5 March 2008

High-level representation at the Conference on Disarmament (CD) continued today with a statement from the Swedish State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Frank Belfrage. Ambassador Faysal Khabbaz Hamoui of Syria also delivered a statement on behalf of the Group of 21 on negative security assurances.

Strengthening the NPT
Mr. Belfrage's statement carried the same urgency present in the statements made in yesterday's plenary by the foreign ministers. He spoke extensively about the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), emphasizing the reciprocal relationship between disarmament and non-proliferation and the need to build upon the fundamental commitments of the Treaty. He argued that the NPT recognizes "that the indefinite possession, or even the presumption of the indefinite possession of nuclear weapons by any one state would undermine efforts to prevent their proliferation." Pointing to the statement made by the UK Secretary of Defence, Des Browne, on 5 February, Mr. Belfrage argued, "The commitment of all parties to the NPT to 'ease international tension ... in order to faciliate ... the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery' is .... 'not some get out clause for the five recognized Nuclear Weapon States'. It is a fundamental recognition of the relationship between nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and the joint commitment and responsibility which follows." He further argued, "Those who choose to see only one side of this balance are in fact challenging the vision of a world free of weapons of mass destruction. Doing so invites a reaction and undue emphasis on the other side of the balance in other quarters ... [leading] to mutually assured paralysis."

According to Mr. Belfrage, the CD "should be the place to to demonstrate one's willingness to avoid such paralysis." The CD provides a forum to build upon the fundamental commitments to the NPT, including those from the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences. He suggested that negotiation of a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT), "with appropriate scope and verification measures," would reinvigorate the CD and fulfill one of the NPT commitments, and that it could "be seen as a litmus test of the political will to avoid new global or regional arms races in the nuclear field." He also urged the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and multilateralization of the nuclear fuel cycle in order to build upon and develop NPT commitments.

Nuclear forces in Europe: undermining the NPT
Speaking about the 350 non-strategic nuclear weapons belonging to the United States estimated to be stored in five European NATO states—Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey—Mr. Belfrage argued, "There is no reason to keep these weapons in a Europe less militarized and with less tension than at any time during the past one hundred years." The presence of these arsenals is neither confirmed nor denied by the United States or the host countries, though NATO's Strategic Concept confirms NATO policy to "maintain for the forseeable future an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces based in Europe, kept up to date where necessary, at the minimum sufficient level." In 2001, the NATO Nuclear Planning Group met to discuss and review the Strategic Concept and determined, "Nuclear forces are a credible and effective element of the alliance's strategy of preventing war; they are maintaining the minimum level sufficient to preserve peace and stability, under conditions that continue to meet the highest standards of safety and security." The Strategic Concept is up for review again in 2009.

Mr. Belfrage suggested future US-Russian talks and negotiations should include these weapons. He argued that elimination or withdrawal from active duty "of a category of weapons so clearly designed for another age and time, would indeed be a show of statesmanship and leadership." Many critics of the nuclear sharing policy argue it would, more importantly, bring the United States and the five NATO members into compliance with the NPT. Article I of the NPT forbids nuclear weapon states "to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly." Article II forbids non-nuclear weapon states "to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly." While NATO maintains the legality of its policy insofar as the weapons remain under US control, many critics argue that NATO's nuclear sharing policy, and the peacetime planning for the use of weapons by non-nuclear weapon states, is in direct violation of Articles I and II. The Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy also says that NATO members argue "that the arrangements predated the NPT and that 'general war' would end the validity of the NPT." However, the Acronym Institute points out,

If any other NPT states tried to share nuclear weapons using similar arrangements, the NATO countries would be the first to condemn them for breaching Articles I and II of the NPT. Yet if they adopted the US/NATO interpretation of their NPT obligations, Russia could reintroduce nuclear weapons into Belarus for wartime use by Belarusian armed forces; or China could create nuclear sharing arrangements with North Korea. In effect, NATO has established and continues to maintain a privileged practice that it would not want others to emulate.

Furthermore, "In 1985, the NPT Review Conference agreed as part of its Final Document that the Treaty remains in force 'under any circumstances'. Though not made explicit, this language was intended to constrain the NATO nuclear sharing policy."

The Acronym Institute also argues that the nuclear sharing policy undermines implementation of the NPT, pointing out that while "NATO countries claim to support the full implementation of the NPT ... they are often put under pressure by the United States to oppose disarmament proposals endorsed by the majority of non-nuclear nations in multilateral fora such as the NPT and UN First Committee." In addition, the Acronym Institute notes, NATO's nuclear policies have been "an obstacle to improving negative security assurances," which the Group of 21 delivered a statement about today. On behalf of the Group, Ambassador Hamoui of Syria lamented "strategic defense doctrines, which not only set out rationales for the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, but also maintain unjustifiable concepts on international security based on promoting and developing military alliances [and] nuclear deterrence policies."

Several host governments or elements within their governments, along with their citizens, have pushed for removal of these weapons from their territories. On 22 March 2005, the Commission of Foreign Affairs and Defense of the Belgian Senate adopted a resolutionrequesting the Belgian government to broach the possibility of removal of US nuclear weapons from Europe. On 21 April 2005, the Belgian Senate unanimously echoed this call. In April 2005, the Liberal Party in Germany proposed a resolution in Parliament asking the government to insist on the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from German territory. The proposal was overwhelming supported by the German public and politicians.

However, in June 2005, NATO Defense Ministers issued a communiqué that effectively rejected these calls, stating, "the nuclear forces based in Europe and committed to NATO continue to provide an essential political and military link between the European and North American members of the Alliance," and reaffirming, "the fundamental political purpose of NATO's nuclear forces: to preserve peace and prevent coercion." This communiqué was followed by the adoption of a second resolution in July 2005 by the Belgian Parliament calling for the removal of NATO weapons from Belgium. In Germany, in January 2006, nine parliamentarians from the newly formed party Die Linken introduced a resolution to German parliament calling for the German Air Force to end its NATO commitment to deliver US nuclear weapons in times of war.

In the Netherlands, in February 2001, Dutch parliament held a debate on the Netherlands' role in NATO nuclear sharing. Several Dutch political parties support the unilateral removal of US nuclear weapons from the Netherlands, but two of the three governing parties have argued for negotiated removal, while a slight majority in parliament's Lower Chamber supports increased transparency by NATO. During the debate, Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Jozias van Aartsen argued, "We are part of an alliance which possesses nuclear weapons, this is part of NATO's strategic concept and this therefore means that Holland must play a role in this." He went on to assert that "in all the negotiating fora which we have on this in the coming years, that the aim remains the abolition of nuclear weapons."

In June 2006, Turkish parliament debated the deployment of US nuclear weapons in Turkey after Turkey's former ambassador to the United States, Sukru Elekdag, referenced the Natural Resources Defense Council's US Nuclear Weapons in Europe report. It marked the first time the report was brought up in Turkish parliament. Elekdag argued that nuclear weapons were removed from Greece in 2001 and that Turkey's continued allowance of US nuclear weapons cannot "be easily explained" to its Muslim and Arab neighbors.

In addition, many mayors in these countries—298 in Belgium, 309 in Germany, 259 in Italy, 35 in the Netherlands, and 10 in Turkey—are members of Mayors for Peace 2020 Vision Campaign, championing a call for a worldwide ban of nuclear weapons before 2020 anddemonstrating "the growing democratic deficit with regard to NATO nuclear policies."

Conclusion
Mr. Belfrage began his statement by paraphrasing the opening message of the report of the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Commission: WMD "are designed to terrify as well as to destroy. They can, in the hands of either states or non-state actors, indiscriminately kill thousands and thousands of people in a single attack. The impact on mind, body and environment of such an attack will be long-lasting. They are the most inhumane of all weapons and threaten the very existence of mankind [sic]."

This understanding is at the core of the vision for a world free of nuclear weapons that has persisted since the first nuclear weapons were created, through the Nuclear Freeze movement of the early 1980s, and today in the words and actions of civil society members and committed diplomats. Mr. Belfrage commended international and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for their efforts and ideas, and said they "should continue to play an important and constructive role—in the CD as elsewhere." He paid particular tribute to the participants of the International Women's Day Disarmament Seminar "who will meet in this very hall tomorrow ... to discuss 'Women, War, Weapons, and Conflict Prevention,' and how to fulfill the vision of Security Council resolution 1325." The Seminar includes both an NGO conference on 5 March—an opportunity for activists and advocates to share information in a series of briefings, discussions, and strategizing on gender, security, and preventing conflict—and an opportunity for dialogue among NGOs, governments, and UN officials on 6 March.

Unfortunately, NGO representatives, including the women involved in the International Women's Day Disarmament Seminar, are marginalized in the CD. In a post on Disarmament Insight, Patrick McCarthy of the Geneva Forum notes,

One NGO—the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom—has one opportunity each year to address the Conference; on March 8, International Women's Day. But they may not do so themselves. They must pass their statement, drafted by a separate conference of women's NGOs from around the world, to an official of the Conference, invariably a man, to read out while they observe in frustration from the public gallery. This dismal situation has at least created some comic relief in the past, such as the occasion a few years ago when the (male) Deputy Secretary-General of the Conference began reading the statement with the ringing words, "We, the women of the world..."

The International Women's Day Disarmament Seminar will vigorously promote a vision of a nuclear free world as contained in the conclusion of Nuclear Disorder or Cooperative Security, an NGO response to the report of the WMD Commission by the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy, Western States Legal Foundation, and Reaching Critical Will of WILPF: "Nuclear disarmament should serve as the leading edge of a global trend towards demilitarization and redirection of military expenditures to meet human and environmental needs." And it will be promoted, as Mr. Belfrage noted, "in this very hall."

The next plenary of the CD is scheduled for Tuesday, 11 March at 10am.

- Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will