NATO AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN EUROPE
A DISCUSSION PAPER FOR OCTOBER, 2005 NATO – The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Some may know the English phrase ‘a wolf in
sheep’s clothing’ and that is what I would call NATO at the moment. NATO is
being presented as a global peace organisation, but, as such, it usurps the role
of the United Nations. NATO is a
military alliance with policies of retaining and threatening with nuclear
weapons and using nuclear weapons first. At its meeting in June (2005) this year, the NATO
Defence Planning Committee and Nuclear Planning Group and stated: “At
our first Nuclear Planning Group meeting with new members, we reviewed the status of NATO's nuclear forces and the work of the High
Level Group and reaffirmed the continued validity of the fundamental
principles governing NATO's nuclear policy and force posture as set out in the Strategic Concept, which affirms the fundamental political purpose of
NATO's nuclear forces: to preserve peace and prevent coercion. Within
this context, the Alliance is committed to its long-standing goal to enhance security and stability at the lowest possible level of forces consistent with its requirements for collective defence and deterrence.” The 1999, NATO Strategic Concept, that was
re-affirmed at the June 2005 meeting. includes the following: “Article 42: The presence of United States conventional and nuclear
forces in Europe remains vital to security in Europe. and Article 46: Nuclear weapons make a unique contribution in rendering the
risks of aggression against the Alliance incalculable and unacceptable.
Thus, they remain acceptable to preserve peace.” These polices are a block to the nuclear weapon
states carrying out their obligations under the UN Nuclear Non Proliferation
Treaty to bring about global nuclear disarmament in “good faith”.
Nuclear weapons do not ‘preserve peace’. Nuclear weapons are de-stabilising and each time it is
asserted they are necessary for defence, another state will want to acquire
them. NATO US nuclear armed bases
present a picture of Europe dominated by US Foreign Policy, not conducive to
peaceful global relations. In Britain, at the Lakenheath base, as with five other
(non-nuclear) NATO states, there are probably over 100 nuclear warheads –
altogether, according to the US Natural Defense Council report in 2005, there
are a total of 480 nuclear warheads, in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the
Netherlands, Turkey as well as the UK. The dangers of NATO’s nuclear
policies and its ‘nuclear sharing’ have become more dangerous as NATO
expands to include more nation states. South
Africa argued in 1997, “The
planned expansion of NATO would entail an increase in the number of non-nuclear
weapon states which participate in nuclear training and which would have an
element of nuclear deterrence in their defence policies”.
Although no nuclear weapons are stationed on the territory of the
‘new’ member states, they, like all NATO member states except France, are
involved in the planning arrangements for the use of nuclear weapons in time of
war. Nor has NATO given guarantees
not to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new member states, stressing
only that it has no plans to do so. With
the expansion of NATO to 26 states, Europe is rapidly becoming Nuclear Armed
Europe The US and the UK, dominant in NATO, and the other
European nuclear weapon state France, cry out (quite rightly) about the dangers
of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
But the NATO nuclear weapon states need to look to themselves.
They are the ones who have made no positive moves towards nuclear
disarmament; they are the ones who have developed more powerful systems till now
they could annihilate the whole world. Both
the UK and the US have said they would be prepared to use nuclear weapons. These
same two governments define hypocrisy because they are themselves holders of
huge nuclear arsenals; they are developing new nuclear, so-called, low yield
nukes and developing a replacement for the Trident nuclear-armed submarines.
Britain’s Trident fleet, with a
1000 times the killing power of the bomb at Hiroshima, is integrated into NATO. At the Ministerial and Nuclear Planning Group
meeting held at NATO Headquasrters in June this year (2005), the final statement
read: "The nuclear forces based in
Europe and committed to NATO continue to provide an essential political and military link between the European
and North American members of the Alliance. We noted with appreciation
the continuing contribution made by the United Kingdom's independent nuclear forces to deterrence and the overall security of the Allies, and
reaffirmed the value of this capability." That statement by many counts is completely
misleading. The UK’s so called
nuclear force is the fleet of four Trident nuclear armed submarines.
They are not independent. They
are completely part of the US fighting fleet: the missiles are lease-purchased
from the US; the design of the nuclear warheads is US; all repairs and
maintenance is US and they can only be operated with the assistance of the US.
As was said in a recent TV satire programme in answer to the question,
‘What does the UK do then for Trident?, the reply was ‘We make the
sandwiches’. The Faslane
base in Scotland provides the US with a ‘forward base in Europe’, said Bob
Aldridge, the leading US Trident resister.
Are the missiles then still targeted at Russia? The government nuclear weapons’ addicts hang on
to this policy of, so called, ‘deterrence’.
But what violence or conflict has The Trident system deterred?
It didn’t prevent the attack on 9/11; it didn’t prevent the attacks
in Spain or this year’s bombing on the London underground. MILITARISM AND NATO
There are huge costs to NATO.
Never does any Secretary General stand up on his feet but he declares
NATO needs more money. The amount of money expended on NATO is large and even
more the new member states all must have ‘interoperability’ which means all
member states must have the same military hardware fighter aircraft, bombs. As
recently as April last year, the current secretary General, Jaap de Hoop
Scheffer, said in an address to the Slovenian Parliament, that NATO needed more
troops and more money, therefore Slovenia should be considering increasing its
contributions to NATO. So the east
and central European nations who are all struggling with their economies will be
asked to put more money and resource into this military alliance - as if the
member states of NATO did not have large enough military budgets. One analysis would be in fact
that the expansion of NATO eastwards was to line the coffers of the defence,
mainly US, contractors’ pockets. Bruce
Jackson, Technical Director of Lockheed Martin at the time, headed the US NATO
Expansion Committee in the mid 90’s. When
the new member states come into NATO their troops have to have
‘interoperability’ on training and equipment and they have to buy, for
example, Lockheed Martin fighter aircraft. NATO has even been slow to
respond to major disasters such as the recent earth quake in Pakistan and India.
It is helping, but slowly. Our
wish would be that money expended on the huge military arsenal was changed over
from war-making to social uses and for disaster emergency teams FIRST USE
OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
NATO still
holds a policy of first use of nuclear weapons
This has serious implications for member states.
The UK, for example, does not have an independent defence policy.
It is circumscribed by its membership of NATO.
When asked, this year, about ruling out the use of UK nuclear weapons on
a ‘first strike basis’, Geoff Hon, the then secretary of State for Defence
replied, ‘A
policy of not first use of nuclear weapons would be incompatible with our and
NATO’s doctrine of deterrence, nor would it further disarmament objectives.’ The European
Constitution says something similar in that the EU Foreign and Security Policy
shall ’respect the obligations of certain member states which see their
common defence realise din NATO… and be compatible with the common security
and defence policy established within that framework.’ .Despite its expansion, NATO still appears to be
fighting for its life. Thus all the
seminars and public relations on the possibilities of it being seen as a
peace-keeping force.. It has
already expanded its area of operations well beyond the North Atlantic.
but should it have? Is it
correct that it should act as a global military force?
NATO conducts military exercises with Israel.
Should it be doing this? The
Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, is arguing that it should be given
more forces, be given more funding and resource by member states.
But if these forces are deployed and directed as part of US Foreign
Policy, as surely they are otherwise why are they in Afghanistan and already
advising in Iraq, (or even if that is how they are perceived in the countries to
which they are deployed), how can this be a sound base for peace? Finally NATO
has become a military arm of US Foreign Policy. Many governments, and certainly a majority of people in
Europe, want to distance themselves from US polices, especially the ‘war on
terror’. But NATO is deeply involved in Afghanistan and
already advising Polish forces in Iraq. Those
are US agendas. In our dialogues
for security, I put it to you that nuclear-armed NATO is part of the problem,
not the solution. Furthermore,
in this year of the 60th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, when we hear the pleas of the survivors, the Hibakusha, of the
bombings, it is unbelievable that any state, or alliance of states, can
subscribe to a policy of first use of nuclear weapons NATO is part of the continued formation of a
‘Nuclear Armed Europe’. Peace
activists must work together to raise awareness of the dangers of NATO policies,
challenge the policies of NATO, oppose the bases and cooperate to bring about a
Nuclear Free Europe. We must expose the wolf for what it is. Rae Street Vice chair
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament UK
11.10.05 |