NATO delegation visits nuclear weapons laboratory in New Mexico: so what about a Strategic Concept on nuclear disarmament?

By Nigel Chamberlain, NATO Watch

50 representatives from 23 European countries were part of the NATO delegation touring the USAF Kirkland Base and Sadia National Laboratories from 8 to10 May. Officials from the Departments of Defense and State, the National Nuclear Security Administration, and other US Government agencies accompanied them.

The US Department of Defence informs visitors to their website that they were “learning about work being done to support the extended nuclear deterrence mission and broader national security programs, ranging from homeland security to global nonproliferation efforts”. The delegation viewed “the research and technology required to implement US policies that support the NATO alliance”.
 
Sandia President and Laboratories Director Paul Hommert told the group that “Sandia is focused on its core responsibility—nuclear weapons life extension programs” and, with the NATO alliance in mind, “we are in full gear to execute this mission”. 
 
Five members of the delegation later participated in a National Security Speakers Series panel which addressed US allies’ views of extended deterrence, the role of NATO member states in the nuclear deterrent and arms control negotiations. According to a Sandia Labs News Release, the session drew a standing-room-only crowd of Sandians, which Hommert said demonstrated that “our staff understands that if it says ‘life extension program,’ it’s important”. 
 
There is no reporting of Sandia Laboratory's contribution to non-proliferation efforts, how the life extension programme may not be entirely in line with obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or how it is justified that non-nuclear weapon states in NATO support nuclear deterrence, both in theory and in practice, since some of them base US nuclear weapons on their national territory.
 
Probably not under discussion at the gathering was the powerful speech by UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Angela Kane, at the recent NATO Conference on WMD Arms Control, Disarmament, and Non-Proliferation in Split, Croatia. Some of the keys points made were:
  • the North Atlantic Treaty says nothing about disarmament, a goal found in the UN Charter which has been a core objective of the United Nations since its inception in January 1946;
  • the UN is a global organisation which does not rely on nuclear deterrence and our concept of security is not weapon-based;
  • at its summit in Chicago last year NATO Allies shared a common vision of "creating the conditions necessary for a world without nuclear weapons". Yet when it comes to necessary conditions, surely non-proliferation is also a goal that will advance when its own necessary conditions are met, including progress on disarmament;
  • both final documents adopted by consensus at the 2000 and 2010 NPT Review Conferences stated "the total elimination of nuclear weapons is the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons". That is quite a statement, since it points to a security guarantee far greater than is available from nuclear deterrence itself or any other alternative;
  • disarmament is part of the 'grand bargain' at the heart of the NPT and in countless General Assembly resolutions—all of which indicate that nuclear disarmament is not simply a distant aspiration, but a responsibility shared by all States deserving—as Hamlet would say—"the name of action";
  • in both the UN Secretariat and among the vast majority of UN Member States, there is a belief that the goals of the elimination of all threats of proliferation and the achievement of nuclear disarmament are mutually reinforcing and must be pursued vigorously together;
  • the ongoing modernization programmes for nuclear bombs, warheads, delivery vehicles, and the infrastructures to produce and maintain them, the foreign deployment of tactical nuclear weapons, the perpetuation of the first-use nuclear doctrine and the maintenance of nuclear weapons on high-alert status is causing stresses in the global nuclear non-proliferation regime; 
  • these activities are important to view not just in the context of a single alliance, but also from the standpoint of how they look to those outside the alliance who are working to eliminate such weapons altogether; and
  • the time may have come for NATO to consider adopting a Strategic Concept paper devoted just to nuclear disarmament which would go far in helping to clarify that when the members of this alliance speak of nuclear disarmament, they take it seriously not just as a noble goal to be achieved in some distant era, but as an objective to be rooted in the individual laws and policies of each member state, and as a guiding star for future cooperation within the alliance.
To paraphrase retiring NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Admiral Stavridis 'In the end, in this 21st century, we won't deliver security from the tip of a nuclear missile'. During a recent interview, the admiral said security and freedom will be gained through international cooperation and a communications strategy to explain and promote democratic values, with only sparing use of the military. As NATO Watch commented in a recent editorial, “we couldn’t agree more”.
 
Also probably not under discussion at the gathering were the findings and recommendation of a new, weighty report 'Building Mutual Security in the Euro-Atlantic Region: Report Prepared for Presidents, Prime Ministers, Parliamentarians, and Publics'. It calls for the establishment of a new Euro-Atlantic Security Forum to implement many of the specific steps proposed in the report and further ongoing discussions.
 
The report highlights our time of unprecedented austerity and tight national budgets while "our publics are literally paying the price for this policy failure which needlessly raises costs for defence and misdirects resources away from fiscal demands, domestic priorities, and emerging security challenges and threats". And goes on to say: 
 
In the area of nuclear weapons alone, the potential price tag is breathtaking. The United States is poised to embark on programmes to build new nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines and strategic bombers at a cost of more than US $400 billion and to extend the life of nuclear weapons deployed in Europe at a cost of US $10 billion. Russia reportedly plans to spend Rub 1.9 trillion over the next decade to modernise its strategic nuclear forces, while the United Kingdom estimates the cost of Trident replacement at £25 billion.
 
It concludes that "the common interests of nations in the Euro-Atlantic region are more aligned than at any point since the end of World War II. It would be a tragic mistake, however, to assume that the window for developing a new strategy for building mutual security will remain open forever. We must seize the opportunity and move now".