next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
Colleagues- Eric Fawcett suggested I send this one out for discussion. It was prepared in a UK context but is general in nature. ******************************************************************************** A propos prospective "NATO" meetings. As I see it three levels of discussion are possible. Firstly, is NATO's existence justified? If NATO were an absolute evil then one should work towards its extinction and not bother about its policies or procedures. But organizations can incorporate policies that are themselves undesirable without totally prejudicing the valid existence of the organization. Thus the support of both (most) State and Federal governments in the US for capital punishment (an absolute evil) does not necessarily mean that those institutions themselves are irreparably corrupt; as opposed to the relationship between the Third Reich and German policies towards the Jews, where the policy became so much a raison-d'etre of the state that no rescue of the state was possible. I suspect that NATO lies somewhere in between these two examples. Although one can also imagine worlds without NATO, some of which would be better worlds, there is no obvious path from here to there. I am prepared therefore to discuss its policies and procedures in the hope of helping to achieve some improvement. This at least gives us some hope, as the demise of NATO in the near future is hard to envisage except under such circumstances that the cure might be worse than the disease. Secondly therefore, can NATO's procedures be changed? One of the worrying aspects of the Balkan war was the predominance of military over civilian decision-making and the failure of most NATO governments (except possibly the USA) to engage in any democratic discussion of the decision-making. Chirac claims to have vetoed certain military targets but it is not clear if this veto was available to other or all NATO heads of state and if it was whether they used it. It seems unlikely to me that the targeting of Serb TV, which led to deliberate civilian deaths, could have been explicitly approved in advance by all NATO heads (but perhaps they should be asked). It is even more unlikely that all NATO parliaments would have voted in favour of such targeting. It is unavoidable that if a NATO country were under serious attack that rapid military decisions would be made by it and the other NATO nations without prolonged debate. But if NATO is now projecting itself 'out of theatre' as a "parapolice" authority nearly autonomous of the UN then decision-making needs clarification. If possible bodies such as the NATO assembly should be made democratically functional and should be called into session if and when actions of the Balkan war type are taken in the future. Thirdly, can NATO's policies be changed? We probably all think that NATO's present nuclear policy as well as being immoral and illegal does not reflect today's political or even military realities. We can also be concerned about non-nuclear military policies, including the pressure on new and old NATO members to arm themselves with weaponry defined by NATO, and to a level determined by NATO, and to the use by NATO of weaponry such as cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells that may breach international conventions and are certainly morally questionable even by non-pacifists. We are deeply concerned about any decision to go to war. We might also ask that NATO's political policies be determined democratically, and that potentially destabilizing decisions such as the admission of Eastern European countries and the extension of NATO's remit to non-NATO parts of the world not be undertaken without the broadest discussion and debate. The relationship between NATO and the UN and the connections between NATO reform and possible UN reform should also be examined. ************************************************************ My view is therefore that any NATO discussion meetings preparatory to NATO's Brussels meeting in December should include coverage of all three areas. But the procedures and (non-military) policy areas should have a substantial presence. We should avoid looking either like purely anti-NATO rallies or branches of the anti-nuclear weapons movement because that could sideline the event(s) and the participants. If possible representatives of NATO could be invited to attend. Roland Kruger from NATO took part in the Hague meeting by HAP invitation. ****************************************************************************** Peter Nicholls, Department of Biological Sciences, Central Campus, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, CO4 3SQ, England. Tel.: +44-1206-873776 (office) +44-1206-873333 (ex. 3015) (Lab) Fax : +44-1206-872592 e-mail : pnicholl@essex.ac.uk http://www.essex.ac.uk/bcs/staff/nicholls/
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects