Advertisement

Multilateral Arms Control as a Response to NBC Proliferation: a New Transatlantic Divide?

  • Alexander Kelle

Abstract

While Europe and the United States have been involved together in various arms control1 negotiations since the 1950s, they have not always seen eye to eye with regard to the objectives to be pursued through such negotiations, the means by which to achieve goals, or the role of arms control in the overall strategic landscape. More often than not, it was the US that was the engine that drove forward arms control proposals, with at least some Europeans only following on reluctantly. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), for example, was an agreement over which certain European countries, such as Germany and Italy, faced bitter domestic debates about ratification. Yet continuous exposure to arms control negotiations, together with the on-site verification measures carried out in European states — some of which originated in the 1950s, as in the case of the Western European Union’s Agency for the Control of Armaments2 — led over time to a widespread European acceptance of arms control as a legitimate tool of security policy. In the nuclear realm, cooperative arms control measures have, through EURATOM, become part of the overall European effort at overcoming the past divisions of the continent through a number of integrative efforts, including multilateral control measures.3 As a result, for most Europeans, arms control has over time acquired a normative quality that goes well beyond the narrow scope that ‘traditional’ US arms controllers have come to attribute to the concept.4 When taken to extremes, therefore, normatists can end up asking ‘what can we do for arms control’, instead of the more traditional, or utilitarian approach, which is more interested in the question of ‘what can arms control do for us’ in the pursuit of national security interests.5

Keywords

Nuclear Weapon Nuclear Disarmament Review Conference Chemical Weapon Convention Preparatory Committee 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    H. Müller, ‘The Evolution of Verification: Lessons From the Past for the Future’, Arms Control, 14 (1993) 333–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 3.
    D. Howlett, EURATOM and Nuclear Safeguards (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1990).Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    J. Goldblat, Arms Control: The New Guide to Negotiations and Agreements, 2nd edn (London: Sage, 2002).Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    A. Kelle, ‘Utilitarian and Normative Approaches to Arms Control’, International Studies Review, 47 (2003) 386–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 6.
    A. Smithson, ‘Bungling a No-Brainer: How Washington Barely Ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, The Battle to Obtain Ratification ofthe CWC, Report No.35, Washington, DC: Stimson Center, 1998Google Scholar
  6. B. W. Kubbig, M. Dembinski and A. Kelle, Unilateralism as Sole Foreign Policy Strategy? American Policy towards the UN, NATO, and the OPCW in the Clinton Era, PRIF-Reports No.57, November 2000, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  7. D. Kimball, ‘How the U.S. Senate Rejected CTBT Ratification’, Disarmament Diplomacy, Issue No.40, October 1999, 8–15.Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    The President of the United States, National Security Strategy of the United States, Washington, DC: The White House, September 2002, p.14.Google Scholar
  9. 12.
    R. Johnson, ‘NPT 2000: Implementing the Disarmament Pledges’, Disarmament Diplomacy, Issue No.48, July (2000) 3–9.Google Scholar
  10. 13.
    Rebecca Johnson: ‘The 2000 NPT Review Conference: A Delicate, Hard-Won Compromise’, Disarmament Diplomacy, Issue No.46 (May 2000) 2–21.Google Scholar
  11. 16.
    R. Johnson, ‘NPT Report — The 2002 PrepCom: Papering Over the Cracks’, Disarmament Diplomacy, Issue No.64 (May-June 2002), available at http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd64/64npt.htmGoogle Scholar
  12. 19.
    German Delegation, Attaining a Nuclear-Weapon Free World, New York, 11 April 2002, available at http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/prepcom2002/C1-Germany2.htm.Google Scholar
  13. 20.
    German Delegation, Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons, New York, 11 April 2002, available at http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/prepcom2002/C1-Germany.htmGoogle Scholar
  14. 21.
    R. Johnson, ‘Rogues and Rhetoric: The 2003 NPT PrepCom Slides Backwards’, Disarmament Diplomacy, No.71 (June-July 2003), available at http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd71/71npt.htmGoogle Scholar
  15. 22.
    I. Hunger, ‘Article V: Confidence Building Measures’, in G. Pearson/M. Dando (eds) Strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention: Key Points for the Fourth Review Conference, Geneva: QUNO, 1996, pp.77–92Google Scholar
  16. M. I. Chevrier/I. Hunger: ‘Confidence-Building Measures for the BTWC: Performance and Potential’, in The Nonproliferation Review, 7 (2000) 24–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 27.
    J. Rissanen, ‘Continued Turbulence over BWC Verification’ in T. Findlay and O. Meier (eds), Verification Yearbook 2002 (London: VERTIC, 2002).Google Scholar
  18. 28.
    M. I. Chevrier, ‘Waiting for Godot or Saving the Show? The BWC Review Conference Reaches Modest Agreement’, in Disarmament Diplomacy, No.68 (December 2002/January 2003) 1–16.Google Scholar
  19. 30.
    D. Feakes, ‘The European Union’s Role in CBW Disarmament and NonProliferation’, The Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions Bulletin, Issue No.44 (June 1999) 4–9.Google Scholar
  20. 31.
    M. Krepon, A. Smithson and J. Parachini, The Battle to Obtain U.S. Ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Report No.35, Washington, DC: The Henry L. Stimson Center, July 1997.Google Scholar
  21. 32.
    A. Kelle and K. Hohl, Die Multilaterale Rüstungskontrolle von Chemischen Waffen am Scheideweg — Das Chemiewaffen-Übereinkommen und seine erste Überprüfungskon- ferenz, HSFK-Report Nr.15, Frankfurt/Main (December 2003).Google Scholar
  22. 33.
    M. Wheelis, ‘Non-lethal Chemical Weapons — a Faustian Bargain’, Issues in Science and Technology (Spring 2003) 74–8Google Scholar
  23. M. Dando, ‘Scientific and Technological Change and the Future of the CWC: the Problem of Non-Lethal Weapons’, Disarmament Forum, No.4 (2002) 33–44.Google Scholar
  24. 35.
    D. Ozga, ‘The Reluctant Giant of Arms Control’, Security Dialogue, 34 (2003) 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 36.
    N. Tannenwald, ‘U.S. Arms Control Policy in a Time Warp’, Ethics and International Affairs, 15 (2001) 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 37.
    P. Bracken, ‘Thinking (Again) About Arms Control’, Orbis, 48 (2004) 149–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 38.
    J. A. Larsen (ed.), Arms Control: Cooperative Security in a Changing Environment (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2002).Google Scholar
  28. 39.
    A. Kelle, ‘Strengthening the Effectiveness of the BTW Control Regime — Feasibility and Options’, Contemporary Security Policy, 24 (2003) 95–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 40.
    See H. Müller, ‘The Internalization of Principles, Norms and Rules by Governments: The Case of Security Regimes’, in V. Rittberger (ed.) Regime Theory and International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993) 361–88.Google Scholar
  30. 42.
    D.N. Nelson, New Dimensions of Transatlantic Relations, presentation to the workshop ‘European Security and Defense Policy: Towards Comprehensive Security’, organized by the European Forum, Stanford University, 20–21 March 2002.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Kelle

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations