Advertisement

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 392–404 | Cite as

Revisiting France’s nuclear exception after its ‘return’ to NATO

  • Stéfanie von HlatkyEmail author
Article

Abstract

In 2009, President Nicolas Sarkozy decided that France should return to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s (NATO) integrated military structure, which it had left in 1966. Sarkozy also restated the complete independence of the French arsenal, the policy of non-participation in NATO’s nuclear mission: the nuclear exception. This article takes the view that this policy of nuclear exception is outdated and potentially damaging to French interests within NATO. This is so under two scenarios: (1) As long as American non-strategic nuclear weapons (NSNW) are on European soil, NATO’s nuclear posture will evolve without official French input. (2) If these nuclear weapons were to be removed from Europe, France would stand as the predominant nuclear power among the European Union states. Since the consequences of removal would impact French interests directly, it seems unwise for Paris to opt out of this debate.

Keywords

France nuclear deterrence NATO alliances defence policy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Bruno Tertrais, ‘US-French Nuclear Cooperation: Stretching the Limits of National Strategic Paradigms’, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS), July 26, 2011, https://doi.org/wmdjunction.com/110726_us_french_cooperation.htm.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alastair Cameron, ‘Assessing France’s Current and Future Role within NATO’, in France’s NATO Reintegration: Fresh Views with the Sarkozy Presidency? ed. Alexis Crow (London: Royal United Services Institute, 2009), 1.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    US Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review: April 2010, https://doi.org/www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf. For analysis, see Arms Control Association, ‘U.S. Negative Security Assurances at a Glance’, https://doi.org/www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/negsec.
  4. 4.
    Cited in James Kirkup, ‘Nicolas Sarkozy: Britain and France “interdependent”’, The Telegraph, November 2, 2010.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Although priority is given to national independence and European autonomy. See Bastien Irondelle and Frédéric Merand, ‘France’s Return to NATO: The Death Knell for ESDP?’, European Security 19, no. 1 (2010): 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Author’s translation. Livre blanc: Défense et sécurité nationale, April 29, 2013, https://doi.org/www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/var/storage/rapports-publics/134000257/0000.pdf.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    For more on concerted deterrence, see Ursula Jasper and Clara Portela, ‘EU Defense Integration and Nuclear Weapons: A Common Deterrent for Europe?’, Security Dialogue 41, no. 2 (2010): 159–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 7a.
    Stéfanie von Hlatky and Michel Fortmann, ‘The Nuclear Question in Today’s Europe’, in European Security since the Fall of the Berlin Wall, ed. Frédéric Mérand, Martial Foucault, and Bastien Irondelle (Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 2011), 82–101.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    Bruno Tertrais, ‘Back to Earth: Nuclear Weapons in the 2010s’, Real Instituto Elcano (June 2010), 3.Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    Steven Andreasen, Malcolm Chalmers, and Isabelle Williams, ‘NATO and Nuclear Weapons’, RUSI Occasional Paper (Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, August 2010), 3–4.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    Steven Pifer, ‘Reducing the Role of Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Europe: Perspectives and Proposals on the NATO Policy Debate’, in Arms Control Association and British American Security Information Council Report, ed. Ingram Paul and Oliver Meier (Washington, DC, London: Arms Control Association and British American Security Information Council Report, 2011), 27.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    Oliver Meier and Paul Ingram, ‘A Nuclear Posture Review for NATO’, Arms Control Association and British American Security Information Council Report (October 2010).Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    Bruno Tertrais, ‘A Nuclear Iran and NATO’, Survival (November 2010), 58.Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    Malcolm Chalmers, ‘Nuclear Narratives: Reflections on Declaratory Policy’, RUSI Whitehall Report 1–10 (2010), 36.Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    Bruno Tertrais, ‘The Illogic of Zero’, The Washington Quarterly 33, no. 2 (2010): 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 15.
    Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI Yearbook 2011: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2011), 339.Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    Matthew Harries, ‘Britain and France as Nuclear Partners’, Survival 54, no. 1 (2012): 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 17.
    Bruno Tertrais, ‘The Last to Disarm? The Future of France’s Nuclear Weapons’, Nonproliferation Review 14, no. 2 (2007): 264–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 17a.
    Frank Klotz, ‘France Isn’t Aiming for Nuclear Zero,’ The National Interest, May 8, 2013, https://doi.org/nationalinterest.org/commentary/france-isnt-aiming-nuclear-zero-8440.Google Scholar
  20. 18.
    Paul Belkin, ‘NATO’s Chicago Summit’, CRS Report to Congress (14 May 2012), 6.Google Scholar
  21. 19.
    Robert Tombs, ‘Hereditary Enemies, Necessary Allies’, trad. Clémence Rochat, in Revue Historique des Armées (2011), https://doi.org/rha.revues.org/index7267.html.Google Scholar
  22. 20.
    See Matthew Uttley, ‘Public-private Partnerships in United Kingdom Defence: Opportunities and Risks’, in Royal Defence Systems (London: RUSI, 2006), 82–4Google Scholar
  23. 20a.
    Alexis Crow, ‘European Security and Defence Forum — Workshop 1: Changing Concepts of Security and Defence’, Summary (Chatham House, June 10, 2009), https://doi.org/www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/International%20Security/0609esdf_wkshp1.pdf; andGoogle Scholar
  24. 20b.
    J. F.V. Keiger, ‘Symposium: The “Novelty” of Sarkozy’s Foreign Policy Towards NATO and the US: The Long View’, in European Political Science 9 (2010): 155–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 21.
    Anne-Henry de Russé, ‘France’s Return into NATO: French Military Culture and Strategic Identity in Question’, Focus stratégique, no. 22 (2010): 35.Google Scholar
  26. 22.
    Charles Cogan, ‘Symposium: Washington, Sarkozy, and the Defence of Europe’, European Political Science 9 (2010): 165–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 23.
    Frédéric Bozo, ‘Symposium: Sarkozy’s NATO Policy: Towards France’s Atlantic Realignment?’, European Political Science 9 (2010): 176–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 24.
    Ben Jones, ‘Franco-British Military Cooperation: A New Engine for European Defence?’, European Union Institute for Security Studies, Occasional Paper no. 88 (February 2011), 26.Google Scholar
  29. 25.
    See Kitty Donaldson and Helen Fouquet, ‘Britain, France to Share Nuclear-test Facilities, Carriers’, Bloomberg, November 2, 2010; andGoogle Scholar
  30. 25a.
    John F. Burns, ‘British Military Expands Links to French Allies,’ The New York Times, November 2, 2010.Google Scholar
  31. 26.
    Author’s emphasis. Embassy of France in London, ‘Steps towards French and British Cooperation,’ July 24, 2012, https://doi.org/www.ambafrance-uk.org/Defence-cooperation.Google Scholar
  32. 27.
    Julian Borger and Richard Norton-Taylor, ‘France Offers to Join Forces with UK’s Nuclear Submarine Fleet’, The Guardian, March 19, 2010.Google Scholar
  33. 28.
    Jones, ‘Franco-British Military Cooperation’, 13.Google Scholar
  34. 29.
    Clara Marina O’Donnell, ‘Britain’s Coalition Government and EU Defence Cooperation: Undermining British Interests’, International Affairs 87, no. 2 (2011): 420.Google Scholar
  35. 30.
    Etienne de Durand, ‘Entente or Oblivion: Prospects and Pitfalls of Franco-British Cooperation on Defence’, in RUSI Future Defence Review Series, ed. Michael Codner, Working Paper no. 8 (London: RUSI, September 2010), 3.Google Scholar
  36. 31.
    Meier and Ingram, ‘A Nuclear Posture Review for NATO’.Google Scholar
  37. 32.
    David J. Baylor, ‘Considerations for a US Nuclear Force Structure below a 1, 000-Warhead Limit’, Strategic Studies Quarterly (2011), 60.Google Scholar
  38. 33.
    Nuclear sharing arrangements contribute to but are not necessary to uphold NATO’s extended nuclear deterrence. For more on this, see Stéfanie von Hlatky, ‘What, If Anything, Will France’s Reintegration Imply for the Alliance Debate on Nuclear Weapons’, European Security 19, no. 1 (2010): 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 34.
    Livre blanc: Défense et sécurité nationale, April 29, 2013, https://doi.org/www.ladocumentation-francaise.fr/var/storage/rapports-publics/134000257/0000.pdf. See also Frédéric Pesme, ‘France’s “Return” to NATO: Implications for its Defence Policy’, European Security 19, no. 1 (2010): 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 35.
    Dominique David, ‘France/OTAN: la dernière marche’, Politique étrangère 2 (été 2008): 429–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 36.
    Oliver Bloom, ‘Obama Administration’s Stockpile Stewardship Management Plan Details Stockpile Cuts, Infrastructure Investments’ (2010), https://doi.org/csis.org/blog/obama-administrations-stockpile-stewardship-management-plan-details-stockpile-cuts-infrastructu.Google Scholar
  42. 37.
    The refurbished model is referred as the B-61-12.Google Scholar
  43. 38.
    National Nuclear Security Administration, ‘Life Extension Programs’, https://doi.org/nnsa.energy.gov/.
  44. 39.
    Government Accountability Office, Report to Congressional Requesters, ‘Nuclear Weapons DOD and NNSA Need to Better Manage Scope of Future Refurbishments and Risks Maintaining US Commitments to NATO’, May 2011, 23.Google Scholar
  45. 40.
    Ibid., 32.Google Scholar
  46. 41.
    See SIPRI Yearbook 2011: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2011), 327.Google Scholar
  47. 42.
    Karl-Heinz Kamp, ‘NATO’s Nuclear Weapons in Europe Beyond “Yes” or “No”’, NATO Research Paper no. 61 (September 2010), 3.Google Scholar
  48. 43.
    Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, ‘US Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Europe, 2011’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist 67, no. 1 (2011): 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 44.
    Hans M. Kristensen, ‘B61 LEP: Increasing NATO Nuclear Capability and Precision Low-yield Strikes’, FAS Strategic Security Blog, https://doi.org/www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2011/06/b61-12.php.
  50. 45.
    Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, ‘Obama’s Nuclear Upgrade: The Case for Modernizing America’s Nukes’, Foreign Affairs, July 6, 2011, online ‘Postscript’ article, https://doi.org/www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67973/keir-a-lieber-and-daryl-g-press/obamas-nuc- lear-upgrade?page=show.Google Scholar
  51. 46.
    Jeffrey Lewis, ‘GAO on the B61 LEP’, Arms Control Wonk, May 5, 2011, https://doi.org/lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/3936/gao-on-the-b61-lep.Google Scholar
  52. 47.
    Walter Pincus, ‘Extending the Life of B-61 Nuclear Weapons Could Cost $4 Billion’, The Washington Post, July 20, 2010.Google Scholar
  53. 48.
    Miles Pomper, William Potter, and Nikolai Sokov, ‘Reducing Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Europe’, Survival 52, no. 1 (2010): 82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 49.
    Julien Fourneret, ‘La stratégie nucléaire de l’OTAN: état des lieux, enjeux et evolutions’, Défense & Sécurité Internationale, no. 72 (2011): 71.Google Scholar
  55. 50.
    Rebecca Grant, ‘Nukes for NATO: “Extended Deterrence” Will Go on, and the F-35 Fighter Will Take Up the Burden’, Air Force Magazine, July 2010, 44–5.Google Scholar
  56. 51.
    Grant, ‘Nukes for NATO’, 43.Google Scholar
  57. 52.
    Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, ‘US Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Europe, 2011’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist 67, no. 1 (2011): 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 53.
    Malcolm Chalmers, ‘NATO’s Nuclear Weapons: An Introduction to the Debate’, in NATO’s Tactical Nuclear Dilemma, ed. Malcolm Chalmers and Simon Lunn, RUSI Occasional Paper (London: RUSI, March 2010), 23.Google Scholar
  59. 54.
    Steven Pifer, ‘NATO, Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control’, Brookings Arms Control Series Report, no. 7 (July 2011), 21.Google Scholar
  60. 55.
    Simon Lunn, ‘A Crucial Decision: NATO’s Nuclear Weapons in the Twenty-First Century’, in NATO’s Tactical Nuclear Dilemma, ed. Malcolm Chalmers and Simon Lunn, RUSI Occasional Paper (London: RUSI, March 2010), 11.Google Scholar
  61. 56.
    Simon Lunn, RUSI Occasional Paper (London: RUSI, March 2010) Ibid., 14.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of Transatlantic Studies 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political StudiesQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations