Chapter III. Role of Non-Nuclear NATO Members in Promoting Disarmament

Preface

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is in peril from a number of directions. The most immediate threats to the NPT do not come from NATO as an organization, but rather from nuclear weapons states and aspiring nuclear weapons states, the NATO allies of the United States do possess far more leverage over U.S. actions than other countries. The debate in the Security Council in early 2003 about the Iraq war showed that the United States could ignore world opinion and even that of its close allies and go to war. Yet, subsequent events have proven the merit, to a large part of the U.S. public and to many policymakers, of a larger international agreement, freely given, for long-term security and stability.

This report seeks to address the issue of what leverage the NATO allies of the United States might possess to pressure the U.S. to adhere to its various obligations under the NPT. It also seeks to analyze the nuclear disarmament obligations of the NATO allies of the United States, especially its non-nuclear allies. Their situation is evolving in a direction where their NPT-related obligations are coming into increasing conflict with the policies of the leading NATO member, the United States. They may soon have to make a choice as to which obligations are primary.

We recognize of course, that NATO members have historic ties with one another and that they are loathe to jeopardize them. We also know that newer NATO members, i.e., the countries of Eastern Europe, have a great deal to lose by pressing the United States on issues that the latter deems central to its global purposes. That was clear, were any proof needed, during the Security Council debate on the Iraq war. We are also aware of the divide within the European Union itself on nuclear weapons issues, since the EU has two states, Britain and France, that are nuclear weapon states. Finally, there is the divide created by the Iraq war among the more powerful EU members - with Britain participating substantially in the decision to wage the war and in the prosecution of that war. These are among the reasons that we address this report mainly to the people of the non-nuclear NATO allies of the United States, especially those who have U.S. nuclear weapons on their soil as part of NATO nuclear sharing arrangements. They are the ones who will have to pressure their governments to play their part in helping preserve the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the NPT in its non-proliferation and disarmament purposes is. The world is at a crossroads on nuclear weapons and other security issues. Those two treaties are principal elements for building a peaceful, equitable, and secure world based on the rule of law.

The idea for this report arose during a conversations that one of us, Arjun Makhijani, had with a prominent diplomat from a NATO ally of the United States, who voiced strong support for the comprehensive test ban, but yet seemed unwilling to challenge the United States in any meaningful way to actually ratify the CTBT or even adhere to a test moratorium for the indefinite future. If the military ties that bind the West are more important than global commitments, then how should the rest of the world view their own security situation? This has become a pressing problem since the publication of the details of the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review of January 2002, and The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002, which includes the kind of pre-emptive war that the United States and Britain waged on Iraq. The United States has re-affirmed that it may use nuclear weapons under a variety of circumstances and expanded the possible circumstances of their use to "surprising" developments.

While the United States seems intent on setting aside the rule of law for itself in international relations, the new draft security strategy of the European Union affirms it:

While the United States is embarked upon a policy of pre-emptive war in the pursuit of the War on Terror, the draft EU strategy speaks of "pre-emptive engagement" to help create a world that "is seen as offering justice and opportunity for everyone" as a part of achieving better security for Europe.²

The engagement of Europe and Canada with the United States in affirming the rule of law and upholding nuclear disarmament commitments under the CTBT and NPT is crucial at this juncture. The political soil in the United States may be more fertile too, given the continuing crises in the Middle East and in nuclear proliferation. The strategy of pre-emptive war and spurning of treaty commitments by the powerful when they are deemed inconvenient is a likely road to nuclear chaos and perpetual war.

We recognize that the NATO allies of the United States are closely linked to the United States by many common interests and policies. Yet, the world needs a course to nuclear disarmament and peace. We offer this report as a contribution to the discussion on what the NATO allies of the United States might do to further those goals and to persuade their most powerful ally to take a different course.

Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D.
Nicole Deller, J.D.
October 2003

Footnotes

¹ Javier Solana, "A Secure Europe in a Better World," p. 9. On the Web at http://ue.eu.int/pressdata/EN/reports/76255.pdf. A draft European Union security strategy paper by the EU High Representative for the Common Foreign And Security Policy, delivered at the European Council meeting in Thessaloniki, June 20, 2003.

² Ibid, pp. 9 and 10.

Next: Acknowledgements