Germany: ‘Time for U.S. Nukes to go’

The leader of the German Social Democrats (SPD) in the Bundestag, Rolf Mützenich, has called for US nuclear weapons to be removed from the country. He told the Tagesspiegel newspaper (03/05/20) that: “Nuclear weapons on German territory do not heighten our security, just the opposite ... The time has come for Germany to rule out a future stationing.”

Although the call is not shared universally within the SPD, co-leader Saskia Esken backed Mützenich, saying: “Whoever thinks that glasnost and perestroika were made possible by the West’s nuclear deterrent missed something ... Atomic weaponry on German soil, on German airplanes, is neither an end to itself nor desirable”.

The politics of these calls is inseparable from the fact that Chancellor Angela Merkel only remains in power thanks to a coalition with the SPD; that Merkel was widely considered to be a spent force prior to the outbreak of Covid-19 and will not run again and that in such circumstances, politicians with an eye to the future are willing to make a stand on certain issues. But it would be a mistake to simply dismiss these calls as political manoeuvering. Much more is going on here, not least the reality that the presence of US nuclear weapons on German territory has been an important and long-running issue for both German and European politics.

Germany has been under the US’s ‘nuclear umbrella’ since the 1950s and the debate about whether or not such an arrangement ensured greater security or constituted a security risk has been a live one. In the 1980s, when nuclear tensions were particularly high, US plans to station intermediate-range nuclear missiles on German territory sparked an enormous movement of opposition both within Germany and across Europe.

The European Nuclear Disarmament (END) campaign of the time was a vital instrument for building and coordinating the opposition. END called not only for US nuclear weapons to be removed from Germany but for a European Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone (NWFZ) to be created.

The force of this argument is once again obvious if we consider what is likely to happen if a future German government does tell the US that it’s time for their nuclear weapons to go. Such a move seems unfeasible for as long as Merkel and her supporters maintain power in Germany, but a future government containing the SPD, Greens and the Left Party would almost certainly demand the removal of US weapons. In such a situation, it is likely that the US will move its weapons to another, more amenable, NATO member state. The most obvious candidate for an alternative host is Poland, though others may well welcome the opportunity. Such a move, closer to Russia, would only heighten nuclear tensions further and must be energetically opposed. A NWFZ seems like the obvious response.

It is worth noting, then, that Mützenich did not alight on this solution when railing against US nuclear weapons. It’s all the more worthy of note because his comment that “Nuclear weapons on German territory do not heighten our security, just the opposite” could be a direct quote from the arguments laid out in Common Security - an idea championed by Swedish Social Democrat Olof Palme and supported by Willy Brandt, a giant of SPD history. NWFZ’s play a central role in their conception of how to ensure a system of Common Security and common peace between the nations of Europe.

According to Matthew Karnitschnig, writing on the Politico website, “The timing of Mützenich’s intervention was no accident. Germany is in the process of phasing out its aging fleet of Tornado fighter jets, the planes it relies on to fulfill its nuclear sharing obligations with the U.S. Under the deal, Germany has agreed to deliver warheads supplied by the U.S. in the event of a nuclear war. The pact has been a pillar of NATO’s nuclear deterrence strategy for decades ... What appears to have triggered Mützenich’s demand was an announcement two weeks ago by German Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer that she supports purchasing U.S.-made F-18 aircraft to replace the Tornados in order to ensure that Germany could continue to meet its alliance obligations.” (Politico, 03/05/20)

Is Mützenich calling for a break with NATO? This seems to be the logical end-point for his comments and their timing. Such a call would be very welcome indeed. Is there concern about Germany’s agreement with nuclear armed France (the Treaty of Aachen, see END Info 9) which commits them to mutual defence “by all means”? Such concern and a call for the repudiation of the Treaty of Aachen would be very welcome indeed.

These questions are important because if the call for US nuclear weapons to be removed from Germany boils down to expressing distrust that Trump will actually ‘come to Germany’s defence’ rather than a sincere call for a security arrangement in Germany and Europe that promotes peace, then the outcome will be no less dangerous in the longer term.

This is why it’s essential that European peace movements take this opportunity to promote and discuss the idea of a European Nuclear-Weapons-Free zone and why it’s important that we take politicians, trade unionists and the widest possible coalition of forces with us as we forge real security, Common Security.