NATO and Nuclear Weapons

Back to the Acronym home page

NATO meeting highlights deteriorating relations with Russia:
Russia suspends implementation of the CFE Treaty

By Martin Butcher and Nicola Butler, December 2007

Summary

The NATO Foreign Ministers' meetings on December 7, 2007, have taken place against a backdrop of deteriorating relations between the US and Russia, an impending crisis over the status of Kosovo, and NATO facing increasingly difficult conditions in Afghanistan with an operation currently underway to take back the town of Musa Qala in Helmand Province from the Taliban.

Within days of the meeting Russia announced it is proceeding with its intention to "suspend" implementation of the 1987 Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, although it is reportedly prepared to continue negotiations on the future of the Treaty. There are no indications as yet that Russia is redeploying weapons covered by the CFE, but Moscow has stopped exchanging information stipulated by the Treaty and receiving foreign inspectors to verify Treaty implementation.

NATO officials are eager to portray NATO moving from being a territorial defence organisation to being a global security provider or enabler. Other issues of concern raised at the meeting included Kosovo and the continuing war in Afghanistan. NATO also welcomed the Annapolis Conference and the potential for further negotiations towards peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

With NATO facing crisis in Kosovo, and the continuing war in Afghanistan, the possibility of becoming entangled in the Middle East peace process would give even the most ambitious NATO Minister pause for thought. It is questionable whether public opinion in Europe would stand for the current process of dialogue with Mediterranean partners being transformed into active military engagement in the intractable problems of the Middle East.

The December 2007 Foreign Ministers's meetings promised to be difficult for NATO, and so it proved. None of the major issues addressed have actually been resolved, and since the meeting Russia has taken further steps to suspend the CFE Treaty. The only positive aspect is that at least NATO and Russia are able to continue talking - for the moment. The decision by NATO to maintain troops in Kosovo indefinitely will, at least, keep the lid on the situation there. If the NATO-Russia relationship is not to deteriorate significantly, then urgent action is needed to restore the CFE Treaty and to build bridges again between Washington, Brussels and Moscow.

The unilateral approach of the Bush administration, combined with the increasingly authoritarian tendencies of President Putin and his United Russia Party are threatening to put the past ten years of slow construction of a positive relationship between NATO and Russia into reverse. It remains to be seen whether this decline can be halted after the US Presidential elections in 2008.

Russia suspends implementation of CFE

In recent months the future of the CFE Treaty has become entwined with differences between the US and Russia over missile defence. In July 2007, in anger at US plans to deploy BMD bases in Eastern Europe - a radar in the Czech Republic and an interceptor site in Poland - President Putin announced a suspension of the CFE Treaty in July this year, citing "exceptional circumstances". In November, Russia's Parliament, the Duma, voted unanimously to temporarily suspend the Treaty. On December 12, Russia's Foreign Ministry announced that it was now implementing the suspension. Russia cites the failure of NATO nations to ratify the 1999 Adapted Treaty, NATO expansion and the deployment of US missile defence facilities in Europe. However, it is generally recognized that the move is associated with Moscow's concerns that US missile defence plans, including establishing bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, are aimed at Russia, and not limited to 'rogue' states in the Middle East (such as Iran), as the Bush administration claims.

Nevertheless, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that it was "ready to continue a result-oriented dialogue on the CFE Treaty" and called for the other states parties to "show political realism and the will to search for mutually acceptable solutions". In a statement it set out Russia's aims as follows:

"We consider that to achieve this goal it is necessary to:
- agree on how to compensate for the additional potential acquired by NATO as a result of its expansion;
- arrange the parameters for restraint in the stationing of forces on foreign territories;
- resolve on the abolition of so called flank restrictions for the territory of Russia (they hinder our common struggle against terrorism);
- ensure the participation in the Treaty of the new NATO members Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Slovenia;
- enact the adapted version of the CFE Treaty as soon as possible and without artificial conditions and embark on its further modernization."[1]

Whilst the suspension stops short of a full-scale withdrawal from the Treaty, the CFE Treaty was regarded by many as one of the cornerstones of post-Cold War arms control in Europe. The Treaty put strict limits on the number of conventional weapons - battle tanks, combat aircraft, heavy artillery - that the members of the Warsaw Pact and NATO could deploy in European territory, from the Atlantic to the Urals.

NATO reacted by stating that its dialogue with Russia on CFE:

"offers a constructive way forward on the basis of the parallel action package supported by all Allies, to: resolve outstanding concerns of all States Parties, fulfil remaining commitments reflected in the 1999 CFE Final Act with its Annexes, including those related to the Republic of Moldova and Georgia; lay the basis for ratification of the Agreement on Adaptation by all 30 States Parties; and ensure full implementation of the Treaty by all States Parties. This way forward respects the integrity of the Treaty regime with all its elements and would address the legitimate interests and concerns of all Treaty Partners."[2]

This follows on from the NATO Foreign Ministers' NAC Communiqué on December 7, 2007 which stressed the importance that NATO places on the Adapted CFE Treaty and on the issues that need to be resolved to ensure that the treaty survives:

"NATO Allies place the highest value on the CFE regime and underscore the strategic importance of the CFE Treaty as a cornerstone of Euro-Atlantic Security ... We remain firmly committed to the CFE Treaty and wish to achieve the earliest possible entry into force of the Agreement on Adaptation -- which is our common goal..."[3]

The main issue to be resolved is that NATO members have been slow to ratify the Adapted treaty because they claim Russia continues to station its troops in Georgia and Moldova in contravention of the new agreement. Russia, on the other hand, claims that these forces are peacekeepers and exempt from the Adapated CFE treaty.

At his morning briefing on December 7, NATO Spokesperson James Appathurai said that, "the rhetoric coming from Moscow was seen as unwelcome by many NATO nations," and admitted that there was no "shared view" in the NATO Russia Council about "how the process of status should go forward."

This was an unusually frank admission of the problems that have beset NATO-Russia relations in the past year. In particular, such criticism of public statements from Moscow is not often seen from NATO officials speaking on the record, and can be taken as a sign of the true extent of those difficulties. The tough language used by Appathurai was mirrored in the NAC communiqué issued later that day:

"The NATO-Russia partnership should continue to be a strategic element in fostering security in the Euro-Atlantic area. Ten years after the signing of the NATO-Russia Founding Act, this partnership has entered a challenging phase. We are concerned by certain recent Russian actions, including on key security issues such as the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE). ... We value and want to continue our constructive and frank dialogue with Russia, including on issues on which we disagree."[4]

This admission that it may not even be possible to continue work through the NATO-Russian partnership is a mark of the antagonism that has come between Washington and Moscow, with Brussels caught in the crossfire. Despite this the Chair's Statement from the NATO-Russia Council acknowledged problems, while attempting to keep the door open for positive solutions.

"Foreign Ministers of the NATO-Russia Council reiterated the continued importance of the NRC [NATO-Russia Council] as a unique forum for frank and dynamic political exchanges. Despite serious disagreements on the CFE Treaty, Kosovo's final status, as well as missile defence related matters, they recognised the fact that their recent political dialogue has been particularly active, including on issues for which the NRC is not the sole negotiating forum. Acknowledging current challenges, Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to the NATO-Russia Council as a valuable venue for seeking joint positions."[5]

Following the NATO-Russia Council meeting, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov gave his own press conference, in which he vented frustration with NATO and emphasized the importance that Russia places on multilateral cooperation over European security, as follows:

"We don't fully understand the activities of the Alliance in many areas, particularly on our borders, particularly the strengthening of infrastructure in the Balkans, in Eastern Europe, Romania and Bulgaria, for example, but I speculate frankly to our partners about that today and of course then there's the whole question of conventional forces in Europe, the control of armaments as well, and it must be said that in the last couple of years we have deadlocked on that one. So what we have to do is to make sure that the CFE Treaty is complied with and that is essentially, because it was not being complied with that Russia suspended its participation ..."[6]

The next day, in an interview with the Interfax News Agency, Lavrov went further. He blasted the US administration for blocking the agreement of a NATO-Russia workplan, an intrinsic part of the functioning of the NATO-Russia Council, saying:

"The fact that an important document that simply set out a large number of spheres of agreement... has been blocked due to the absolutely ideological position of our American colleagues, who are trying to force us to annul Russia's law on the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty, obviously is a cause for regret ... "[7]

The US is blocking multilateral cooperation on a range of issues in the workplan, including combating weapons of mass destruction, narcotics, industrial accidents and air space management. There are even some at NATO who privately regret this and recognise that it is unhelpful in the current climate.

Open Divisions on Missile Defence

There was no papering over the cracks on strategic missile defences at the NATO Foreign Ministers' meetings. As Poland's spokesperson was trying to position NATO closer to the strategic missile defence programme, NATO spokesperson James Appathurai did his best to distance the Alliance from the worst problems over missile defences during his briefing and accentuate the positive of NATO-Russia cooperation. Appathurai told the media:

"You're quite right that there are series of bilateral discussions going on the U.S. plans to put a third site, as they call it here in Europe, and that is not a NATO project. I don't need to speak to that project." [8]

However, he acknowledged that:

"It gets a little bit complicated because we have within NATO a discussion on missile defence beyond theatre missile defence which could potentially, and that decision has not been taken at NATO, could potentially be bolted on to a potential U.S. third site to provide coverage to countries that wouldn't be covered by the U.S. third site, in order to ensure the principle of the indivisibility of security within NATO. In other words, nobody should be in... half in, half out, 80 percent in, 20 percent out. That is a principle within NATO that we cannot abide. So these discussions on theatre missile defence do in a sense compliment or potentially compliment the U.S. third site discussions..."[9]

Russia is expected to participate in a joint theatre missile defence exercise with NATO in Germany during 2008. But the important strategic issues thrown up by bilateral US activities in Europe have caused, and continue to cause, the rupture in the NATO-Russia relationship that are now so apparent.

In his press conference, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov stated that:

"We also talked about the U.S. plans for the missile shield in Europe, and obviously we are forced willy-nilly to bear witness to conversations and talks about this dislocation and the linkup with the NATO MD system. Because what you have to know also is that Russia and NATO are collaborating on a TMD system and we want to avoid the situation whereby NATO has its own and one with Russia and one with the States. But if it's a multilateral one then obviously that would be a much better idea and we want to pull out of it, though, if it's not going to multilateral."[10]

Nuclear Arms Control and Disarmament

Since the Bush administration came to power, NATO has gradually been abandoning many of the concrete commitments it had previously made to multilateral arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament agreements. During the planning for the 2007 foreign ministers' meeting it appeared that there was no intention to include any arms control commitments in the communiqué. However, the German and Norwegian foreign ministers raised the issue with their colleagues during the course of the meeting on December 7. Their request for some acknowledgement of the need for arms control measures to build NATO security is reflected in the following paragraph:

"We reiterate that arms control and non-proliferation will continue to play a major role in NATO's concerted efforts to prevent the spread and use of Weapons of Mass Destruction and their means of delivery. We noted today a framework report on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation, which recommends areas for NATO to explore further where it might add value to efforts of other leading international fora; and broadening compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1540. We look forward to completion of this review by the Bucharest Summit."[11]

Whilst this commitment by ministers is positive in tone, it is hard to ignore the fact that no multilateral treaties are cited in this communiqué and the only concrete initiative supported is UNSCR 1540, which enshrines the Bush administration's Proliferation Security Initiative. This is a series of bilateral deals between the US and other nations, with UN approval, although UNSCR 1540 provides some degree of true multilateral underpinning, extending states' obligations under existing WMD treaties to enact domestic legislation and deal with non-state actors. It will be interesting to see just what NATO is prepared to do in the field of multilateral arms control when this document is published.

Although NATO continues to protest that it supports the NPT and other agreements that restrict nuclear weapons, its practical work in support of such agreements has waned. During the 1960s-80s, NATO ministers actively participated in work preparing such agreements as the Outer Space treaty and the Seabed Treaty, which keep those areas free of nuclear weapons, or the 1980s when NATO supported the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty as a positive contribution to Alliance security. Compared with this, NATO today does little. Since 2000, when NATO welcomed the outcome of 2000 NPT Review Conference, and specifically the '13 steps' for disarmament adopted as part of the Final Document, NATO now supports very few concrete arms control measures. As noted by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, in a statement issued in the margins of the Brussels meeting:

"We in NATO must again give disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation the attention they once had. NATO has in the past always done well to emphasize not only its military potential but also its readiness to enter into dialogue and cooperation - on matters including disarmament. This approach has paved the way for many of the Alliance's political successes. I have with my Norwegian counterpart Jonas Gahr Støre therefore outlined a new initiative for NATO. We are glad that our partners in the Alliance responded favourably to our proposal, and hope that we will make further progress on it in the run-up to the Bucharest Summit."[12]

Achieving practical action by NATO may be more difficult. Many people, including some NATO ministers and US Air Force personnel have suggested that the few hundred US nuclear weapons stored in Europe and allocated to NATO could be withdrawn to the US as a way of kickstarting negotiations on the elimination of tactical nuclear weapons with Russia, which maintains many thousands of such weapons. Such an agreement would clearly be highly advantageous to the security of the Alliance, and yet, when questioned by a journalist from the Dutch Reform Daily on the support by European mayors for removing "the last remnants of the Cold War, the 400 nuclear weapons in Europe", the NATO Secretary General Jaap De Hoop Scheffer dismissed it out of hand:

"I'm afraid not because NATO is not going to change its nuclear policy. That's my short answer. And by definition then I'm afraid that we cannot be helpful."[11] [13]

There are very few, if any, threats to the Alliance that could not be better contained, reduced and eliminated through arms control, rather than through the continued dependence on the highly questionable deterrence ascribed to nuclear weapons. In the long term, perhaps only when President Bush has left office, the Alliance will need to return to the negotiating table to help increase its security.

Divisions over Kosovo

In their December 7 communique NATO ministers committed themselves to the indefinite continuation of KFOR, the 16,000 NATO-led stabilization force in Kosovo, but behind the scenes the political minefield of Kosovo continue to divide the Alliance. Many, but not all, NATO members support the 'supervised independence' demand of the Albanian Kosovars. However, Russia's position is that it will support any final deal that both Pristina and Belgrade can support - and Belgrade is opposed to increased independence for Kosovo.

NATO is leaning heavily on the Kosovan government to dissuade it from doing anything drastic, and since it provides for the security of Kosovo, there is an incentive for the Albanian Kosovars to avoid actions that could lead to war. Serbia is pursuing entry into the EU, and therefore also has a strong incentive to avoid provocative actions. Nato can take no comfort from any of the envisaged scenarios if Kosovo declares independence. In the meantime, Kosovo is yet another issue continuing to poison NATO-Russia relations.

NATO Mediterranean Dialogue

On December 7, NATO Foreign Affairs Ministers and their counterparts from Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia also met at NATO Headquarters in Brussels for a lunch meeting. An ever increasing number of officers from Mediterranean Dialogue (MD) countries participate in courses, seminars and exercises, reaching the number of 781 military officers in 2006, thus contributing to promote interoperability between the armed forces of NATO and MD countries.

During the December 7 press conference NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said:

"The presence of these Ministers is, in itself, a strong signal of shared interests between MD partners and NATO, and of the ability to work together to tackle common challenges. Ministers agreed that our political dialogue and practical cooperation must go hand in hand. And we also had, today, a good political dialogue. In reviewing international issues, Ministers welcomed the outcome of the Annapolis conference, and they looked forward to the start of negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Even if this is not a NATO issue, we all share a desire to see lasting peace in that region."[14]

NATO officials have been eager over the past year or so to portray the future of NATO as one where it moves from being a territorial defence organisation to being a global security provider or enabler. NATO welcomed the Annapolis Conference and the potential for negotiations following it towards securing peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This area, potentially extremely dangerous and difficult, is emerging as one where NATO could become involved. Israeli Foreign Minister Livni told her colleagues that:

"We are now in a process that is expected to strengthen the capabilities of the Palestinian Authority - so they would fight terror instead of Israel. However, one can not exclude the possibility that we will need to discuss what can be the role of NATO in supporting the need for a change, a real change, on the ground."[15]

So perhaps if Israel continues to lack confidence in the ability of the Palestinian Authority to guarantee Israeli security, NATO could be asked to police a future peace agreement, deploying troops into Gaza and the West Bank.

Documentation

NATO NAC Communiqué
www.nato.int/docu/pr/2007/p07-130e.html

NATO NAC Meeting Page
www.nato.int/docu/comm/2007/0712-hq/0712-hq.htm

Statement by Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs Regarding Suspension by Russian Federation of Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE Treaty)
www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0712/doc10.htm"

NATO Statement on Russia's CFE suspension.
www.nato.int/docu/pr/2007/p07-131e.html

Notes

[1] Statement by Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs Regarding Suspension by Russian Federation of Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE Treaty), www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0712/doc10.htm, December 12, 2007.

[2] Alliance's statement on the Russian Federation's "suspension" of its CFE obligations, Press Release (2007)139, www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0712/doc13.htm, December 12, 2007.

[3] Final communiqué, Ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council held at NATO headquarters, Brussels, Press Release (2007)130, www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0712/doc14.htm, December 7, 2007.

[4] Ibid, para 19.

[5] Chairman's statement, Meeting of the NATO-Russia Council at the level of Foreign Ministers held in Brussels, Press Release (2007)131, www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0712/doc15.htm, December 7, 2007.

[6] Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on NATO-Russia relations, www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0712/doc18.htm December 7, 2007.

[7] Interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Interfax, December 8, 2007, www.interfax.ru.

[8] Press briefing by NATO Spokesman, James Appathurai following the meeting of the NATO-Russia Council at the level of Foreign Ministers, December 7, 2007, www.nato.int/docu/speech/2007/s071207f.html.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on NATO-Russia relations, www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0712/doc18.htm, December 7, 2007.

[11] Final communiqué, Ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council held at NATO headquarters, Brussels, Press Release (2007)130, www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0712/doc14.htm, December 7, 2007.

[12] German Foreign Ministry Information Service Press Release, Germany and Norway call for NATO disarmament initiative, December 7, 2007, available at www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo/en/Infoservice/Presse/Meldungen/
2007/071207-DtlNorAbruestungNATO.html.

[13] Final press conference with NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, December 7, 2007, www.nato.int/docu/speech/2007/s071207j.html.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Address by FM Livni to the NATO-Mediterranean Dialogue Ministerial Meeting, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, December 7, 2007, www.mfa.gov.il.

Back to the Top of the Page

© 2008 The Acronym Institute.