Transatlantic Security
Back to the main
page on Transatlantic Security
NATO
Dutch Upper Chamber Debates
NATO Nuclear Strategy
23 March 1999
By Karel Koster
NATO nuclear policy was debated in the Dutch
Upper Chamber of Parliament during the debate over the defence
budget. The following material was taken from the unofficial
transcript of the debate made by the Upper Chamber secretariat.
This unofficial translation and summary was made available
by Karel Koster
EXCERPTS FROM THE DEFENCE BUDGET
DEBATE IN THE UPPER CHAMBER
16 March 1999
Senator Pitstra (Green Left):
- NPT undermined by maintenance of NATO nuclear doctrine
- Asks the minister of foreign affairs on his reaction to
Butler/Graham visit, epecially their statement that NPT
is endangered by NATO nuclear policy?
- Will the minister argue for the term 'weapon of last resort'
in the nuclear paragraph?
- Will the government cooperate with Canada and Germany
in taking new initiatives?
- How will the Dutch government carry out the Advisory Opinion
of the International court of Jutice, as far as striving
for nuclear disarmament is concerned?
Van Aartsen replied: "The government is of the opinion that
the nuclear paragraphs should be adapted to the circumstances,
which have after all changed drastically since 1991. Holand
has made a number of suggestions for changes, which have now
been inserted in the texts which will be used in Washington.This
concerns the emphasis on the "extremely remote" chance that
nuclear weapons will be used and that these weapons should
be at the lowest level of alert possible, in keeping with
the current security situation. I also think that it would
be a good thing that the considerable reductions achieved
in nuclear weapon arsenals since 1991 by the allies - about
which we have already spoken in this Chamber - should be noted
in the overall concept.
It is a known fact that the government does not support more
structural changes in NATO nuclear policy, although we are
certainly willing to have a debate on this question. Holland
initiated the dedate on this issue at the NATO Council in
December. Nuclear weapons will always play a role in the world
under current circumastances in the framework of deterrence.
And it seems to me important to indicate that it is indeed
a "weapon of last resort". To be honest, I do not see much
of a difference between the use of the term "weapon of last
resort" and the term "extremely remote" as far as the use
of nuclear weapons is concerned. I think both are accurate
representations of our intentions on this issue.
Mr. Pitsra also asked whether "the non-prolferation treaty
is in danger". I think this is a successful treaty in the
field of non-proliferation and disarmament. All countries
are party to this and it was therefore extended indefinitely
in 1995 with a large degree of support. The Indian and Pakistani
nuclear tests do play a role in the NPT.
They are in my opinion a real challenge to the NPT. Doing
those tests has nothing whatsoever to do with the role played
by NATO. Very complex problems and factors are involved, especially
related to regional problems. Again, the role of nuclear weaspons
need to be compared with the international situation. That
is precsiely what Holland is arguing for within the framework
of the Strategic Concept. That role is decreasing. The Dutch
goverment, too, is ultimately striving for the goals expressed
in art. 6 of the NPT: a nuclear weapons-free world. "
later on:
"Mr. Pitstra has also put forward a question on the role
played by Canada. I want to point out that there is a desire
to reestablish the transatlantic ties completely. Holland
is in close touch with the Canadian govenment, certainly in
connection with both our positions regarding a number of questions
on disarmament. Just like Holland Canada abstained last year
in the vote for the November resolution in the General assembly.
Holland is furthermore very active on disarmament and also
continually puts forward new suggestions, as we did recently.
I can only hope that the Canadians will also supprt this kind
of Dutch proposal in Geneva too. There is therefore no question
of a divergence between Canada and Holland."
Pitsra reiterated his arguments and noted that the debate
in NATO is ongoing.
Back to Summit Updates
Back to Trans-atlantic
Security Home Page
|
