|
 Report on the NWIP
Delegation to NATO
September
19, 2005
Participants
- Stefanie
Berkmann (Germany)
- Chris
Brubaker (USA)
- Caecilie
Buhmann (Denmark) –
Co-ordinator
- Lauren Giles (Australia)
- Christine Newell (Canada)
- Flora Ogilvie (UK)
- Thomas Silfverberg (Sweden)
- Anna-Polina Shurygina (Russia)
Round Table Questions and
Answers
With the
shift in the
role of the Alliance
from one of watchful waiting to one that actively participates in
operations,
haven’t the nuclear weapons outgrown the policy that directs them?
Officials
indicated that although NATO is going through a large
transformation, the weapons are still necessary for deterrence. This is based on the premise that the
security environment is constantly changing and it is impossible to
predict
what kinds of conflicts will arise in the future. Therefore,
although NATO’s role is changing
quite a bit, the need for deterrence means that it’s nuclear policies
will stay
constant.
How likely
is it that Germany and the
four other
non-nuclear weapons states who currently have NATO weapons on their
soil could
get rid of them?
The response
from NATO that was reitereated a several times is that
these weapons are not important for tactical use, but they are very
important
within the alliance to promote the sharing of responsibility and costs
for NATO
nuclear weapons.
What are the
threats
against the NATO alliance?
The answer
we were given was basically the “rogue states”. Iran, Syria,
Libya
and Jordan
were
mentioned. Islamic totalitarianism is regarded as a great threat, and
also as a
grow-ground for terrorist acts.
How is
NATO’s security
policy going to meet this threat?
Because NATO
doesn’t know what is happening around the world, they will
rely on security measures such as nuclear deterrence. They clearly
pointed out
that they believe in nuclear deterrence. They explained that nuclear
weapons
would deter states from attacking the NATO alliance, nations from
cooperating
with non-state actors when it comes to supplying knowledge, means or
technology
for e.g. terrorist acts.
What changes
in the
current political situation would be needed for NATO to decrease its
reliance
on nuclear weapons?
NATO states
that it has currently the lowest possible number of nuclear
weapons. They had some difficulties in answering this question, but we
agreed
on that it would take confidence building in between countries. They also pointed out that they had
difficulties in seeing how transparency as well as trust could be
obtained in
between i.e. NATO and “rogue states”.
Because
NATO’s over all
purpose is to provide security for its members, couldn’t it be an
assignment
for NATO to secure fissile material in e.g. eastern Europe so that it
doesn’t
fall into the hands of non-state actors?
Here they
said that they didn’t see it as NATO’s role to take care of
these things. They suggested that the UN would be a better option. They
saw
problems for NATO being in countries which are not yet a part of the
alliance.
How would
NATO react to a
decision by the UK
not to renew its trident submarines, and could this be a positive first
step
towards disarmament?
They
mentioned that this is possible in principle, but not very likely,
and even if it happened, under the current contracts the UK
will still
be a nuclear power for at least 15 years. We
were then provided with a list of
reasons why the UK
would
continue to want to be a nuclear power, including deterrence and shared
responsibility.
What can we
do?
Emphasis was
put on public awareness. It was suggested that getting the
attention of the media is a good place to start. Another good option for us
is to meet with governments directly and put pressure on them as civil
society.
What can
NATO do?
Officials
suggested that NATO is not the forum to target as the first
step for disarmament. It was indicated
that Nuclear Disarmament is not a current topic within NATO, and that
NATO is
not an engine for disarmament.
Should the US
take the
first step?
The opinion
of officials was that the US
has made many steps already, and that the stockpiles of American
weapons are
not the reason for the proliferation in India,
Pakistan,
Iran
and N. Korea.
Recommendations
We felt that
this was a positive overall experience, both in terms of
building knowledge, leadership and dialogue skills among the students
as well
as setting up a network at NATO that we would encourage a future
delegation of
NWIP students to visit. The consensus
that we came to is that the country representatives might be more
valuable for
us as far as having access to decision makers in our own countries, so
we would
suggest that a future delegation would be useful if it was possible to
organize
attendance by delegates from each of the countries represented by the
students. The students could then use
these contacts to
try to push for a meeting within the government of their country. This would especially be relevant for those
non- nuclear NATO countries with nuclear weapons stationed within them. We will suggest to NATO presenters and
members of the round table that in the future shorter presentations and
more
country representatives would be useful. We
found eight people to be a great
number both for planning and
carrying out the discussion, so we would not recommend that any more
that this
number would join the delegation. We
suggest that one member of our team this year head up a new delegation
to be
made up of NWIP students from NATO and NW states that would meet at the
NATO
headquarters again next year. Students
from this year’s delegations are composing articles and reports for
their own
IPPNW affiliate newsletters and medical student publications.
Links and Resources
http://www.ippnw.org/IPPNWBooks.html#NWC
http://www.middlepowers.org/2005NPTpoliticalanalysis.pdf
http://www.nato.int/docu/handbook/2001/index.htm
Acknowledgments
We would
like to extend a heartfelt thanks to those who provided support
for us to be able to proceed with this delegation.
Special thanks to SLMK and Foreign
Affairs
Canada/PGS for financial support and to IPPNW and PGS staff for help
with the
administrative procedures.
|
