J.L. Granatstein may be a distinguished research fellow of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, but in his March 4 opinion piece in the National Post, he is just plain wrong.
In a piece entitled, "The end of NATO?" he says, "The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been the most successful military alliance of the modern era. Set up in 1949 to counter Josef Stalin's threat to Western Europe, NATO won the Cold War some four decades later without firing a shot. Although NATO had accomplished its goal of defeating the Soviets by the early 1990s, its existence didn't end."
He goes on to talk about Europeans not wanting to pay for their own defence, and concludes, "If such an analysis says strongly that we need NATO to protect our national interests, so be it. But Canadians must ask the question. The answer might be that NATO has served its purpose well in the past, but is no longer needed as we head into a new world with different challenges. It's time to raise the question."
For an obviously learned man, he apparently forgot about history repeating itself. For as long as records go back, Western Europe was constantly at war with itself. Since the creation of NATO, that track record has ended.
For about a millennia, and quite likely longer, the French and the English have been at war with each other. A bunch of Frenchmen known as Normans conquered England in 1066 in the Battle of Hastings. Richard the Lionheart ruled a good chunk of France. They even fought a war that would become known as the "Hundred Years' War," even though it lasted longer than that. In 1815, Napoleon was finally put in his place by the Duke of Wellington at Waterloo.
The French seemed to fight everyone - the English, the Russians, and oh, yes, the Germans. They spent a lot of time fighting the Germans. Every few decades they would go several rounds with the Germans. The First World War was caused in part by hangover of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. It took only a crown prince in the Balkans getting a bullet in the jugular to set off the French and the Germans in 1914. That, in turn, led to Canadians slogging through the trenches of the Somme, Ypres and Vimy Ridge.
While NATO kept the Commies out of Western Europe, it also kept the Western European nations from fighting each other. You tend not to shoot at your buddy if you are in the same command structure and train together.
What would a militarized-against-itself Western Europe look like? For one, there would be considerably more nukes, beyond what the British and French already have. The world may be worried about Iran getting nukes and North Korea using the few they have, but imagine if Germany felt it needed nukes to point at the French. Remember, the French, whom they invaded twice in the last century and shed millions of lives on both sides in the effort? Some Germans might consider them good targets.
As one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world with a huge number of existing nuclear reactors, Germany could become an atomic power in the blink of an eye.
Nuclear weapons are the great equalizer. Your nation may be small, like the Netherlands, but a handful of nukes can level the playing field, literally. And since the Dutch and Danish have marched across in the not too distant past, maybe they would want some nukes, too. Don't forget the Norwegians, or the Poles. Poland got trampled the last time out.
With the exception of the Turks and the Greeks, NATO has done a stupendous job in keeping European members from going to war with each other. They also pacified the Warsaw Pact.
Some, like Granatstein, may question the continued value of NATO. If it keeps us out of future European wars (a paradoxical result, since our allegiance guarantees our involvement should one start), then it is worth every penny.
We've already shed more than 100,000 lives in European wars over the last century. Let's not add any more to that total.
- Brian Zinchuk is editor of Pipeline News. He can be reached at [email protected]
