Why the UNπs a dumping ground and nukes are sexy

Thought-provoking Wesseling seminar attracts diverse crowd and comment  

By Captain Mark Giles

Military-sponsored events that call for civilian dress are always attractive to me. Itπs partially the opportunity to express a bit of individuality that I enjoy, but also the chance to mingle – often at par – with field grade officers from far and wide.

The civilian dress tends to minimize the effect of rank and many assume that a not-so-young, grey-haired officer must be at least a lieutenant colonel. I enjoy the short-lived ≥promotion≤, while often benefiting from interesting professional development opportunities.

The 2007 Wesseling (Germany) seminar in February was one such event. Featuring a strong line-up of international speakers, the annual seminar is designed to draw experienced officers from NATO countries, and stimulate discussion on a variety of hot political and military related issues. A lecture on the United Nations (UN) led the way looking at the many challenges confronting the organization today. One controversial quote on the presenterπs screen was definitely an attention grabber.

His screen read the words spoken some time ago by John Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN: ≥If the United Nations (building) in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldnπt make a bit of difference.≤

Although the presenter wasnπt so pessimistic, he did list some of the obstacles facing the UN, including ≥parliamentary gridlock≤, the ≥cherry picking≤ of issues based on national interests, corruption and ≥mission creep≤, where overextension often leads to outsourcing with non-governmental organizations (NGO) filling the void. 

Suggesting that we shouldnπt really complain when the UN isnπt successful, he explained that like the European Union (EU), where countries send their problems to Brussels, the ≥UNπs a dumping ground≤ where governments send their tough issues and are then surprised when the international body canπt solve the problems either.

Switzerland to join the EU?

The EU was another hot topic throughout the seminar. Referring in jest to a Europe that can be heaven or hell, depending on which countries play which roles, the presenter boldly predicted the EU will include Turkey and several CIS countries within a few years. He then looked far ahead, predicting that Switzerland would join between 2015 and 2020, and that ≥privileged partnerships≤ with Tunisia, Morocco, Israel, Algeria, Egypt and others would also be in place by then.

The likelihood of Switzerland joining the EU, however, was questioned by a Swiss intelligence officer.

≥This is the first Iπve heard about Switzerland joining the EU,≤ he said. ≥Weπd have to change our constitution to do it.≤ 

Acknowledging this reality, the presenter then moved the discussion to problems in the EUπs internal structure, arguing that its constitution must be adopted and that the requirement for unanimous decision-making must be further reduced so that not all member states need to support new integration initiatives.

By the second day of the seminar, my attention turned to a particularly interesting presentation on North Korea, Iran and the nuclear threat. Explaining why ≥nukes are sexy≤, the presenter outlined his belief that many countries feel that having nuclear weapons raises their status and regional power, acts as a deterrent to the nuclear threats of others, and increases their political options – providing immunity to external sanctions and intervention.

One of the last presentations outlined a three-pronged U.S. strategy to fight terrorism and Islamic extremism – protecting the homeland, disrupting and attacking terrorist networks, and countering ideological support. The presenter explained that extremists exploit feelings of frustration in order to convince followers of Islam that their beliefs are under attack and to promote a militant response.

Rising or evolving?

A recurring theme was the use of hard (military) verses soft (diplomacy, foreign aid, etc.) power and the belief that a reliance on soft power is increasingly embraced by the younger generation today. As a public affairs officer, I didnπt miss the soft line put forward to illustrate why China is often perceived as a threat, whereas India is not.

 ≥China is rising,≤ he said. ≥But India is evolving.≤

Yes, perception is reality – Iπll have to remember that one.

Not all presenters were thinking in such a succinct fashion.  Speaking of his interest in American public opinion on the UN, a very academic-minded presenter dropped what was, in my opinion, the best line of the seminar.

≥Iπd like to write something really thick,≤ he said; ≥You know (a document) that nobody reads – but itπd be really good.≤

I couldnπt help thinking that itπs perhaps this type of document that causes some of the gridlock within the UN and other organizations.

As my introductory event into CIOR, I found the Wesseling seminar to be a nice balance of academia, short and åpunchyπ one-liners, and some good humour. Iπm not sure if I agree that nukes are sexy, but it was an informative and intellectually stimulating event, and a wonderful opportunity to meet serving and retired NATO reservists from both sides of the Atlantic.