Merkel’s Muslim Mass-Migration Broke The NATO Treaty
Brenda Walker’s December 5, 2017 article Europe: Troops Battle Burnout as Well as Muslim Mass Murderers discusses yet another drawback of mass Muslim migration, that is, the need to use regular soldiers in the role of police, to quell Muslim attacks. But the troops are not being used to fight terror: when the police make precision raids on extremist hideouts, they are fighting terror; when a nation deploys thousands of troops to protect citizens from a violent minority, it is fighting an insurgency. [Soldiers guard Europe’s streets from terrorism. Critics say that weakens them in war. MSN, December 4, 201]
As Ms. Walker points out, deploying Europe’s armies for domestic counter-insurgency duties results in reduced training and availability for conventional NATO war operations. And Ms. Walker rightly brings attention to the fact that it is the mass-migration policies of West European governments, which fostered the conditions the continent-wide Muslim insurgency. She might also have asked by what authority West European governments brought this crisis upon the West? As it turns out, under the NATO Treaty, they have no authority at all.
NATO’s mission statement reads, in part: “The Parties to this Treaty…are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples.”
Thus, NATO members are obligated to protect and preserve the freedoms, traditions, and posterity of the historic peoples of Europe.
Article 8 of the Treaty reads, in part:
“Each Party…undertakes not to enter into any international engagement [that is] in conflict with this Treaty.”
Therefore, any EU diktat or agreement which opposes the NATO mission of protecting the freedom, common heritage and posterity of the historic peoples of Europe, is void and without legal force.
And what does the NATO Treaty say about all the chaos imported to the Continent by Chancellor Angela Merkel?
Article 2 of the Treaty reads: “The Parties will…promote conditions of [internal] stability and well-being.”
A child can see that Merkel’s Muslim refugee policy has brought nothing but murder and destruction to the cities of Germany and thus, violates Article 2 of the NATO Treaty.
How is it that for the last 60 years, no one knew that NATO’s first mission is to protect the historic peoples of Europe? How is it that no one knew that Muslim and Third World migration is in conflict with this mission? Like medieval peasants listening to a Latin Mass, the people and nations heard, but did not understand. Whenever Article 5 for collective defense has been invoked, all nod in stupefaction, none asking about the NATO Treaty’s other articles. Europe and America continue to bring gifts to the NATO Shrine, but never ask what the NATO God gives in return. And now Germany, which is already beset by over a million Muslim refugees, with thousands more arriving each week, will find itself in the embarrassing position of requiring NATO assistance to restore internal stability.
Perhaps this is a sign that the NATO Treaty has outlived its usefulness. While it may promote European political integration, none of the signatories acceded to a suicide pact. And it is understood that “when a treaty becomes dangerous or incompatible with the independence of a state, or a permanent obstacle to…the rights of its people, it can be abrogated”. [John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia of the Law (Buffalo, William S. Hein Company, 1984) V.3, 3313.]