Above, a “Peace Through NATO” badge for sale on eBay: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/116186660451
The first political party I joined was the Liberal Party. This was back in 1982. It was after Roy Jenkins Bill Rodgers, Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins and David Owen (known at the time in the popular press as the “Gang of Four”) left the Labour Party to form the SDP.
The defection of these anti-CND pro Common Market former cabinet ministers prompted me to join not the SDP but the Liberal party. Why?
I joined the Liberals because I was (and consider myself still to be) on the centre of the political spectrum and that being a member of the Liberal party was something of a family tradition: My grandfather was a prominent Liberal in Cornwall and later Devon and his son, my father followed in his footsteps and was once asked to stand for Parliament (he didn’t).
Given this family history, joining the Liberals was the obvious path I would take.
This was the time of the Greenham Common protests by CND supporting women. There was an organisation set up by the Conservatives called “Peace Though NATO”. It was a cross party organisation and although it had Tories in it (naturally) activists from other parties also joined. It was led by an attractive, dark haired, very well spoken lady then in her late thirties. I cannot recall her name however.
NATO was formed on Monday 4th April 1949 in Washington DC and is a collective military alliance in which under Article 5 an attack on one member state is an attack on all.
I would suggest that the recent statements and actions of the Trump administration pose the greatest threat to NATO’s existence and the threat of NATO countries being involved in a “hot war” with Russia is now at significant likelihood of coming bout in the not to far distant future.
Now, politicians like Boris Johnson suggest that Mr Trump’s statements should be taken seriously but not literally. However, foreign relations between sovereign states cannot be contracted on this basis!
Now Mr Trump (and other members of his administration) have criticised many NATO members about the inadequate (in President Trump’s estimation) level of expenditure on their defence. Mr Trump suggests a level of 5% of a NATO nation’s GDP as a suitable figure.
The UK is around 2% but there are other NATO members who spend a lot less; Canada, Portugal and Spain are notable examples.
Be in no doubt, for those NATO members spending far below this figure will mean painful (and unpopular) choices for those nation states not spending anything approaching this figure!
These painful and unpopular choices will NOT be confined to the fiscal area (tax hikes, public spending cuts, more borrowing) but policy choices that will be highly controversial and unpopular with many.
For instance, recruitment for the British military is very low. Low pay is only one reason. The other reasons are due to wokery! You see, the politicians (and the civil servants in the MoD) want recruits to be “diverse” – which means not white, not male and not heterosexual!
In other words, effecting an increase in recruits will mean recruiting large numbers of white male heterosexuals. This means that the authorities will be accused of being racist, sexist and homophobic!
Even if these racist, sexist and homophobic measures are put in place it might not be enough to bring in the numbers. The politicians might have to resort to conscription! In fact, the politicians might decide that conscription is preferable to recruiting white male heterosexual volunteers!
You see, if you make recruit all persons of all 75 or so genders (don’t ask me to name 73 of them as I don’t know) between the ages of 18 and 22 (school leavers can chose to defer military service until after a degree course) for two years service they cannot be accused of being racist, sexist and homophobic!
Of course, many will refuse to join up!
Prosecuting these persons will be politically impractical.
A policy of stick and carrot would be the best solution: For those joining up a tax break of some form should be offered. For those refusing to joining up a tax hike of some form should be offered.
The duration of such a break/hike? Five years?
This would have the advantage of being self financing!
The “draft dodgers” would pay for the volunteers!
This does NOT mean that US participation in NATO can be dispensed with! At least not in the short of medium term.
Why?
Because certain military capabilities (mostly relating to the areas of communications, electronic countermeasures, military intelligence and strategic reconnaissance) are capabilities possessed by the USA and all other NATO members are dependent on the USA for these.
The implication of this is clear: Were the USA refuse to support NATO members with these capabilities in a war with a power that has such capabilities (Russia for instance) then those NATO members would loose such a war!
This is why the actions of the Trump administration pose such a threat: to ALL NATO members!
These capabilities can (and should be acquired – collectively – by the other NATO members but acquisition of same will take time – about 10 years). Thus if European NATO members were to commence now (2025) they will have the capability in operation in 2035. Until then they will be reliant on the USA!
IF the Trump administration does not support such a strategy, then our chances of avoiding a “difficult situation” rest with the US politicians opposed to the Trump administration.