Edited by the “Comité Surveillance Otan”, this editorial is reproduced below in translation from the French, and followed by the Statement of the “Stop Militarization” Platform. The latter regroups some fifty Peace Associations and social movements who repudiate the militarist program that is being imposed by the Belgian ‘Arizona government’[1].
On 26 June 1945, the United Nations solemnly adopted its Charter founded on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members. The very first article proclaimed that, in their international relations, “the parties undertake (…) to refrain from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”
The United Nations Charter made explicit the obligation of member countries “to unite their forces to maintain peace and to take effective collective measures to prevent and remove the threats to peace.”
Four years later, twelve countries including nine of the UN founders, the big imperialist powers of the time among them, formed a military coalition explicitly aimed against another UN co-founder, the USSR, which they dramatically declared to feel “afraid of”.
What of joining the forces [of UN members] to maintain the peace? What of refraining from the threat of, or from the use of force? In 1950, the head of the US State Department declared: “One can only deal with the USSR is by creating situations of strength. That is the purpose of the arms program [for Western Europe].”
NATO’s creation was in fundamental contradiction with the spirit of the UN Charter, never mind the sophistry introduced in its statutes. Not only in March 1999 with the aggression against Yugoslavia, and not only in 2003 with its long occupation of Afghanistan, but from its very creation in 1949.
From the Korean War to the Ukrainian War
By June 1950, NATO was already involved in the Korean War. Under American command, five NATO member states[2] including Belgium joined the international military force that landed in Korea. The Korean conflict was NATO’s first real test, even though this was taking place on the other side of the world, as Truman and other NATO leaders openly stated.
Beyond the destruction of the USSR, NATO’s central objective was and remains to ensure the maintenance of “Western” hegemony over the world.
In 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved itself, leading to the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact[3]. But NATO did not dissolve, despite the disappearance of its official ‘raison d’être’. On the contrary, it was from 1991 onwards, and freed from any counterweight, that it was able to show its true colours as the armed wing of imperialism. From war to war, as main actor (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya) or as a secondary actor (Iraq, Syria), NATO has inexorably moved towards the next stage: the final subjugation of Russia.
Since the 1990s, the Alliance (NATO) had absorbed 16 new members, gradually moving closer to its target. In 2014, the United States and the EU crossed a fatal red line by shamelessly supporting a coup d’état in Kyiv [Ukraine] led by fascist paramilitary organizations, and providing NATO assistance to the Ukrainian’s regime war against the part of its population that had revolted against it. The direct Russian military intervention took place after 8 years of a horrific war that has been obscured here.
The current war is the culmination of a long war of NATO on Russia, which has been going on since well before 2014.
Three years after the outbreak of this open war of NATO against Russia, the hoped-for collapse of ‘the enemy’ has not occurred. And this in spite of the piling up of anti-Russian economic sanctions and the successive crossing of “red lines’.
It is essential to clearly identify NATO’s responsibility in this war in Ukraine. Failure to do so traps us in the media narrative of an “unprovoked aggression”, to which the only response is, of course, “the militarily defeat of the aggressor”, with any negotiation denounced as capitulation.
Building a global front against the war that NATO prepares
At the Hague Summit, NATO wants to plunge us into World War III and impose its “rules” on the entire world. The genocide of the people of Gaza by the fascist state of Israel is only made possible by the complacency, complicity, incitement, and collaboration of NATO’s main leaders.
The NATO Counter-Summit, which will be held simultaneously in the Netherlands and in all member countries of the Atlantic Alliance, can develop very important counter-power actions.
A broad front against NATO and its wars is being built. Everywhere, the same demands are rising:
Stop Militarization – No to the war economy – No to enriching the military-industrial complex – All GDP to be spent on the social and cultural progress of the people – Participatory and protagonist democracy to organize cooperation between the peoples of the world!
NATO Surveillance Committee, 21.6.25
www.csotan.org l groups.google.com/g/alerte-otan – info@csotan.org –
Feature image: mobilisation of Belgian organisations during the NATO counter-summit 21-22 June 2025.
*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&
Declaration
of the ‘Stop Militarisation’ Platform
Weapons make the world more dangerous
Stop the increase in military spending and the militarisation of our societies!
The genocide in Gaza, the war in Ukraine, Congo, Sudan and all the many other armed conflicts put the international system under very strong pressure. War is a horror and the search for solutions is essential. The Belgian government is considering only one option: more weapons and more military spending (see the analysis of the peace movement that accompanies this manifesto). But history shows that this does not lead to peace, nor does it guarantee “security”.
International security problems are rooted in socio-economic and environmental upheavals, looting and exploitation, or are the consequences of a lack of diplomacy and multilateral collective security mechanisms.
Reducing security to a question of armament and military confrontation presents enormous dangers. The increasingly sustained militarization of the international scene prevents multilateral cooperation, yet essential if we want to tackle urgent global problems, including poverty, hunger, housing, climate change, genocide, armed conflicts or nuclear threat. The continuous increase in military spending is organized at the expense of the resources necessary for the mechanisms that really ensure the security of individuals and the planet.
An inclusive security architecture, which gives central stage to diplomacy, disarmament, social justice and environmental sustainability must be at the heart of our approach to ensuring peace and security. We call on the government to thoroughly review the coalition agreement in this regard.
1. For a safe society, no increase in military spending
The Belgian military budget doubled between 2017 and 2024, from 3.9 billion euros to 7.9 billion euros. It benefited from two “recapitalization” cycles with financial injections of 9.2 billion (Michel government, 2019) and 10.2 billion (De Croo government, 2022). However, and despite the period of budgetary austerity announced for this legislature, the Arizona government still wants to increase Belgium’s military spending to 2% of GDP by 2029 and 2.5% by 2034. Meanwhile, the government even seems to want to accelerate its ambitions to reach the target of 2% already in 2025. This corresponds to an increase of 4.5 billion euros in the annual budget of the Belgian army – the equivalent of what is announced as savings on social spending and public services during this legislature.
However, according to the Secretary General of NATO, this remains insufficient. He called for further reduced spending on education, health and pensions to the benefit of military budgets. In view of its summit in June 2025, NATO is thus considering increasing the “budgetary standard” to at least 3%. Officially, this new “necessity” is felt because of the “Russian threat”. However, already today, Russia’s military spending represents barely 10% of that of NATO member states, and barely 1⁄3 of what European countries spend on their armies, while Russia is entangled in the swamp of the war in Ukraine. The possibility of Russia engaging in a military confrontation with a NATO member state is very questionable and does not legitimize this continued militarization.
We urge that the planned investments be reallocated to social security, public services, international solidarity, the fight against climate change or the reception of refugees. Towards all the mechanisms that actually and really participate in human security.
2. No sale of public assets for the benefit of the military industry
The government plans to draw a significant part of the resources intended for raising the army’s budget from a new “defence fund” to be created. This would be fueled by the sale of public assets. In practice, this means that funds from public property would be injected into the arms industry and into the purchase of war material, including additional fighter jets and a third frigate.
We oppose the privatisation of collective resources for the benefit of the military-industrial complex and recall that it is illusory to believe that more weapons will guarantee more security.
3. Diplomacy, de-escalation and mutual security guarantees
We reject a world order based on rivalries between power blocs aiming at geostrategic domination.
The end of the war in Ukraine may pave the way for a new awareness of the need to invest in an inclusive security system, based on the principle that security cannot be sought at the expense of others. Belgium can play a proactive role in establishing a peace agreement with Russia based on respect for international law, mutual security interests and disarmament. Diplomacy and de-escalation are the matrices of lasting peace.
It is imperative to pursue a proactive policy aimed at preserving and strengthening the multilateral system, international law and human rights.
4. The nuclear weapons, out of Belgium!
The war in Ukraine has once again made the danger of a nuclear confrontation perceptible. It is unacceptable that the government refuses to officially confirm the presence of US nuclear weapons on Belgian territory and refuses to communicate on the recent deployment of new B61-12 nuclear bombs in our country. These nuclear weapons make our country a target and increase insecurity. To deploy them, our country has also ordered thirty four F-35 fighter jets at an exorbitant cost. The government must put an end to secrecy and allow for a transparent debate. We want these weapons of mass destruction to leave our territory. The government can take the initiative for a denuclearized Europe and world. Belgium should adhere to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
5. A militaristic culture is not a culture of security
To convince the population to accept the increase in military spending and militarisation, the government wants to develop “a pan-societal approach” that wins the awareness of “the whole of society in a new culture of security”. In other words, it tries to scare the community. But the militarised culture of security does not let society understand, or meet, the major challenges facing humanity. We call for the active promotion of human rights, democracy and justice – in short, the promotion of a culture of peace, in which education plays a central role.
[1] “Arizona Government” in Belgium:
On 31 January 2025, a final agreement was reached between N-VA, CD&V, Vooruit, MR and Les Engagés, to form a so-called “Arizona coalition” named after the colours of the Arizona state flag. The new government is led by Bart de Wever, who is the first Flemish-Nationalist Prime Minister of Belgium. Wikipedia.
[2] The Five under US command that invaded Korea were UK, France, Belgium, Australia and Canada. Countries like New Zealand, Philippines, Ethiopia, Colombia, Greece and South Africa became involved too, plus Turkey and others like Luxemburg. Belgium effectively arrived in 1951.
[3] The Warsaw Pact brought together the USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Bulgaria
