Guy B.Roberts, NATO's Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Weapons of Mass Destruction Policy, in an interview with Victor Litovkin, RIA Novosti military commentator

Subscribe

          

V.L.: Mr Roberts, Experts from many countries – not only those that were invited to the NATO exercise in nuclear weapons transportation security in Edinburgh – have been closely following the activities of the NATO specialists organising this work.  Probably just as many as watched similar exercises on Russian territory, near Murmansk. In your opinion, what links these exercises? What can NATO and Russian representatives learn from each other? Are nuclear weapons being reliably protected against international terrorist access? What further measures are needed to ensure that the threat of terrorists having nuclear arms becomes a thing of the past – both in the NATO countries and in Russia?

G.R.:As part of the NATO-Russia Council work plan, the nuclear powers offered to demonstrate the security and surety of national nuclear weapons through a series of accident response exercises.  As you know, the first was held in Murmansk and the second was held in Edinburgh.  The U.S. is planning on hosting an exercise in 2006 and the French will host one in 2007.  These exercises represent an opportunity for NATO and Russia to exchange views on procedures and reassure each other and their publics on the safety and surety of these weapons and demonstrate an effective response and consequence management in the extremely unlikely event that an accident or incident occurs.  In the exercises conducted so far the assessment of the experts observing these exercises has been that the nuclear weapons are safe and secure.  That is not to say that more could be done.  These exercises in fact are part of a continuing process by all nuclear powers to evaluate and upgrade as necessary the procedures, equipment and response capabilities.  

                 V.L.: The NATO Nuclear Planning Group includes representatives of all the NATO nations - including those which do not and should not have such weapons. Do you not think that having them participate in the discussion of specific issues concerning the deployment, security, protection and durability of nuclear arsenals, communications and information systems, and the control and use of nuclear arms, is an indirect – or perhaps even direct – violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? How would NATO react if the Collective Security Treaty Organisation or the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation set up a similar Nuclear Planning Group?

G.R.: As you are aware, within NATO Nuclear Weapons are only possessed by the U.S., U.K. and France.  No other NATO country is in physical possession or exercises control over these weapons.  Having other NATO members participate in the consultation process concerning the potential use of nuclear weapons is a basic principle of the Alliance Strategic Concept and ensures mutual understanding, burden sharing and common resolve in the face of threats or attack by an adversary. I have no comment on a theoretical scenario.

              V.L.: According to information from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) there are nine arsenals in six NATO countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the UK) containing American nuclear weapons - 150 B61 free-fall aerial bombs. If this is true – and it has not been denied in the press - any sensible person would react with bewilderment. Why should these weapons be held in Europe, on foreign territory, when the UK and France – European members of NATO – have such weapons of their own? Surely these are enough for the requirements of deterrence? Or does the USA simply not trust its NATO allies?

G.R.: NATO’s policy is to neither confirm nor deny any detailed numbers of nuclear weapons.  Therefore I cannot comment on the numbers you cite.  However, since the end of the cold war NATO has reduced their arsenal of nuclear weapons by more then 90 % and we are in a continual process of examining our nuclear posture to ensure we maintain the lowest possible number of such weapons consistent with our joint security and nuclear deterrence posture.  The stationing of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe constitutes a special form of burden sharing fully endorsed by Allies, enhances the consultation process, and supports the special transatlantic link between all NATO members.

V.L.: When you ask the NATO top brass why they need such terrifying destructive weapons, you generally get the “fashionable” answer: to deter terrorism. Incidentally, this idea is enshrined in the new American doctrine on lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. The tragic experiences of New York, Madrid and London – and also Moscow, Beslan and Volgodonsk – show, however, that nuclear weapons do not stop terrorists. Trying to fight them with atomic bombs is like killing cockroaches with dynamite. Perhaps NATO has other reasons for having nuclear weapons? Would it not be better to say so?

G.R.: NATO’s nuclear weapons are one of several pillars in the overall Alliance’s Strategic Concept of war prevention.  The fundamental purpose of nuclear weapons within the Alliance is political: to preserve peace and prevent coercion by any adversary.  I am unaware of any change in the U.S. nuclear posture which would authorize the use of nuclear weapons at any level other than the President of the United States.  NATO maintains its nuclear deterrent in order to deter a range—but not necessarily all—potential aggressors. 

V.L.: In your opinion, Mr Roberts, what measures could really help to strengthen the WMD non-proliferation regime, including nuclear WMD? What can and should the NATO nations and Russia be doing to make North Korea and Iran give up nuclear weapons, and perhaps Pakistan and India too in the future? How do we get away from the problem that a state’s security and sovereignty can be guaranteed only by having its own nuclear weapons?

G.R.: I agree that all nations should ratify and fully comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).  Additionally, all states should, as they are now legally required to do, fully comply with UN Security Council Resolution 1540 and fully implement and enforce laws to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  Additionally, as stated in UNSC 1540 (Operative Paragraph 10) states should work together to interdict the illicit trafficking of WMD and related materials.  NATO countries and Russia are already working on a number of initiatives to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.  For example, Russia and all NATO countries participate in the Proliferation Security Initiative.   Russia has supported the efforts of the EU-3 (Germany, UK, France) to resolve issues related to Iran’s suspected nuclear weapon program and ambitions and Russia has supported the efforts of the IAEA to fully document and disclose Iran’s program it kept secret for 18 years.  Likewise, dialogue within the Six Party Talks and collaborative efforts to ensure North Korea isn’t a source of WMD and ballistic missile proliferation is the best way to end that country’s nuclear ambitions. 

We cannot put the nuclear genie back in the bottle.  All nuclear weapon states (except for China) under the NPT continue to work to reduce the number of nuclear weapons to the lowest possible level consistent with the ever changing threats to international peace and security.  As more and more countries shed the yoke of totalitarian or authoritarian governments and embrace democratic institutions where military budgets are openly and freely debated and the military remains subservient to a freely elected government, the likelihood of nuclear proliferation will continue to decrease. 

V.L.: Thank you for your answers

Newsfeed
0
To participate in the discussion
log in or register
loader
Chats
Заголовок открываемого материала