NATO, Nuclear Deterrence, and Young People
By Lucy Tiller
Nuclear deterrence is, in NATO’s own words, ‘a core component of NATO’s overall capabilities.’ 150 nuclear bombs, the number of US NATO-assigned B61 nuclear bombs stationed in five countries across Europe, is around the same number which research by the Red Cross states would be enough to constitute a ‘limited nuclear war’. What that actually means is untold destruction and then 1.3 degrees of global cooling causing a major famine
with the potential to starve around 1 billion people. Three of the countries where these nuclear weapons are stationed have called for US weapons to be removed from their soil; none of them have succeeded. The foisting of nuclear arms on non-nuclear armed states is in violation of the spirit of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and in violation of what those countries themselves want.
In the UK, our relatively small nuclear stockpile — still enough to endanger everything on the planet — has been assigned to NATO since the 1960s. Trident, our Government’s nuclear programme, is often called ‘independent’. That’s always seen as in its favour — British nuclear weapons which can only be used in specifically British interests. But if they’re assigned to NATO, that’s not true, because our nuclear weapons can be roped in for other NATO-decided conflicts. NATO is a hugely undemocratic place to uncritically assign 2% of our national income.
Recently the Conservative Government published an Integrated Review of Defence and Foreign Policy, which at once cut funding for international development and increased the cap on our nuclear stockpile by more than 40%. It’s interesting that in this review, the language was lifted pretty much directly from the NATO playbook when talking about its nuclear stockpile: to ‘preserve peace, prevent coercion, and deter aggression.’ As the UK
leaves the EU, it’s aligning itself ever more closely with a nuclear armed alliance instead. I don’t think that the merging of nuclear policies and language is in the interests of our democracy and I certainly don’t agree with the sentiment. You can’t prevent coercion with nuclear weapons — they are coercion.
This increase in the cap on our nuclear stockpile is obviously in violation of the NPT, but that’s not exactly surprising, from a member of a nuclear alliance which claims to be against proliferation but only really displays this as a value when it is non-NATO states trying to build up or create a stockpile. We’re very hot on telling Iran and North Korea that non-proliferation is a priority, but we’re not very quick off the mark to apply that principle to ourselves. This needs to include a discussion about vertical proliferation — building up
technical capabilities and making our stockpiles more lethal and usable — as well as horizontal proliferation — more countries getting nuclear weapons.
But at the heart of the nuclear question with NATO, there’s not actually any of these things: the astronomical cost, or the democratic complications, or even the oppositional language which is used to throw up walls between nations. It’s a humanitarian question, and we often lose sight of this amid the technical discussion about deterrence theory, cost, and democracy. We need to put this message back at the heart of our campaigning.
Is it right that any nation or alliance has the capability to destroy life on earth in the most horrific and painful way? That instead of pouring money into support for survivors of nuclear testing, or environmental renewal, or healthcare, we pour it into weapons which are so dangerous that they cause death and health problems for decades? The point isn’t that we don’t want to use them. It’s that by keeping them, we threaten to use them every day.
Peace is not peace when it functions solely on threat of burning — on the threat of a war crime. It’s time for NATO — at the very least — to commit to nuclear non-proliferation amongst its members, and it’s time for all nuclear armed states to take active steps towards disarming their stockpiles.
The NATO Youth Leaders’ report, NATO 2030, brought together a group of young people suggested ways to make the strategic vision more relevant and applicable to our generation and to bring in concerns which are prevalent among under 30s.
I did a bit of digging around about NATO’s youth engagement, who they were getting involved, and most importantly, why young people were keen to engage with them. Now, a good chunk of this is about money, and we shouldn’t shy away from that. NATO has more money and more resources generally than the peace movement. But inviting young people in to help with your strategy, to generation-proof the organisation, is actually a really good
idea.
NATO have invited young people to speak right to their heart. This isn’t a youth conference which happens before the ‘real conference’, as we so often see in the anti-nuclear movement, and it’s not an underfunded and side-lined youth wing. It’s placing emphasis on integrating the views of young people into the way the whole organisation is run.
I don’t agree with NATO’s mission to militarise further and harder, and I don’t agree with the findings of the report. It particularly doesn’t make for great reading seeing young people advocating for an environmental policy which is almost completely greenwashing and doesn’t account for the huge impact of the military on the climate.
But I do think that the peace movement has something to learn here in terms of how it engages and integrates the youth voice. How often have you been to a youth conference which happens entirely separately from the main event and then doesn’t get integrated into the summary and recommendations of the event? Or been part of a youth wing which doesn’t get any say over the policy and direction of the main movement? How much louder do you find yourself having to advocate even within the movement to get your voice heard
as a young person? It’s not just a question of how much money the movement has; it’s more profound than that. It’s about who is in the room when organisational policy is written. It’s about who gets a say over campaigns and communications. It’s about finding innovative ways for people to actively engage with and have ownership of our movement. We particularly need to move away from donations being the only active stake offered to supporters of our organisations. A donation drive might give people with a large disposable
income a good way to literally buy in to your movement, but how are you supposed to gain a stake in the direction and ownership of a movement if you don’t have a disposable income? Other ways of shaping and owning the organisation’s message must also be offered.
So, number one, the movement needs to make space for young people with whatever resources it has.
Number two — we need to flip the narrative about NATO. We’re lost in our own jargon. The search for peace and justice is not a complicated message and it’s not something that should come across as discredited or naïve. It’s a simple and sensible message. More weapons do not make us more safe. More militarism doesn’t make us more safe.
But we lose sight of how simple and how credible that message is, because as a movement we get caught up in policy jargon and activist-speak. So we need to go back to basics and appeal to disillusioned young people globally who are looking for a simple message of unity and peace to get behind, but look at our movement as it stands and see acronyms and jargon. We need to resist the monopoly on credibility which NATO has built, and start restoring the simple and sensible message on which the movement was founded.
And finally, number three — we need to talk to each other. It can be really isolating being a young person in a movement which is lacking a concerted youth voice and doesn’t always make space for its young people. It’s also often true that campaigns people, policy people, and creatives don’t talk to each other enough. This means that we so often end up in a situation where policy people churn out endless reports calling for more reports; and campaigns people churn out messaging that doesn’t adapt to the current moment or key
into current events; and creatives aren’t able to serve our movement because they aren’t at the decision-making table.
So let’s talk to each other, and let’s talk simply, because our heart for peace will shine through so much more strongly if we speak with a united voice which goes back to the very heart of what we believe.
