NATO runs on hard power, the UN on soft

EDMONTON—The prospects for world peace would be a lot brighter if Western nations paid as much attention to the forthcoming UN Summit of the Future as they do the Washington NATO Summit which opens July 9. NATO wants more military spending to deal with escalating global threats to security. The Summit of the Future, starting Sept. 22, will attempt to build global co-operation to prevent conflicts. The contrast in the two summits is startling. Celebrating its 75th anniversary, NATO is in an expansive mode, and demands more money from its 32 member states to increase its fighting capacity. Viewing China as an adversary, NATO—created as an Atlantic alliance—is broadening its reach into the Pacific and establishing links with Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea. NATO takes a “360-degree approach” to threats, and says the two per cent of GDP payment now required of each member state will not be enough to “meet the requirements across all domains arising from a more contested security order.” The Summit of the Future, to be held in New York, is a United Nations’ attempt to bring world leaders together to forge a new international consensus “on how to deliver a better present and safeguard the future.” Led by Germany and Namibia, it is seen as a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to mend eroded trust, and agree on goals to resolve emerging threats. It plans to issue a Pact for the Future to reinvigorate the structures and trust for effective global governance. Both NATO and the UN say they share a commitment to maintaining international peace and security. But how different their approaches are. NATO’s stance is confrontational, belligerent, and menacing; the UN’s is co-operative, placatory, and prophetic. NATO sees enemies to be contained; the UN adopts confidence-building as a common theme. One plans for a fearful future; the other a common way forward for a disjointed humanity. Because NATO deals in the “hardware” of building peace—i.e., constantly upgraded military equipment for fighting—it commands the headlines and political energy. The UN assembles the “software” of building peace—i.e., preventive diplomacy and mediation techniques to build the conditions for sustainable peace—but these efforts are relegated to the back pages. Thus NATO is seen as vigorous; the UN flabby. And NATO’s new secretary-general, 57-year-old Mark Rutte who served for 13 years as prime minister of the Netherlands, brings a fresh face to NATO’s outreach. The NATO Summit will further develop the transition of NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe from a strategic to a war-fighting command centre. This move anticipates the lessening of American support of Ukraine’s effort to repel the Russian invasion, a lessening that is almost certain to occur if Donald Trump regains the United States' presidency. With Russian threats multiplying, NATO sees increased military strength as the only answer to present and future threats to security. The Summit of the Future, on the other hand, will deal with threats to international peace and security by addressing the underlying drivers and root causes of armed conflict, violence, and insecurity. The draft Pact of the Future, still being negotiated on the run-up to the summit, says, “We will defuse tensions, promote co-operation and understanding between member states, and seek the pacific settlement of disputes.” Toward this end, the planners intend to recommend that a fourth UN Special Session on Disarmament be held. Previous such special sessions in 1978, 1982, and 1988 focused world attention on the UN Charter’s goal to maintain international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources. The summit is likely to call for new confidence-building, early warning, and crisis management mechanisms, and intensified use of diplomacy, the good offices of the secretary-general, and mediation efforts to ease global tensions. Already, there is a call for accelerating investment in the UN 2030 Agenda, which envisions a secure world free of poverty and hunger, with full and productive employment, access to quality education and universal health coverage, the empowerment of all women and girls, and an end to environmental degradation. But Western power centres don’t get what a comprehensive security agenda looks like. Twenty-one U.S. Senators criticized Canada as a “laggard” because it hasn’t reached NATO’s spending target. The American politicians conveniently overlooked the $14-billion Canada spent in 2022 in total official support for sustainable development. This, too, is a contribution to peace and security as much as the $26.9-billion per year Canada spends on defence (an expenditure that ranks Canada as sixth highest in NATO). The work of peacebuilding is not, unfortunately, as headline-snaring as building up the military to fight wars. Governments are now spending $2.4-trillion annually on their militaries, but only $24-billion on humanitarian assistance (that’s one per cent). Martin Griffiths, the outgoing UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, says world leaders “are failing humanity.” NATO runs on hard power; the UN on soft. Former Senator Douglas Roche’s latest book is Keep Hope Alive: Essays for a War-free World (Amazon). The Hill Times