Dangerous drift into nuclear rivalry

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) has currently been holding its biggest ever airpower showdown, dubbed "Air Defender 23" since its inception 74 years ago. Starting on June 12, the air exercise will conclude on June 23, surprisingly with Germany taking the lead. Although it is claimed from the NATO side that the air force deployment drill across Europe was conceived in 2018 after Russia's annexation of Crimea in order to 'test out the alliance's ability to defend itself with airpower', the underlying theme is unnerving for the neutral peoples all over the world. With the participation of 10,000 servicemen and 250 aircraft from 25 NATO nations and partner countries such as Japan and Sweden, the air exercise certainly does not stay limited to defence in the normal sense; rather its military sense is quite ostensible.
It is not for nothing that director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Dan Smith has warned, "We are drifting into one of the most dangerous periods in human history". He observed this dangerous drift in reference to the increase in the number of global nuclear warheads and higher expenditure on modernisation and expansion of their nuclear stockpiles for the future. According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), which was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2017, spending on nuclear weapons rose three per cent in 2022 over its previous year ---the third consecutive increase. Even the Covid-19 pandemic in the two preceding years could not stop the trend of warmongering.
In this connection, Russia's recent suspension of its participation in the New START (strategic arms reduction treaty) bodes ill of the future negotiations for nuclear arms control between the US and Russia which together possess 90 per cent of the nuclear warheads enough to destroy the planet many times over. Clearly, the nuclear giants and other seven possessors of nuclear weapons of mass destruction had overriding concern for augmenting their firepower at a time when Covid-19 was on the prowl all across the globe claiming unprecedented numbers of life on a daily basis. If the pandemic could not leave a sobering impact on world leaders, who ought to have compelling reasons to respond to the humanity's crisis, little can be expected of them in the post-pandemic period.
Although Dan Smith urges cooperation from governments for calming geo-political tensions, slowing arms race and instead dealing with the 'worsening consequences of environmental breakdown and rising world hunger', aggressive military postures are vitiating world peace. It is not NATO show of power on the sky alone, Chinese fighter planes are intruding in the Taiwanese airspace with impunity. International relations are fraught with widening chasm instead of bridging the gap. Rival powers could not be more open to woo smaller nations willing to maintain neutrality in their relations with all irrespective of the big powers' rivalry across the divide. These minnows have been compelled to practise tight-rope walking no matter how appealing the overtures are.
The two World Wars left lessons for everyone but when intoxicated by power games, leaders refuse to learn such lessons not only to their own peril but also to that of billions of innocent people who have no enmity with anyone. Putin has been portrayed as a villain by the West, the US administration in particular, for his war on Ukraine. But the US president's overambitious expansion of the NATO is often overlooked. Entire Europe, let alone Ukraine, has played into the hands of President Joe Biden. He is the man to pull the string from behind the scene.
The saga of global financial crisis, disruption of supply chain of commodities and soaring inflation has issued from this overambitious programme of taking NATO right at the doorstep of Russia. Even this airpower parade has been extended to the eastern flank of NATO in areas such as the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Latvia. Russia has no reason to consider it anything other than a provocation and a threat.
At this crucial juncture President John F Kennedy's address at the American University 60 years ago on June 10, 1963, known as Peace Speech exposes the folly of committing to such show of power close to the backyard of the main adversary. He asserted blaming the rival for a conflict is easy and there is no point insisting that the other side must change its attitude. Kennedy reasoned, "We must reexamine our own attitude ---as individuals and as a nation---for our attitude is as essential as theirs". Then the crucially important wise words come from one of the greatest peace brokers of modern time, "While defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war". Sensitive to others' view, Kennedy warned of pushing an adversary with nuke power into a corner so that it might be compelled to act desperately. JFK further adds that pursuing such a course in the nuclear age exposes the 'bankruptcy of our policy' and this, according to him, is a recipe for 'collective death wish for the world' ---in fact mass annihilation.
Countries like Bangladesh could ignore conflicts between and among great powers but for the threat of obliteration of the entire human race from the Earth in case of a full-scale war. Even without the conflagration of such a war, rivalries in the present form have a devastating impact on economies, livelihoods and living standard across wide swathes of the planet. The war theatre may be thousands of kilometres away but innocent people are heavily paying for it on account of disruptions of supply of fuels, food, raw materials and capital machinery. Joe Biden and others could take a leaf out of JFK's book to pursue a pragmatic course of peace instead of one of belligerence.

[email protected]