Peace researchers challenge NATO 2030 project

NATO Watch, which conducts independent monitoring and analysis of NATO and aims to increase transparency and accountability within the Alliance, has issued a press release recording peace researchers’ challenge to the NATO 2030 project which proposes that NATO adapts itself for an era of strategic rivalry with Russia and China.

NATO Defence Ministers, meeting via secure teleconference on Wednesday and Thursday (17-18 February 2021), are expected to discuss the next steps in the NATO 2030 project and review an expert group report, NATO 2030: United for a New Era. This is a process that will ultimately lead to the alliance’s first new Strategic Concept since 2010.

“NATO has to adapt itself for an era of strategic rivalry with Russia and China, for the return of a geopolitical competition that has a military dimension but also a political one’’.

Dr Wess Mitchell (above), co-chair of the NATO report, described this as the main message of the NATO report.

This approach could help to entrench a systemic three bloc rivalry between China, Russia and NATO-EU-US, with all the attendant risks – from nuclear war to weakening cooperation when addressing the existential threat of climate change and future pandemics.

NATO Watch therefore asked a group of ten peace researchers to assess the NATO expert group report. Their analysis is published today in a new report, Peace research perspectives on NATO 2030: A response to the official NATO Reflection Group. It  argues, among other things, that:

• The NATO expert group’s analysis of past events and future trends, especially in relation to Russia, arms control and violations of international law, are riddled with biases and omissions;
• Concepts like ‘human security’, as well as the ‘women, security and peace’ and ‘climate change’ agendas, have been co-opted by and reshaped by military actors like NATO;
• Adopting a pre-occupation with great power competition will lead to a costly and dangerous arms race and risk a nuclear war with either China or Russia; and
• NATO’s partnerships in the South are largely based on self-interest and military security rather than being rooted in the complex mix of problems faced by countries in North Africa and the Sahel.

Among the alternative proposals are strengthening dialogue and the search for common ground with China and Russia, de-collectivizing the nuclear sharing policy in NATO and withdrawing all remaining US tactical nuclear weapons from Europe.

The pandemic has revealed fundamental flaws in the strategies many states employ to provide security for their people. New efforts are needed to reduce the chances of nuclear war and achieve nuclear disarmament, address climate change and strengthen defences against future pandemics.

“Based on the expert group report, NATO is not up to this task”, said NATO Watch director Dr. Ian Davis. “Instead, NATO is doubling down on the militarist approaches to security and conflict that have not worked. A more comprehensive and honest reflection of NATO is necessary by all of its members”, he added.

The report is available here

 

 

 

o

NATO applauds the start of intra-Afghan peace negotiations

Ian Davis, founding director of NATO Watch,  sent this mailing today. He and his associates “are the eyes and ears for monitoring developments across an Alliance that directly affects over 20% of the global population”.

14 September 2020

On 12 September 2020, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg spoke via video link at the opening ceremony of intra-Afghan negotiations held in Doha, under the chairmanship of the Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “With the start of intra-Afghan negotiations, we are entering a new phase of the Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace process,” the NATO Secretary General said. “Afghans want peace and so does the international community, which has supported Afghanistan on this long, hard road,” he added.

In a statement the North Atlantic Council urged the Afghan government and the Taliban to “fulfil their commitments to the peace process initiated by the US-Taliban agreement and the US-Afghanistan Joint Declaration” and called on “the Taliban to take decisive steps toward ending violence” and to build “on the progress of the last 19 years to safeguard the human rights of all Afghans, particularly women, children, and minorities, uphold the rule of law, and ensure that Afghanistan never again serves as a safe haven for terrorists”.

The statement also reaffirmed the alliance’s “longstanding commitment to Afghanistan, the Afghan people, and the Afghan security forces”. “We went into Afghanistan together, we are adjusting together, and when the conditions are right, we will leave together”, it said.

The start of the talks were also welcomed by the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said the talks are a “major opportunity to achieve the long-held aspirations of the people of Afghanistan for peace” and called for a complete cease-fire “to protect civilians and to de-escalate the conflict in order to save lives and to create a conducive environment”. Guterres stressed the need for participation of women in the peace process and the future development of Afghanistan, for which he said the UN will extend its full support. Yousef Al-Othaimeen, secretary general of the OIC, commended the countries who played a key role in making the talks possible, while urging all parties to ensure that the negotiations prove to be constructive, help resolve differences, and lead to comprehensive reconciliation. “Dialogue is the only option that leads to peace, security, and stability for the people of Afghanistan and their country,” he said.

The peace talks became possible after Afghan officials and the Taliban reached a compromise over the release of prisoners at the beginning of the month. The Taliban demanded the release of 5000 prisoners as a precondition for negotiations, a request that initially stalled talks between the parties for months. The Afghan government has since complied and freed all but seven prisoners on the list. The Trump administration is hoping that the negotiations will lead to a further withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan; the US troop level is already down to around 8,600 from around 12,000. The NATO mission is also in the process of reducing troop numbers from about 16,000 troops to roughly 12,000 troops and is also preparing to make further reductions.

 

 

 

,

Calls for Britain to stop recruiting adolescents to the armed forces

David Collins, a Committee member of the Movement for the Abolition of War of Friends of Le Monde Diplomatique and of Veterans For Peace UK, recently got in touch and has been added to our mailing list.

A search revealed a video on VfP’s website, “Made in the Royal Navy”, published by Child Rights International Network (CRIN). The film charges the British army with intentionally targeting young people from deprived backgrounds for the most dangerous front-line jobs. It plays on the natural anxiety in boys and young men about how they are going to become a man and go out into the world. Its message is that the Navy will remake the raw youth into a heroic version of the inadequate boy that they once were.

The actual experience of most of these youngsters is set out in a report published in August 2019: Conscription by Poverty? Deprivation and army recruitment in the UK.

This is a long-standing concern of many on our mailing list. In 2011, Britain’s child soldiers – 2 reminded readers that, twelve years earlier, the BBC had reported the British Army was being urged by the United Nations to stop sending young soldiers into war.

Following Symon Hill’s work in The Friend, the Ekklesia website, and a Nato Watch article, an article by Michael Bartlet, Parliamentary Liaison Secretary for Quakers in Britain, pointed out that “with the exception of Russia, and apprentices in Ireland, the British Army is unique in Europe in recruiting at the age of 16. Of 14,185 recruits into the army last year, 3,630 or over 25%, joined under the age of 18 . . . Deprivation and army recruitment in the UK . . . Those joining the army at the age of 16 often come from the poorest and least educated backgrounds. Some have reading ages of a child of half that age. They lack the confidence to seek a change in their career in the same way as those training for professions.” 

Ian Davis, the Director of NatoWatch, sent a reference to the post by Symon Hill, now placed on its website. He added that the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, together with War Child, UNICEF UK, the Children’s Society, and the Children’s Rights Alliance for England are calling for the Armed Forces Bill to be amended to end the “outdated practice” of recruiting soldiers aged under 18, a call backed by Amnesty International UK and the United Nations Association.

Five years later Quakers in Scotland and ForcesWatch presented a petition to the Scottish Parliament calling for greater scrutiny, guidance and consultation on the visits of armed forces to schools in Scotland. Over four-fifths of state secondary schools in Scotland were visited by the armed forces in a two-year period, according to a 2014 ForcesWatch report.

A 2016 report by public health charity Medact found that soldiers recruited aged 16 and 17 were twice as likely to be killed or injured when in combat compared to those enlisted when aged 18 or over. Medact also found that they were more likely to commit suicide, self-harm, abuse alcohol and develop post-traumatic stress disorder than older recruits

In May this year, the BMI Journal reviewed an article: Adverse health effects of recruiting child soldiers, published in February. It rejected the main justification resting on fears of a ‘recruitment shortfall’: saying that given the extensive harms described in its report, to put recruitment figures above the health and well-being of children and adolescents seems misguided and counterproductive for both the Ministry of Defence as a governmental body and wider society.The second justification alleging economic and occupational benefits to recruits, many of whom come from disadvantaged backgrounds was also rejected:

“(W)e have seen that it is precisely child recruits from disadvantaged backgrounds who are at highest risk of adverse outcomes in the military. Furthermore, figures from 2017 show that those recruited under the age of 18 constituted 24% of those who voluntarily left the Armed Forces before completing their service—this also increases the likelihood of lower mental health outcomes”.

It supported the views of those of the fourteen organisations mentioned here, recommending that the UK end its practice of recruiting adolescents to the armed forces.

 

 

 

 

o

Ebola: proper soldiering for NATO?

.

“At a time when questionable missions are being contemplated to address threats from the so-called Islamic State in the Middle East, NATO boots on the ground to fight infectious disease seems like a more urgent and appropriate response for a military-political Alliance”. Read more on the NATO Watch website.

The late Michael Harbottle (former chief of UN Peacekeeping in Cyprus) pointed out the advantages of using military skills and equipment in What is Proper Soldiering? p15:

In many cases it has been all the armed forces, naval, army and air force, which have played important roles in the early phases of life saving relief and reconstruction.

Each experience provides them with an opportunity to improve upon their techniques, operating procedures and the special equipment they need. Sometimes they have estab­lished special teams for dealing with the more com­plicated kinds of emergency which are often to be experienced in a disaster area.

It is becoming in­creasingly recognised that the armed forces should expect to be called in at an early stage to provide emergency humanitarian aid anywhere in the world wherever disaster strikes. It is a role in which they should take pride and see as being as important, in terms of human survival, as their traditional role of national defence . . .

The military possess the technical and specialist units and equip­ment needed in a comprehensive relief and rescue operation. Equipped and organised to handle most disaster situations, the army possesses the neces­sary infrastructure to meet the immediate demands of a disaster and to be in place and functioning before the main national operational relief effort has been mounted. This can often mean the differ­ence between life and death for hundreds, probably thousands . . .

The NATO Watch article continues:

“(The Chairman of the Committee of the Chiefs of Military Medical Services in NATO (COMEDS), LTG Gérard Nédellec, MD, PhD) says that NATO must be prepared to provide a coordinated and unified response to the current Ebola threat in addition to any future communicable disease threat. He recommends that current deployable and domestic capabilities (both civilian and military) need to be identified, with a view to greater sharing and coordination of such capabilities. He also calls for a realignment of NATO planning and funding priorities to focus on developing an efficient, effective and sustainable response to future infectious disease outbreaks. Detailed guidelines for Ebola management by NATO are expected to be released later this month. Not a moment too soon for the people of West Africa. His statement on communicable disease outbreaks may be read here: COMEDS Statement on Communicable Disease Outbreaks

“NATO forces should be well prepared to set up state of the art field medical facilities, are trained in the management of chemical and biological warfare and have the equipment ready to isolate and treat patients. Most NATO member states also have medical professionals within their militaries who could potentially treat Ebola. Pre-deployment training, personal protective equipment, strict medical and hygiene protocols, and constant monitoring would mitigate the soldiers’ risks of becoming infected.

“NATO also has a Centre of Excellence for Military Medicine (MILMED COE) located in Budapest, Hungary, which is tasked with facilitating interoperability between the military medical services in NATO. It has eight member nations (Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands, Romania and the UK) and four medical branches: Deployment Health Surveillance Capability (DHSC) – a satellite branch located in Munich, Germany; Interoperability, Lessons Learned and Training. The DHSC, in cooperation with the German Medical Intelligence, published a risk assessment of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa on the 24 September. While not an official NATO document, the authors conclude that it “makes sense to apply the principles of ‘collective response’ and the doctrine of ‘smart defence’ to combat the outbreak of Ebola”. . .

Dr Ian Davis, Director, NATO Watch ends by emphasising: “In the longer term, of course, there needs to be greater emphasis on strengthening already fragile health systems in West Africa”.

–

Read about hospital ships, predominantly run by the military, in another NW article:

http://www.natowatch.org/node/1558

‘

Wrong, perverse, and fatal decision – Charles Kennedy: “The big fear that many of us have is that the action will simply breed further generations of suicide bombers.”

. .  

In recent ‘state of the world’ conversations with friends it has been agreed that the escalation of conflict in so many areas dates from the invasion of Iraq.

To date we have not seen this dispassionately spelt out, but – with permission – NATO Watch has reproduced an article by John Gittings, former assistant foreign editor and chief foreign leader-writer at The Guardian, which first appeared on the author’s blog, on 26 August 2014:

Reckless Consequences of the Iraq War

As Iraq is falling apart or, more accurately, as Iraq is falling further apart, some politicians who supported the 2003 invasion are beginning to acknowledge that it might not have been the wisest decision. But they couch their regret in the most limited of terms. Asked in The Observer whether the current chaos made him regret supporting the war as a minister in Blair’s government, David Miliband says: “I regret it because I made a decision on the basis of upholding the norms of respect to weapons of mass destruction, and there were none.”

And Hillary Clinton has written in her new book Hard Choices: “I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had,” she wrote. “And I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong.”

Strategic experts and commentators often talk in similar terms these days about the spread of Al Qaeda extremism as an “unintended consequence” of the war or, in the term favoured by the CIA, as “blowback”.

These are all dubious alibis for having made the wrong, perverse, and fatal decision back in 2003 to launch what the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan rightly called an illegal war.

They are dubious for two reasons:

First, the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction or, if he still had the remnants of ones previously made, or the precursors to making new ones, that this issue could not be dealt with by the UN inspectors, was widely challenged on good evidence by critics of the war. Their scepticism was bolstered by numerous signs that the case against Saddam was being dressed up, as in the notorious “dodgy dossier”.

We should recall what Robin Cook said in his resignation speech on the eve of the House of Commons (18 March 2003) debate:”Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term—namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s…Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years? Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months….”

Second, there was no shortage of predictions at the time that unleashing a Western war on a key Middle Eastern country in the Muslim world would pour fuel on the flames. As Tam Dalyell said in the Iraq debate: “What could be more calculated to act as a recruiting sergeant for a young generation throughout the Islamic and Arab world than putting 600 cruise missiles—or whatever it is—on to Baghdad and Iraq?”And from Charles Kennedy, then leader of the LibDems: “The big fear that many of us have is that the action will simply breed further generations of suicide bombers.”

Critics of the war were derided then for suggesting, as the dissenting Conservative MP Douglas Hogg had in the debate, that “the probability is that thousands and maybe tens of thousands of people will be killed or injured on all sides.” But they have been proved disastrously right, and the correct phrase should not be tens but “hundreds of thousands”. We should regard these wrong decisions, taken in the teeth of reasoned doubt and opposition, as leading not to “unintended consequences” but to “reckless consequences”. It was wrong from the start — which means the original Afghan war against Soviet occupation – to support such armed insurgency, and we may reflect on the following tale.

In 1986 Margaret Thatcher welcomed to London the Afghan mujahidin leader Gulbadin Hekmatyar, a man with a reputation for savagery, praising him as a “fighter for freedom”. In 2002 the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, injured during the US invasion of Afghanistan, made his escape with the help of Hekmatyar, now an Afghan warlord. And in 2003 Al Zarqawi founded the extremist group which has become the “Islamic State” and is terrorising whole regions of Syria and Iraq.

–

John Gittings is the author of ‘The Glorious Art of Peace: From the Iliad to Iraq’ (Oxford University Press, 2012). After teaching at the University of Westminster he worked at The Guardian (UK) for twenty years as assistant foreign editor and chief foreign leader-writer (1983-2003). Having specialised for many years on China and East Asia, he is now doing research on the historical perception of peace, and is an Associate Editor of the Oxford International Encyclopaedia of Peace.  His website is www.johngittings.com: it includes links to his latest writings on the subject.

Russia’s foreign policy: ‘back in the diplomatic big league’ or ‘nearing complete failure’?

.

Reuters’ Kiyoshi Takenaka reported on November 1^st that foreign ministers from Japan and Russia have agreed to hold a vice ministerial-level meeting early next year to work towards resolving conflicting claims over certain islands – the Southern Kuriles in Russia and the Northern Territories in Japan – and towards signing a peace treaty formally ending their World War Two hostilities.

.

The foreign ministers of both countries said the meeting helped “build trust” between Russia and Japan.

Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida met his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov and noted: “Ever since Prime Minster Abe visited Russia in April, bilateral cooperation has been progressing in many fields such as economy, security and human exchanges”.

On 2nd November 2013, the BBC reported that Japan and Russia have agreed to hold joint military exercises and combine forces over cyber security. A video may be accessed from its site. Russia Today notes that during their joint conference the  ministers discussed international security and bilateral relations, as well as plans to hold joint navy exercises to combat terrorism and piracy.

.

The deployment of elements of a US missile defense network in Japan is causing Russia ‘grave concern’

Moscow suggested holding another meeting with Tokyo about Washington’s move to deploy missile defenses around the arc of the South China Sea, including a new missile defense radar in western Japan to join an existing radar in the northern Aomori prefecture. Sergei Lavrov said: “We made no secret of the fact that the creation by the US of a global missile defense system, including a Japanese element, is causing us grave concern, primarily over the possible destruction of the strategic balance of power in the Asia-Pacific region”.

This is confirmed by an item in the Nato Watch bulletin : “Putin Dissolves Task Force for Missile Defense Cooperation with NATO”, Source: Global Security Newswire, 31 October 2013.

.

Professor Stephen Sestanovich (right), who has served the American state all his working life, notably as former ambassador and special adviser to US secretary Madeleine Albright, comments:

“It seems only yesterday that President Vladimir Putin seized the world’s attention with his proposal to put Syria’s chemical weapons under international control. To many, the fancy footwork had a clear message: Russia was back in the diplomatic big league at last. . .

“Some experts point out that Mr Putin has at least improved ties with China. . . When you have good relations only with China, you have nowhere else to turn. Russians are as uneasy about China’s rise as Americans – maybe more so. But they are facing it alone. . .

“Many think they can stand up to Moscow because its leverage is declining. Upheaval in global energy markets – especially the shale gas revolution – is one reason. The dramatic drop in Russian economic growth this year further saps Russian influence . . .”

.

Is Sestanovich giving good advice?

“What Russian policy makers and experts alike should hear from Europe and the US – a message delivered more in sorrow than in anger – is that their foreign policy has gone way off track. Until it rights itself, Russia will have less and less global influence.

.

Or is he ‘off track’?

.

,

The defence policy for an independent Scotland

.

The latest reflections from NATO Watch, which conducts independent monitoring and analysis of NATO, were brought to our attention this week.

They highlighted the conclusion of the September Commons Defence Committee report, ‘The Defence Implications of Possible Scottish Independence’ : “(W)e have found it very difficult to establish how the foreign and security policy of the Scottish National Party (SNP) has informed its vision for a Scottish defence force”.

The UK government once again reiterated the need for the Scottish government to provide answers to its voters – implying that the SNP has no satisfactory answers to offer: “The people of Scotland and the rest of the UK deserve to be presented with as full a picture as possible of the implications of Scottish independence for their future defence and security”.

Elsewhere, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond spells it out: the SNP’s defence plans for an independent Scotland are “insultingly vague”

Keith Brown, the Scottish veterans minister, has retaliated by challenging Hammond to a public debate on defence spending, painting a very different picture by focussing on the significant cuts in military bases and personnel in Scotland.

The UK’s carefully described lavish defence spending was said by Brown to amount to £2bn – compared with the £3.5bn which Scots taxpayers currently contribute towards the UK’s defence and security.

Membership of NATO?

The report emphasises that the SNP’s application for NATO membership will be ‘complex and time-consuming’ and that “the response to an application from an independent Scotland would be influenced by the Scottish Government’s stance on nuclear weapons”: “NATO is a nuclear alliance and we believe that any action likely to disrupt the operation of the UK’s strategic deterrent would undoubtedly influence NATO Member countries’ attitudes towards an application from Scotland”.

But Brown ends: “An independent Scotland would save billions of pounds by scrapping Trident and removing nuclear weapons from Scottish soil, in accord with the overwhelming wishes of the Scottish people.”

In October the latest Coalition paper on independence, Scotland analysis: Defence, an 88 page document filled with stated concern for the Scottish people’s loss of security and employment, should they opt for independence, warns: “In a globalised world, an independent Scottish state would have to start from scratch, as a new and much smaller state, in forming alliances, building relationships and forging its reputation. It would cease to enjoy the influence that derives from the UK’s established status as a key player within the international system . . . “

But it would also detach itself from the UK’s established status as an invasive American acolyte – surely a cause for pride.

After David Cameron’s September announcement that Britain will host the 2014 NATO Summit, NATO Watch concludes: “So, the stage is set for a big gathering at an undisclosed location, on a unspecified date, accompanied by huge security and the inevitable, tightly managed media circus – and all at great cost, no doubt.

“Will the run-up to the Summit be used to overshadow the Scottish referendum and add to the SNP’s difficulties in securing majority support for its policy of independence from the UK as a non-nuclear Member State of NATO?”

 *

Despite funding being a constant, uphill battle, NATO Watch remains committed to balance by organising a Shadow Summit with partners, as it did in May 2012, presenting pre-Summit briefings and a post-Summit evaluation, as per Chicago 2012.

.

NATO-Russian co-operation?

.

Dr Ian Davis of NATO Watch sends news of today’s report in the Journal of Turkish Weekly suggesting that NATO and Russia have agreed to cooperate to facilitate Syria chemical disarmament.

This is exactly what Dr Davis and Andreas Persbo, Executive Director of VERTIC, called for in an opinion piece published on 13 September, which was read by a senior NATO official, who responded favourably in a private email on 17th September.

Dr Davis adds, “As far we can ascertain, no one else was calling for such a strategic alignment and our efforts to place the article in both The Guardian and New York Times fell on deaf ears”.

The news is not yet to be seen in the Western Press, but was announced yesterday in some detail by the Voice of Russia and the day before in its Indian edition.

Russia and NATO have agreed to fund and provide technical assistance to the chemical weapon disarmament process in Syria being conducted by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW at an Ambassador-level session of the NATO-Russia Council in Brussels on Friday.

Disarmament personnel are expected to begin travelling to chemical-weapon facilities to disable equipment next week, according to an OPCW press release. Dr Davis ends:

“As we said in our earlier article, this cooperation could be a potential game changer. Not only does this agreement offer a tentative route map out of the mess in Syria but also a broader strategic, normative and political rapprochement between NATO and Russia, as well as a re-invigorated United Nations. We await further details of the NATO-Russia agreement with interest”. 

.

 

NATO Watch: Promoting a more transparent and accountable NATO

Welcoming NATO Watch’s website

We welcome the news that NATO Watch has launched an independent information website. In a thoughtful analysis on its Non-offensive Defence [NoD] page,  Dr Ian Davis writes that, rather than deregulating the rules of German military engagement, similar non-aggression clauses should be included in the national legislation of other NATO member states.