Protest during NATO's nuclear planning group in Brussels

Brussels, June 6th 2002 – This morning an international delegation of For Mother Earth protested NATO's nuclear policy at its headquarters in Brussels. NATO's Defence Ministers were holding their regular Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) meeting. Six demonstrators had dressed up as nuclear bombs representing the US nuclear weapons that remain after the Cold War in six European countries: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the UK.

The previous week an international coalition of disarmament advocates had contacted the NATO Defence Ministers and called on them to decide on an immediate withdrawal of U.S. nuclear weapons from Europe, the creation of a European nuclear weapon free zone and a no-first use policy.

At the end of the NPG meeting, a delegation had a brief talk with NATO spokesperson Mr. Yves Brodeur. He however refused to disclose any of what he stated to be "secret information about the NPG". Further the NATO spokesperson pointed out that the disarmament campaigners adressed their questions and demands to the wrong person, and suggested they should talk with their Defence Ministers. "This is madness. When we talk to Defence Ministers they declare they are not in a position to make any changes because of NATO's nuclear policy. It is clear that NATO does not want a dialogue with civil society, and is used to plan its nuclear policy in without any democratic control. " declared Katri Silvonen, a For Mother Earth spokesperson after what she said to be a very disappointing meeting.

The recent crisis between India and Pakistan illustrates once again the imminent threat which nuclear weapons pose to humanity. A nuclear war in South Asia would lead to the death of several million people, many of whom will be civilians. Nuclear weapons are, by their mass destructive nature, weapons of real terror. While the allies have been quick to condemn the nuclear posture of India and Pakistan, the NPG is expected to reconfirm NATO's commitment to nuclear weapons, including the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons even when nuclear weapons are not used or threatened against them. NATO's nuclear policy is in violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1970) in which all parties agreed to negotiate total nuclear disarmament. Over thirty years have passed since the treaty was signed, and NATO and its member states still did not announce any timeline and step-by-step approach to fulfill their obligations under this treaty. "How can NATO members condemn India and Pakistan for their nuclear deterrent, when the alliance itself retains a massive nuclear deterrent on permanent air-trigger alert. Historically it is clear that especially NATO's member states refusal to move towards nuclear disarmament has been a big part of creating two new nuclear weapons states. Today's situation illustrates once again we need to move towards a convention banning all nukes as agreed in the NPT Treaty" said Katri Silvonen.

These obligations were reconfirmed in 1996 when the International Court of Justice issued a historic advisory opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons. It declared that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law, and that all nations have the obligation to pursue in good faith a treaty leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons. The continued reliance on nuclear weapons by the NATO allies, and the role of the Nuclear Planning Group in preparing for the use of nuclear weapons, is clearly in breach of international law.

A no-first use declaration by NATO would give a clear signal that these weapons are not an acceptable weapon of war, and would be an important step towards a nuclear weapon convention. At present only China out of the declared nuclear weapon states has such a no first use policy.

The Bush-Putin Moscow Treaty on strategic nuclear arms reduction, signed May 24, represents a step forward, but also a missed opportunity. Unlike the START II treaty (which is unlikely to ever come into force) none of the cuts are irreversible, and the US will continue to posses in excess of 14,000 undeployed warheads. In essence, the agreement merely changes the posture of the arsenals without meaningfully eliminating any weapons. The treaty does little to safeguard nuclear materials, or to address the risks of nuclear terrorism that we continue to face. The agreement does not include adequate verification measures, and does not address the tactical nuclear weapons held by each side.

Of particular concern are the NATO B61 tactical nuclear weapons based in Belgium, England, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey under the NATO "nuclear sharing" policy. This policy violates the spirit of Articles I and II of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which forbids the transfer of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear weapon states.

The withdrawal of these nuclear weapons from Europe, as the first step towards the creation of a European Nuclear Weapon Free Zone would be an important confidence building measure, and would indicate the willingness of the allies to comply with their obligation to achieve the global abolition of nuclear weapons. To date there are eight existing Nuclear Weapon Free Zones established by Treaty, covering amongst others Africa, Latin-America, the Antarctic, the South Pacific and South East Asia.

One of the next planned actions will be for the Bomspotting on Saturday October 5th 2002 at NATO nuclear base in Kleine Brogel in the Northeast of Belgium.

Pictures of this mornings action through AP, Reuters and Belga, but soon also on our website.

arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)