washington Treaty.

[4] It is important to single out that all NATO members and other allied countries are involved in one way or another in the Rusia- Ukraine conflict.

[5] Israel signed the Convention on January 19, 1993, but has not yet ratified it. Three other countries have not signed it.

[6] The OPCW inspection system is the most complex and intrusive within the United Nations system, far beyond the IAEA safeguards system.

[7] According to the US government, Iran only needs one or two weeks to produce the material necessary to produce a nuclear weapon if it decides to do so. That is a result of the suspension of the JCPOA due to the unilateral withdrawal of the USA in 2018.