International Reactions to Leaked Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)

Excerpts from the Nuclear Posture Review Released 8 January 2002

Reactions from:

2002 Non-Proliferation Treaty PrepCom
China
Germany
Iran
New Zealand
North Korea
Russian Federation
United Kingdom
United Nations

Statements to the 2002 Non-Proliferation Treaty PrepCom 8-19 April 2002, New York

Full statements available at 
BASIC's Non-Proliferation Treaty 2002 PrepCom Webpage

Valentin Rybakov (Republic of Belarus)
"The Republic of Belarus expresses deep concern over the Nuclear Posture Review of one of nuclear-weapons states recently made public. The Review undermines the basic provisions of the NPT and envisages the development of new types of nuclear weapons, which may lead to the resumption of nuclear testing. The Review considers a possibility of preventive nuclear strikes against a list of states, including non-nuclear-weapons states. Lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons and expanding the circumstances and conditions for their use create a dangerous precedent." 
(9 April 2002)

Celina Assumpção do Valle Pereira (Brazil)
"The development of a new generation of nuclear weapons is also a disturbing rumor. It appears to signal a new role for nuclear weapons. New rationales for the possession of nuclear weapons continue to be re-stated or reinforced.

The use of nuclear weapons, so it seems, is being re-rationalized." (8 April 2002)

Christopher Westdahl (Canada)
"Moreover, signals from some nuclear-weapon States regarding their nuclear arsenals occasion uncertainty and concern." (9 April 2002)

Mahmoud Mubarak (Egypt) on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition (Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden)
"We remain concerned that the commitment to diminish the role of nuclear weapons in security policies and defense doctrines has yet to materialize… Furthermore, we are deeply concerned about emerging approaches to the future role of nuclear weapons as a part of new security strategies." 
(8 April 2002)

Makmur Widodo (Republic of Indonesia) on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement States Parties
"Allow me to reflect on some developments of concern to the Movement since the 2000 Review Conference…

Strategic defense doctrines continue to set out rationales for the use of nuclear weapons, as demonstrated by the recent policy review by one of the Nuclear Weapon States to consider expanding the circumstances under which nuclear weapons could be used and the countries that they could be used against;

We are also concerned by the recent developments that threaten the principle of irreversibility of nuclear disarmament, nuclear and other arms control and reduction measures." 
(8 April 2002)

Hadi Nejad-Hosseinian (Iran)
"But Mr. Chairman, the new nuclear posture review submitted by the US Defense Department to the Congress is the most real setback within the nuclear non-proliferation context requiring our careful consideration. This doctrine indicates the emergence of a new doctrine in the United States on the use of nuclear weapons through development of new generation of nuclear weapons and improving the existing ones to be used against nuclear as well as non-nuclear-weapon States. It drastically changes the long-standing traditional role for of the nuclear weapons as means to deter the adversary and transforms such weapons as operational weapons in the battlefield and regional armed conflicts. This policy is in quite contravention to the letter and spirit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The new doctrine if approved, would furthermore lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons by defining the new circumstances such as when conventional arms could not effectively destroy the targets, which therefore expands the scope to use such weapons…

The new US doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons not only shifts back towards a new era of nuclear arms race, but also expands the role of nuclear weapons to conventional conflicts and even non-belligerent non-nuclear-weapon States. By devising such a policy, the US would require to test the new nuclear weapon systems which would be in clear violation of its legal obligations stemming from its signatures of the CTBT and its unilateral moratorium to conduct further nuclear tests."
(9 April 2002)

Gustavo Albin (Mexico)
"There are preoccupying signs of the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons and emerging approaches for ongoing justification of a future role of nuclear weapons as part of new strategies of security. These signs deteriorate nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation." (9 April 2002)

China

Sun Yuxi, Official Spokesman of China's Foreign Ministry 
"Like many other countries, we are deeply shocked by the report by the U.S. Department of Defense, which lists China among the seven nations as targets of possible nuclear strikes. We hold the United States responsible for an explanation. ...

China has always stood for the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons. The nuclear states should unconditionally undertake not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, or use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against nuclear-free countries or zones. China and the United States also had an agreement on the non-targeting of nuclear weapons.

In our view, it is the trend of the day for the international community to work for peace, cooperation and development. Any cold-war mentality does not go along with the above trend and could only lead to failure."
(12 March 2002, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Website, Press Briefing)

Germany

Ludger Volmer, Deputy Foreign Minister
"Such a strategy could endanger the disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons." Volmer called US plans to use nuclear arms against non-nuclear states "extremely questionable"
(13 March 2002, Islamic Republic News Agency)

Iran

Abdollah Ramezanzadeh, Iranian Government spokesman 
"The Islamic Republic believes that the era of using force to push forward international relations is long past, and those who resort to the logic of force follow exactly the same logic as terrorists, although they are in the position of power."
(13 March 2002, China Daily, "Nuke Plan Angers 'Targeted Countries'")

Hashemi Rafsanjani, Former Iranian President  
"America thinks that if a military threat looms large over the head of these
seven countries, they will give up their logical demands." 
(10 March 2002, Associated Press, "World Reacts to US Nuclear Plans")

New Zealand

Matt Robson, New Zealand Minister of Disarmament and Arms Control
“Nuclear weapons must be left in the 20th century. We cannot allow them to become the weapon of choice for the 21st century. For that reason I urge the government of the United States to reject any pressure to walk away from their commitment to nuclear disarmament...

If the recommendations in this leaked report were taken up by the Bush administration, it would throw the disarmament agenda internationally into disarray."
(12 March 2002, Press Release from the New Zealand Government Executive, "Robson Urges Rethink on Nuclear Plans") 

North Korea

Official Statement from Korean Central News Agency of DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea)
"The DPRK will not remain a passive onlooker to the Bush administration's inclusion of the DPRK in the seven countries, targets of U.S. nuclear attack, but take a strong countermeasure against it. ...

If the US intends to mount a nuclear attack on any part of the DPRK [North Korea] just as it did on Hiroshima, it is grossly mistaken. A nuclear war to be imposed by the US nuclear fanatics... would mean their ruin in nuclear disaster."
(13 March 2002, Reuters, "North Korea Hits Out at U.S. Nuclear Arms Review")

Russian Federation

Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation
"I must, however, say frankly that these statements [concerning the NPR] do worry us. And here is why. The United States complies with the provisions of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, but has not ratified this Treaty. This means that potentially there remains the possibility of nuclear weapon tests being resumed.

…What you have mentioned cannot but worry us for the following reason. We hear individual statements about a possible use of nuclear weapons by the United States, including against non-nuclear states. This is the first point.

And the second point is, we hear statements and proposals for developing low-yield nuclear charges and their possible use in regional conflicts. This, to a very low bar, to a dangerous line, lowers the threshold of possible nuclear weapons use. The very approach to this problem may change, and then it will be possible to speak of a change of strategy. In this case nuclear weapons from weapons of nuclear deterrence go down to the level of weapons of operational use, and, in my opinion, this is very dangerous."
(4 April 2002, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Transcript of Russian President Vladimir Putin Meeting with German and Russian Media))

Alexander Yakovenko, Official Spokesman of Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs
"We have sent a letter to the U.S. State Department asking to explain the line of Washington on this issue. The fact is that if the information set forth in the story corresponds to reality, then, as Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov has said, it can cause regret and anxiety, not only in Russia, but also in the whole international community.

Based on the contents of the story, one has the impression that a transformation of the approaches to using nuclear weapons is taking place in the United States. In particular, it is now recognized that they could be employed in regional conflicts, including against non-nuclear countries which have relinquished the nuclear choice. This transfers nuclear weapons from a means of deterrence to the operational military arsenal of the USA, which lowers the threshold of their application.

All this, if it is really so, in the final analysis seriously weakens the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Yet Russia and the USA as some of the depositaries of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, on the contrary, should strive to strengthen, not to undermine, this major element of international security."
(13 March 2002, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Daily News Bulletin) 

Sergei Ivanov, Russian Defense Minister
"If it is true, it can only give rise to regret and concern, not only from Russia but from the entire world community.  Such a plan can destabilize the situation and make it more tense... We hope that following the explanations by the U.S. secretary of state and the national security adviser, there will be declarations at a higher level to provide more clarity on this issue, assure the world community and establish that the United States is not carrying out such plans."
(11 March 2002, Reuters/Russia Journal)

Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, Former Head of the Defense Ministry's Department for International Cooperation
The United States "
The United States "has always seen and sees the U.S.S.R. and post-Soviet Russia as a geopolitical rival... It's about time Russian politicians realized this and stopped having illusions that Washington wishes Moscow well and prosperity."
(10 March 2002, Associated Press, "World Reacts to US Nuclear Plans")

United Kingdom

Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs Spokesman
"This completely changes the terms of debate about nuclear deterrence. America has said that it can now act unilaterally and that it could use nuclear weapons against nations who do not have nuclear capability. Britain will have to think very carefully now about its support for systems such as the national missile defence system."
(10 March 2002, The Observer, "Outrage as Pentagon Nuclear Hitlist Revealed")

Dr. Dennis Macshane, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
"Surely the important point is that the policy review [the NPR], as reported in the press, reiterated the United States' commitment to a "no first use" policy [This is incorrect. The United States has never held a "no first use" policy towards nuclear weapons]. It also indicated that America was seeking to reduce the number of its nuclear missiles from 6,000 to 2,000."
(12 March 2002, House of Commons, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Debate)

United Nations

Jayantha Dhanapala, UN Undersecretary General for Disarmament Affairs 
"[The plan] flies in the face of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty undertakings. Under Article VI, one is expected to reduce nuclear weapons and ultimately eliminate them. So this is to me a very serious contradiction of that and will be a very major stumbling block as we begin the process of preparing for the 2005 NPT Review Conference, which begins in April. ...

"[The U.S. review could] encourage other countries then to discard the obligations under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. We are going to get an encouragement to nuclear proliferation, rather than reducing the number of countries that have nuclear weapons."
(“U.S. Plan Concerns Top U.N. Official”, UN Wire, 13 March 2002)

Back to U.S. Nuclear Policy

Back to Nuclear and WMD