This is from the Australian. I am surprised there is not more discussion of this document. What the manifesto in effect declares follows along with the US strategy of pre-emptive strikes. Under the UN such strikes are gross violations of the charter and in no way can be justified by the right of self defence which is much more limited.
What this hypocritical self-righteous manifesto claims is that in order to stop the use of WMD (by those who do not yet have them) use of WMD is justified. In other words use of WMD is fine even in a pre-emptive manner as long as it by those who already have them. This is a far cry from what historically was a promise of no first strike policy a policy that worked during the Cold War. The West is code for a NATO policy led by the US.
There is no word of how China and Russia are to fit in with this policy. Presumably Israel can claim to be justified in attacking Iran and try out its own nuclear weapons on Iran if it feels so inclined.
If this document is accepted by NATO the UN will become even less relevant than it already is. Creeps such as John Bolton will be smiling. Canada of course will have no compunction with belonging to a body that recommends such a policy. Surprisingly there are no Canadian generals among this group. Maybe none were asked to join or sign on.
Pre-emptive nuclear strikes an option January 22, 2008
THE West must be prepared to carry out pre-emptive nuclear strikes to halt the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, a radical new manifesto argues.
The document - written by five of the West's most senior military officers and strategists - has been presented to the Pentagon and NATO's secretary-general.
They argue there is a need for urgent and comprehensive reform of NATO, The Guardian reports.
A new pact - involving the United States, NATO and the European Union - was also essential to face the challenges ahead, they said.
The manifesto is likely to be discussed at a NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, in April, the paper said.
The authors include some of the top defence minds in the West, including General John Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff and NATO's ex-supreme commander in Europe.
The others are General Klaus Naumann, Germany's former top soldier and ex-chairman of NATO's military committee; General Henk van den Breemen, a former Dutch chief of staff; Admiral Jacques Lanxade, a former French chief of staff; and Lord Inge, field marshal and ex-chief of the general staff and the defence staff in the United Kingdom.
The former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a "first strike" nuclear option remains an "indispensable instrument" as there is "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world", The Guardian reports.
It said the manifesto had been written following discussions with active commanders and policymakers, many of whom were unable or unwilling to publicly air their views.
"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 authors wrote, according to The Guardian.
"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."
It identified a number of key threats to the West's values and way of life, including international terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction and political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.
It also cited the weakening of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO and the EU.
To prevail, they said, NATO's decision-taking methods must be overhauled, moving to a majority rather than a consensus model, putting an end to national vetoes.
A new "directorate" of US, European and NATO leaders must also be established to respond rapidly to crises.
The five also proposed the use of force without UN security council authorisation when "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings,'' The Guardian reported.
Ron Asmus, head of the German Marshall Fund thinktank in Brussels and a former senior US state department official, described the manifesto as "a wake-up call''.
"This report means that the core of the NATO establishment is saying we're in trouble, that the West is adrift and not facing up to the challenges," he told the paper.
Naumann admitted the plan's retention of the nuclear first strike option was "controversial'' even among the five authors.
But he said proliferation was spreading, and NATO needed to show "there is a big stick that we might have to use if there is no other option", he said.
Inge argued that "to tie our hands on first use or no first use removes a huge plank of deterrence."
- AAP
No comments:
Post a Comment