Discussion

Ignatieff: As Fen Hampson said, we must have the Soviet attitude and response to understand the problems of European security in proper balance. Colonel Grishayev made one statement which I think we all could focus on, and that is that the main lesson of World War II was that there should not be World War III, and some of us who took part in World War II and had something to do with setting up the international system following it would agree. The main commitment in the UN Charter is not to use force or threaten to use force against the territorial integrity and independence of other states, except in defence. The dilemma we have all faced in security — in NATO and on the other side as well — is the following: how can one prepare for war entirely on defensive strategies? It’s been tried, but too often historically the strategies were unsuccessful. Another point in Colonel Grishayev’s paper is his reference to the rapid development of military technology and the future perfection of conventional means of armament. He warns against carrying out warfare with weapons of mass destruction using traditional methods. When I was with NATO, we found ourselves in the dilemma that, although we had these weapons of mass destruction, we had strategies and tactics that were essentially related to previous methods of conventional warfare. I believe this very real dilemma is faced by both sides now. How can we construct a system of mutual security in Europe which takes into account the technological advances, when the methods of warfare are based largely on the preparations for previous wars, i.e., strategic bombardment including attacks on means of production on both sides? These methods were tried during World War II but now could be carried out with weapons that threaten total destruction. Various suggestions have been put forward - - t o go back to conventional weapons, to have more mutual assurance in arms control and disarmament. But the dilemma is still there.