Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

INF Arms-Control Decision-Making and the Responsibility Bargain

  • Chapter
The Last Great Nuclear Debate

  • 24 Accesses

Abstract

Decisions affecting NATO SNF policy were a secondary concern to larger questions regarding East-West relations, Alliance political management, INF deployment, and arms control between 1980 and 1987. National differences over these issues had to be accommodated in the INF negotiations. Those negotiations and the associated deployments set the political and military parameters for the SNF debate, and the tensions over other issues which manifested themselves in the negotiations created serious stresses for the nuclear responsibility bargain. This chapter demonstrates how these political strains manifested themselves in the INF negotiations. It also analyses the newly created Special Consultative Group (SCG) and its functions. Its responsibilities are outlined and suggestions made about what its operation tells us about the nature of nuclear arms control decision-making between the US, the UK and the FRG. Finally, the effects of INF negotiating decisions for SNF policy are investigated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. For a good overview of German concerns see Chapter 1 of Barry M. Blechman and Cathleen Fisher (eds), The Silent Partner: West Germany and Arms Control (Cambridge MA: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1988), pp. 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Siegfried Buschschluter, ‘Brezhnev — More to Come’, The Guardian, 9 April 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jeffrey D. Boutwell, The German Nuclear Dilemma, (London: Brassey’s, 1990), pp. 128–58

    Google Scholar 

  4. Thomas Risse-Kappen, The Zero Option: INF, West Germany, and Arms Control (London: Westview Press, 1988), pp. 69–78. Hereafter referred to as The Zero Option.

    Google Scholar 

  5. See ‘The Zero Option’, The Times, 23 October 1981; see also Lawrence Freedman, ‘Limited War, Unlimited Protest’, Orbis, Spring 1982, pp. 89–103

    Google Scholar 

  6. Johan Jurgen Holst, Arms Control Revisited: An Exploratory Essay (Oslo: Norsk Utenrikspolitisk Institut, December 1981), p. 37

    Google Scholar 

  7. Joseph Joffe, ‘Revising the Zero Option’, Wall Street Journal, 27 January 1983, who makes the same argument while advocating an interim solution in place of the zero-option. This was also confirmed in interviews with Jennone Walker, and a State Department Policy Planning Staff member.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Margaret Thatcher, The Downing Street Years (London: HarperCollins, 1993), pp. 771, 472. For Mrs Thatcher’s private pressure for an interim agreement, see pp. 269–70.

    Google Scholar 

  9. This episode is subject to different descriptions, the accuracy of which is difficult to determine due to secrecy. See Strobe Talbott, The Master of the Game, Paul Nitze and the Nuclear Peace (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1988)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Strobe Talbott, ‘Playing Nuclear Poker’, Time, 31 January 1983

    Google Scholar 

  11. Caspar Weinberger, Fighting For Peace: Seven Critical Years at the Pentagon (London: Michael Joseph, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Henry Stanhope, ‘Pym Hint at Nuclear Compromise’, Daily Telegraph, 26 January 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See William Drozdiak, ‘NATO Skirts Second Look at Nitze Plan’, International Herald Tribune, 27 May 1983

    Google Scholar 

  14. William Drozdiak, ‘Kohl Urges Re-Examination of ‘82 Arms Proposal’, International Herald Tribune 23–4 July 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  15. For an excellent analysis of this period and how relations were improved starting in 1984 see Don Oberdorfer, The Turn, How the Cold War came to an end, The United States and the Soviet Union, 1983–1990 (London: Jonathan Cape, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  16. In addition to Reagan’s 16 January speech, the US began meeting with Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko, and pushed an ambitious arms control agenda at the Stockholm CDE meeting. In April Vice-President Bush tabled a new draft chemical-weapons treaty, while MBFR and other negotiations continued. For the internal processes in Washington during this period, see George P. Shultz, Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1993), pp. 463–486.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Before a visit to Moscow, Foreign Minister Genscher first consulted in Washington with Reagan and Shultz. See Bernard Gwertzman, ‘Bonn Says Soviet Cannot Expect Concessions Before Arms Talks’, New York Times, 8 May 1984, p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  18. See Shultz, Turmoil and Triumph, pp. 487–519. The need to reconvene the negotiations is described in Chapter 20 of Paul Nitze, Ann M. Smith and Steven L. Rearden, From Hiroshima to Glasnost (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  19. For the speech see Mikhail Gorbachev, ‘Statement by the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee’, in For a Nuclear Free World (Moscow: Novosti, 1987), pp. 9–22.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Robert J. McCartney, ‘Kohl, Reagan to Meet Here Today’, The Washington Post, 21 October 1986, p. 25

    Google Scholar 

  21. David B. Ottaway, ‘Reagan, Greeting Kohl, Is Hopeful on Arms Pact’, The Washington Post, 22 October 1986, p. 31. Some in Bonn, though, believed that Reykjavik had been a breakthrough. Interview with senior BVMg official.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gerald M. Boyd, ‘Reagan Tells Thatcher Meeting Cleared Way for Pact on Arms in Europe’, International Herald Tribune, 18–19 October 1986, p. 2; Sir George Younger told me that ‘She knew from Reykjavik onwards that he [Reagan] was not to be trusted unless nanny was with him, because she reckoned that the dear old chap had been run right up the garden path at Reykjavik.’(!)

    Google Scholar 

  23. William Drozdiak, ‘Kohl to Ask US for Arms Pledge’, International Herald Tribune, 24 May 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  24. The SPD by September openly supported the walk in the woods formula, was critical of the US handling of the negotiations, and stated that its ‘ultimate goal is to avoid the deployment of PII missiles’, according to their Parliamentary foreign affairs spokesman. See Karsten Voigt, ‘Hold Off on European Missiles’, New York Times, 9 September 1983

    Google Scholar 

  25. James M. Markham, ‘Bonn’s Socialists: Souring on NATO?’ New York Times, 21 October 1983, p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  26. See Priscilla Painton, ‘Allies Back New US Arms Plan’, The Washington Post, 21 September 1983

    Google Scholar 

  27. Robert C. Toth, ‘US To Be Flexible on Three Points in Missile Talks’, Los Angeles Times, 20 September 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  28. William Dullforce and David Marsh, ‘US Proposes Treaty to Remove Medium-Range Missiles from Europe’, The Financial Times, 5 March 1987

    Google Scholar 

  29. Frances Williams, ‘US Edges Closer to Arms Agreement’, The Independent, 5 March 1987

    Google Scholar 

  30. Frances Williams, ‘W. Germany Opposes Shortening Missile Range’, The Washington Times, 3 April 1987, p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Former Chancellor Schmidt publicly supported the zero-option in late April. Helmut Schmidt, ‘The Zero Option Wouldn’t Leave the West Uncovered’, International Herald Tribune, 30 April 1987

    Google Scholar 

  32. Helmut Schmidt, ‘The Zero Solution: In the German Interest’, Atlantic Community Quarterly, 25:3, Fall 1987, pp. 244–252. Kenneth Adelman told me that effectively the allies were ‘trapped’, for they never opposed the zero-option in 1981 and signed communiqués supporting zero for five years.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Peter Pringle and Colin Brown, ‘Fears Over Missile Offer’, The Independent, 2 March 1987, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Anthony Bevins and Mark Urban, ‘Reagan Makes New Offer on Missile Treaty’, The Independent, 4 March 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Don Oberdorfer, ‘Shultz Cites Progress in Moscow Meetings’, The Washington Post, 16 April 1987, p. 1. Ambassador Glitman told me that he foresaw Gorbachev’s proposal a month earlier and notified Kohl and Genscher to expect it.

    Google Scholar 

  36. President Reagan made his position clear too, see Steven V. Roberts, ‘Reagan Says US will Step Up Push on Missile Accord’, New York Times, 19 April 1987, p. 1

    Google Scholar 

  37. Michael R. Gordon, ‘NATO’s Chief Urges Deployment in Europe of Short-Range Missiles’, International Herald Tribune, 22 April 1987. Interviews, Kenneth Adelman, Rozanne Ridgway.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Jim Hoagland, ‘Gorbachev Missile Ban: An Offer Hard to Refuse’, International Herald Tribune, 23 April 1987

    Google Scholar 

  39. Peter Bruce, ‘Kohl Aims to End Infighting over Soviet Missile Offer’, The Financial Times, 25 April 1987. This was confirmed in interviews by Rozanne Ridgway and Jennone Walker and by Shultz, Turmoil and Triumph, p. 899.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Barry James, ‘NATO Considers Arms Plan after Shultz Briefing’, International Herald Tribune, 17 April 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  41. David K. Shipler, ‘The Hard Part: Confronting Pentagon and NATO’, New York Times, 17 April 1987, p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  42. See James M. Markham, ‘Kohl Party Officials Seek to Equalize Short-Range Arms’, International Herald Tribune, 22 April 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Jim Hoagland, ‘Washington-Bonn: Bush is Burned by a Fire Reagan Started’, International Herald Tribune, 9 May 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  44. See John Witherow, ‘Thatcher Set to Back Soviet Weapons Deal’, The Sunday Times, 3 May 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Helmut Kohl, ‘Security Interests must be Safeguarded in Arms Control Talks’, Report from the Federal Republic of Germany, 8 May 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  46. John Eisenhammer, ‘Bonn Warns NATO allies about Arms Deal Fall-Out’, The Independent, 14 May 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  47. John Eisenhammer, ‘Britain to Nudge Bonn towards Broad INF Deal’, The Independent, 13 May 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Karen Deyoung, ‘Britain Says Soviet Missile Offer is Acceptable’, The Washington Post, 15 May 1987, p. 32

    Google Scholar 

  49. Karen Deyoung, ‘UK Says It Can Accept Soviet Plan’, International Herald Tribune, 15 May 1987

    Google Scholar 

  50. Robert Mauthner and David Buchan, ‘Britain Prepared to Accept Gorbachev’s “Double Zero Option”’, The Financial Times, 15 May 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  51. This exercise is documented by Elizabeth Pond, Beyond the Wall: Germany’s Road to Unification. (Washington DC: The Brookings Institution, 1993), pp. 51–2.

    Google Scholar 

  52. David Marsh, ‘Kohl May Compromise on Europe Missiles’, The Financial Times, 19 May 1987

    Google Scholar 

  53. David Marsh, ‘Kohl Puts His Foot In it’, The Economist, 23 May 1987, pp. 61–2

    Google Scholar 

  54. Jesse James, ‘Controversy At Short Range’, Arms Control Today, June 1987, pp. 11–15.

    Google Scholar 

  55. David Housego, ‘Mitterrand Supports “Double Zero Option” on Missiles’, The Financial Times, 22 May 1987

    Google Scholar 

  56. Peter Maass, ‘Reagan Determined on Arms Proposal, US Official Says’, International Herald Tribune, 22 May 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Paul Lewis, ‘NATO Expected to Back Modified Arms Proposal’, International Herald Tribune, 23–4 May 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Patricia Clough, ‘Right Unleashes Its Fury at Kohl’s Scrapping Offer’, The Independent, 28 May 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Robert J. McCartney, ‘Bonn and Missiles: Hard Deal to Swallow’, International Herald Tribune, 5 June 1987. For a discussion of the coalition’s history regarding nuclear weapons, see Boutwell, The German Nuclear Dilemma, esp. Chapter 5.

    Google Scholar 

  60. James M. Markham, ‘Bonn Shows Signs of Wavering on Pershings’, International Herald Tribune, 25–6 July 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Paul Lewis, ‘Shevardnadze Stands Firm on Removal of Pershings’, Interriational Herald Tribune, 7 August 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Andrew Fisher, ‘Bonn Denies Talks Planned on Pershing 1As’, The Financial Times, 4 August 1987

    Google Scholar 

  63. Robert J. McCartney, ‘Bonn Proposes Package Deal To Eliminate Pershing Missile’, The Washington Post, 4 August 1987, p. 10

    Google Scholar 

  64. John Eisenhammer, ‘Allies Wary of W. German Solution to Arms Impasse’, The Independent, 5 August 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Peter Bruce, ‘Bonn MP Hints at Change in Attitude to Pershing 1As’, The Financial Times, 14 August 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Patricia Clough, ‘W German Offer on Pershings Improves Prospects for Pact’, The Independent, 27 August 1987

    Google Scholar 

  67. Robert J. McCartney, ‘Bonn Pledges to Scrap Missiles if US, Soviets Agree on Treaty’, The Washington Post, 27 August 1987, p. 1

    Google Scholar 

  68. Robert J. McCartney, ‘Kohl Pledges to Scrap Pershing-1A Missiles’, International Herald Tribune, 27 August 1987.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Thomas E. Halverson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 1995 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Halverson, T.E. (1995). INF Arms-Control Decision-Making and the Responsibility Bargain. In: The Last Great Nuclear Debate. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230377882_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation