The Franco-Prussian War in 1870 might well have been the last armed conflict which respected a certain set of rules. Later, the agony of the Ottoman Empire, the Gallipoli disaster, no longer followed the given rules; the consequences were as messy as their onset. The horror of the two world wars each carried a lethal load. The victorious powers decided afterwards to take all measures to avoid a repeat. The nuclear hell which engulfed Hiroshima and Nagasaki became a turning point which deeply affected hearts and minds. It also opened the door for an avalanche of a far-reaching revisionism of warfare and military might.
The nuclear clubroom soon became overcrowded. Today it has become conceivable that a nuclear black-market could become the ultimate provider of weapons of mass-destruction, which could end up in the hands of the contemporary outlaws. The nuclear armaments were for a while a monopoly “a quatre”, regulated by tacit consent. The major powers, the URSS and the USA, played wars by proxy, cold war or “war games”, with the knowledge that their actions were restrained by the nuclear factor. They were all too conscious of the fact that the use of the nuclear option by one meant automatic retaliation and the destruction of all. Despite their antagonism and strive for hegemony, there still remained a hybrid moral barrier, a fear element, which none dared to cross. The nuclear arsenal became the ultimate deterrent. Peace became, under those circumstances, the daughter of non-consensual parents.
Unfortunately, freelancers acquired their own nuclear arsenal. While not being members of the club of four, they became an unpredictable second-generation of bystanders who did not feel obliged to adhere to non-proliferation “fantasies”.
A third underground generation looks now unavoidable, given the rise of non-states and nihilistic ideologies which have chosen a culture of death rather than a vision of hope. There are no comparable precedents. Neither Vietnam nor the paranoid regime of Kim Jong (very) Il come close to those rogue opportunistic strands. The latter might acquire a pocket nuclear arsenal and will not feel bound by any moral brakes, nor would they send an early-warning sign or ask for permission to use them. Their worldview is purely pragmatic, based on simplistic, often religious imperatives wherein death becomes a desirable partner. This seemingly primitive behavior does not stand in the way of their becoming acquainted with the tools of modern technology, cyber-warfare, social networking and the cutting-edge Steve Jobs means of communication.
In 2011 the world is divided between “classical” globalised states, which are under financial siege, and an underground of loose groupings which are united by a murky mix of frustration, ideology and self-inflicted humiliation. It would be naïve to imagine that the existing nuclear deterrent will stop them from being the first to use biological or nuclear weapons. Under those circumstances classical nuclear deterrence has no teeth anymore. One can only imagine the times when President Truman agonized over the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The moral fiber was still part of the political discourse then. The actors have changed. The new breed of enemies obliges us to consider new strategies and weaponry. Drones are now activated 1000 miles from the war theatre. It is to be expected that the technology of Unmanned Aircraft Systems might also fall into hostile hands. The “unblinking stare” gives the West a considerable advantage, for now. Monopolies do not last.
Certain situations may occur wherein the first use of a nuclear weapon might still have to be considered. The “classical” enemy of yesterday was to a certain extent not unlike ourselves. His reaction and “modus operandi“ were predictable and obeyed to a strategic lexicon that had, in the end, a lot in common with ours. Today’s “new class” enemy is an “other” in more than one way. For him or her, life is too often just collateral and its ending almost indifferent if he or she dies a “martyr”. One can predict a future where the battle is no longer one of ideologies or territorial ambition but a brutal shockwave between adherents to life and the addicts to death. In such a scenario it may become advisable to be on guard and strike rather than wait for a terrorist Valhalla. Hence, all options must be on the table, including the first use of a nuclear device.
Intelligence, infiltration, pursuit of non-proliferation policies with states such as North Korea, Pakistan, India, Iran, inter alia are priorities which can contribute to shackle terrorist mayhem before it can act.
It is obviously easier to conceptualize than to execute. Before resorting to a first strike, the qualification of the menace must be certified, the active involvement of a culprit state must be beyond doubt and all possible alternative means of retaliation must still be considered. The objective of a denuclearized world remains the primary goal and the nuclear powers should prioritize actions rather than words. Unfortunately, new hybrid realities have added a codicil to this end.
It is ironic to notice how in this new barren strategic landscape some of Dr. Kissinger’s ideas look almost outmoded today. Triangular diplomacy, balance of power, linkage concept, containment policy, spheres of influence, and one can go on, are conceptual inroads which remained valid as long as parties obeyed the rules of the game, as Nixon, Mao and Brezhnev did, to a point. The new adversary does not adhere to any intellectual or geopolitical game. If he has a “special relationship”, it is less with a rational doctrine than with an irrational set of edicts that are often rooted in religious vernacular. In sharp contrast with today, yesterday’s enemy became, fatally, an obliged partner with whom conditions of co-existence and early-warning, had to be notarized, step by step. War and surrender were ruled by mutually accepted conditions. One should also admit that Realpolitik considerations were never absent from the concert of Nations imagined by Metternich, Bismarck or Dr. Kissinger. Given that they came up with extraordinary ideas, systems and achievements they seldom honored the hotel bill, which was left for next generations. Lately the effects of napalm bombing in Vietnam, the landmines in Cambodia, and the nuclear jungle in the Caucasus have stayed while the guests have long departed.
Fortunately there was also some form of accountability at the end. This is now gone. Kennedy’s concept of Interdependence got lost with the absence of a “regular” enemy (the Soviet Union). Europe keeps on reforming, enlarging, but ends up being a toothless economical giant. The Libyan intervention, both military and political, is almost pathetic.
The “normal” world needs a revision in order to be able to create a common pool rather than a stellar utopia of competing bodies and ad hoc organizations. While it is normal that at a regional level economical clusters appear, it is equally imperative that a general review of ways and means to combat the new generation of peril without a name, without a territory, be considered. In this endeavor there should be no outsiders. The EU, China and Russia are equal shareholders in this battle which is already being waged at their outskirts, if not in their midst. The US is right in asking for the burden to be shared, in the first place in NATO. On the other hand, the Americans should also listen to the counter-arguments of their friends and allies when they overreach.
Until the new virus mutates, a far-fetched wishful thinking, all appropriate means of defense and attack should be on stand-by. The nuclear option is one of last resort on condition that undeniable proof exists pointing to links between potential perpetrators and identifiable states. We should not be the ones who play timid while weapons of mass-destruction are readied under the cover of a boarding pass, in a container, or assembled by a homegrown “fifth column” benefiting from foreign patronage.
No comments:
Post a Comment