Confessions of a Warmonger

 

There is these days a strong isolationist sentiment in the US, on both the left and the right. Many have been questioning why NATO still exists—after all, the Cold War is over. The Russian invasion of Ukraine gave it a new lease on life, but as that war has dragged on, the questions are being raised again.

I think such talk is both foolish and immoral.

The point of NATO, and of supporting Ukraine, is collective security. If a large enough group of countries pledges to defend one another in case of any external attack, war becomes far less likely. It is the same principle on which, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men: to mutually defend our rights.

Just as it is immoral to stand by and do nothing if you see a woman being raped, or a child tortured, it is immoral to stand by and do nothing when you see one country invaded by another. You cannot honourably say it is not your business, that “most Americans don’t even know where Ukraine is.” We are our brothers’ keeper.

What about Afghanistan, you might ask. What about Vietnam? Doesn’t the US keep getting into trouble by sticking its nose in?

In Afghanistan, the US was naïve in thinking it could impose democracy. The proper approach would have been good old gunboat diplomacy: go in, overthrow the government pull out, let the cowchips fall where they may. In Vietnam, the US was not engaged in collective security, and arguably the aggressor, since the Viet Cong were not a foreign invader. The moral case was unclear.

The naïve might suggest that keeping world peace is what the UN is for. But the UN is almost invariably ineffective in stopping aggression, or attacks on human rights; all it can generally do is send in peacekeepers to avoid incidents once a treaty is signed. The UN includes everyone, and most governments do not share any real commitment to human rights or the good of mankind. On top of that, a couple of the most likely aggressors have vetoes. Let the UN set up a panel on human rights, and Saudi Arabia, say, Iran, China, or North Korea will likely be on it.

NATO is, by contrast, a coalition of liberal democracies. They do share essential values, and so can act together if needed. Moreover, their interests are unlikely to seriously conflict: there is rarely any point in one democracy going to war with another. Should they conquer any of a neighbour’s territory, after all, those people too must be given a vote, and so the change is relatively trivial to either people or government. Unlikely to be worth a war.

Accordingly, NATO can have a vital role as a de facto world government. It indeed ought to be expanded, not just to include Ukraine, but to include Japan, New Zealand, Australia, South Korea, Singapore. 

This collective security system would protect democracy. It would also give currently autocratic nations a strong incentive to go democratic: it would allow them protection by this security umbrella.

Conversely, on the other hand, if any member country slipped away from the democratic fold, it ought, by vote of the other members, to be expelled. This loss o the security guarantee should make this less likely to happen. Currently, the one problem member is Turkiye—for this reason. Under Erdogan, it has become more autocratic.

So go ahead—call me a neocon. Call me a shill for the military-industrial complex. I’m into world peace. Sorry.