George Kerevan: Nato membership is a question of morality

The alliance is heading towards a non-nuclear policy, but that is not the reason Scotland should be a part of it, writes George Kerevan

WHEN I was in Germany last month, it was fascinating to learn that everyone at a senior level in government was following the Scottish constitutional debate. I even had a chat with a board member of the Bundesbank about the similarities between the new European fiscal stability pact and any prospective agreement between England and independent Scotland regarding a common sterling area.

Which prompts the obvious question: if Europe and the world are already sizing up a free Scotland, is a free Scotland thinking about its relations with the rest of the globe?

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

In a speech in China last December, Alex Salmond came his closest to defining the SNP’s foreign policy philosophy. Citing as his inspiration Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments (reputedly a favourite of China premier Wen Jiabao), the First Minister said his watchwords were “sympathy, empathy and solidarity”.

Salmond claims a “moral” approach to international relationships. Moral not in the sense of “good”, but of understanding that being part of a global free trade economy brings responsibilities as well as rights. He believes that lasting trade partnerships can only be achieved if rich Scotland appreciates the problems, needs and aspirations of other nation states.

For instance, Scotland helped pioneer the carbon-fuelled industrial economy, so it has a moral duty to help fix climate change. Only then can Scotland expect to sell renewables to Beijing. In a neat phrase, Salmond calls this approach “sharing ambitions”, rather than hypocritical finger-pointing by western ex-colonialists.

It is legitimate to ask what happens if this “moral” approach runs counter to national interest. Given the fact that British foreign policy for the past 15 years has been conditioned by brown-nosing the White House, I hardly think the unionists are in any position to argue the virtues of pragmatism. The real test of Salmond’s “reciprocal engagement” approach lies not in the Third World. It lies in his willingness to deal with the EU and Nato.

Sensing many voters are anti-Europe, the SNP has avoided debating what it wants from EU membership, other than renegotiating fishing quotas. Instead, the discussion has been driven by unionist red herrings, such as Scottish membership being vetoed by Spain to keep its national minorities in line (as if Madrid thinks blackmailing the Basques could work).

Forget the euro crisis for a moment. EU enlargement continues. Croatia will join next year, and there are five more Balkan candidates in the wings. And despite problems with the euro, countries are lining up for the common currency, starting with Poland.

The EU is always going to be too big to become the super state of europhobe nightmares. Scots need not worry they are trading London overlordship for control by Brussels. If there is a lesson to be learned from the euro debacle, it is that we are going to see a more bilateral Europe – horsetrading between member states rather than dictats from the commission. Scots should be good at that. Let’s seek a positive leadership role among the EU’s vibrant smaller states.

Europe faces two big economic problems. First, its energy policy is in tatters. Scotland, as a major provider of oil and renewables, has the clout to help forge a viable strategy. Secondly, European growth depends on creating a genuine common market in services. This is a sector Scotland excels in: think finance, medicine, universities and tourism. Germany and France are resisting a common market in services. Scotland could help tip the balance.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

But the hardest decision the SNP faces on foreign policy is its attitude to Nato. It has traditionally opposed Nato membership, on the grounds this involves being part of a nuclear alliance. The Cold War is over, however. Come June, the SNP has scheduled an internal debate on its attitude to Nato.

Enter George Robertson, former Nato general secretary and the man who, as Tony Blair’s gung-ho defence secretary, bequeathed us the two monster aircraft(less) carriers that have swallowed up the military budget. Robertson says the SNP cannot support joining Nato and still keep its anti-nuclear commitment, because the organisation’s revised 2010 Strategic Concept (main policy document) states: “ Nato will remain a nuclear alliance”.

The truth Robertson seeks to hide is that the Strategic Concept document radically altered Nato’s nuclear stance. It did so precisely because member states were unhappy with its nuclear orientation in the post-Cold War world.

The preface to the Strategic Concept “… commits Nato the goal of creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons”. In drawing up the new policy, Germany, Holland and Norway argued for the removal of an earlier commitment that all Nato members had to host US tactical nuclear weapons and be trained in their use. The new policy allows individual Nato members to opt out of enforced nuclear sharing.

Last month, Der Spiegel reported that Berlin is to withdraw US nuclear weapons from German soil and abandon their use by the German air force. Quoting Hans-Peter Barthels, a member of the Bundestag defence committee, the magazine said the Luftwaffe intends to close Büchel airbase, where all tactical nuclear bombs are stored.

Germany is pushing its non-nuclear policy further. In preparation for next month’s Nato summit in Chicago, Berlin says it wants the alliance to pledge not to threaten the use of, or to use, nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations. France is holding out – shades of a Napoleonic complex in Paris. Scotland inside Nato would be able to give Germany diplomatic support for reforming Nato’s nuclear stance.

Let’s be clear, the argument for joining Nato is not simply to make that organisation less committed to using weapons of mass destruction. An independent, oil-rich Scotland, strategically situated on the new global sea lanes opening up with the melting of the Arctic icecap, faces major security issues. Neutrality is not an option. Nato membership is the price of the international engagement which lies at the heart of Alex Salmond’s “moral” foreign policy.