Editor's Note: On April 22-23, the foreign ministers from NATO's 28 member states gathered in Tallinn, Estonia, for a two-day meeting. In the first article, Oliver Schmidt, based in Germany, reflects on the NATO talks and the utility of maintaining U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe. In the second article, Lukasz Kulesa, from Poland, discusses how the Obama administration's Nuclear Posture Review might affect NATO's nuclear policy.
The Utility of U.S. Tactical Nuclear Weapons in NATO: A European Perspective
By Oliver Schmidt
During the recent meeting of NATO's foreign ministers and secretaries of state in Tallinn, Estonia, it became increasingly clear that there is disagreement over the fundamental purpose of NATO and the utility of maintaining its tactical nuclear weapons. The debate encompassed three main views. First, NATO should remain a regional military alliance that focuses on the territorial integrity of its member states. Second, NATO is primarily a regional military alliance, but should also be used for humanitarian intervention if its member states decide to do so. Third, NATO is more than a regional military alliance; it represents "Western" values and should therefore expand its membership and geographical focus to include like-minded states worldwide.
What these three positions reveal is that NATO does not have a common understanding of risks and threats. While the countries of central and Eastern Europe still fear the perceived threat of Russia, the countries of Western and Southern Europe are more focused on new security challenges stemming mainly from non-state actors.
The result of this security divide is the current controversy over the nearly 200 remaining U.S. tactical nuclear weapons stationed in Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Germany. Eastern European countries like Poland view these weapons as a sign that the United States is taking the mutual defense clause enshrined in Article 5 of NATO's charter seriously. As a U.S. ally, and perhaps given Iran's nuclear ambitions, Turkey is also very cautious about the possible withdrawal of U.S. nuclear weapons from its soil. More fundamental is the concern in Europe over the obvious imbalance between NATO's 200 tactical nuclear weapons and Russia’s estimated 3,000 non-strategic weapons.
So what should be the way ahead? Germany’s current position is to lead efforts for the removal of tactical nuclear weapons from Europe. This was formulated in the November 2009 agreement that brought Germany's ruling parties into coalition, which came as a surprise for many NATO countries. The German coalition agreement was, in fact, an attempt to gain popular domestic support by advancing a nuclear disarmament agenda. In Germany, as in many other European countries, the majority of the population favors the withdrawal. But Germany could have simply resolved the issue over time. The only German weapons system capable of delivering nuclear weapons is the Tornado strike fighter, which will be phased out by 2030 at the latest. The new multi-role Euro Fighter, which will replace the Tornado, is not currently designed to deliver tactical nuclear weapons. For many Germans, then, the question is, given the maximum range of these strike fighters, what could they possibly hit that is not a NATO or European country?
By February 2010 the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, and Luxembourg joined Germany's proposal for the withdrawal of nuclear weapons and debated the issue at the NATO meeting in Tallinn. However, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stated clearly that there will be no withdrawal without an agreement with Russia about their tactical nuclear arsenal in Europe. In order to reach an agreement, it would be a helpful and necessary step to resolve the critical status of the Treaty on the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE). Russia postponed its treaty commitments after NATO member countries did not ratify the adapted CFE Treaty, which addresses the significant changes in Europe's military balance after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. The NATO countries, on the other hand, demand the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia and Moldova in accordance with the 1999 Istanbul commitments before they ratify the adapted CFE.
Russia will rely on nuclear weapons to compensate for the imbalance as long as it perceives a conventional superiority of NATO forces in Europe. Only when this Russian perception is assuaged will it be possible to find a solution regarding the status of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. What remains is the need for providing reliable U.S. and NATO commitments to collective defense, especially to Poland and Turkey. Dealing with these threat perceptions will require finding ways to develop a security architecture that can deter today's threats without anachronistic nuclear thinking.
Oliver Schmidt works for the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) in Berlin, Germany's oldest non-partisan, non-governmental think tank.
Roma Locuta, Causa Finita? The Nuclear Posture Review and the Future of U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe
By Lukasz Kulesa
Last week, the foreign ministers of NATO’s 28 member states gathered in Estonia for informal talks. There was one especially controversial issue on the agenda: the future of NATO’s nuclear policy. Included in the discussions was the question of whether NATO should continue to rely on the approximately 200 U.S. B-61 nuclear bombs stored in Europe as part of U.S. extended deterrence.
The message of the meeting does not herald any far-reaching change. The problem will be further discussed until a consensus is found within NATO. In theory, all options are still on the table. But in practice, a compromise seems to be in the making at NATO--one which would seriously disappoint the proponents of an early withdrawal, but is the only solution which would prove acceptable to all of NATO’s member states.
The position of the United States is crucial to chart NATO’s course on this issue. The recently released U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) offers a number of hints on how Washington might influence the alliance’s nuclear strategy towards a gradual change rather than a revolution.
“Enlightened Disarmers” versus “Cold War Warriors”
As a flurry of reports and articles would have it, NATO is deeply divided on the issue of U.S. nuclear weapons deployed in Europe. On the one hand, we have a group of enlightened disarmers who follow President Barack Obama’s call for nuclear disarmament. Germany emerged as the most vocal representative of this group when it requested last year NATO consultations on the removal of nuclear weapons from its territory. On the other hand, there are supposed to be the Cold War warriors of Central and Eastern Europe, quietly backed by Turkey, who perhaps irrationally believe that these weapons would somehow come in handy if they ever get into a conflict with Russia.
The main problem with this description is that it is terribly oversimplified. Of course, there are some in Central Europe who interpret even discussing the withdrawal as a sign that the U.S. is abandoning its European allies, but there is a growing recognition that it is no longer possible to continue with nuclear “business as usual.” Still, many in the region would argue that NATO should not make unilateral decisions based on the recent wave of disarmament enthusiasm, but rather approach the issue of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe in a holistic way. This calls for keeping an eye on the developments in the Middle East, but mainly for making a serious attempt to engage Russia, which stores non-strategic nuclear weapons on the European part of its territory in much greater numbers than the United States.
In short, the question is not if, but how to proceed with reductions and, ultimately, the withdrawal. Poland has recently teamed up with Norway to propose a set of proposals aimed at addressing the issue of the sub-strategic nuclear weapons in a larger framework of European arms control issues. The joint communiqué from the April 9 meeting of the Polish and Norwegian foreign ministers suggests a “step-by-step approach, including transparency and confidence-building measures as well as balanced and mutual arms reductions.” Released after a New York Times op-ed signed by Polish and Swedish foreign ministers, which called nuclear weapons in Europe “dangerous remnants of a dangerous past,” this initiative aims at transforming an internal NATO debate into a subject to be tackled jointly by NATO and Russia.
Hail to the Compromise
As for the United States, the 2010 NPR report gives at least some clarity as to where the Obama administration stands on the issue. Even though it repeats the mantra about leaving all options open, the NPR seems to place the U.S. in the group of countries opposed to the unilateral withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Europe.
By highlighting the political value of the weapons deployed in Europe, which “contribute to Alliance cohesion” and “provide reassurance” to some allies, and also by mentioning the “unique” NATO nuclear sharing arrangements, the U.S. NPR signals that the time is not ripe for any radical decisions. Since it does not want to apply pressure on some skeptical allies, it looks like the Obama administration decided to play it safe and not support a German-led charge to fundamentally alter NATO’s nuclear policy.
What does this mean for NATO? It would probably need to start working on an offer to Russia to discuss the ultimate withdrawal of all sub-strategic nuclear weapons from Europe, with some added transparency and confidence-building measures to get Russia’s attention and jumpstart the process. NATO would also need to acknowledge that until meaningful progress with Russia is made, U.S. nuclear weapons would stay in Europe, although the countries which no longer wish to host them could be quietly relieved from this duty. On a parallel track, if NATO wants to gradually phase out the sub-strategic nuclear weapons from its arsenals, it should beef up its non-nuclear deterrence capabilities, including both offensive and defensive systems.
Lukasz Kulesa is an international security analyst and Deputy Head of the Research Office at the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM), Warsaw.