NATO's Humanitarian Hegemony

Key NATO leaders released a manifesto yesterday claiming, among other things, that the West should reserve a pre-emptive nuclear strike option in the current security environment. What is this security environment? The main security threats are "political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism, the 'dark side' of globalization, meaning international terrorism, organized crime and the spread of weapons of mass destruction, climate change, the weakening of nation states as well as of organizations such as the UN, NATO and the EU." What is the connection between pre-emptive nuclear strike and these threats? It can't be the threats they pose. After all, threats one and two are more or less the same thing, and neither can be nuked. What good is the phenomenally blunt weapon of a nuclear weapon against small networks of frankly not very dangerous criminals and terrorists? As for climate change, does NATO propose to induce a nuclear winter to counteract the fossil fuel summer? The strangest, but most indicative, is the weakening of NATO itself. In a wondrously self-evident line of argument, it appears that the solution to the weakening of institutions like NATO is to...strengthen them. Here, oddly enough, is where the link with pre-emptive nuclear strike, not as an actual military option, but as a political posture, makes 'sense.'

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has struggled to justify its existence, let alone define its mission. As a Western military alliance in which the US was first among equals, only the threat of communism gave credence to the idea that NATO really was a collective security umbrella. In the early 1990s, it just looked like one amongst many international institutions that had outlived its usefulness. The only thing it could think to do was expand, replacing any long-term purpose with the short term goal of extending its reach. The first time it appeared to possess any virtues relevant to post Cold War international affairs was with the illegal bombing of ex-Yugoslavia in 1998-9. Unable to get UN authorization for the intervention, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair looked to an institution easier to control, yet possessing a modicum of international legitimacy. After the bombing, the UN extended ex-post legitimacy to the illegal intervention; the might makes right lesson was not lost on the world, especially NATO. The sudden uptick of American self-assertion under Bush appeared to eclipse even NATO, as Bush received neither UN authorization nor NATO approval for the invasion of Iraq. However, the lack of legitimacy for the Iraq War has made it clear that some degree of multilateral cooperation is even in the US' interest. In the 1990s the moral imperatives of 'humanitarianism' and other seemingly pressing crises made the creaky instruments of international law and UN procedures seem worse than useless, and in the 2000s, it became clear to world leaders that some degree of cooperation was in a common interest, if for no other reason than to remind any future great power aspirants who currently ruled the globe. Enter NATO: cooperative, yet firmly in control of the great powers, and not so bound by arduous UN procedures.

In the power vacuum that only grows with the delegitimation of American power under Bush, NATO sees an opportunity. What unites humanitarian crises, terrorism, global warming, and failed states is that they all seem like problems that can't be resolved within the existing architecture of international law and institutions. An institution that projects power, emotes pure strength, gives the impression it can bring order to the political chaos. Enter the nuclear posture - strategically useless, politically useful. In fact, NATO is no more able to bring order than the US or UN because the disorder is more the product of international political confusion than serious threats. Major wars are down, so is the violence from civil wars, and terrorism just does not kill very many people. What threats that do exist are more appropriately handled by low-level police efforts and reasonable international laws than NATO nukes. A sheer show of strength is no substitute for political purpose, nor does it even bring minimal security. To justify its posture, NATO will no doubt wish to prove its strength - which means an inappropriate show of force somewhere, an intervention that will increase the very chaos it wishes to suppress.