The Latest Word on NATO Nukes

This week I traveled to NATO for a a Public Diplomacy Division-sponsored visit to HQ for bloggers. I was favourably impressed that our speakers were open and honest, not at all like previous such PR visits. While Afghanistan was the main topic, and I'll come back to that later, there was a lot of talk about the new Strategic Concept in general, and nuclear policy in particular.

We learned that German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle did raise his coalition's policy of withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Germany with his colleagues at the North Atlantic Council last week. there was no immediate reaction from his colleagues, but the issue will be discussed as part of the Strategic Concept negotiations next year. Several people told the group that they would not be at all surprised to see an end to US nuclear deployments in Europe as the end result of those talks.

This matches with information coming from elsewhere. Oliver Meier at the Arms Control Association has published an interesting review of the debate in Germany. It stresses that Germany expects a positive reaction from allies (which indeed seems to be the case), and that several nations engaged with germany in the margins of the NATO meeting on the future of nuclear sharing. Meier also discusses the problems that remain.

Amongst others, Westerwelle has held discussions with his Polish colleague during a visit to Warsaw in early November. Unlike other visits,  there was no mention of the nuclear issue at the press conference on that occasion. A comment by the German Defence Minister at a CSIS event in Washington DC explains why:


Last point, because I’ve been asked here again: Some of you have read the coalition treaty of the CDU/CSU and FDP. A remarkable piece of paper. (Laughter.) And there was one sentence that led to, let’s call it, mild disturbances over here. And that was the question of how we handle possible – because it’s still a secret, as we all know – possible nukes on German grounds. And to give you one answer, because I’ve been asked here again, as well, this is not a question we would like to see treated unilaterally or just bilaterally, but it has to be treated, if at all, within the coalition. And it has to be treated within NATO as such, and we have to keep in mind what any step means, as a consequence. And what the consequence could be is – for instance, the three nays within NATO, we could have partners in mind who probably would be glad to offer their grounds and their soil for any weapons. But the question is whether that makes sense, then, for the security structures within Europe. 

Guttenberg is clearly referring to Poland, which is known to have explored with NATO colleagues the possibility of its inclusion in NATO nuclear sharing, and the basing of US nuclear weapons on its soil. NATO gave assurances to Russia, when Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were brought into the Alliance, that such deployments would not happen - the so-called 'three nos'. These were reinforced in the US Senate debate during the debate on that round of NATO enlargement.

There is clearly no way that the US will consider deploying nuclear weapons to Poland currently, certainly not at the expense of a renewed confrontation with Russia that would certainly ensue. Moreover, the mood in the Alliance is moving in the other direction. Arms Control Wonk recently reported that a senior advisor to the Turkish Prime Minister  had told them that: As for his own personal opinion, Kalin said, Turkey “would not insist” that NATO retain forward-deployed nuclear weapons. Conventional forces are sufficient, he added, to meet Turkish security needs. NATO Monitor has reported the debate stirring in Turkey, but that is a truly remarkable statement from such a well connected policy analyst. 

There is a shift in the political mainstream opinion on forward basing of nuclear weapons. Poland and the Baltic States have to decide whether they want to stand with the new European mainstream inside NATO, or against it. Opinion is forming that says that at best these weapons do not contribute to European security, and may actually decrease it. Diplomats have begun to look for other ways that the US commitment to Europe can be visibly signaled.

The North Atlantic Council last week was only the opening salvo in this debate, but the NAC (and NATO Monitor) will be returning to the question in the Spring.

No Public Statements on Nuclear Weapons and the Strategic Concept

Germany, Belgium and other nations recently committed to seeking the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from their soil had promised they would raise the question of NATO nuclear strategy this week. Foreign Ministers gathered at NATO HQ did discuss the future NATO Strategic Concept, but little was revealed of their discussions. If anything to do with NATO’s nuclear posture was raised, no-one was talking about it afterwards. The Final Statement of the meeting stated:

19. We are committed to renewing our Alliance to better address today’s threats and to anticipate tomorrow’s risks. At their Strasbourg/Kehl Summit, our Heads of State and Government tasked the Secretary General to develop a new Strategic Concept and submit proposals for its implementation for approval at the next Summit, keeping the Council in Permanent Session involved throughout the process. We have discussed the preliminary work of the Group of Experts which is helping to lay the ground for the Alliance’s new Strategic Concept. This work has so far covered the changing international security environment; NATO’s fundamental tasks; relations with other nations and organisations; and internal reform. We thank the Group for the work it has done until now, and encourage its continued close consultations with all Allies. We look forward to discussing the Group’s findings at our informal meeting next April in Tallinn. We encourage all our partners to continue to present their views on our new Strategic Concept during its elaboration. The new Strategic Concept will play an important role in guiding and shaping a 21st century Alliance to face existing and emerging threats and challenges, while maintaining strong collective defence.

Certainly the role of nuclear weapon sin NATO strategy, and the posture of forward deployment of some weapons from the US to Europe may have been raised in a discussion of “NATO’s fundamental tasks” the statement says were discussed, but no detail is forthcoming.

However, in the wider context, there are continued suggestions that change may be on the way. The Italian Atlantic Committee has published a discussion paper on the Strategic Concept review, in which they write that:

6. Nuclear Forces

·        In a troubled world, the nuclear deterrent remains the indispensable support for NATO conventional forces when facing serious dangers;

·        However, it is inevitable that the nuclear posture be considered afresh on the basis of agreed criteria, in order to ensure its continued relevance in our era with special mention to its connections with the vitality of the Transatlantic Link.

This paper was discussed at a seminar held in Rome by the IAC and the Italian Foreign Ministry on November 23^rd. it certainly leaves room for considering the removal of US nuclear weapons from Europe, while maintaining a strategic nuclear deterrent for NATO.

In the UK, the government was questioned in the House of Lords recently on the NATO Strategic Concept. On November 25, Lord Hannay asked the government about possible changes to NATO nuclear strategy.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that this review of the strategic concept will include NATO's nuclear posture? What input will the British Government make on that aspect? Will they ensure that any revision of NATO's nuclear posture is firmly in line with the unanimous decision of the UN Security Council under President Obama's chairmanship to work towards a world free of nuclear weapons?

Lord Brett: My Lords, yes.

It is thought that the UK government has expressed a private willingness to see all US nuclear weapons removed from Europe. This answer is in line with that position. The UN Security Council resolution calls for further efforts on nuclear arms reductions and disarmament, so any revision of the nuclear paragraphs of the Strategic Concept would need to move in that direction.

The German opposition SPD issued a call through MDB Uta Zapf, the SPD spokesperson on foreign policy in the Bundestag, for the government to make good on its promise to discuss nuclear withdrawal at the NATO ministers meeting, and also called on NATO to discuss a tactical nuclear weapons ‘zero option’ with Russia.

It is really too early, at least in the framework of the Strategic Concept revision, to expect much substance from NATO ministers. The US Nuclear Posture Review has not yet been reported to Congress, and that will send a major signal to US allies. The calls for withdrawal of US nuclear forces from NATO Europe have sent a signal of support to those in the Obama administration who support that goal. Undoubtedly NATO foreign ministers will return to this topic in the near future, perhaps as early as their informal Spring meeting in Tallinn.

Former Dutch Prime Minister Lubbers Calls for Withdrawal of US Nukes from Europe

Following the example of Sam Nunn, William Perry, Geroge Schulz and Henry Kissinger, a group of leading Dutch politicians has called in the newspaper NRC Handelsblad for the Netherlands to actively work for a nuclear weapon free world, and in particular, the revision of NATO's Strategic Concept to include the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from NATO. Led by former Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers, the group wrote that:

As a member of Nato the Netherlands should make itself heard in the upcoming revision of its Strategic Concept. We have gratefully benefited from the nuclear protection of the United States. Now we must show ourselves a strong ally by supporting Obama’s goal of achieving a world without nuclear weapons according to the faithful implementation of Article VI of the NPT.

Given the clear indications the United States takes nuclear disarmament very seriously and that the original objective of deterrence has lost its validity, we need to ensure that neither the United States nor the other Nato allies wait for each other. The Netherlands should play an active role, so that the revision of the Strategic Concept will lead to the withdrawal of American nuclear weapons from the territories of non-nuclear weapon states.

The signature of Lubbers on this piece is especially significant, since he worked hard in the teeth of fierce opposition in the 1980s to force the deployment of US nuclear cruise missiles to the Netherlands. There were reports in the Dutch media last year that Lubbers had told the Dutch anti-nuclear group, IKV, that the US nuclear weapons deployed at Volkel air base in the Netherlands were obsolete and should be removed. Now, Lubbers has publicly called for their withdrawal.

Lubbers was joined by Max van der Stoel, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs; Hans van Mierlo, a former Minister of Defense and of Foreign Affairs; and Frits Korthals Altes, a former Minister of Justice.

Their piece in NRC Handelsblad comes after the Dutch government gave its support to the German government's initiative to have NATO affect just such a withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Germany, a move also supported publicly by Belgium and Norway.

No Membership Action Plan for Georgia

Georgian Foreign Minister Grigol Vashadze held a bilateral meeting with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen before a meeting of the NATO-Georgia Commission (NGC).


The Bush administration tried and failed to have NATO leaders approve a Membership Action Plan (MAP) for Georgia. And since the rash Georgian attack on South Ossetia gave Russia a reason to put military forces in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the MAP process has been on hold. In an effort ot move things forward Georgia has continued to work hard to earn NATO's favour. They have offered 900 soldiers, with no caveats on their use, to the NATO ISAF mission in Afghanistan. The Chairman's summary of the NGC meeting recognised this, stating: 


NATO Ministers expressed strong appreciation for Georgia’s decision to make a substantial contribution to ISAF, to include an infantry company and an infantry battalion without national caveats. 


However, in the absence of any agreement with Russia, and continuation of the territorial dispute with the breakaway territories, there is no sign that NATO ministers are ready to approve an MAP for Georgia in the foreseeable future.


As Secretary General Rasmussen told the NGC meeting, NATO will continue to work closely with Georgia:


Allies, collectively and bilaterally, are committed to Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity. But we all know that security climate in the region which is home to Georgia remains fragile. This puts a particular responsibility on the shoulders of all relevant parties, Georgia included. We all understand that your country has suffered a lot during the last years. There is much hardship to overcome, many human wounds have to heal. But reforms and modernization, and a determination to improve neighbourly relations, offer the best prospects of a better future for the Georgian people. NATO will continue to support your reforms, and stand by your territorial integrity.


Having welcomed progress, Rasmussen also warned Georgia that NATO attaches “great importance to the conduct of free and fair local elections in Georgia in spring 2010” and the need to continue and deepen other reforms reforms.


Georgia continues to pay the price for the recklessness that President Saakashvili showed in sparking conflict with Russia in 2008. There is little likelihood that they will given an invitation to join the Alliance for a long time, whatever the Alliance says about keeping the door open.

NATO Foreign Ministers Meet in Brussels

NATO Foreign Ministers are in Brussels for the regular December meeting of the North Atlantic Council. They met yesterday in the NATO Ukraine Commission and the NATO Georgia Commission. The NATO Russia Council will also meet later today. NATO Monitor will post a series of reports on different aspects of the meeting today and tomorrow.

Pierre Harmel Has Died

At 98 years old, Pierre Harmel has died. The Belgian was famous as the author of the 1967 Harmel Report, formally known as The Future Tasks of the Alliance. As well as advocating a strong defence of western Europe, the report advocated detente with the Soviet Union. His report also ushered in the nuclear doctrine of Flexible Response, which at the time was seen as being progressive - as it moved away from the massive strategic use of nuclear weapons at the start of a general war. By the 1980s, it had become controversial as it threatened a tactical nuclear war that would leave Europe devastated and the United States and Soviet Union largely untouched. It would be interesting to know what Harmel would have made of recent moves to discuss the withdrawal of the last US nuclear weapons from Europe. NATO's statement on his death can be found here.

Netherlands Joins German Effort to Oust US Nukes

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle traveled to the Netherlands today, where he met with his Dutch counterpart Maxime Verhagen, in what were described as 'getting to know you talks'. At the press conference afterwards the ministers were asked a whether they had discussed the new German coalition's policy of asking for withdrawal of US nuclear weapons, and replied that this was something they would work on together.

Westerwelle will soon discuss the issue with Belgian Foreign Minister Yves Leterme, and is also due to follow Chancellor Merkel to Washington for talks with Secretary of State Clinton that will touch on the nuclear issue.

For those who read Dutch, you can read an account here.

Benelux Countries to Discuss Nuclear Withdrawal

Following the inauguration of a new German centre-right coalition government calling for the removal of US nuclear weapons from Germany, the discussion is spreading to involve the Benelux countries.

This week, Belgian Foreign Minister Yves Leterme told the Belgian Senate that he will discuss the issue with German, Dutch and Luxembourgeois colleagues in the course of the coming week. He said that Belgium is a partisan for a nuclear weapon free world and that removing US nuclear weapons from Europe is a crucial step towards that goal. Like Germans, Leterme advocates achieving this goal in a NATO framework. Leterme said that he would like the NATO ministerial meeting this December to discuss the issue.

That may be a little quick for the Germans who have talked about nuclear negotiations as part of the Strategic Concept debate, currently in a reflection phase and due to move into serious negotiations next Spring.

Obstacles to withdrawal remain. In mid-October the Dutch government had rejected resolutions in the Dutch parliament for the withdrawal of nuclear weapons based at Volkel airbase. However, privately the foreign ministry has been more amenable to discussing the issue and the German government action has changed the debate significantly.

It is not known how Turkey will react to this new initiative, but they have not been notably positive in the past on denuclearisation, despite ending their role in nuclear sharing. Also, some countries in the 'new Europe' like Poland may well have a strong reaction against the removal of this visible symbol of US commitment to Europe.

Bilateral Belgian-German discussions will take place this coming Tuesday when German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle visits Brussels.

More details in Dutch and French.

Ministers on Defence Transformation

The transformation of NATO for the 21^st century has been a major topic at ministerial meetings for some time, and the Alliance has a military command dedicated to transformation based in Norfolk, Virginia.

Ministers discussed transformation at their working dinner in Bratislava, and a major part of that discussion was the prioritisation of resources. In the midst of recession, and deep cuts in government spending in years to come, the debate for NATO is no longer how to increase defence spending, but how to do more with less. Ministers agreed the Secretary General´s decision to appoint a high-level group of officials from defence ministries to address this question directly at the NATO level. One way that NATO adds value to national defence budgets is with collective projects, which include initiatives such as Allied Ground Surveillance and Strategic Airlift Capability.

In fact the core of the transformation debate is how NATO can acquire the capability to project forces quickly across the globe. This means military transformation, but also major change sin the decision-making structures at a NATO level which were not designed for an Alliance of 27 states, and are increasingly unwieldy.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen gave a speech prior to the opening of the Defence Ministers meeting, in which he addressed defence transformation from the NATO perspective:

.. the new Strategic Concept will need to urge continued military transformation – to allow us to cover the full spectrum of tasks, from collective defence to peace support operations. It should also encourage Allies to work more closely together in acquiring key capabilities and in funding operations. Needless to say, the current financial crisis and the budgetary problems faced by all our nations only make this a more pressing requirement. This is also about taxpayer’s money. We have to make efficient use of our resources, through better cooperation, through better coordination and through collective solutions.

He also dealt with the issue during the question and answer session:

[On] modernization of NATO. Actually, it's my ambition that the Strategic Concept as such, should serve as the leverage for modernization, transformation and reform of NATO. And I fully agree that we need such transformation. Let me just mention a few areas. Firstly, militarily. It strikes me that 70 percent of the armed forces in Europe are stationary. I spoke about our core task territorial defence, but I also ask myself, how can we make territorial defence critical if we cannot deploy military forces, if we cannot move them around, if they are not flexible?

So we need transformation in a direction of more flexibility, more mobility, more deployability. Which leads me to my second point. We also need to streamline our structures. Our command structures, our Headquarters, of course, including civil headquarters in Brussels. And recently I had the opportunity to present to the NATO Ambassadors in Brussels some of my ideas as to how I would like to gradually modernize and reform our Headquarters.

As far as our military headquarters are concerned, I also think there is a potential for streamlining. However, I also think this should be an integrated part of our Strategic Concept exercise.

And finally, it's my ambition to ensure that NATO can become an efficient decision-making body. If we are to ensure NATO relevance on the international stage then we also have to speed up our decision-making processes. You touched upon the number of committees, but even more important than the exact number of committees, and I agree with you, we should look closer into that. Actually we have an ongoing exercise, a review of our committee system. But even more important than the number of committees, is the procedure as to how we use the committees. I don't think they should delay decisions, but they should improve the quality of decisions. So it's a very important point.

The ministers debate at the dinner was discussed by NATO Spokesman James Appathurai earlier in the day. He was quite blunt about the financial situation:

The bottom line, when it comes to money, is this: In the next few years we foresee a shortfall of several hundred million euros between what governments have committed to do within NATO budgets when it comes to operations and capabilities, and what they have allocated in terms of money to pay for that. That shortfall will only grow as NATO's responsibilities grow as well. The Secretary General is going to draw attention to that this evening and ask allies to look at where we can do a number of things. One is to prioritize the things that we do, the things that are more important, the things that are less important. Second, to see how we can pool resources, pool assets, do better at being cost effective in the way in which we acquire equipment, in the way in which we do our logistics.

Appathurai also addressed the question of deployability:

A second aspect is capability. In essence less than half of our forces are deployable outside of the country which provides them. Less than 10 percent are sustainable outside of the country for any extended period of time. There has been a lot of improvement in the last four or five years in raising those numbers, but it is still not enough, because not only can forces that can't move not be sent very far out of area, for example, to Afghanistan, they're also quite limited in the kind of support they can provide even to allies in an Article 5 contingency. So more deployable forces, more sustainable forces make sense, both for collective defence and for out-of-area operations and the Secretary General is basically going to want to put before allies the idea of having more concrete timelines for reaching higher targets for deployability and sustainability of their forces.

For NATO, the bottom line is, as the Secretary General told the press following the meeting “To me, the discussion on transformation is very simple: we need more capability for the money we spend on defence. And we are not doing well enough.”

On can question whether the idea of NATO as a global security provider, ready to intervene across the globe is a good one. Opinion is divided. However, it is undeniable that NATO is not well suited to the role at present. The experience in Afghanistan has cruelly highlighted that fact. However, it has also shown that however good the decision-making procedures, however well adapted and trained the military, whatever resources are provided, the main ingredient that is necessary is political will to do what is necessary for operational success. In Afghanistan the Alliance is seen as united in theory, but divided in practice, and all the transformation in the world won’t compensate for that.

Germany Will Press for Nuclear Withdrawal - Will Not Act Unilaterally

There are a couple of updates on the German coalition decision to seek the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Germany.

Agence France Presse notes that the withdrawal of the nuclear weapons may become an issue when Merkel addresses a joint session of Congress next month:

But he has said Berlin should start by demanding the removal of the estimated 10 to 20 US nuclear missiles on German soil -- a stance that could raise a few questions when Merkel travels to Washington next month to deliver an address before both houses of Congress.

Deutsche Welle reports that FDP leader Guido Westerwelle said that he will personally take up the challenge, while Chancellor Merkel said there will be no unilateral action:

Speaking at a meeting of his business-friendly FDP party in Berlin on Sunday, Westerwelle said the new German government would support the vision of US President Barack Obama for a world free of nuclear weapons.

"We will take President Obama at his word and enter talks with our allies so that the last of the nuclear weapons still stationed in Germany, relics of the Cold War, can finally be removed," Westerwelle said.

"Germany must be free of nuclear weapons," he said, adding that he would personally make efforts towards that purpose.

No unilateral move to remove nuclear arms

His comments came a day after his FDP party reached agreement with Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives for a new center-right government scheduled to take office on October 28.

The coalition agreement reached by the two sides calls specifically for talks with NATO and the US to remove the weapons.

Chancellor Angela Merkel confirmed this goal, but emphasized no unilateral action would be taken to remove the nuclear warheads. "We do not want any independent action here," Merkel said on Saturday in Berlin.

The website dedefensa.org notes (in French) that while the sentiment for withdrawal has regularly welled up in Germany, this initiative is more important than past ones as it is written into the government programme. That programme has been endorsed by the members of both parties, giving it extra political force.

This insistence on agreement within NATO before any withdrawal can take place reflects the general pro-atlanticist tone of the coalition. It also mirrors wider opinion in Europe that President Obama’s commitment to disarmament means that negotiations are the best way to achieve progress on reductions at present, and that a move such as this by the coalition will be better received in Washington DC than was the case under Presidents Clinton or Bush.

Time Magazine reports that the coalition document endorses the German presence in Afghanistan as in the ‘German national interest’. This removes one potential area of major disagreement with the White House, and removes a shadow that has hung over US German relations, smoothing the path for discussions on nuclear weapons.

Overall the level of coverage is still low, but more and more news organisations are beginning to report the coalition policy on nuclear weapons. However, economic policy reporting far outweighs that on foreign policy. Some examples of coverage include: Bloomberg; Associated Press; Iranian government English language Press TV; and the Irish Times.

There will be other obstacles. It is far from clear that Turkey will be ready to accept US extended deterrence without the physical presence of nuclear weapons on Turkish soil. Turkey’s region makes it much more nervous on this issue than other NATO nations, although Turkey has given up its participation in nuclear sharing programmes.

Secondly, some nations in central and eastern Europe, notably Poland and the Czech Republic have been agitating for a greater role in NATO nuclear strategy – with Poland privately requesting the right to participate in nuclear sharing.

Given the lack of coverage in the press, it would seem that when Chancellor Merkel visits Washington DC there will be an opportunity to make the new coalitions withdrawal policy better known, and also a need to offer strong support to prevent the DoD suffocating this initiative at birth, as has done in the past – notably in 1998 when all Germany was calling for was debate inside NATO on the continued need to deploy these weapons to Europe.