Text Only | Disarmament Diplomacy | Disarmament Documentation | ACRONYM Reports

NATO and Nuclear Weapons

Riga Summit Update, November 28 - 29, 2006

Day One in Riga: The Cracks begin to show

From Acronym Consultant Martin Butcher in Riga, November 28, 2006

Last time that NATO members met whilst the Alliance was engaged in war was at the 1999 Washington summit during the height of the war over Kosovo. In 1999 they left unified and within weeks the war was over on NATO's terms. The 1999 Summit came to substantive conclusions, notably the agreement of a new Strategic Concept, defining the roles and purpose of the Alliance and its military forces, including nuclear weapons. It also launched a study of Alliance arms control policy. Riga 2006 is shaping up to be a very different Summit.

As NATO's Heads of State and Government, accompanied by Defence and Foreign Ministers, gathered here today there were no official Summit sessions, only ceremonial events such as the opening of the NATO Transformation Exhibition, and the Riga Conference 2006 - an interesting side event at which many NATO figures spoke. Discussions begin tonight at an official dinner, and will centre around the issues raised in Acronym's Riga Update, November 27, 2006.

Debate, but little agreement on substance

Behind the scenes however there is hot debate. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer continues to attempt to negotiate with Allies both for more contributions to the NATO Response Force to allow its planned announcement of full operational capability to go ahead. It now seems there are enough problems that Full Operational Capacity will not be declared here in Riga. More seriously, the Secretary General is working to obtain the removal of caveats imposed by NATO nations including Germany and Italy on the use of their troops in Afghanistan. On the evening of November 27, he told a press conference, "As we speak I'm working on the NRF, on the full operational capability on the NRF and the very same goes for Afghanistan." His spokesman told a briefing on the evening of November 28 that these matters were not resolved, but that a restatement of the policy that in an emergency all NATO troops could aid other NATO troops would be made. How this will help UK and Canadian troops fighting the Taliban is something no-one has been able to explain.

What role for NATO?

At the same time, it was becoming clearer during the day that NATO nations are finding it difficult to agree even on the fundamental purpose of the Alliance. Latvian President Vike-Freiberga defined the meaning of NATO thus, while speaking to the press on November 27:

"We truly are pleased to be now part of that family of secure nations who have entered into an agreement of solidarity, of mutual support, to ensure their security and their sovereignty and their territorial integrity. These have been painful issues for Latvia in the past. There was this period between the two world wars when Latvia had hoped that declaring itself neutral might keep it out of the whirlwind of conflicts and of history. It did not work. We are very happy to be part of a military alliance, one that ensures our security…"

She was speaking in very traditional terms about NATO as a territorial defence organization, something that runs counter to the kind of 'transforming' NATO that Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer has tried to stress, for example in his article in the Summit edition of the NATO Review magazine, he wrote that "If there is to be any semblance of order and security in today's world, the transatlantic community must accept the responsibility to act where action is required - whether the issue is to prevent terrorism or to provide humanitarian relief." However, French President Jacques Chriac, anxious to prevent NATO growing in influence too much and constraining the EU has written in very similar terms to his Latvian counterpart that "at Wednesday's North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit in Riga, Latvia, I shall reaffirm the preeminent roles of the Atlantic alliance - a military organization, guarantor of the collective security of the allies, and a forum where Europeans and Americans can combine their efforts to further peace."

It seems that eastern European states who have more recently joined NATO have a fundamentally different view of the purpose of the Alliance they have joined from the US administration, which wishes to see a more global role for the Alliance. Unusually this seems to accord with French policy, since France is generally seen as wishing to undermine NATO. Perhaps this is because if their view prevails, US influence will be more constrained. The US is pushing for NATO to support the US in a much wider way, for example, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns last week briefed in Washington DC with a view of a far more extensive and wide ranging purpose for NATO in supporting US policy around the globe:

Our agenda with Europe is now a global agenda and it tends to be about the rest of the world, about what we can do as partners in the Middle East, in South and East Asia, in Africa and in Latin America. And that is a fully modern agenda and it's a great change from the agenda that we had with the Europeans for the five decades during the Cold War. So as the President goes to NATO, we not only have a reinforced U.S.-European relationship, greatly strengthened from 2003 and 2004 on the major political issues of the day, we have a transformed agenda which is much more global in orientation. And that really sets the stage for what's going to be the heart of the agenda as we see it in Riga at the NATO Summit.

This is a message that US briefings continue to push here in Riga. In Estonia, stopping off on his way to the Summit, President Bush said that, "In Riga, we'll discuss how our alliance must build on what we have learned in Afghanistan. We will continue to transform NATO forces and improve NATO capabilities so that our alliance can complete 21st century missions successfully. The threat has changed. Our capabilities must change with the threats if NATO is to remain relevant." NATO will address the topic of energy security, raised last night by US Senator Richard Lugar's, when he suggested:

"The Alliance must commit itself to preparing for and responding to attempts to use the energy weapon against its fellow members… NATO must become a reliable refuge for members against threats stemming from their energy insecurity. If this does not happen, the Alliance is likely to become badly divided as vulnerable members seek to placate their energy suppliers."

Most will not agree with his later suggestion in the speech that NATO should prepare regular military exercises along the lines of those held during the Cold War to plan to enforce energy supplies (notably from Russia) by military force.

Arms Control and Disarmament

On the vital question of arms control and disarmament, it seems unlikely that any real initiative can expected from this Summit. In 1999, the Alliance agreed in its Declaration that "As part of its broad approach to security, NATO actively supports arms control and disarmament, both conventional and nuclear, and pursues its approach against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means. In the light of overall strategic developments and the reduced salience of nuclear weapons, the Alliance will consider options for confidence and security building measures, verification, non-proliferation and arms control and disarmament."

Little of practical value emerged in ensuing years, and a written answer to a parliamentary question in the UK, from Europe Minister Geoff Hoon, suggests that there is no willingness at this time to revive NATO's support for arms control, and certainly not to debate the reduction or elimination of NATO nuclear weapons. On November 23, in reply to a question from Welsh Nationalist Elfin Llwyd MP, Hoon wrote that:

NATO nuclear policy is well-established. The fundamental purpose of NATO's nuclear forces is political: to preserve peace and prevent coercion. Since the height of the cold war NATO has reduced the number of sub-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe by over 95 per cent. The remaining US nuclear weapons based in Europe are in the sole possession and under constant and complete custody and control of the United States. These arrangements for basing US nuclear weapons in Europe are fully compatible with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

NATO does not follow either a nuclear first-use or no-first use policy. As the nature and scope of potential conflicts cannot be predicted, the Alliance does not pre-determine how it would react to military aggression. It leaves this question open and in so doing ensures uncertainty in the mind of any potential aggressor about the nature of the allies' response.

There is no evidence to suggest that either aspect of NATO nuclear policy provides a motivating factor in the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Mr Hoon sidestepped the question of the provision of nuclear weapons training given to the air forces of states such as Belgium and Germany, states that have renounced nuclear weapons under the NPT.

This is not a subject that NATO will be able to avoid forever. Norway and Germany are significantly more supportive of further nuclear arms control and disarmament measures, and their foreign ministers published an article on November 11 calling for the US and Russia to renew strategic arms negotiations, and to begin incremental reductions of tactical nuclear weapons.

Towards the 2008 summit

In an attempt to move beyond stubborn difficulties on major topics here in Riga, the NATO Secretary General looked forward to the next NATO Summit in 2008. He suggested that at the next Summit "We must air our thoughts on such subjects as proliferation… In short, we must debate all aspects of defence and security .." and that "the idea will gather momentum to draft a new, basic document outlining NATO's grand strategy …" which "will make clear to our publics where NATOs future roles and mission lie." His spokesman later confirmed to Disarmament Diplomacy that the Secretary General expects debate on a new Strategic Concept to begin very soon, and believes that a new foundation document stating the purposes and capabilities of the Alliance is needed. Such a fundamental review would have to include a discussion of the role nuclear weapons in the Alliance, and also the role of arms control and disarmament in reducing proliferation threats to NATO member states.

It seems that most allies are now hoping that 2008 will be a more fruitful Summit on the questions that are dividing delegations here, and (however much the British government may want to avoid the topic) for debating the vital issues of NATO nuclear policy and the US and British nuclear weapons allocated for NATO missions.

Back to the Top of the Page