Cracks in consensus on NATO's nuclear doctrine

From END Info 28 - Jan/Feb 2022 - DOWNLOAD

By Ludo De Brabander, Brussels

Norway and Germany, two NATO member states, have announced that they will participate in the first 'Meeting of State Parties' of the Nuclear Prohibition Treaty in Vienna next year. In doing so, they deviate from the attitude of NATO, which strongly opposes a nuclear weapons ban. What will Belgium do?

At the Lisbon Summit (2010), NATO adopted a Strategic Concept in which the military organization defines itself as a nuclear alliance: “As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance.” This attitude has not changed, quite the contrary. At the latest summit in Brussels (June 2021), NATO heads of state and government presented the report 'NATO 2030: United for a new era'. It is assumed that a new strategic concept will be cast at the next summit in Madrid (June 2022). The report states that NATO "must continue and revitalize nuclear weapons-sharing arrangements, which are a critical part of NATO's deterrence policy." The United States (US) has an estimated 100 to 150 'advanced' nuclear weapons in five European countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey) that will be replaced by new B61-12 nuclear bombs from next year. Apart from Turkey, it is the combat aircraft of the countries concerned that are responsible for their deployment. (Communication of the Brussels Summit, 2021)

The TPNW debate in Europe

However, NATO's common position as a 'nuclear alliance' appears to be under pressure. Last year (2020), Rolf Mützenich, the Social Democrat (SPD) group leader in the Bundestag, said that Germany "must rule out the deployment of US nuclear weapons in the future". Germany – like Belgium – has never confirmed or denied the presence of US nuclear weapons on its territory (at Büchel air base). Mützenich brought their existence back into political memory. The SPD became the largest party after the September 26 elections and formed a government last month with the Greens and the liberal FDP. In the coalition agreement, the new government stated that Germany will participate as an observer in the first 'Meeting of State Parties' of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) to be held from 22 to 24 March next year. At the beginning of October, the government of NATO member state Norway decided to attend as an observer.

The debate is also raging in other NATO member states. The Belgian coalition agreement (September 30, 2020) states that it wants to examine – “together with the European NATO allies” – “how the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons can give new impetus to multilateral nuclear disarmament.” Despite the fact that the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs recently said that the Nuclear Ban Treaty is not the right instrument for nuclear disarmament, the German example can ensure that Belgium will also go to Vienna. In the Netherlands – another nuclear host state – Jasper van Dijk, a Member of Parliament from the Socialist Party, tabled a motion asking that his country be present at the first meeting of the TPNW. Although the motion was rejected (68 out of 150), two parties (D66 & ChristenUnie) involved in the ongoing coalition negotiations voted for. A total of nine parties supported the proposal.

Undermining NATO's Nuclear Consensus

This development could undermine the consensus on NATO's nuclear policy. Since its signing in July 2017, NATO has been campaigning aggressively against the nuclear ban treaty. The final statement from the NATO summit in Brussels (June 2021) reads: “We reiterate our opposition to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which is contrary to the Alliance's nuclear deterrence policy, existing non-proliferation and disarmament architecture, threatens to undermine the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) and fails to take into account the current security context.” In addition, NATO claims that the NPT "remains the cornerstone of the global architecture for non-proliferation and disarmament".

The NPT came into effect more than half a century ago (in 1970), but it has not prevented massive investment programs in nuclear arsenals. In the NPT, each state (including the nuclear-weapon states) pledges to work towards a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. Despite its stated commitment to the NPT, NATO's nuclear member states (US, UK, France) spent $49.3 billion last year on the modernization and maintenance of nuclear weapons.

While NATO and its member states have claimed for decades that they are “committed to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation”, in practice the opposite is happening. This spring, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced his intention to increase the number of British nuclear warheads by more than 40% (from 180 to 260), in violation of the obligations under the NPT. The US delivery of nuclear-powered submersibles to Australia, announced in September, under a new US, UK-Australia Defense Pact (AUKUS) is another potential breach of the NPT. It sets a precedent where other countries can equally purchase nuclear-powered submarines, while no verification mechanisms have yet been developed to prevent the nuclear fuel from being used for a nuclear weapons program. After all, it is about enriched uranium that can be used in weapons. Countries such as Canada, South Korea and Brazil have already expressed their desire to have nuclear submarines. In short: a gray zone, but one that undermines the non-proliferation regime.

The European Peace Movement

Several important international meetings will take place in 2022. The 10th NPT Review Conference will be held in New York from January 4 to 28. Two months later there is the 'Meeting of the State Parties' in Vienna. NATO will hold its next NATO summit in June and is expected to reaffirm its policy of nuclear deterrence. It is therefore a crucial year for the peace movement with the aim of increasing pressure on other NATO member states to follow the Norwegian and German example and further break through the nuclear 'solidarity' within NATO. Within the Belgian government, various parties (Greens and Vooruit) are in favor of Belgium participating as an observer at the meeting in Vienna, which would be perfectly in line with the statement in the coalition agreement. NATO's fierce stance shows that the alliance has understood that the TPNW is endangering NATO's nuclear doctrine. For example, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg warned "that US nuclear weapons could be moved further east (and closer to Russia) if Germany were to withdraw from the scheme." That cannot of course be the intention. There have been polls all over Europe showing that at least three quarters of the population want nuclear weapons to be banned. The European peace movement is working – as last September with joint actions –six NATO countries – working hard to get nuclear weapons higher on the political agenda, so that the will of the people is finally translated into policy. A first step is to make Europe free of nuclear weapons, for which negotiations and an agreement with Russia are desirable.

First published at vrede.be on 06/12/21