[Peace-discuss] proposal to NATO: "pre-emptive" nuclear strikes, "without ratification by the UN", and even "abandoning consensus decision making [within NATO]"

[C. G. Estabrook]

[The story broke in the British press - viz. the Guardian, to which a copy was 
apparently leaked -- but Google so far has no mentions from US MSM. An account 
from a blog, below.  --CGE]

	MotherJones.com / News / MoJo Blog
	New 'Manifesto' Suggests Preemptive Nuclear Strikes
	01/23/08 at 3:15 PM

The West should strike first, and with nuclear weapons, if necessary. So says a 
new, 150-page "manifesto" penned by five retired senior NATO officers and 
military strategists and distributed over the last 10 days to Pentagon officials 
and NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. First reported yesterday by 
the Guardian's Ian Traynor, who managed to obtain a copy of the secret document, 
the manifesto forms the collective opinion of prominent military thinkers from 
the United States, the UK, Germany, France, and the Netherlands -- including 
former NATO commander and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman John Shalikashvili.

"The risk of further [nuclear] proliferation is imminent and, with it, the 
danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become 
possible," the report's authors conclude. "The first use of nuclear weapons must 
remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use 
of weapons of mass destruction." The former military chiefs go on to 
characterize the "first strike" nuclear option as "indispensable" and claim 
flatly that there is "no realistic prospect of a nuclear free world."

The report cites growing political and religious fanaticism, globalization, 
natural resource scarcity, and the weakening power of the nation state and 
international organizations like NATO, the UN, and the EU, as drivers of 
increasing world instability. To deal with this, the generals urge significant 
reforms to how NATO does business, including the establishment of a new 
"directorate", comprised of U.S., European, and NATO leaders, that would respond 
more quickly to events than NATO has done in the past, largely due to rivalry 
among NATO member nations and EU obstructionism. Other suggested changes, as 
reported in the Guardian article:

# A shift from consensus decision-taking in NATO bodies to majority voting, 
meaning faster action through an end to national vetoes.

# The abolition of national caveats in NATO operations of the kind that plague 
the Afghan campaign.

# No role in decision-taking on NATO operations for alliance members who are not 
taking part in the operations.

# The use of force without UN security council authorization when "immediate 
action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings".

The manifesto, Traynor suggests, will be discussed at the NATO summit in 
Bucharest this April. As for the controversial position on nuclear first strikes 
the report stakes out, Klaus Naumann -- Germany's former top soldier, former 
NATO military committee chairman, and manifesto co-author -- admits that even 
the generals had misgivings about making the recommendation, but finally agreed 
that they should leave the first strike option on the table. "Proliferation is 
spreading, and we have not too many options to stop it," Naumann said. "We don't 
know how to deal with this." -Bruce Falconer

Stuart Levy wrote:
> Seen in theregister.co.uk, drawn from The Telegraph (UK).
> I haven't seen this mentioned elsewhere.  Has anyone heard of this appalling
> proposal in the US press?
> 
> `... nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible ...'
> How would that limit get set, now?
> 
> 
>    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/22/nato_nuke_proposal/
> 
> or, original Telegraph story at:
> 
>    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=0WBIK4WKC1ELDQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/22/wnato122.xml
> 
> Here's The Register's version:
> 
> A group of former senior military officials has said that Nato must be prepared
> to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes to "ward off the use of weapons of mass
> destruction by its enemies", the Telegraph reports.
> 
> The authors of the "blueprint for reforming Nato" - which was written after its
> authors were "briefed by senior serving military officials who are unable to
> speak publicly about their concerns with Nato's military strategy" - include
> the former British chief of the defence staff, Lord Peter Inge, and US General
> John Shalikashvili, former Nato commander in Europe and chairman of the US
> joint chiefs of staff.
> 
> In it, they stress the need to rethink "Nato's approach to defending its
> members and their interests" and describe first-strike nukes as an
> "indispensible instrument" against foes bearing WMDs. The report says: "The
> risk of further proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear
> war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible.
> 
> "The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as
> the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction."
> 
> Inge reportedly comments: "To tie our hands on first use or no first use
> removes a huge plank of deterrence."
> 
> To make the pre-emptive strike option viable, the report proposes a major
> shake-up of the way Nato operates, including "abandoning consensus decision
> making so fast action can be taken without the threat of vetoes and caveats
> imposed by some nations".
> 
> It also suggests military action "without ratification by the UN" when
> "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings".
> 
> The report, which has been delivered to Nato and Pentagon officials, may be
> discussed at a Nato summit in Bucharest in April, the Telegraph notes.
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss