When it comes to nuclear energy in military affairs, it is hard to believe that there is room for a purely military perspective. Let us remember what former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once declared: After the first (nuclear) mushroom goes up, everything will change. These were the old times during the Cold War, but there is no evidence for a different evaluation, including the fact that the world of tomorrow is highly likely to face more nuclear states, possibly 20 or 30 – it was called “Kennedy’s Nightmare”.
The question will be: is there a liberal approach to nuclear theory, to nuclear energy production on one hand and nuclear warfare strategy on the other hand? Before answering this question we should have a look at definitions. What do we mean with the liberal approach? This is a liberal meeting, and everybody knows how difficult this is — usually every liberal has his/her own persuasion and perception. Generally the liberal standpoint may be described as: nuclear technology and power plants: YES — proliferation and development of weapons: NO.
Putting all experience together I came to the conclusion that there is indeed a liberal approach or standard. In my understanding, (at least) five factors determine liberal thinking:
I will come back to these factors.
Academic approaches to controls of nuclear energy
It is worthwhile to take a look on scientific and academic approaches. Above all, we can examine the survival chances of the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), which is considered to be the cornerstone of global non-proliferation efforts. There are at least four different perceptions of why the nuclear-non-proliferation regime is in danger, the seriousness of this danger, and the potential consequences of a weakened regime for the international order.
First, there is the widespread view of the so-called liberal disarmament control school. They consider the impact of NPT to be limited for three reasons:
Their assumption is that armament is principally problematic and nuclear weapons highly dangerous. The greatest risk-potential is seen with the “nuclear states” that should now start to disarm their stockpiles completely. As a typical example for this approach is the report of the Blix-Commission, “Weapons of Terror”, Stockholm June 2006.
Second, the so-called “Strategic School” takes a different evaluation of the NPT. The assumption is that the “nuclear states” want to keep their status and prevent the rise of additional nuclear powers. The non-nuclear-states (like Germany or Marocco) have to accept this, because of the possibility to use nuclear technology for civil use. However, since more and more states have access to nuclear technology, there is also a greater possibility to switch over to a military programme. Nuclear engineers say that the ability to run a “civil” nuclear plant is about 90 percent of the precondition to construct a military device. Therefore it is time to establish a new worldwide nuclear order.
Third, the US-American school mainly represented in the US-Administration and in US-Congress. The NPT is principally seen as a viable instrument, but confronted with various challenges, which could be answered through unilateral or multilateral measures, including military or preventive activities.
Fourth, we find the so-called “realistic school”, mainly inside the academic theory debate. The assumption is that the NPT regime is sort of an anomaly: in the long run it seems impossible to keep states away from their right to provide the necessary means for their own security. A world with many nuclear powers would principally be more stable than the actual world with only few nuclear powers. The current NPT regime reflects the supremacy of the USA within the international system. If this position would become doubtful and precarious, the collapse of the NPT would be inevitable.
So much for the academic discussion.
Political standpoints
What are the political standpoints and policy outlines concerning nuclear posture in defence or better: security policy? The liberal standpoint after 9/11 should be tailored to the presence and the short-term future. We need to redefine the role of the classical traditional standing armed forces: The soldier of the future — still under nuclear threat — will be the “multitasking weapons manager and civil engineer.” Included are, of course, some “commando-units”. By the way, just for this he can’t be drafted anymore. Liberals should acknowledge the change of the traditional picture of the modern soldier.
War is and will be less likely among states, even rogue states, and will turn in an asymmetric mode, probably into a permanent and ubiquitous global fight against terror, i.e. informal groups, individuals, movements, gangs, networks etc. As liberals we cannot accept the dictate imposed by terrorist-units that may be able to get control over nuclear weapons in the near future. On the other hand, we cannot accept those “political correct” politicians, who are willing to counter this threat by establishing the reduction of freedom and human right standards even in established democracies. No doubt – we are facing a dilemma. But this is the place where liberals should be present and discuss with great rationality the respective options and solutions.
A liberal German perspective
Some remarks on the German nuclear defence posture, which is embedded into NATO´s nuclear framework. A short citation from official NATO sources: “Allies see the NPT as a balanced treaty in which the commitments of non-proliferation and disarmament are both important….Evidence of the Allies commitment to disarmament is the fact that NATO has reduced the number of weapons available in Europe by over 85%, since 1991….NATO does not follow either a nuclear First-Use or NO-First-Use policy, it leaves the question open.” And from a NATO-Restricted document: “NATO’s strategy remains one of war prevention, but is no longer dominated by the possibility of escalation involving nuclear weapons.”
Inside NATO there are definitely different points of views. To quote from a Nuclear Symposium in 2005, when Sir Michael Quinlan, a former British under-secretary of state in the Ministry of Defence stated:
“…The fact is that within anything like the current political configuration of the world there is not the slightest chance of genuine agreement to proceed to the abolition of nuclear armouries… If nuclear powers and their allies do not move forward — or, worse still, if they appear to move backward — in relation to the spirit and thrust of Article VI, the adverse consequences may be a good deal more substantial than just having to sit through tiresome critical speeches at conferences…President Bush and Senator Kerry were putting nuclear proliferation at the top of the world’s danger list. I think they were probably both wrong- my own list would put disease, damage to the environment, poverty and bad governance rather higher in the long term…I am very sceptical of the case for acquiring new sorts of nuclear weapons… it ought to be accompanied by a very clear statement that it is no way intended to serve that concept of preventive war that was so unwisely emphasized in United States doctrine a few years ago…I would not see any particular need for us in Europe to make difficulties about phasing out (the US nuclear weapons in Europe).”
This corresponds with the current position of the German liberal party, FDP. In a parliamentary motion from 14 April 2005, the party group applied for the withdrawal of US-nuclear weapons (about 150 remaining) from German territory, for the purpose to enhance the credibility of the NPT regime.
Concluding reflections
Coming back to the question whether nuclear energy will split atoms or liberals: As a former officer who had to plan defence operations during the Cold War under omnipresent nuclear threat, my view on the “nuclear issue” comes to certain conclusions, using as a liberal yardstick the above mentioned factors of rationality, feasibility and common sense.
Is it rational to assume that the nuclear issue will disappear from this world? Do we show common sense when we believe that some of the Transformation States will stop working hard to become a nuclear state? Is it rational to assume that some of the 40 countries that control their own nuclear reactors will never pursue to construct a nuclear bomb?
Is it realistic that nuclear states will give up their position as “keepers of the fire”, under the current and foreseeable world situation? I firmly believe that most liberals would answer these questions with a clear NO. This means we have to take care and work on the real world situation.
Finally, if a defence planner from any other non-nuclear country would ask me, theoretically, whether his country should try hard to become a “nuclear state” or not, I would also answer a clear NO.
Liberals, I assume, do not split when a serious problems comes up. We look for solutions, and we always find some. When the sources of energy will get scarce, and this will begin in the near future, liberals are needed to implement practical prudence and rational thinking in military as well as in civil affairs.
As liberals we cannot accept the dictates imposed by terrorist-units that may be able to get control over nuclear weapons in the near future. On the other hand, we cannot accept those “politically correct” politicians, who are willing to counter this threat by establishing the reduction of freedom and human right standards even in established democracies.
Wolf Poulet – Marrakech, November 2006
Germany
