Germany says ‘nuclear-armed states’ are subject to different ‘standard’ under international law
Despite ‘incoherent’ positions, nuclear ban treaty supporters see reason to hope in participation of observer states at New York meeting
The relative lack of engagement with the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons’ provisions by a large number of U.S. allies has presented a major political challenge since the treaty’s 2017 adoption.
“We cannot support this treaty”, the Ambassador of The Netherlands, a host of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe, said after having forced — and lost — a vote on the treaty’s adoption in July of 2017. Since then, several U.S. allies have struggled to come to terms with the new treaty that bans any possession, promotion of, or threats to use nuclear weapons.
Sandwiched between their own populations’ support for nuclear disarmament and U.S. demands to reject the treaty, some U.S. allies have sought to carve out a halfway position. Their compromise is to take no steps to formally join the treaty, but participate in the treaty’s biannual meetings of States Parties as observers.
NATO countries have been further squeezed by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s deployment of nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus in July. The move has cast a critical light on the U.S. given its similarity to the U.S.’s practice of deploying nuclear weapons in Europe. The policy, referred to by NATO as “nuclear sharing,” has been pursued by the U.S. and allies since the 1950s.
As NATO is responding to Russia’s attempts to turn the war in Ukraine into a game of nuclear deterrence by upping their own nuclear signaling efforts, the 69 members of the nuclear ban treaty face a tricky challenge: How to leverage the treaty’s prohibition on the transfer of nuclear weapons “to any recipient whatsoever” in a manner that facilitates — instead of closes the door to — engagement by U.S. allies in the treaty’s meetings?
Western parties to the nuclear ban treaty, including Austria and Ireland, have been fighting since the negotiations of the treaty in 2017 to keep the door open for future accession by nuclear-allied countries. Spoiler Alert has learned that the practice of nuclear sharing has been the topic of intense backroom discussions at the treaty’s second meeting of States Parties this week.
U.S. allies are, however, doing little to return the favor. The number of nuclear-allied observers to the current meeting of States Parties has dropped to four after five participated at the first meeting in Vienna, Austria in 2022. Australia, Germany, and Norway sent delegations to the New York meeting, with Belgium announcing their participation only an hour before the first session started.
The Netherlands, the only nuclear-allied country that had taken part in the initial negotiations of the treaty, had — after a general election that saw a big win by the anti-Islam populist Geert Wilders — decided, in a move described as “highly disappointing” by ICAN campaigner Susi Snyder, to disengage. The NATO newcomer Finland, and aspiring member Sweden had similarly decided not to participate.
On Wednesday, Ireland welcomed the presence of the remaining observer countries, while Austria expressed their hope that “this is a sign for and a step toward … constructive engagement with the profound arguments and legitimate security concerns that are now expressed through the [nuclear ban treaty]”.
These hopes were largely dashed, however, when U.S. allies Norway and Germany took the floor later in the afternoon.
“Norway stands fully behind NATO’s nuclear deterrence and posture, including the established nuclear sharing arrangements”, Tor Henrik Andersen of Norway said in a statement, reiterating that his country’s participation in the meeting as an observer “is not a step towards signing nor ratifying the [nuclear ban treaty], which would be incompatible with our NATO obligations”.
Norway for decades opposed the stationing of nuclear weapons on its territory. As far as Spoiler Alert has been able to ascertain, Norway has never before explicitly supported the deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons in other European countries in a multilateral disarmament arena.
Similarly, Susanne Riegraf made clear that Germany “will not accede to” the ban treaty, as it “would collide with our national security interests and our membership in NATO including nuclear deterrence.” Ms Riegraf said the Meeting of States Parties, “...need(s) to be explicit and call out Russia as a major obstacle to disarmament efforts.” While she criticized Russia for “announcing the deployment of nuclear weapons to Belarus,” Ms. Riegraf did not reflect on the implications of this stance for Germany’s role as a host of 15 U.S. nuclear weapons and calls by some NATO allies to deploy nuclear weapons to more European countries.
Instead, Ms. Riefgraf appeared to reject as unserious the principle of legal equality enshrined in the nuclear ban treaty, where nuclear weapons are placed under a regulatory regime with common rules for all states. “A serious discussion on arms control and disarmament”, she said, “can and should not apply one standard to all states, including nuclear weapon states under the [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty], but needs to differentiate”.
Merle Spellerberg, a member of the German Parliament for Alliance 90/The Greens, took issue with the notion that there should be a “double standard” with respect to nuclear weapons states. At the same time, she highlighted the challenge of pursuing disarmament in a world in which some states “do not want to engage with the international community and even partake in reckless exercises or acts of aggression”. These states, Ms. Spellerberg said in an interview with Spoiler Alert, “should be treated differently than those that actively try to further disarmament efforts”.
Noting that Germany is participating in the nuclear ban meeting despite “international and domestic backlash”, Ms. Spellerberg stressed that the mere act of observing the meeting has “sent an incredibly important signal” of commitment to a world without nuclear weapons. “It is imperative now”, she said, “that we strengthen our commitment and work in the areas of victim assistance and environmental remediation to show that Germany is a trustworthy partner that shares the common goal of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation with the majority of the non-nuclear [armed] states in the global south”.
Norway’s support for established nuclear sharing arrangements also sparked strong reactions. “NATO and Norway cannot have one standard for themselves and a different one for everyone else”, Ingrid Fiskaa, a member of the Norwegian Parliament for the Socialist Left Party, told Spoiler Alert. According to Ms. Fiskaa, Norway’s defense of established nuclear sharing arrangements risks undermining its own criticism of Russia’s deployment of nuclear weapons to Belarus. “The deployment of nuclear weapons must be criticised in any and all instances where it occurs”, she said.
Ms. Fiskaa, who participated in the meeting in New York as part of a parliamentary delegation, had hoped that Norway would play “a more constructive role as a bridge-builder by saying something positive about the nuclear weapons ban” and stressed that there is “strong popular support for Norway to join the ban treaty”.
Reflecting this support, Tuva Krogh Widskjold of ICAN Norway similarly slammed Norway’s statement for being “incoherent” and clearly showing “Norway’s double standards”. “This happens at a time when it is crucial to strengthen the non-proliferation norm and raise the threshold against the deployment of nuclear weapons,” she said.