Disarmament Documentation

Back to Disarmament Documentation, June 2002

A New Nuclear Policy for NATO: Article by Lloyd Axworthy, June 3

'It's time to ban the bomb - shaking Russia's hand is all well and good. Now let's get rid of the nukes', by Lloyd Axworthy, former Canadian Foreign Minister, The Globe and Mail, June 3.

"The Cold War is officially over", declare the presidents of Russia and the United States. Good!

To signify that historic event, all the NATO leaders gathered in Italy last week to inaugurate a new Russia-NATO Council where co-operation and mutual interest will prevail. That, too, is good.

Now, then, is the time to translate these words and declarations into meaningful action demonstrating that this is truly a new era. It's time for the new North Atlantic Treaty Organization to fundamentally change its nuclear policy.

In 1998, Parliament's standing committee on foreign affairs and international trade forcefully recommended that Canada push for a review of the nuclear strategy of NATO. Its argument - that the nuclear strategy was predicated on Cold War threats of aggression by the Soviet Union against western Europe and that such a threat no longer existed.

The report made the case that as long as NATO viewed nuclear weapons as having "political value" it was pretty hard to convince others that they shouldn't acquire the same capability - just ask the Indians and Pakistanis. The Canadian government of the time - I was foreign affairs minister - concurred with this argument and attempted to follow through on the recommendation.

Canada and Germany both tried at the time of the 1998 NATO summit in Washington to have a review initiated. There was grudging acceptance by the nuclear weapons states (the United States, Britain and France) to consider what we termed "options for confidence-building and arms control and deeper consultations with the Russians on the reduced salience of nuclear weapons." We succeeded in setting up a panel of senior officials to follow through, but that ground to a halt when the Bush administration came to power.

If there was logic then to a revision of nuclear policy, surely there is even greater logic today. What possible justification is there for NATO to continue to store tactical nuclear weapons in Europe that are designed to meet the Soviet threat, when the threat has ceased to exist and the Russians are now a NATO partner?

Why should NATO not make a "no first use" declaration regarding nuclear weapons, with a reciprocal commitment from Moscow? Such an example could have a salutary effect on the campaign to limit the spread and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It would also go a long way to meeting public expectations around the world for concrete efforts to reduce the nuclear risk.

In a survey conducted by the Centre of Public Opinion and Democracy located at the Liu Centre in the University of British Columbia, respondents in 11 countries - including the three nuclear states in NATO plus Russia and Canada - were asked their views on nuclear issues.

An overwhelming majority in every country - ranging from 80 per cent in Germany to 62 per cent in the United States - oppose the idea of NATO using nuclear weapons first. There is strong support from every country - including 57 per cent in the United States - for having all nations sign on to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Most important, there is great support for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. Eighty-eight per cent of Germans, 83 per cent of Canadians, 78 per cent of Russians, 72 per cent in France and the United Kingdom, and 61 per cent in the United States strongly endorse a proposal that all countries should sign a treaty prohibiting all nuclear weapons. Such numbers are reflected in equal strength in countries such as Brazil, Japan, South Korea, South Africa and India.

As these results show, there is a broad-based, global constituency yearning for significant measures to end the nuclear nightmare that has beset the world for over half a century. Contrary to conventional wisdom, people do care about such matters and want their political leaders to respond.

The recently announced cuts to American and Russian nuclear arsenals were seen at first as a welcome step - until it was realized that the weapons withdrawn will be placed in storage, not destroyed. As well, we now have active discussion in Washington of resuming the testing of a new generation of "bunker-busting" nukes, plus Pentagon plans for space weaponization. It's a case of one step forward and two steps back when it comes to arms reduction. While such programs may bolster the already awesome war-fighting capacity of the United States, they fly in the face of the desire of people for lessening the nuclear threat.

Which brings us back to the opportunity presented by the recent NATO-Russian agreement to join in a new multilateral arrangement. Here is the chance to reopen the debate on nuclear relations between the two entities, to move toward a major dismantling of the Cold War configurations of weapons and strategies that determine their use. It would give real meaning to the recent proclamations of a finale to the Cold War. It would also show a responsiveness to deeply felt public concerns.

The idea of a NATO nuclear review was very much a Canadian initiative arising out of a thorough public consultation and serious parliamentary examination. The time couldn't be better to show our leadership again.

Back to the Top of the Page

© 2002 The Acronym Institute.