NATO and Nuclear Weapons

Back to the NATO page

NATO Communiqué, 3 April 2008

Martin Butcher

NATO Communiqué Analysis

The meeting of the North Atlantic Council (NAC) has concluded, and a Summit Communiqué has been issued. The communiqué begins with a strong reaffirmation of the traditional purposes of NATO:

... The principle of the indivisibility of Allied security is fundamental. A strong collective defence of our populations, territory and forces is the core purpose of our Alliance and remains our most important security task...

This formulation indicates that the Alliance has consensus around territorial defence, and that those who wish NATO to become a global expeditionary Alliance have not convinced their colleagues. The "indivisibility" of the Alliance has also been used by opponents of the US strategic missile defence deployments in Europe to bolster their case, as the system could not (even if it worked) defend all Allies.

Enlargement

The enlargement decisions of the Alliance are much as was expected and reported on Martin Butcher's Bucharest Summit Blog Croatia and Albania have been invited to join the Alliance. According to the Communiqué NATO and the new invitees will ".. begin talks immediately with the aim of signing Accession Protocols by the end of July 2008 and completing the ratification process without delay."

It appears likely that these new members will formally join the Alliance at the 2009 Sixtieth Anniversary Summit. In the meantime, they will continue to pursue security sector reform through their Membership Action Plans (MAPs).

Macedonia failed to overcome Greek objections to the name of the Republic (and indeed Greece is reported to have had enough European support to overcome intense American pressure during the NAC meeting. NATO instead said that:

We recognise the hard work and the commitment demonstrated by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 1 to NATO values and Alliance operations. We commend them for their efforts to build a multi ethnic society. Within the framework of the UN, many actors have worked hard to resolve the name issue, but the Alliance has noted with regret that these talks have not produced a successful outcome. Therefore we agreed that an invitation to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will be extended as soon as a mutually acceptable solution to the name issue has been reached. We encourage the negotiations to be resumed without delay and expect them to be concluded as soon as possible.

This formula may well allow Macedonia to accede to NATO by next year, if they are able to make a compromise with Greece in the near future. The UN will continue to broker talks between the two nations to this end.

Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montengro have been invited to ".. begin an Intensified Dialogue on the full range of political, military, financial, and security issues relating to their aspirations to membership, without prejudice to any eventual Alliance decision." While Serbia has been offered support for an eventual Intensified Dialogue when the time is right.

President Bush suffered outright defeat, although that had been well predicted, when he failed to secure MAPs for Georgia and the Ukraine. The Alliance said that:

We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries' applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications.

The first review of this process will come when Foreign Ministers meet in December and they have been authorized to offer MAPs to these aspirant member states when the necessary conditions have been met. Unofficially some have said that this may come in 2010. The US is likely to continue pressing the matter as the enlargement of the Alliance to Ukraine and Georgia has bipartisan support in Washington DC.

Missile Defence

The US and the Czech Republic have aggressively promoted the Summit communiqué as supporting fully the US deployment of missile defences in Eastern Europe. In fact, while the Allies recognized the contribution that this system could make to Allied security, this is no different to the formula they have used in the past for French nuclear forces which remain outside NATO. The Summit actually endorsed the continued study of options by Ambassadors. This review would be examined at the 2009 Summit, for future political decision. NATO leaders have simply recognized ongoing reality of US bilateral talks with the Czech Republic and Poland and delayed any decision on formally supporting US strategic missile defences for at least a year, and possibly longer.

Ballistic missile proliferation poses an increasing threat to Allies' forces, territory and populations. Missile defence forms part of a broader response to counter this threat. We therefore recognise the substantial contribution to the protection of Allies from long range ballistic missiles to be provided by the planned deployment of European based United States missile defence assets. We are exploring ways to link this capability with current NATO missile defence efforts as a way to ensure that it would be an integral part of any future NATO wide missile defence architecture. Bearing in mind the principle of the indivisibility of Allied security as well as NATO solidarity, we task the Council in Permanent Session to develop options for a comprehensive missile defence architecture to extend coverage to all Allied territory and populations not otherwise covered by the United States system for review at our 2009 Summit, to inform any future political decision.

We also commend the work already underway to strengthen NATO Russia missile defence cooperation. We are committed to maximum transparency and reciprocal confidence building measures to allay any concerns. We encourage the Russian Federation to take advantage of United States missile defence cooperation proposals and we are ready to explore the potential for linking United States, NATO and Russian missile defence systems at an appropriate time.

With this language, NATO has tried hard to avoid offending Russia and has offered a deal that Russia may be able to accept in coming years. Whether this is enough to defuse the ongoing strategic crisis between the US and Russia over missile defences and other issues will have to be seen at the Friday session of the NATO-Russia Council and at the Sochi Summit.

Nuclear Weapons, Arms Control and Disarmament

The Communiqué paragraphs concerning nuclear weapons, arms control and disarmament are interesting and out of the ordinary for NATO.

We reaffirm that arms control, disarmament and non proliferation will continue to make an important contribution to peace, security, and stability and, in this regard, to preventing the spread and use of Weapons of Mass Destruction and their means of delivery. We took note of the report prepared for us on raising NATO's profile in this field. As part of a broader response to security issues, NATO should continue contributing to international efforts in the area of arms control, disarmament and non proliferation, and we task the Council in Permanent Session to keep these issues under active review.

The Alliance has reduced both its conventional forces significantly from Cold War levels and has reduced nuclear weapons assigned to NATO by over 90%. Allies have also reduced their nuclear arsenals. France has reduced the types of its nuclear systems to two, the number of its nuclear delivery vehicles by over half, and has announced it will reduce the number of its nuclear warheads to fewer than 300, with no other weapons beside those in its operational stockpile. The United Kingdom has reduced to one nuclear system, and has reduced the explosive power of its nuclear stockpile by 75%, and its number of operationally available nuclear warheads to fewer than 160. The United States has reduced its nuclear weapon stockpile to less than 25% of its size at the height of the Cold War, and decreased tactical nuclear weapons assigned to NATO by nearly 90%.

This statement is notable as it does not reiterate the Alliance's usual position that nuclear weapons are an essential element of Alliance security and an indispensable part of the trans-Atlantic link. Germany and Norway have been pressing the Alliance for a comprehensive review of arms control policy, and it appears that this continues. It is notable while the Alliance reports its and its members achievements in reducing their nuclear forces since the end of the Cold War, there is no statement of future action. NATO has, in the past, actively used arms control and nuclear reductions to enhance its security and that of the whole of Europe. In this context, it is disappointing not to see active support for vital non-proliferation and disarmament measures like the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cut-Off treaty. It is to be hoped that with the departure of President Bush, US and NATO policy can become more forward leaning in this area.

Afghanistan

NATO leaders have published a strategy for the NATO-led ISAF - the International Security Assistance Force. The short declaration says that:

Our vision of success is clear: extremism and terrorism will no longer pose a threat to stability; Afghan National Security Forces will be in the lead and self-sufficient; and the Afghan Government will be able to extend the reach of good governance, reconstruction, and development throughout the country to the benefit of all its citizens. This declaration is supported by a medium-term, internal political-military plan - consistent with the Afghanistan Compact and the Afghan National Development Strategy - which will be updated regularly and against which we will measure progress.

The political-military plan remains classified, and is reported to set out conditions the Afghan government must fulfill and the time-frame within which they must do so, in order to continue to receive Alliance assistance. The document notes that:

Success requires a comprehensive approach across security, governance and development efforts and between all local and international partners in support of the Afghan Government.

It goes on to list a series of measures that NATO, the UN and other institutions will undertake to assist the Afghan government. Reuters is reporting that NATO has committed itself to ".. provide the training teams and help provide the equipment needed to meet the goal of an effective 80,000-strong Afghan army by 2010." Disagreements remain. The Australian government, for example, wanted a firm commitment to a drug eradication programme with funds to support farmers growing alternative crops - that was not approved.

The CFE Treaty

Implementation of the Adapted Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) was thrown into chaos last year when Moscow suspended participation in the Treaty, partly as a response to US negotiations on missile defence deployments. NATO nations had also failed to ratify the amended Treaty, which was agreed in 1999. Russia has failed to live up to some of its obligations, especially concerning regional deployments of forces in former Soviet States.

Last week, NATO adopted a policy on CFE (http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2008/p08-047e.html) which it hopes will satisfy Russian grievances and enable the two sides to re-engage on the issue.

The Summit Communiqué states that:

We place the highest value on the CFE Treaty regime with all its elements and underscore the strategic importance of the CFE Treaty, including its flank regime, as a cornerstone of Euro Atlantic Security. We are deeply concerned that the Russian Federation has continued its unilateral "suspension" of its legal obligations under the CFE Treaty. This action does not contribute to our common objective of preserving the long-term viability of the CFE regime and we urge the Russian Federation to resume its implementation. The current situation, where NATO CFE Allies implement the Treaty while Russia does not, cannot last indefinitely. We have offered a set of constructive and forward looking proposals for parallel actions on key issues, including steps by NATO Allies on ratification of the Adapted CFE Treaty and by the Russian Federation on outstanding commitments related to Georgia and the Republic of Moldova. We believe these proposals address all of Russia's stated concerns. We encourage Russian authorities to work cooperatively with us and other concerned CFE States Parties to reach agreement on the basis of the parallel actions package so that together we can preserve the benefits of this landmark regime.

As the meetings of the next few days unfold, it will become clear whether the Alliance has done enough to allow this implementation of this vital treaty to resume. For the moment there is no reaction from Russia.

Conclusion

President Putin has arrived in Bucharest. Tomorrow the NATO-Russia Council will meet and a number of issues from missile defence, through CFE implementation to energy security will be on the agenda.

Full text of the North Atlantic Council Communiqué is available at:

http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2008/p08-049e.html

Back to the Top of the Page

© 2008 The Acronym Institute.