The last time the U.S. President and UK Prime Minister announced an “Atlantic Charter” it happened in secret, without
public involvement, without Congress or Parliament. It laid out plans for shaping the world upon the conclusion of a war
that the U.S. President, but not the U.S. Congress and not the U.S. public, was committed to taking part in. It decreed
that certain nations would need to be disarmed, and others not. Yet it put forward various pretenses of goodness and
fairness that have long vanished from U.S. and British politics.
Now here come Joe and Boris with their new royally-decreed “Atlantic Charter” that they’ve released while stirring up
hostility toward Russia and China, continuing wars on Afghanistan and Syria, fending off the possibility of peace with
Iran, and pushing for the biggest military spending since the days of the first Atlantic Charter. It’s important to
recognize that these documents are not laws, not treaties, not the creations of the Atlantic Ocean or of all nations
bordering it, and not anything anyone need accept or feel bad about lining a bird cage with. It’s also worth noticing
the worsening and coarsening of these sorts of statements over the past 80 years.
The first Atlantic Charter claimed falsely to seek “no aggrandizement, territorial or other,” “no territorial changes
that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned,” self-government and equal access to
resources and “improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security” for everyone on earth. Its authors
were even obliged to claim they favored peace and believed “that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well
as spiritual reasons must come to the abandonment of the use of force.” They even blasphemed against the military
budget, claiming that they would “aid and encourage all other practicable measure which will lighten for peace-loving
peoples the crushing burden of armaments.”
The reboot is less dressed up in universalist goodness. Instead it is focused on dividing the world into allies, on the
one hand, and justifications for weapons spending, on the other hand: “We commit to working closely with all partners
who share our democratic values and to countering the efforts of those who seek to undermine our alliances and
institutions.” Of course, these gentlemen work for governments that have few if any “democratic values,” that function
as oligarchies, and that are feared — in particular the U.S. government — by much of the world as threats to democracy.
“We will champion transparency, uphold the rule of law, and support civil society and independent media. We will also
confront injustice and inequality and defend the inherent dignity and human rights of all individuals.” This from a U.S.
President whose Secretary of State was asked last week by Congresswoman Ilhan Omar how victims of U.S. wars could seek
justice given U.S. opposition to the International Criminal Court, and he had no answer. The U.S. is party to fewer
human rights treaties than almost any other nation, and is the top abuser of the veto in the UN Security Council, as
well as the top dealer of weapons to both those it wants to define as “democracies” and those it seeks to oppose as
beyond the pale, not to mention being the top spender on and engager in wars.
“We will work through the rules-based international order [he who rules gives the orders] to tackle global challenges together; embrace the promise and manage the peril of emerging technologies; promote
economic advancement and the dignity of work; and enable open and fair trade between nations.” This from the U.S.
government that just blocked the G7 from reducing the burning of coal.
Then there’s this: “[W]e remain united behind the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the peaceful
resolution of disputes. We oppose interference through disinformation or other malign influences, including in
elections.” Except in Ukraine. And Belarus. And Venezuela. And Bolivia. And — well, in virtually every location in
outerspace anyway!
The world gets a nod in the new Atlantic Charter, but only after a big dose of America (and UK)-Firstism: “[W]e resolve
to harness and protect our innovative edge in science and technology to support our shared security and deliver jobs at
home; to open new markets; to promote the development and deployment of new standards and technologies to support
democratic values; to continue to invest in research into the biggest challenges facing the world; and to foster
sustainable global development.”
Then comes a commitment to war, not a pretense of peace: “[W]e affirm our shared responsibility for maintaining our
collective security and international stability and resilience against the full spectrum of modern threats, including
cyber threats [which NATO and the U.S. have now called grounds for actual war]. We have declared our nuclear deterrents
to the defence of NATO and as long as there are nuclear weapons, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance. [This just days
before Biden and Putin meet to fail to engage in nuclear disarmament.] Our NATO Allies and partners will always be able
to count on us, even as they continue to strengthen their own national forces. We pledge to promote the framework of
responsible State behaviour in cyberspace, arms control, disarmament, and proliferation prevention measures to reduce
the risks of international conflict [with the exception of supporting any actual treaties to ban cyber attacks or
weapons in space or weapons of any kind]. We remain committed to countering terrorists who threaten our citizens and
interests [not that we know how an interest can be terrorized, but we’re concerned that Russia, China, and UFOs might
not scare every citizen].”
“High labor standards” in the updated charter become something to “innovate and compete through” rather than something
to promote globally. Gone is any commitment to avoiding “aggrandizement, territorial or other,” or “territorial changes
that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned” especially in Crimea. Missing is any
devotion to self-government and equal access to resources for everyone on earth. Abandonment of the use of force has
been abandoned in favor of a commitment to nuclear weapons. The notion that armaments are a burden would have been
incomprehensible, had it been included, for the intended audience: those profiting from the steady march toward
apocalypse.
David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is executive director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee.
Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook.
Help support DavidSwanson.org, WarIsACrime.org, and TalkNationRadio.org by clicking here:
Sign up for these emails at