Clinton rules out early end to US nuclear forces in Europe; ties reductions to Russian action

Clinton says no to early end of US nukes in Europe

TALLINN, Estonia — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday ruled out an early withdrawal of U.S. nuclear forces from Europe, telling a NATO meeting that any reductions should be tied to a nuclear pullback by Russia, which has far more of the weapons in range of European targets.

No such negotiation with Russia is in the offing, and Moscow has shown little interest thus far in bargaining away its tactical nuclear arms.

Clinton also said the Obama administration wants NATO to accept missile defense as a core mission of the alliance, making it part of a broader effort to combat the dangers posed by nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and the missiles that delivery them. She said missile defense and nuclear weapons are complementary means of deterring an attack on the U.S. and its alliance partners.

A copy of her prepared remarks, delivered at a private dinner she attended with representatives of 27 other NATO member countries, was provided by her staff.

Shortly before she spoke, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told a news conference that in his view the U.S. nuclear weapons play a vital defensive role in Europe and should not be removed as long as other countries possess nuclear weapons.

“I do believe that the presence of the American nuclear weapons in Europe is an essential part of a credible deterrent,” Fogh Rasmussen said.

Some European members of NATO, including Germany, have said the time has come for the U.S. to withdraw its remaining Cold War-era nuclear weapons from Europe. They cite President Barack Obama’s pledge in Prague last year to seek a nuclear-free world.

But some newer NATO members who previously were part of the former Soviet Union or its Warsaw Pact military bloc are opposed to a U.S. nuclear withdrawal. They argue that the presence of the weapons is the surest guarantee of their territorial integrity.

In her dinner remarks, Clinton made clear that as NATO embarks on a discussion about the future of its nuclear weapons policy, it should be guided by an agreed set of principles — starting with a commitment that decisions will be made by the group, not unilaterally by Washington.

Clinton did not say that U.S. nuclear arms should never be removed. But she made several points that appeared to exclude the possibility of bringing an early end to the presence of the weapons, which currently are stored on air bases in five European countries. In the event of war in Europe they would be assigned to combat aircraft flown by European crews — manifesting the basic tenet that allies must share the risks that come with a collective defense treaty hinged on a U.S. nuclear protection guarantee.

“As we consider NATO’s approach to nuclear weapons,” she said, “our deliberations should be guided by five principles.” The first she mentioned was that as long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance.

“Second, as a nuclear alliance, sharing nuclear risks and responsibilities widely is fundamental.”

She added that it is the administration’s “broad aim” to continue to reduce the role and number of nuclear weapons in its overall arsenal, which features about 5,000 strategic, or long-range, nuclear weapons — including about 3,000 that are in storage. And she called on the allies to broaden deterrence by pursuing territoral missile defense — in contrast to regional or global missile defense.

She laid out a formula for linking any future reductions in U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe to reciprocal actions by the Russians.

“Our aim should be to seek Russian agreement to increase transparency on non-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe, relocate these weapons away from the territory of NATO members” and include them in a future round of U.S.-Russian arms control talks, she said.

Fogh Rasmussen also credited President Barack Obama with putting “new wind in the sails” of the disarmament movement by calling for a nuclear-free world last April in Prague.

Clinton’s dinner talk on nuclear policy formally launched a discussion that is due to climax in November when Obama and other NATO government leaders gather in Lisbon, Portugal, to endorse a rewriting of the alliance’s basic defense doctrine.

At an earlier news conference with Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet, Clinton said no one should doubt U.S. defense links to its allies.

“Let me be clear,” she said. “Our commitment to Estonia and our other allies is a bedrock principle of the United States and we will never waver from it.”

The nuclear element of the U.S. defense commitment to Europe takes several forms: the potential use of U.S.-based long-range nuclear missiles; the capability to quickly move U.S.-based short-range nuclear weapons to Europe in a time of crisis, and the storage of an estimated 200 nuclear bombs, designed to be dropped by short-range attack jets, in five European countries. Some Europeans have called for the forward-based bombs to be removed.

In its nuclear policy review this spring, the Obama administration said it hopes to engage Russia in a comprehensive negotiation covering all nuclear weapons on each side — not just those long-range weapons covered by the newly completed START treaty, but also those strategic weapons held in reserve by both countries as well as the “non-strategic,” or shorter-range, weapons in Europe and Russia.

Daryl Kimball, head of the Arms Control Association, a Washington-based advocate of nuclear disarmament, said Thursday that he believes the Tallinn meeting marks the first time NATO foreign ministers have formally discussed the alliance’s nuclear policy.

Kimball said NATO should assess the option of withdrawing the 200 bombs “on their own merit — from a security and nonproliferation standpoint — and change the dynamics with Russia by agreeing to remove the warheads from Europe” and then press Moscow to negotiate a consolidation and eventual and verifiable elimination of non-strategic U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons.

The Russians, which have far more such weapons than does the U.S. in Europe, have shown little interest in such a negotiation.

The U.S. government as a matter of policy will not confirm the location of U.S. nuclear weapons, but it is well known that the sites in Europe are in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey. The U.S. has had nuclear arms in Europe since the 1950s. It will not officially say how many remain, but private experts think it is about 200, down sharply from the 1980s.

The traditional U.S. view of the nuclear bombs in Europe is that they are a pillar of NATO unity and that they link U.S. and NATO security. Even so, they are not targeted at any specific country and the aircraft used to launch them are not as ready for combat as in years past.

An in-depth study of the issue by an expert panel assembled by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, made public one month before Obama took office, said that since 1995 the aircraft’s ability to go into combat with the bombs “is now measured in months rather than minutes.”

That study also revealed internal NATO divisions, saying that some senior U.S. officials at NATO’s military command headquarters in Mons, Belgium, do not support having U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe. It quoted one unnamed U.S. general as saying that the weapons are not needed because the American role of deterring a nuclear attack on its allies can be performed with weapons outside Europe.

But the U.S. is putting off an early decision, partly out of concern for the views of newer NATO members — mainly those like Estonia that are former Soviet republics, as well as Poland and other central Europe countries that once were members of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact.