America First Party denounces potential Ukraine, Georgia NATO membership

In a press release penned by Chairman Jon Hill, the America First Party discusses the pitfalls of accepting Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, calling it a “Very Bad and Dangerous Idea” in light of the obligations of the Cold War era alliance in relation to the South Ossetian war and ongoing tensions between Russia and its neighbors:

Like other treaties which have ensnared nations in bloody carnage during the last century, the NATO treaty provides a war guarantee; it commits the United States and its forces to heroic sacrifice and potentially to dangerous escalations with other nuclear armed nations. The treaty considers an attack on any alliance nation as an attack on all the member nations, and ensures the response of the alliance, militarily and in any other way deemed necessary, to restore the peace.

The recent nonsensical war in Georgia and the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia (effectively independent of Georgia since 1991 and 1992, respectively) and the Russian intervention, illustrate the risk of extending NATO. Russian President Medvedev recently affirmed that Russia’s response would have been identical if Georgia had already been in the alliance. If Georgia had been part of NATO at the time of the Russian intervention, there is great possibility that the U.S. and Russia would now be at war.

The danger of this contingency is highlighted by the Russian reliance on nuclear weapons to compensate for their degraded conventional military capability; their 2000 Military Doctrine and large scale military exercises indicate a preparedness to respond to conventional attacks on themselves and their allies, including attacks by NATO, with massive nuclear counterstrikes.

Hill continues by arguing that perhaps the U.S.’s own membership isn’t the best idea either:

In addition to the current danger of present NATO policy, U.S. membership in the alliance is inappropriate for other reasons. As our party platform states, NATO is illegal under U.S. law because the alliance claims “authority to direct our nation’s armed forces into a war [armed conflict] without the constitutional requirement of Congress declaring war. Since NATO no longer serves a defensive purpose for the United States, it is therefore time that we withdraw from NATO and permit Europe the task of defending itself.”

5 thoughts on “America First Party denounces potential Ukraine, Georgia NATO membership

  1. G.E.

    Yes, Georgia was playing the role of Lincoln and attempting to prevent peaceful secession. I guess that’s “nonsensical,” although a better word could be used.

  2. Hugh Jass

    Why doesn’t the America First Party join the Constitution Party, since they have the same ideology and the latter group has more members.

  3. Vin

    His logic is a bit flawed in that I believe Congress ratified our membership in NATO, which obliges the US to come to the defense either militarily or economically, with the military option under the command and control of US military and civilian leadership.

    Of course the last time NATO was invoked was after 9/11 when we were attacked. Think that maybe Mr. Hill is oversimplifying the role of NATO, although his argument about declarations of war is valid and credible.

  4. Andy Craig

    Hugh-

    It’s all part of the plan to have every non-Republican/non-Democrat voter establish their own political party and only vote for themselves.

  5. Fred Church Ortiz Post author

    Why doesn’t the America First Party join the Constitution Party, since they have the same ideology and the latter group has more members.

    Immediately after breaking from the Reform Party there was talk of this, however the AFP’s growth momentum was strong and the argument revolved around “Why don’t they merge with us, then?” There was also some brief talk about bringing the USIAP into the fold, but that didn’t go anywhere either.

    The second chairman thought it was a good idea and started something called “The Clarion Call Committee” towards that end, but after its formation that was the last I heard of it, and the folks left behind after various splits and shuffles have a bad taste in their mouths over it. The bylaws now say the AFP can never merge with another party, but I don’t think that was the case when all this was happening.

    They still ended up endorsing Peroutka in 04, I imagine they’ll do the same for Baldwin.

    His logic is a bit flawed in that I believe Congress ratified our membership in NATO, which obliges the US to come to the defense either militarily or economically, with the military option under the command and control of US military and civilian leadership.

    That’s how I understood it as well, I think he might be confusing it with the way UN forces work (someone correct me if I’m wrong).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *