COUNTER-PROLIFERATION
45. It is likely that NATO of the future will become
more involved in measures to counter the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction. The security threat to the Allies of proliferation
was formally acknowledged by NATO in January 1994, and a decision
was taken to intensify and expand NATO's political and defence
efforts against proliferation. Yet very little tangible results
have so far been seen.[90]
Counter-proliferation is likely to be one of the topics to be
touched upon in the new Strategic Concept. The Minister of State
at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office told us that—
Britain would be very supportive of ... a weapons
of mass destruction initiative within the context of NATO. That
essentially is about information exchange. It is about pooling
the knowledge that NATO members may have.[91]
But he also pointed out that—
There is also considerable activity taking place
in different international fora in this whole area ... a lot of
the important roles that need to be pursued ... will not be directly
NATO responsibility because they are better done elsewhere. [92]
The US Deputy Secretary of State has outlined those
areas where NATO does have a role—
We must find better, more efficient, more timely
ways of sharing information and assessments so that our troops
are properly protected from an enemy equipped with nuclear, chemical
and biological arms, and we must improve our ability to deal with
the consequences of a WMD attack against our civilian populations.[93]
The Pentagon has suggested, for example, that Allies
cooperate in the creation of databases listing vaccine stocks,
protection suits and medical centres.[94]
46. There is a certain ambiguity inherent in the
phrase "non-proliferation": in NATO's sphere it applies
mainly to in-theatre defence together with, as John Roper of Chatham
House told us—
... what is described in our Strategic Defence Review
as defence diplomacy.[95]
There have been concerns in some areas that NATO's
taking on of a counter-proliferation mission would lead to creeping
globalisation, including perhaps punitive strikes against those
thought to be proliferators. For our part, we are aware of
the high risks of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
and would support NATO's adoption of a non-proliferation mission.
But NATO must be aware of the limitations of its role in counter-proliferation:
its principal objective in this area should remain the more even-handed
prevention, or reversal, of proliferation through diplomatic means
and the support, rather than duplication, of the work of other
international organisations.
90 New Threats Await NATO,
Defense News, Vol 14 No 11, 22 March 1999 Back
91 Q
306 Back
92 Q
306 Back
93 Royal
United Services Institute, 10 March 1999 Back
94 New
Threats Await NATO, Defense
News, Vol 14 No 11, 22 March 1999 Back
95 Q
112 Back
| 
