Photo by Teri Mattson, CODEPINK Medea Benjamin is a co-founder of CODEPINK and the fair trade advocacy group Global Exchange. She is the co-author of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless War, and the author of Drone Warfare, Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the U.S.—Saudi Connection and Inside Iran. In 2012, she was awarded the U.S. Peace Memorial Foundation’s Peace Prize; she is also recipient of the 2014 Gandhi Peace Award and the 2010 Martin Luther King, Jr. Peace Prize from the Fellowship of Reconciliation

Photo by Anna Swanson David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He speaks frequently on the topic of war and peace, and engages in all kinds of nonviolent activism. He is executive director of WorldBeyondWar.org, a global nonviolent movement to end war and establish a just and sustainable peace, and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include War Is A Lie, Leaving World War II Behind, and War Is Never Just. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and, and hosts Talk World Radio. He is a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, and U.S. Peace Prize recipient.

Chapter 5: NATO “Partners” Around the Globe

Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty limits new members of NATO to European nations that are invited by NATO to join it. But NATO has not limited itself to Europe. It does not view its purpose as merely “resisting armed attack” (in the language of that treaty). Not only has it reconceived the concept of resisting actual attacks as deterring potential attacks—often through behavior that is clearly more provocative than deterrent—but NATO also conceives of itself as a global alliance that will wage wars anywhere on Earth, regardless of any attack on a NATO member.

Outside of Europe, therefore, NATO has added dozens of additional nations as “partners” rather than members. To invite a nation to be a member, existing members must agree that, according to Article 5, an attack on one is an attack on all. To add a “partner,” however, no such commitment is required. NATO may very well go to war in the event that one of its partners goes to war, but it is not obliged to by treaty.

NATO partners Armenia and Azerbaijan have been engaged in armed attacks on each other. Were they members instead of partners, NATO would be obliged to either support both sides or, more likely, declare one side to be in the wrong and wage war for the other. Each partnership agreement is specific to the nation, and can be frequently modified to expand the partnership. A key concept for NATO partnerships is “interoperability.” This means partners buying the same weapons, relying on the same people to maintain and repair and upgrade those weapons, relying on the same people to train military personnel on those weapons, and organizing militaries to function under the same command. The interoperability of partners, like members, is tested in “war games” or rehearsals, and in actual wars. NATO partner militaries have joined in its wars in Afghanistan and Libya, in patrolling the Mediterranean, in training (and making more interoperable) the Iraqi military, and in NATO’s military occupation of Kosovo, which has never ended since NATO’s war there in 1999. The permanent presence in Kosovo has long served as an initial training ground for the integration of new partners’ militaries into NATO. Over the course of the 2001-2021 war in Afghanistan, 52 nations took part, including many NATO partners.

NATO partnership involves encouragement to spend more on militarism, to buy more weapons, and to engage in more military training and military strategizing. NATO trains thousands of partner-nation officials, both military and civilian, in militarized thinking through some 30 national “Partnership Training and Education Centres,” and institutions like the NATO School in Oberammergau, Germany, and the NATO Defense College in Rome, Italy.

Photo by Teri Mattson, CODEPINK Medea Benjamin is a co-founder of CODEPINK and the fair trade advocacy group Global Exchange. She is the co-author of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless War, and the author of Drone Warfare, Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the U.S.—Saudi Connection and Inside Iran. In 2012, she was awarded the U.S. Peace Memorial Foundation’s Peace Prize; she is also recipient of the 2014 Gandhi Peace Award and the 2010 Martin Luther King, Jr. Peace Prize from the Fellowship of Reconciliation

Photo by Anna Swanson David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He speaks frequently on the topic of war and peace, and engages in all kinds of nonviolent activism. He is executive director of WorldBeyondWar.org, a global nonviolent movement to end war and establish a just and sustainable peace, and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include War Is A Lie, Leaving World War II Behind, and War Is Never Just. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and, and hosts Talk World Radio. He is a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, and U.S. Peace Prize recipient.

Chapter 5: NATO “Partners” Around the Globe

Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty limits new members of NATO to European nations that are invited by NATO to join it. But NATO has not limited itself to Europe. It does not view its purpose as merely “resisting armed attack” (in the language of that treaty). Not only has it reconceived the concept of resisting actual attacks as deterring potential attacks—often through behavior that is clearly more provocative than deterrent—but NATO also conceives of itself as a global alliance that will wage wars anywhere on Earth, regardless of any attack on a NATO member.

Outside of Europe, therefore, NATO has added dozens of additional nations as “partners” rather than members. To invite a nation to be a member, existing members must agree that, according to Article 5, an attack on one is an attack on all. To add a “partner,” however, no such commitment is required. NATO may very well go to war in the event that one of its partners goes to war, but it is not obliged to by treaty.

NATO partners Armenia and Azerbaijan have been engaged in armed attacks on each other. Were they members instead of partners, NATO would be obliged to either support both sides or, more likely, declare one side to be in the wrong and wage war for the other. Each partnership agreement is specific to the nation, and can be frequently modified to expand the partnership. A key concept for NATO partnerships is “interoperability.” This means partners buying the same weapons, relying on the same people to maintain and repair and upgrade those weapons, relying on the same people to train military personnel on those weapons, and organizing militaries to function under the same command. The interoperability of partners, like members, is tested in “war games” or rehearsals, and in actual wars. NATO partner militaries have joined in its wars in Afghanistan and Libya, in patrolling the Mediterranean, in training (and making more interoperable) the Iraqi military, and in NATO’s military occupation of Kosovo, which has never ended since NATO’s war there in 1999. The permanent presence in Kosovo has long served as an initial training ground for the integration of new partners’ militaries into NATO. Over the course of the 2001-2021 war in Afghanistan, 52 nations took part, including many NATO partners.

NATO partnership involves encouragement to spend more on militarism, to buy more weapons, and to engage in more military training and military strategizing. NATO trains thousands of partner-nation officials, both military and civilian, in militarized thinking through some 30 national “Partnership Training and Education Centres,” and institutions like the NATO School in Oberammergau, Germany, and the NATO Defense College in Rome, Italy.