Russische positie over tactische kernwapens
(zoals die opgeslagen in Nederland)
door Karel Koster
De British American Security Information Council BASIC publiceerde gisteren een interessant citaat van een Russische defensiewoordvoerder. Deze vertelde ITAR-TASS dat Rusland niet zal onderhandelen over de zogenaamde tactische /sub-strategische kernwapens, waar er nog steeds duizenden van in gebruik zijn in de arsenalen van dat land. De Russische woordvoerder stelde dat er geen verdragen bestaan over dit type wapens en dus geen verplichtingen.
Volgens BASIC is het feit dat er honderden Amerikaanse kernbommen in 6 Europese landen zijn opgeslagen voor gebruik door oa Nederlandse kernbommenwerpers, van belang voor de Russische positie. De VS is de enige kernwapenstaat die haar kernwapens 'uitleent' voor gebruik door bondgenoten en daarmee de bedoelingen van het Non-proliferatie Verdrag schendt. (Niet-kernwapenstaten mogen geen kernwapens hebben.)
In Nederland geldt nog steeds de officiële NAVO doctrine: men bevestigt noch ontkent de aanwezigheid van de Amerikaanse kernbommen op Volkel, maar erkent wel dat de Nederlandse vliegtuigen daar (F-16's) een kerntaak hebben. Dit verstoppertje spelen maakt al jaren een serieuze discussie over de Nederlandse kernwapentaak onmogelijk.
Dit is de laatste tijd politiek zeer relevant geworden vanwege de door Nederlandse opiniemakers op hoge toon uitgedragen maar niet bewezen beschuldigingen aan het adres van Iran, als zou dat land kernwapens ontwikkelen. Er bestaat geen bewijs voor een Iraans kernwapenprogramma, maar de Nederlandse kernwapentaak wordt openlijk erkend. Volgens het Non Proliferatie Verdrag zou Nederland een 'niet-kernwapenstaat' moeten zijn. In de praktijk is dat onzin. Om die reden hebben Europarlementariërs Caroline Lucas and Angelika Beer een initiatief gestart om NAVO lidstaten op te roepen om de VS kernwapens van hun bodem te verwijderen. De bedoeling is om het Europarlement deze verklaring te laten aannemen in het najaar. De zaak zou beslist ook een kwestie moeten worden in de Nederlandse verkiezingen volgend jaar. Totnogtoe hebben de meeste partijen echter geen serieus werk hiervan gemaakt.
Russia Will Not Discuss its Nuclear Weapons With U.S. - Official
Russia does not intend to discuss issues relating to the future of nuclear tactical weapons with the United States, a senior defense ministry official said Tuesday.
Since no international treaties related to such weapons exist, Russia will not consider holding negotiations regarding them with neither the U.S. nor any other country, the official's statement transmitted by the ITAR-TASS news agency reports.
He stressed that though Russia doesn't intend to use these weapons offensively, it retains its legitimate right for self-defense as a sovereign country.
In response to a U.S. official's declaration that Washington wishes to learn more about Russia's tactical nuclear weapons and uses, the Russian official said his country announced in the nineties that it had slashed its reserve of these weapons by over the half while the Americans maintained top secrecy over the exact figures of their own tactical nuclear arsenal.
BASIC Comment
Convenient Stand-off?
So, there we have it. The Russian government has no intention of discussing its tactical nuclear weapons stockpile with the United States, or anybody else for that matter. Meanwhile the US administration refuses to have its deployed tactical nuclear weapons (sub-strategic is their preferred designation) discussed by NATO allies who, apparently, agreed to have them deployed on their territory during the early days of the Cold War.
This farce has been permitted to run and run on the European stage, regardless of low, almost non-existent audience participation and consistent adverse judgements from critics in the know (you have to be in the know as the details of these weapons is kept secret from the very people who should be consulted about their continued presence at airbases ringing the old Soviet Union).
Russia may have announced it "had slashed its reserve of these weapons by over half in the nineties" but how would we know? And from what level? The US administration claims that its unstated number of tactical nuclear weapons at air bases in Belgium, England (Lakenheath in Suffolk for those not in the know), Holland, Italy, Germany and Turkey are there for political, not military purposes - to hold the NATO alliance together. But, the word is that these 'non-military weapons' have been withdrawn, unofficially, from Greece. So, is Greece 'unprotected' by the US nuclear umbrella or out in the rain and out of the political loop?
Apparently, the Russians have indicated that they would indeed be prepared to discuss their tactical nuclear weapons if and when the United States removes its nuclear weapons from third party states, just as they themselves have done (or were obliged to do following the collapse of the former Soviet Union). US diplomats, however, have allegedly responded with some pretty undiplomatic language to perfectly reasonable requests to put this issue on the table at NATO meetings.
The elected governments in the above mentioned NATO countries need to be pressed on this issue by their electorates and a free and enquiring media.
The European Parliament Declaration on the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from European territory before the end of 2006 is worthy of being taken seriously by a much wider audience than it is initially targeted. It is available as an appendix below or as a pdf-file.
Appendix: EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Written Declaration
12.6.2006, Reference 0047/2006
pursuant to Rule 116 of the Rules of Procedure
by Caroline Lucas and Angelika Beer
on the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from European territory before the end of 2006
Lapse date: 12.10.2006
Written declaration on the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from European territory before the end of 2006
The European Parliament,
- having regard to Rule 116 of its Rules of Procedure,
A. whereas there is widespread concern among Europe's citizens about the continued presence of 480 US nuclear weapons on that country's bases on the territories of its European NATO allies,
B. whereas there has been considerable public protest about this, with several European governments and parliaments, including the European Parliament, demanding the withdrawal of these weapons as soon as possible and in accordance with a well-determined timetable,
C. whereas the US Government has refused to take any steps in this direction,
D. whereas NATO is refusing to take up this issue at the forthcoming meeting of defence ministers on 8 and 9 June in Geneva or at the Riga summit in November, and whereas Europe's leading foreign and defence ministers have opted to remain silent on the issue in order not to hinder the 'transatlantic relationship',
1. Calls on the US Government to present a clear and precise timetable and action plan for the withdrawal of these weapons from Europe before the end of 2006;
2. Urges NATO to include this issue as a permanent item on the agendas for its ministerial meetings and summits until such time as the withdrawal has been completed;
3. Calls on all European governments to put political pressure on their US counterpart to implement this withdrawal;
4. Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories, to the Council, the Commission and the US Government.
Naar boven
Naar beginpagina