Dietrich Fischer is Co-Director, Transcend: A Peace & Development Network
Each of the panelists at the Consultation on NATO Nuclear Policy, National Missile Defence & Alternative Security Arrangement, held in Ottawa on September 28-31, 2001, was asked to submit a short paper relating to the topic of their presentation. The other Consultation participants were asked to submit brief papers responding to one or more of the following questions:
1. What changes to its nuclear policies should NATO be realistically asked to make, in the context of the current review, to move it towards fuller compliance with global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation obligations and imperatives?
2. Are there realistic and credible alternative means of addressing the security concerns that underlie current U.S. interest in missile defense?
3. What are the most realistic short-term or interim measures that should be taken by nuclear weapon states and nuclear alliances to demonstrate a commitment to significantly reducing the political legitimacy and value of nuclear weapons in order to contribute to the goal of elimination?
1. Why BMD is not the answer
Reagan’s defense secretary Caspar Weinberger, arguing for ballistic missile defense, inadvertently provided a strong arguments against it, saying, “If the Soviet Union got such a system first, we would face a grave danger, because they could launch their missiles without fear of retaliation.” The same is true in reverse.
It is doubtful that such a system would ever work reliably, but a leader who falsely believed it would work could be tempted to strike first. Therefore Russia and China announced they would have no choice but to increase their nuclear arsenals to penetrate any such system, precipitating a new nuclear arms race.
BMD would violate the ABM treaty and could unravel the whole process of arms control. Yet even if it worked perfectly, it could not protect against bombs in a suitcase, on a truck or sailboat.
The main beneficiaries and supporters are U.S. defense contractors, who hope to make an estimated $60 billion.
If the nuclear powers break their commitment under the ABM treaty gradually to eliminate all nuclear weapons, this double standard encourages “countries of concern” (formerly rogue nations) and terrorist groups to acquire their own nuclear weapons.
Some have argued that we can never disinvent nuclear weapons and thus will have to live with them as long as civilization exists. But nobody has disinvented cannibalism either, we simply abhor it. We must equally abhor the thought of incinerating entire cities. The abolition of nuclear weapons with thorough verification is a totally realistic goal – we already have treaties banning biological and chemical weapons – and is necessary for human survival.
2. Focus on Prevention
Rather than waiting until war erupts and then responding with military force, it is far preferable to pursue an “active peace policy” that seeks to detect potential violent conflicts early and transform them peacefully. Conflict itself is not necessarily bad – sometimes it helps change unjust conditions – but violent conflict can and must be prevented.
It is unlikely that two NATO members would go to war with each other. If they disagree, there are numerous institutions, including the OSCE, EU, OECD and NATO itself with mechanisms to resolve differences peacefully. For example, when the UK believed it paid excessive contributions to the then EEC, Prime Minister Thatcher and President Mitterrand, the rotating EEC chair, negotiated a reduced assessment. Neither side ever dreamt of using its heavy artillery. Such institutions must be expanded, with emphasis on economic and political, not only military cooperation.
Recommendation 1: Hold SUMMIT MEETINGS twice a year among NATO and former Warsaw Treaty members (like the G-8 summits) – with parallel meetings among members of civil society – to address common concerns.
During the 1980s, the greatest fear of a Balkan war focused on Romania with its ethnic Hungarian minority. But a small NGO, the Project on Ethnic Relations, brought senior Rumanian officials together with Hungarian minority representatives and helped them reach an agreement allowing the Hungarians to use their own language in schools and local papers, in return for a promise not to seek secession. This effort, which cost only a few thousand dollars, may well have helped avoid a civil war. By comparison, military interventions can cost billions. Expelling Iraq from Kuwait cost $100 billion, not including the damage caused. Most importantly, preventing war saves many lives.
A similar initiative helped bring peace to Ecuador and Peru, which have fought four border wars since 1941. Although this conflict is outside of the North-Atlantic region, similar principles apply everywhere. Johan Galtung suggested to Ecuador’s incoming president in 1995 to make the contested territory a binational zone with a natural park. He was at first skeptical, but proposed it to Peru, which agreed, with minor modifications, leading to a peace treaty. Creative imagination can often help find mutually acceptable outcomes.
Recommendation 2: Create a permanent CENTER FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION under OSCE auspices where members from conflicting parties from around the world – official and unofficial – can jointly explore peaceful solutions to their problems, assisted by experienced mediators. Combine it with a TRAINING CENTER FOR PEACEFUL CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION for young diplomats, peacekeepers, teachers and others.
The safest security policy has many redundant components, so that if one fails, others can back it up.
The United Nations has been remarkably successful in preventing aggression across borders, the main task for which it was created, but it was explicitly prevented from helping avoid civil wars, considered interference into member states’ internal affairs. Thus civil wars still abound.
A first approach to preventing civil war is to remove the underlying sources of grievance, such as denying minority rights, including the right to use their own language. Sri Lanka’s policy of making Sinhalese the sole national language in 1956 caused deep resentment among the Tamil minority and sparked a civil war that continues. Switzerland prints elementary school textbooks for its 1% Romansch minority in five different dialects. Though costly, this is far cheaper than fighting a civil war.
Recommendation 3: GRANTING MINORITIES HIGH DEGREES OF AUTONOMY, if they wish, and treating them well, can avoid discontent that may lead to civil war.
Violence erupted in Kosova after Milosevic withdrew its autonomy. When the French-speaking minority in the Jura region of the Canton Bern, Switzerland, chose in a 1978 referendum to form its separate canton, this ended a simmering conflict between French-speaking Catholics and German-speaking Protestants. Similar solutions might defuse tensions in Northern Ireland and Turkey’s Kurdish region.
Granting people self-determination is no guarantee that they will always make the best decisions, but they will learn from their own mistakes. However, they resent a central authority forcing them to act against their own interests. Self-determination can help avoid such conflicts.
Mutually beneficial trade and cooperation can help reduce international conflicts. The EU, which began as Coal and Steel Union – Jean Monnet’s brainchild – has ended the century old cycle of wars between Germany and France. Similar types of cooperation should now be developed between NATO and the former Warsaw Treaty members, to prevent another Cold War.
Recommendation 4: Expand EAST-WEST COOPERATION through such projects as building a high speed rail network connecting all of Europe; jointly developing less polluting and energy-saving production methods; expanding the free flow of people, ideas and goods; joint medical and scientific research, including space exploration; deep mutual arms reductions.
If conflicts emerge, there are many approaches to resolve them, through negotiations, mediation or arbitration. For example, the United States and Canada took a dispute over fishing rights before an arbitration panel, both pledging to accept the verdict, whatever it may be. The proposed CENTER FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION can help defuse potentially violent conflicts at an early stage.
Recommendation 5: Support the INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT to bring individuals who commit human rights violations, aggression or genocide to justice.
Recommendation 6: Create a STANDING PEACEKEEPING FORCE that can rapidly repel aggression or respond to natural or industrial disasters. Preventive stationing – as in Macedonia – may sometimes avert war.
Recommendation 7: BAN WEAPONS EXPORTS to countries at war and to regimes violating human rights (Oscar Arias).
4. A comprehensive security policy
We must seek protection not only from war, but from any threats to human life or well-being, including disease, pollution, poverty and human rights violations. The 1918 flu epidemic alone took twice as many lives as World War I! New dangers after the Cold War include drug addiction, AIDS, corruption, terrorism and streams of refugees that strain social services.
Recommendation 8: DRUG EDUCATION AND REHABILITATION to reduce demand is essential to eliminate the profitability of the drug trade with its associated crime.
Recommendation 9: To OPPOSE TERRORISM AT ITS SOURCE, help search for just solutions to conflicts everywhere (Johan Galtung) and refuse to pay ransom which encourages more terrorism.
Recommendation 10: Greater DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION AND MEASURES TO REDUCE POVERTY, INCLUDING DEBT RELIEF, are necessary to avert huge streams of future economic refugees (Jan Tinbergen). Fences will not suffice. Grant ASYLUM TO THOSE PERSECUTED to undermine tyrants by depriving them of their best citizens (Johan Galtung).
5. Concluding Remark
The best security policy seeks to identify potential problems early and to resolve them before they escalate. Waiting until a disaster occurs before reacting to it would be like driving a car with closed eyes, waiting to hit an obstacle and then calling an ambulance, instead of anticipating and avoiding dangers.
Fischer, Dietrich (1993), Nonmilitary Aspects of Security: A Systems Approach. A report to the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research. Brookfield, Vermont: Dartmouth.
Galtung, Johan, and Carl G. Jacobsen (2000), Searching for Peace: the Road to TRANSCEND. With contributions by Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen and Finn Tschudi. London: Pluto Press.
Galtung, Johan (1996), Peace by Peaceful Means. London, New Delhi, and Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.