PRESS RELEASE

7 May 1996

Nuclear Retaliation:  Perry Contradicts Clinton

The Pentagon today confirmed recent statements from US Defense Secretary William Perry on the use of nuclear weapons directly contradicting negative security assurances announced by President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore before the 1995 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Conference.

On 28 March 1996, US Defense Secretary William Perry stated:

We have an effective range of alternative capabilities to deter or retaliate against use of CW [chemical weapons]. The whole range would be considered... We have conventional weapons, also advanced conventional weapons - precision guided munitions, Tomahawk land-attack missiles - and then we have nuclear weapons.

Over the weekend of 4/5 May Secretary Perry reiterated that nuclear weapons could be used to deter or retaliate against use of chemical weapons. On 4 April 1996, Robert Bell of the National Security Council, speaking about US signature to the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (ANWFZ) stated:

Under protocol I, which we signed, each party pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against an ANWFZ party. However, Protocol I will not limit options available to the United States in response to an attack by an ANWFZ party using weapons of mass destruction.

The protocol I of the ANWFZ Treaty reads:

Each Protocol Party undertakes not to use or threaten to use a nuclear explosive device against: (a) Any party to the Treaty; or (b) Any territory within the African nuclear-weapon-free zone for which a State that has become a Party... is internationally responsible...

These statements by Secretary Perry and Robert Bell contradict those of President Clinton and Vice President Gore. President William Clinton, 5 April 1995:

The United States reaffirms that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [NPT] except in the case of invasion or any attack on the United States, its territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies, or on a State toward which it has a security commitment, carried out or sustained by such a non-nuclear-weapon State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State.

Vice-President Al Gore explained the rationale for this decision in his speech to the NPT Conference 19 April 1995:

The fourth argument made against indefinite extension of the Treaty is that the treaty exposes non-nuclear states to the risk of intimidation by nuclear weapons states and states not party to the NPT. Since the nuclear weapon states clearly understand that damaging the NPT also damages their own security, they have strong motives to refrain from nuclear threats, and instead to provide credible assurances designed to allay the concerns of others. That is why earlier this month, President Clinton issued a declaration providing robust positive and negative security assurances. Each of the four nuclear weapons states has provided parallel statements.

Correction: Negative security assurances are not legally binding as stated in BASIC Press release of 30 April, however the same undertaking in the protocol to the South African Nuclear Free Zone Treaty is a legal commitment.

Back to Nuclear and WMD home page