Oscar Ernerot of the Olof Palme International Center responds to Daniel Färm’s editorial in AiP arguing that Europe may need its own nuclear umbrella as America’s can no longer be trusted.
Nuclear weapons are increasingly discussed not as an existential threat to humanity, but as security-providing. Even within our own movement. This is an ominous development. More actors today have access to nuclear weapons, and the treaties that previously limited their proliferation have been weakened or are about to expire. Disarmament has stalled amidst dramatically increasing geopolitical tensions, where rhetoric surrounding the use of nuclear weapons is progressively worsening.
Daniel Färm raises a question in his AiP editorial (25-01-14) that nevertheless deserves to be taken seriously: what happens to Europe’s security if America’s nuclear umbrella can no longer be taken for granted? It is a legitimate question in a world increasingly characterized by the right of the strong and the erosion of international law. But the conclusion – that Europe should therefore develop its own nuclear deterrence – leads in the wrong direction. From the perspective of the Olof Palme International Center, this is not only a strategically mistaken choice of path, but one that risks undermining both Europe’s security and necessary global efforts for peace and disarmament.
Nuclear weapons do not create security – they institutionalize the threat
Nuclear deterrence is based on the threat of total mass destruction of civilian societies. Making this a common European security doctrine means accepting, and normalizing, that our security rests on the readiness to commit grave crimes against humanity. This is not a technical or psychological problem, but a moral and legal one under international law. History also does not show that nuclear weapons in themselves create stability, but rather that the world has time and again averted disaster through chance, restraint, and crisis management. More actors acquiring nuclear weapons increases the risk of miscalculation, escalation, and proliferation, not the opposite.
Europe has been a central actor for non-proliferation, disarmament, and international law. Taking steps towards an independent European nuclear capability would significantly weaken the NPT system and send a clear signal to the world: that nuclear weapons are necessary for security. It is a message that other states, in other regions, would quickly latch onto. The result would not be increased security for Europe, but further arms buildup and an even more dangerous and unstable world.
Common security is not naivety – it is realism
The real alternative to nuclear escalation is not passivity, but a determined effort for common security. This means building security not unilaterally against others, but through:
• respect for international law and agreements
• arms control and risk-reduction mechanisms
• diplomacy, crisis management, and détente
• strong support for multilateral institutions and norms
This was the core of Olof Palme’s security policy thinking – and it is more relevant than ever in a time of international bloc politics and authoritarian arms buildup. That America’s role can no longer be taken for granted is a major challenge for the European security order. But the answer should not be for Europe itself to step into the logic of nuclear weapons. Europe’s responsibility is instead to:
• strengthen collective conventional defense within the framework of international law
• push for renewed arms control and nuclear disarmament
• stand up for diplomacy, dialogue, and conflict prevention
• reduce the role of nuclear weapons in security policy, not increase it
Finally, building up a new, credible European nuclear deterrent would take many years and require extensive doctrinal, industrial, and political decisions, while today’s security challenges are acute. Resources would be tied up for a long time in a project that is neither quick nor certain, and which could instead be used to much greater benefit for Europe’s actual defense through strengthened conventional capabilities – air defense, ammunition, cyber defense, and protection of critical infrastructure. Furthermore, a European nuclear umbrella risks being deeply politically divisive in a Europe where threat perceptions, security policy traditions, and public opinions differ greatly. Such a choice therefore risks weakening, rather than strengthening, Europe’s common security.
Nuclear weapons are, as Färm himself writes, an abomination. Precisely for that reason, Europe’s response to today’s threats should not be to make them the foundation of our own security policy. And what happens the day France or Germany is led by Trump’s ideological allies, AfD and Le Pen?
Oscar Ernerot
Secretary General, Olof Palme International Center