This initiative is part of NATO’s new security strategy and refers to President Barack Obama’s call for a world without nuclear weapons.There are thought to be around 250 tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, installed during the Cold War period, and most of them are stockpiled at US bases in Italy and Turkey. As there is no longer such a thing as a Soviet military threat, it may seem meaningless to maintain these weapons on European territory. That’s why, at first sight, this appears to be a peaceful and logical proposal.
However, this important subject has many other dimensions. First, we must emphasize that asking for the removal of the American nuclear arsenal in Europe is not the same thing as asking to transform Europe into a nuclear arms-free zone because in Western Europe, two other countries have their own nuclear weapons: the United Kingdom and France. If some people believe that Russia is uncomfortable with nuclear weapons in Europe, this uneasiness must also include British and French weapons, too. In addition, Russia still has short-range weapons targeting Western Europe, and there is no sign that Moscow is thinking about dismantling them in the short term.
If indeed the US withdraws its weapons, then France and the UK will become the only nuclear powers in Western Europe. As we know that the UK is a close ally of the US, maybe Paris believes that France will become the leading European power in this domain. As far as Germany is concerned, it has no intention of developing nuclear arms, and it wouldn’t be disturbed by having France as continental Europe’s sole nuclear power.
In fact, making a joint declaration is not necessary, because every concerned country can at any time individually ask the US to withdraw its nuclear weapons from its sovereign territory. Furthermore, the fact that Italy and Turkey haven’t signed this declaration is worth noting. Sooner or later this debate will affect Turkey and Italy’s relations with the US, but it’s almost certain that these two will not sacrifice their cooperation with Washington for the sake of, for example, Luxemburg. Additionally, nothing allows us to believe that these two countries need France to become the provider of the so-called nuclear umbrella in Europe.
This debate has shown once again the dimensions of the European Union’s internal disagreements. There is a difference of opinion about the NATO-EU relationship between northern and southern members of the EU. The southern EU countries, except France, estimate that working together with the US in the Mediterranean basin and the Middle-East will be less costly. From this perspective, they also support Turkey’s accession to the EU. But the northern EU countries want to be influential in the same region without the US and Turkey. They probably imagine that Russia may support their policy, but one mustn’t forget that Russia is also a Black Sea country, thus Turkey will still be an important factor in this scenario.
It’s as yet unknown what NATO’s reaction will be to this joint declaration or what the US’s counterproposals will be. However, it’s almost certain that countries such as Turkey and Italy will criticize this initiative. What if someone calls for a total denuclearization of the European continent in order to reinforce Europe’s position as an area of peace and stability? Countries such as Turkey or Italy wouldn’t oppose this, but it’s obvious which European countries would strongly refuse such an idea.
