PRESS RELEASE

9 June 1998

NATO's Criticism of South Asia Hypocritical

Ignores New Proposal from Eight Nations for Immediate Steps toward Nuclear Disarmament

At meetings in Brussels this Thursday, NATO Defense Ministers are expected to release a statement condemning Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests. At the same time, in secret, the Ministers have agreed, in the Alliance’s ongoing strategy review, to keep NATO nuclear policy unchanged. This position contrasts sharply with the appeal released today by eight countries calling on the five nuclear-weapons states to make "a clear commitment to the speedy, final and total elimination of their nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capability."

The appeal, made by Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa, and Sweden, calls for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, and pushes the nuclear-capable states to join the process. It recommends immediate steps to "abandon hair-trigger postures" by de-alerting and de-activating nuclear weapons, and to remove non-strategic nuclear weapons from deployed sites. This last point is a direct criticism of NATO's nuclear deployment policy.

However, NATO policy is moving in the opposite direction. Speaking on condition of anonymity, NATO sources familiar with nuclear doctrine note that the Alliance's policy states that "the rationale for first use of tactical nuclear weapons is now justified by an offensive counter proliferation mission which is part of an emerging doctrine for managing crisis outside the treaty area. According to the new doctrine nuclear weapons might be used to deter the use of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical and biological) and their means of delivery by hostile governments in crisis areas. The objective is to enhance freedom of action for NATO forces so that they can fulfil their out-of-area mission." It is in support of these policies that NATO Defense Ministers will almost certainly reject the proposal made today. NATO’s inflexibility in reviewing its strategy undermines the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in the following ways.

1. A refusal to guarantee not to escalate conflict to nuclear war.

In 1995 NATO countries agreed that "further steps should be considered to assure non-nuclear-weapon States party to the Treaty against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. These steps could take the form of an internationally legally binding instrument." Today's eight-nation proposal also calls for commitments of non-use or threat of use against non-nuclear states. NATO nuclear policy still calls for first use of nuclear weapons, and NATO states have refused to support proposals that would end this.

2. Insistence on sharing nuclear arms with ‘nonnuclear’ states in NATO.

Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey have troops trained to use the U.S. nuclear weapons stored on their territory. As the NATO’s Strategic Concept states, "A credible Alliance nuclear posture and the demonstration of Alliance solidarity and common commitment to war prevention continue to require widespread participation by European Allies involved in collective defence planning in nuclear roles, in peacetime basing of nuclear forces on their territory and in command, control and consultation arrangements." [emphasis added] As a representative of Turkey stated so poignantly at a recent NPT meeting, his country, "apart from the nuclear umbrella of the NATO alliance, does not possess nuclear weapons."

In contrast, at the same meeting, the developing world, led by South Africa, called for an end to all nuclear sharing arrangements, proposing that "the Nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT . . . refrain from, among themselves, with non-nuclear weapons states, and with States not party to the Treaty, nuclear sharing for military purposes under any kind of security arrangements." In response to these concerns, Senator Thomas Harkin, during the hearing on NATO expansion in the U.S. Senate, offered an amendment which "declares that the President, as part of NATO’s ongoing Strategic Review, should examine the political and legal compatibility between— (1) current United States programs involving nuclear weapons cooperation with other NATO members; and (2) the obligations of the United States and the other NATO members under the [NPT]."

Such an examination appears unlikely. As NATO's Strategic Concept states, "the Alliance will maintain for the foreseeable future an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces based in Europe." This contrasts strikingly with the 1995 commitment made to make NPT permanent to a program of action that includes "the determined pursuit by the nuclear-weapon States of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons", reaffirming the legal commitment of NPT Article VI on the elimination of nuclear weapons.

"This is a meeting of lifelong drunkards to criticize teen drinking," said Daniel Plesch, Director of BASIC, in reference to the NATO ministerial.

"Today's proposal requires an immediate reaction from NATO countries. It is time for a reevaluation of the role of nuclear weapons in security policy. Unfortunately, NATO seems content to maintain the nuclear status quo", said Stephen Young, Senior Analyst at BASIC.

Full text of the eight-nation proposal

For more information, please contact:
Stephen Young or Daniel Plesch on +1 202 785-1266.

Back to NPT home page

Back to BASIC Publications home page