Preventing Nuclear Confrontation
A Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in Central and Eastern Europe
Xanthe Hall
During the Cold War, the rationale for a nuclear deterrent on the part of the Western nations was the threat of conventional war in Europe. The claim was that the Soviet Union had the upper hand due to numbers of troops and tanks, irregardless of their technological capability in comparison with US equipment. Now that the Warsaw Pact has dissolved, the chances of permanently preventing nuclear confrontation on an East- West axis is greater than ever before.
Neither side is likely, however, to give up its nuclear deterrent completely without dealing with the conventional threat, at least of all-out war. For this reason, the discussion on NATO expansion becomes crucial to the question of nuclear disarmament.
In October 1995, at a meeting in Berlin, the Russian affiliate of IPPNW reported that tension had reached a dangerous level in Russia, due to the perceived threat of NATO expansion. At worst this could lead to a renewed Cold War, at best to a greater support for the opposition parties proposing rearmament. The meeting decided to take urgent action to prevent a build-up of confrontation by appealing to NATO and the Czech and Polish governments to consider a nuclear-weapon-free zone as an appropriate confidence building measure to help relieve tension with Russia. In March 1996, Victor Mikhailov, Minister of Atomic Energy for Russia, told Nobel Peace Prize Winner Joseph Rotblat that NATO's eastward expansion would bring about "...a revision of many agreements on cuts in nuclear arms". On May 14th 1996, Reuters reported that Russia's defence minister, Pavel Grachev, warned "if our recommendations are not taken into account and if no new routes of cooperation are found between Russia and NATO, we will take steps in the military sphere of the Western region..."
The monster and the cat
The IPPNW Board of Directors passed a resolution in December 1995 which has provided the basis for further work on a nuclear weapon free zone. The establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central and Eastern Europe re-emerged as a proposal after the end of the Cold War when Belarus suggested it in 1990. Foreign Minister Vladzimir L. Syanko referred to this proposal once again at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference in New York. He stated Belarus' particular concern "about the possible risk of more and more European territory being used for nuclear weapons deployment if NATO were to be expanded geographically". In May 1996, Belarus' President, Alexander Lukashenko, was reported as saying "We have to keep the peace in our country and in Europe. That is why I oppose the expansion of NATO and therefore its nuclear weapons in the East...We cannot look calmly on at the movements of this dreadful monster".
The proposal for a nuclear-weapon-free zone "from the Baltic to the Black Sea" was taken up again in 1996 by Jan Prawitz of the Swedish Defence Research Establishment in Stockholm. He put the idea forward as "an alternative option to military and nuclear expansion eastwards by the Western alliance".
NATO has done little to allay the fears of the Russian people. In a meeting with NATO international staff in Brussels in May 1996, IPPNW asked for a commitment to refrain from deploying nuclear weapons on the soil of former Warsaw Pact countries. Ambassador von Moltke of NATO was quite clear that this commitment would not be made, even though NATO had at present no a priori plans to deploy nuclear weapons in new member states, they felt the need to retain the option to do so. Furthermore, they insisted that it was an obligation of member states to be prepared to accept nuclear weapons.
After a visit to the NATO headquarters in November 1995, the Chairman of the Russian IPPNW described the meeting by using a Russian idiom: "the cat is listening and eating". This refers to a Russian fable whereby a cook catches a cat eating some food he has stolen. The cook explains to the cat that stealing is bad, and the cat listens to him but carries on eating.
The obligation to accept nuclear weapons has been publicly accepted by both the Polish and Czech governments. The Slovakian President Meciar questioned this obligation, however, on May 8th 1996, saying "there are countries where it is forbidden to deploy nuclear weapons on their territory" and that there are "various models for cooperation and integration". Meciar also said, that when he asked Secretary-General Solana if NATO membership would be tied to deployment of nuclear weapons, he didn't receive an answer. In a speech during a tour of the Czech Republic in April 1996, however, it was reported that Javier Solana had indicated that the new member states must accept a principle of having nuclear weapons based on their territory as an obligation of membership.
An arrangement was, however, made with Norway, when it became a member of NATO, allowing it to remain nuclear-free in peace time. Since the absence of actual war is continually used as a proviso for international treaties, including the NPT, this effectively means that Norway does not share in the preparation for nuclear war and would therefore probably also not take part in fighting one.
NATO expansion and reform
Reports from IPPNW student members in Poland lead us to believe that it would problematic to oppose NATO expansion as such without clearly thinking through an alternative model for security in Europe. The support for Poland to become a member of NATO is very high amongst the population, based on their experience in history of invasion. However, it is the opinion of these IPPNW members that the Polish people are not in favour of the stationing of nuclear weapons on their soil, nor do they wish to have NATO troops based there. They are simply looking for a high degree of protection in case of attack. The government quite clearly does not want anything to endanger the possibility of becoming a member of NATO and has fallen over backwards to comply with any NATO prerequisites for membership without consultation with their population on the nuclear issue.
Leaders in Eastern Europe are telling their electors that the expansion of NATO could lead to a reform of the institution in their favour and stabilise the region. Vaclav Havel, the President of the Czech Republic argues that NATO expansion is not an end in itself, but that the alliance will become one of the instruments in a quest for a new European order. "NATO could be converted into the foundation of a new security structure for Europe".
At the NATO meeting in Berlin on June 3rd and 4th, it was claimed that Russia was no longer against NATO expansion in principle. However, if one looks more closely at the compromise that the Russian Foreign Minister Primakow was offering, one will see that Russia is not asking for its concerns to be simply taken into consideration. It is asking to take part in the shaping of a European security policy. Primakow proposed that NATO should discuss not only Russia's participation and potential NATO missile defence systems with Russia, but also non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The softly, softly approach on both sides was clearly an attempt to avoid forcing Yeltsin's hand before the Presidential elections. After the first election, however, Yeltsin once again returned to his previous opposition to NATO expansion, perhaps in the hope of attracting more votes in the second round. Now this is over, NATO will be pressing for more tempo in the talks about expansion, with Slovenia reported to be the most likely first new member. This acceleration is intended to help Clinton's chances in the US Presidential elections, where he is coming under increasing pressure from Dole to take a harder line with the Russians.
Confidence building and conflict prevention
A nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central and Eastern Europe would act as a confidence building measure to relax tension between NATO and the Russian Federation, and allow a rational discussion to take place on the merits and disadvantages of NATO expansion without threat of present nuclear agreements being halted.
Such a zone would have to include the former members of the Warsaw Pact, the Baltic and Visegrad states and the states of the former Soviel Union, as well as those of former Yugoslavia. It may be worthwhile also looking at the "flank" countries, as defined by the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), which would add parts of Russia, Norway, Iceland, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and Greece.
The principle of conflict prevention defines that dialogue replaces confrontation. The threat of the deployment of nuclear weapons on the borders to Russia is a clear message of confrontation however often NATO claims it is conducting a dialogue. Continued pressure on NATO to relinquish the nuclear option in this region and a willingness to make good its promised compromise to involve Russia in the discussions over the collective security for Europe would provide a basis for stability in Europe. The NATO cat must stop eating and really listen.
Speech given at Gensuikin Conference, August 3, 1996, Hiroshima, Japan. A longer version is available at the author.
