Toronto Star Editorial Calls for Denuclearised NATO

President Obama has called for a nuclear weapon free world, but there hasn't otherwise been much discussion of nuclear weapons at the NATO Summit. Now the Toronto Star is carrying an excellent editorial calling for NATO to modernise itself by denuclearising, a NATO's nukes are now a hindrance to building global security.

Quite Right!

NATO's dated nukes

Toronto Star

The 60th anniversary this weekend of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was supposed to be a well-orchestrated and tame affair. The Americans arrived in Strasbourg hoping to get Canada and the 26 other NATO allies to pony up a few more military trainers for Afghanistan, and more aid. Fractious relations with Russia were to be patched up. And NATO was to launch a strategic rethink.

But with his push to reduce nuclear arsenals and restrict the spread of weapons, U.S. President Barack Obama has challenged the alliance to update its strategic thinking. Obama wants to lower the American and Russian strategic stockpiles to about 1,500 warheads each, a 40 per cent cut. He has a longer-term vision of "a world without nuclear weapons." That is ambitious, given the 23,000 warheads that still exist, a tempting target for terrorists. And tomorrow in Prague he plans to unveil a new non-proliferation strategy.

This is a healthy course correction from George W. Bush's recklessness. He favoured greater U.S. reliance on nukes. He quit the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. And he pushed to deploy missile defences.

During the Bush era, Canadian policy-makers went largely silent on nuclear issues. With Washington under new management, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has an opportunity to make Canada's voice count again, as a member of NATO's non-nuclear caucus. Ottawa was once an active advocate for disarmament. It can be again.

Obama wants existing weapons taken off hair-trigger alert. He's not keen on developing new weapons. He favours ratifying the treaty banning nuclear tests. He's prepared to negotiate a global ban on producing fissile materials. And he's skeptical of missile defence.

Suddenly, NATO's insistence that nuclear weapons "continue to fulfill an essential role," as its 1999 "strategic concept" dictates, seems debatable, and dated. The International Court of Justice back in 1996 described nuclear weapons as "the ultimate evil."

While there's no likelihood the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India or Pakistan will dismantle their arsenals any time soon, Obama says a world rid of bombs "is profoundly in America's interest." Certainly, a world in which countries such as North Korea and Iran scramble to build nuclear weapons is profoundly not in America's best interest. Yet the U.S. and other nuclear powers look hypocritical in demanding that others forswear The Bomb.

Given all this, why should Canada and the 24 other non-nuclear NATO allies continue to play cheerleader for a nuclear doctrine that hasn't made a lot of sense since the Cold War ended 20 years ago? NATO's large non-nuclear bloc should question the premise that nuclear weapons are "the supreme guarantee of the security of the allies," as if the alliance's massive conventional forces count for naught.

At 60, NATO should have the maturity to acknowledge the fact that far from being "essential," nuclear weapons are not even desirable. Fewer is better, as the Americans and Russians now agree. None at all would be best.

Final Press Conference Late

The final press conference for the Strasbourg-Kehl Summit will be delayed by around an hour, at a minimum. No official reason has been given, but speculation is that a last ditch attempt to have Turkey agree to the appointment of Anders Fogh Rasmussen as the new Secretary General of the Alliance is behind this delay.

Incidentally, the website of the Turkish Weekly has just posted a strong denouncement of Rasmussen by Prime Minister Erdogan:

.. we do not want NATO to lose power. The media organ of the terrorist organization in my country broadcasts from Denmark. We submitted documents four years ago, but he still could not or did not stop them. We had a cartoon crisis as well. We asked them how to overcome the situation, but they still did not approach positively. Indeed, I take a dim view of his candidacy.

They also say that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has threatened to delay any consideration by the EU of the long-standing Turkish membership bid if the crisis is not resolved by Rasmussen's appointment today.

Another rumour, carried by the Associated Press, has for the first time in several weeks named former UK Defence Secretary Des Browne as a candidate. this is probably unlikely as a second British labour Defence Minister (Lord Robertson held the post before de Hoop Scheffer) taking the post in a decade would be unlikely to find favour with many other countries.

How many of these circulating rumours are true is open to question. However, it is obvious that this issue has caused divisions within the Alliance and problems at this meeting. It might have been sensible for Heads of State and Government to have focused on this problem earlier and, in the event Turkey was clearly unpersuadable, chosen someone else in advance.

Obama, Gul Meet With Rasmussen

The NATO Secretary General appointment saga continues. It has emerged that President Obama and Turkish President Abdullah Gul spent an hour discussing the issue, and that for at least part of the meeting they were joined by Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

Clearly, while the US has publicly said that there is "no urgency" to the issue, President Obama wants it solved in Strasbourg if at all possible.

Italian media have also been reporting that when Prime Minister Sivio Berlusconi snubbed his colleagues during their symbolic link-up on a bridge across the Rhine, he was in fact talking to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on his cellphone about Rasmussen.

Obama Wants Stronger European Defence

Speaking at a press conference with French President Sarkozy, President Obama called for Europeans to do more to strengthen their defence capabilities yesterday. This is a long-term US aim, and a message that has long been unwelcome. However, with France re-entering the NATO integrated military command, there is now a possibility of much greater NATO-EU cooperation and the enhancement of defence cooperation within the EU itself. President Obama said:

NATO is the most successful alliance in modern history. And the basic premise of NATO was that Europe's security was the United States' security, and vice versa. That's its central tenet that is a pillar of American foreign policy that has been unchanging over the last 60 years. It is something that I am here to affirm. And with France's reintegration into the highest command structures of NATO, that principle will continue to be upheld.

I want to echo what President Sarkozy just said. We want strong allies. We would like to see Europe have much more robust defense capabilities. That's not something we discourage. We're not looking to be the patron of Europe. We're looking to be partners with Europe. And the more capable they are defensively, the more we can act in concert on the shared challenges that we face.

And so, you know, one of my messages to our NATO allies is going to be the more capability we see here in Europe, the happier the United States will be, the more effective we will be in coordinating our activities.

Combined, EU nations spend about two-thirds of what the United States spends on defence, and get much less for it, since that spending is fragmented across many nations. Deeper EU cooperation could achieve better results for less spending, while strengthening the EU's Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) and Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).

Better coordination by Europe in defence and foreign policy needs a common strategic outlook, and common risk and threat assessment. This will be hard to achieve in the EU, but not impossible. In the long run, it could allow Europe to match US influence in Europe's near abroad, as well as reducing the risk that defence policy would ever be renationalised in Europe. Those are goals worth striving for.

Rumour: Liberation says Obama Could Announce Withdrawal of US Nukes From Europe

On Sunday morning in Prague, President Obama will deliver a major speech on disarmament and non-proliferation. The French news paper Liberation is reporting that he may announce the withdrawal of the 200 or so US nuclear bombs left in Europe.

La «défense collective» a été longtemps assurée par la présence d’armes nucléaires américaines sur le sol européen. Dimanche, en visite à Prague, le président Obama pourrait annoncer le retrait des quelques 200 dernières bombes, basées dans cinq pays [Allemagne, Belgique, Italie, Pays-Bas et Turquie). Une décision essentiellement symbolique qui devrait toutefois être apprécié par Moscou: ce sont de armes anciennes, dont la sécurité fait l’objet de critiques au sein même du Pentagone.

NATO Monitor will be watching and listening with keen interest.

Turkey Still Opposes Rasmussen

Turkish website TurkNet is reporting that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan continues to oppose the candidacy of Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen for the job of NATO Secretary General.

Erdogan said that he expressed his opinion regarding Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen's candidacy for North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) secretary-general during his talks with the leaders.

"I told them that I would assess the issue with President Abdullah Gul again and I also said that they would have the chance to discuss this matter with Mr. Gul during the (NATO) summit," he said.
...
Upon a question on his opinion regarding Rasmussen's candidacy for NATO secretary-general, Erdogan said Turkey had no personal problems with Rasmussen or Denmark.

"Our only goal is to protect NATO from being harmed. NATO has a role aiming to establish peace in the world, we do not want such role to be harmed," he said.

Erdogan also said that terrorist organization PKK's broadcasts from Denmark were annoying for Turkey and the cartoon crisis in the past caused uneasiness in the Islam world.

"So why are we stuck at only one candidate. Don't we have any other alternatives? Let us discuss them and find a more appropriate person," he said.

At the same time, Reuters reports that the US is backing away from Rasmussen, saying that there is "no urgency" to resolve the issue at this Summit. Germany has briefed reporters that 27 nations support Rasmussen and that discussions with Turkey continue.

NATO Spokesman's Briefing, With Commentary

Late last night NATO Spokesman James Appathurai gave a short briefing to the media. He said that three issues had been discussed during the Heads of State Working Dinner.

On the Strategic Concept Review – Appathurai said that all who had spoken were in favour of a review. There is a perceived need to update the current Concept to allow for new missions, like cyber-defence, the anti-piracy effort off East Africa and the Afghan mission, none of which are reflected in the 1999 Strategic Concept. He added that NATO leaders also want to reflect possible future missions of the alliance in the Concept. Theory needs to accord with practice, he said. There must be a balance between collective defence and the responsibility to protect the Euro-Atlantic area by projecting force. Appathurai also said that all reiterated the core principle - collective defence must be indivisible.

There is a notable point here. First, the ‘responsibility to protect’ concept has been used by the UN to mean the responsibility of the international community to protect the lives and human rights of those who are threat from genocide, civil war and other threats; and who are actually at threat from their own government. Stretching that principle to allow for Western power projection to defend interests beyond the NATO area will be extremely controversial.

Appathurai continued that the next major issue discussed was Russia. All shared view that Russia is a great power and a partner with whom NATO wants to cooperate, and must cooperate with. This is mutually beneficial. There was also general agreement that NATO and Russia must continue discussion through good times and bad, that the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) must not just be a fair weather organization. That said, there will always be some issues where NATO and Russia do not see things the same way, said Appathurai. NATO will not compromise on core principles – that there can be no spheres of influence, and that the territorial integrity of Georgia must be respected.

This is a clear change of position from the Bush years. The Bush administration pushed for strong action by NATO against Russia during the war with Georgia, and achieved the suspension of the NRC. There is an implicit criticism of the Bush policy in the decision that the NRC must not be a ‘fair weather body’. Also, Russians will chuckle at the idea that the territorial integrity of Georgia is sacrosanct, and point to Kosovo where NATO’s war in 1999, and subsequent political and peacekeeping involvement, has facilitated the break-up of Serbia and the creation of a new republic that not even all NATO members recognize and support. And further back, the German recognition of Croatia (later supported by NATO) that precipitated the break-up of the former Yugoslavia. Somehow, territorial integrity is always a core NATO principle. Perhaps it should be, and the Kosovo question should be subject to international mediation, as should the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Finally, Appathurai said that leaders had discussed the appointment of a new Secretary General. He said the discussion would continue on Saturday, and that no decisions had been made or were, indeed, yet necessary (which is a common NATO spokesman’s code for ‘we can’t agree’).

Appathurai did not brief on the seperate discussions at working dinners of the Foreign and Defence ministers.

Scheffer Denies NATO Role in Iran Crisis, Misses Opportunity

Yesterday at the NATO Youth Forum NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was asked about Iran.

Question: My question was, what could NATO do to aid in talks with Iran? Not just with regards to its nuclear program, but also in helping the country reintegrate into the international community, having been isolated so long?

His answer was disappointing in some ways. He did allow that NATO and Iran, who recently had their first official contact in 30 years, could work together to stabilise Afghanistan. But beyond that he said NATO doesn’t have a role: NATO is not involved and should not be involved in the Iranian nuclear dispute.

This is deeply disappointing. NATO is supposedly a body for coordinating political-military policy across the Atlantic. And yet it is ignoring a problem where it could have a fundamentally positive effect.

If Iran is seeking, and eventually obtains, nuclear weapons, then NATO will be called upon to deter and counter Iran. NATO member Turkey borders Iran, they would want Article V guarantees against a nuclear-armed Iran. So this is a security situation in which all NATO members have a profound interest.

If NATO were to make a declaration that it wishes peace with Iran, and enter into talks on confidence and security building measures, it could have a positive effect on Iran's engagement with the West. If NATO issued assurances that no non-nuclear state would ever be the subject of attack by NATO nuclear forces, then this could help move Iran down a more positive path. eventually, NATO could remove the small amount of forward-based tactical nuclear weapons from Europe, and its nuclear posture would become much less threatening to states in Europe's periphery, like Iran. This could only contribute to a more positive atmosphere. Let there be no mistake. If we are to achieve safety and security through a WMD Free Middle East, including Israel and Iran, NATO has a role to play.

Of course, any final agreement with Iran will require a bilateral deal with the US. The US must promise not to overthrow the government of Iran, and to deal with it in mutual respect. President Obama has made a start on this with his Nowruz message to Iran. But as a coordinating body for western strategic defence policy, NATO should have a role to play. That it doesn't shows how much it has declined as a forum for discussions of security issues since the end of the Cold War.

De Hoop Scheffer's Full Answer

De Hoop Scheffer:

Anyway, NATO is not involved. Let me start with the negative answer I have to. NATO is not involved and should not be involved in the Iranian nuclear dispute. We have other organizations for that, as you know, the IAA, the UN, the EU is playing a role. My friend and colleague Javier Solana is very active in this regard.

But—here comes the but—also with Iran, and I think your president is proof of this, also with Iran, and that's one of the things I've learned in a long, long career in foreign policy, it is always better to talk than not to talk.

Coming back to this Iron Curtain and the Cold War, we always talk to the Soviet Union before the Berlin Wall disappeared and the Iron Curtain fell. We always talked to the Soviet Union, despite huge differences. So that is the reason that, I think, President Obama set on the very right course by trying to reach out to Iran. And Iran was represented, as you know, at the meeting in The Hague I referred to in my speech. And I hope these contacts might intensify.

No misunderstanding, Iran should stop and make transparent a nuclear program, but NATO
doesn't play a role there. Where is Iran relevant for NATO? Iran is an important neighbour of Afghanistan. And stability in Afghanistan is dependent, to a large extent, on stability in the region. First of all, stability in Pakistan, but also in the region in a more wider sense.
So in that regard Iran is relevant for NATO and that's the reason that only a few weeks ago, for the very first time, there was a very informal discussion between one of the Assistant Secretaries General of NATO, for Political Affairs, and the Iranian ambassador in Brussels. That was not a formal conversation. It was just to talk to each other. But let us keep things in the box, and that box is called Afghanistan. And that box is not called nuclear or any other element in the discussions and debates going on with Iran. But talking is always better than not talking.

Obama Calls for European Support, is disappointed by NATO Response

It has been a consistent and (at least in Europe) largely overlooked part of President Obama's plans to fight the war in Afghanistan that Europe should do more. Even as the adulatory crowds cheered him in Berlin last Summer, it was clear that he was going to ask European leaders for help that would not be popular with their publics. And in Strasbourg Obama took that message to a Town Hall-style meeting.

The President explained that Afghanistan matters to the US because of the 9/11 attacks, and that Europe has just a s much interest as the US in ensuring that Afghanistan cannot be the base for such attacks again. And then, in a blunt statement, he said that Europe should not simply expect the United States to shoulder that burden alone. We should not because this is a joint problem and it requires joint effort. Then he added that the closure of Guantanamo, and an end to torture by the US, in turn, will allow the Europeans, I think, to feel good about our joint efforts, and also not to have excuses not to participate in those joint efforts.

This is the most direct appeal for support and additional troops for ISAF that the President has made, but it fell largely on deaf ears. Spain has said it will add a small number of troops for training purposes. Belgium will add two F-16 aircraft and a handful of soldiers. The UK will add a few hundred troops in the run-up to this summer's elections. (Even that was less than the MOD had planned for, they were expecting to send 2,000) France refused to add to its contingent of forces, and a number of other countries (Germany, Italy, Poland, Canada and Denmark)are considering their options. In truth, the President and his team have given up on getting more European troops for the present. There is a an underlying mood of frustration in Obama's team on this, but they don't want the Summit ruined over the question.

In the short term the cracks will be papered over. The controversy over the new Afghan law limiting women's rights and legalising rape in marriage has provided an excuse for Europeans to say they can't commit troops to defending a government that supports such a blatant abuse of human rights. But in the longer term, American scepticism about NATO is being reinforced and the Alliance weakened by Europe's actions.

Obama's Remarks on Afghanistan in Full

And as we restore our common prosperity, we must stand up for our common security. As we meet here today, NATO has still embarked on its first mission overseas in Afghanistan, and my administration has just completed a review of our policy in that region.

Now, I understand that this war has been long. Our allies have already contributed greatly to this endeavor. You've sent your sons and daughters to fight alongside ours, and we honor and respect their service and sacrifice.

And I also know that there's some who have asked questions about why are we still in Afghanistan? What does this mean? What's its purpose? Understand we would not deploy our own troops if this mission was not indispensable to our common security. As President, I can tell you there's no decision more difficult, there's no duty more painful, than signing a letter to the family of somebody who has died in war.

So I understand that there is doubt about this war in Europe. There's doubt at times even in the United States. But know this: The United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan. We were attacked by an al Qaeda network that killed thousands on American soil, including French and Germans. Along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, those terrorists are still plotting today. And they're -- if there is another al Qaeda attack, it is just as likely, if not more, that it will be here in Europe in a European city.

So I've made a commitment to Afghanistan, and I've asked our NATO partners for more civilian and military support and assistance. We do this with a clear purpose: to root out the terrorists who threaten all of us, to train the Afghan people to sustain their own security and to help them advance their own opportunity, and to quicken the day when our troops come home.

We have no interest in occupying Afghanistan. We have more than enough to do in rebuilding America. (Applause.) But this is a mission that tests whether nations can come together in common purpose on behalf of our common security. That's what we did together in the 20th century. And now we need an alliance that is even stronger than when it brought down a mighty wall in Berlin.

And then in answer to a follow-up question from the audience he made his major point.

So here's the bottom line. The United States has reviewed and redesigned its approach to Afghanistan. We believe that we cannot just win militarily. We have to win through development aid. We have to win through increasing the capacity of the Afghan government to provide basic services to its people and to uphold rule of law. We have to work with the Pakistani government so that they are more trusted by their population and have more control so that they can then go -- help us go after these terrorists. We have to encourage diplomacy in the region.

So it can't just be a military strategy and we will be in partnership with Europe on the development side and on the diplomatic side. But there will be a military component to it, and Europe should not simply expect the United States to shoulder that burden alone. We should not because this is a joint problem and it requires joint effort.
…

So we are going to conduct our operations in a way that reflect our best selves and make sure that we are proud. And that, in turn, will allow the Europeans, I think, to feel good about our joint efforts, and also not to have excuses not to participate in those joint efforts. All right?

Romanian Summit Objectives

Romanian media are reporting a speech by Romanian President Traian Basescu. His main objectives for the Summit are listed as:

• The final statement of the summit must include a message of opening towards Serbia's accession to the NATO structures;
• The statement must mention the Black Sea area as a region of interest and a strategic security element within NATO's security policy;
• Maintaining the commitments the Alliance made on full coverage of the NATO territory by the anti-missile shield;
• Maintaining the commitment to protect the energy infrastructure;- Romania supports the re-launching to the NATO - Russia cooperation;
• The final document must encourage Montenegro and Bosnia in their intention to join NATO.

It is notable that these objectives identify Romania as a consumer of, not a contributor to, NATO security. all the objectives are regional. There is no sign that Romania has seriously engaged in the major issues affecting NATO as a whole.