Briefings & Information

Submission to the Nato states' NATO Nuclear Policy Review

December 1999

Introduction

Whilst in a wider context CND would argue that NATO, as a relic of the Cold War, is not the appropriate vehicle for the security of Europe in the 21st century, this submission is concerned with NATO as a nuclear alliance and the review of its nuclear policy.

This submission is made more in hope than with optimism. The hope stems from the voting on the New Agenda Coalition resolution at the United Nations, the positive proposals by Canada and the NATO 5 and the ratification of the CTBT by France and the UK. There were also, last year, some small advances made during Britain’s Strategic Defence Review which unfortunately have been much overstated on all sides.

However the international nuclear disarmament process is in deadlock and nuclear weapons proliferate as the events in India and Pakistan testify. This is hardly surprising since France and the UK are deploying new nuclear weapon systems and are involved with the US on further research and development. Added to which the US has failed to ratify the CTBT, is making no headway with the START negotiations and is pursuing Ballistic Missile Defence (sic) whatever the consequences.

If NATO is to make serious progress during this review the NATO Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) must face their responsibilities and all the non-Nuclear Weapon States (non-NWS) must also accept their responsibilities and not use the obvious difficulties as an excuse for lack of positive argument.

The Review

The review should be as wide ranging as possible. Therefore it should consider not only operational policy such as alert status, or weapon systems such as the US tactical nuclear weapons stationed in Europe, but also the importance of nuclear weapons in the Strategic Concept. Further, even though NATO is a military organisation it must consider the wider implications of its policies: in this case, with regard to other vehicles for European security and the effect the maintenance of a nuclear alliance with a high alert status has on the international nuclear disarmament process.

There should also be consideration of the process by which all the NATO states can be involved in an on-going nuclear policy review so that decisions are not left to or vetoed by the Nuclear Weapon States.

The machinery of change must also be put in place so that decisions are actually carried out, with the Nuclear Group taking on the role of facilitating the new policy. CND would naturally wish that the Nuclear Group became the Nuclear Disarmament Group.

CND welcomes the initiatives already proposed by some NATO states and urges all the NATO states to contribute positively to the review. The Review Report must contain radical and progressive proposals otherwise the process will become just another delaying tactic designed to give the impression of consultation for change but in reality designed to maintain a first-strike nuclear alliance under the control of the NWS members of NATO.

Nuclear Alliance

NATO continues to maintain that "Nuclear weapons … remain essential to preserve peace".

This is clearly at variance with reality as the numerous wars over the years and the war in Europe over the last few months testify. It also ignores the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion on the threat or use of nuclear weapons. Even if the survival of a state is at stake no weapon can be used if it violates humanitarian law. Further, NATO is not a state. In addition it ignores the unanimous conclusion of the World Court that " there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects …".

The insistence that nuclear weapons are "essential" is also at variance with the statement that the NATO states are "committed to the full implementation" of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In fact the maintenance of the nuclear alliance is clearly one of the main causes of the present disarray in the international nuclear disarmament process.

This policy also ignores public opinion in NATO states. There have been numerous polls in recent years which indicate clearly that people wish their governments to pursue the global abolition of nuclear weapons seriously and urgently. The growing support by governments, including those of NATO states, for the New Agenda Coalition is further evidence of an overwhelming desire for change.

CND hopes that the voting on the NAC resolution at the United Nations is a real indication that NATO states are serious about working for de-emphasising the role of nuclear weapons.

CND believes that NATO should be making a clear commitment to the main Principles and Objectives agreed by the NPT member states with positive action not repetitive and empty assurances.

Whilst the greatest advance would be for the NWS to proceed rapidly with nuclear disarmament, NATO as an alliance does not need to wait for this eventuality. Nuclear weapons do not have to be assigned to NATO. Nor does the alliance have to be under the control of the NWS members.

A non-nuclear alliance would clearly limit the problems of nuclear sharing and allow the formation of a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in Central Europe which would not only enhance the security of that region but the whole of Europe. Support for NWFZ in other parts of the world is widespread, including amongst NATO and NWS states.

Limited Steps

While maintaining that NATO should, and could, consider a complete reversal of its nuclear policy nevertheless it should also consider confidence and security building measures which would not only improve NATO’s relations with the rest of the world and thereby increase European security but would also go some way to break the deadlock in the international nuclear disarmament process.

CND urges NATO to:

• adopt a No First-Use of nuclear weapons policy and thus enhance the security assurances given to the non-NATO, non-nuclear weapon States,
• remove the US B61 free fall tactical nuclear weapons from Europe,
• abandon the sub-strategic role of the UK Trident nuclear system,
• end nuclear sharing thus adhering to obligations under the NPT and enabling the formation of a NWFZ in Central Europe,
• de-alert nuclear weapons thus reducing tension with non-NATO NWS and greatly reducing the possibility of "accidental" launch,
• de-mate nuclear warheads from delivery systems as the clearest form of de-alerting.

The arguments for all these measures have been well rehearsed by many reports and in many fora by Governments and NGOs alike. There is overwhelming support for these measures as a positive way forward.

Conclusion

That the 1999 Strategic Concept which states that "The fundamental purpose of the nuclear forces of the Allies is political: to preserve peace and prevent coercion and anykind of war" was agreed by the NATO member states when they were at war with Yugoslavia shows vividly the gap between reality and nuclear policy.

No organisation can maintain credibility as a vehicle for security if its policies are not rooted in political and military reality.

No governmental organisation which purports to defend its people can retain its authority if it consistently ignores the people’s desire for change to its policies.

CND urges NATO to abandon nuclear weapons and look instead to European security initiatives which are valid for the 21^st century.

Privacy Statement | Sitemap