International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation

EDITORIAL

Targets of Democracy - How NATO Lost Peace and War

„In Africa or central Europe, we will not allow, only because of differences in ethnic background or religion or racism, people to be attacked. We will stop that. ... We can do it now. We can do it tomorrow, if it is necessary, somewhere else. ... We are proud of what we did, because we think it's what America stands for."
(US-President Bill Clinton, during his visit of US troops in Skopje, on June 21, 1999)

In the last year of this millenium, the Kosovo war symbolizes the end of a violent century and brings up associations with the Holy Wars of Christianity. 900 years after the first crusade ended with conquering Jerusalem and slaughtering thousands on July 15, 1099, the occidental civilization again celebrated a victory ^__ if the NATO success stories were true. Although this time there were no religious motives, the contradiction between "bestiality and humanity" (as conceived by the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas) is not less useful to justify the eternal struggle between Bad and Good than it used to be between Muslims and Christians or between Darth Vader or Luke Skywalker in "Star Wars".

Therefore, NATO's air war did not, as the leading weekly German newspaper "Die Zeit" noted just on July 15, 1999, disprove Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations", but rather confirmed it. Western culture defines the world's standards, and those who have "not yet" achieved them risk being attacked. It was weird to watch the public in the developed countries jump into the trap of archaic "enemy" constructions. The monster which wants nothing but annihilation is mere fiction, just like the noble knight in his shining armor. There was no doubt that more than 30,000 NATO air raids, disposing much of its aging high-tech weaponry in Yugoslavia, would create immense suffering on the ground and destroy the environment, whether Depleted Uranium was used or not (see the analysis by Dan Fahey and Peter Diehl). But the slaughter was more than compensated for by the moral and ethical attitudes of the responsible Western leaders. Liberal, left or green governments became the keenest crusaders, tougher and more ideological than their conservative colleagues. For the Federal Republic of Germany, 50 years after its foundation and 10 years after unification, this war offered the opportunity - as Chancellor Schröder noted during his visit in Kosovo - to compensate for its ugly past with two World Wars, ignoring the fact that in all three wars it was Serbia who was attacked.

That the NATO war can be viewed quite differently has been demonstrated by the Swedish peace researcher Jan Øberg who before, during and after the war became a major source of information against the overwhelmingly biased mass media. For him the Western humanitarian bombardments of the civilian infrastructure were not better than the killings committed by Serbian forces on the ground. Actually high-tech weaponry proved to be more efficient in killing civilians than in hitting the Yugoslav military. The limits of air power became quite obvious and provoked questions about Western rhetorics of victory and "just war" (Doug Roche). Incapable to peacefully manage the conflict, NATO lost not only peace but also the war.

Those who tend to believe that the Kosovo war was an exception and has nothing to do with nuclear weapons or proliferation should read NATO's New Strategic Concept adopted at the NATO Summit during the war (see excerpts in this Bulletin). NATO feels now responsible for anything affecting its values and common interests which need to be protected by its military umbrella, including nuclear weapons. The "anywhere - anytime" attitude reflected in Clinton's speech of June 21 will hardly increase happiness in the potential target areas of NATO's loving care but create rather panic. Russia, China, India and many other countries necessarily perceive this attitude as Western expansionism, to impose "order" on the rest of world. The targets of democracy are frightened that the rich minorities decide for them, without asking the large majority of the world, represented by the United Nations.

What this implies for proliferation can easily be concluded from China's question whether NATO would have bombed a nuclear-armed Yugoslavia. Although a few developing countries seek reliance on nuclear security (as India demonstrates with its new nuclear strategy), this is no exit from the dilemma, since the US and NATO already prepare for the multi-nuclear world they are inducing. The magic words to exclude competitors are "counterproliferation", "ballistic missile defense" (BMD) and "space dominance". US political momentum for BMD has already spread to US allies like Israel, South Korea and Japan. Even Russia seems to give in to US requests to revise the ABM Treaty (see Anatoli Diakov, Paul Podvig and the Center for Policy Studies in Russia). If BMD is really deployed, severe implications for international security and stability are to be expected (Jürgen Scheffran), in particular if conventional weaponry becomes a threat to nuclear weapons (Qiu Yong).

The action-reaction cycle that unfolded so much destruction during the Cold War is back, and again it extends into the space arena. A conference in Darmstadt in March not only showed the dangers but also the requirements for a more ethical use of outer space ^__ while avoiding the concept of dominance (Regina Hagen, Jürgen Scheffran). The strong demand of the international community for the prevention of an arms race in space and peaceful uses of space (Wang Xiaoyu) so far has not found its way into international law (Hans-Joachim Heintze) and is undermined by the dual-use of satellite technology (Wulf von Kries).

Despite the negative trends, alternatives are still available. The START III negotiations point to the right direction, in spite of the BMD stumbling stone. To involve China, a verifiable agreement on no-first use could be negotiated (Li Bin). The 2000 NPT Review is on the agenda, but is in a severe crisis due to the recent events (Rebecca Johnson). While the cut-off negotiations in Geneva move slowly, proposals for a comprehensive cut-off convention need to be further developed (Martin Kalinowski) and emerging nuclear technologies must be critically analyzed (Christoph Pistner). A treaty for a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Europe, as drafted by the Vienna Peace Bureau, would be a signal that Europe can develop alternative paths to common security. And discussion of the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention, which has meanwhile been published in a new book (see the supplement to this Bulletin) could show that "security and survival" of mankind can be only achieved by cooperation, not by confrontation.

The world's power structures, still preventing necessary solutions, can only be changed from within the societies that elect the responsible decision-makers. The end of the Cold War and the ending century of violence offer opportunities to advance the path to a more peaceful world (Ron McCoy). The 100th Anniversary of the Peace Conferences at The Hague and St. Petersburg (Tobias Damjanov) were a powerful demonstration of the world's civil society. The abolition of nuclear weapons would be a necessary and vital sign that mankind is willing to prevent the risks of nuclear war (General Lee Butler), which ironically could be multiplied by the expected computer millenium bug. The year 2000 is an important date for the Abolition 2000 Network to reconsider its strategy after the target date has been reached without achieving the goal of abolition (David Krieger, Alice Slater, Pamela Meidell, Janet Bloomfield). More emphasis on civil disobedience and citizens inspections (Wolfgang Sternstein, Pol D'Huyvetter) will be important to strengthen the political momentum at the grassroots level of society.

Jürgen Scheffran