SHARE
The NATO summit on June 24 and 25 made headlines for the unusual language used by its Secretary General, Mark Rutte, to ingratiate himself with US President Donald Trump, but the most significant decision was the UK effectively announcing it will be the sixth European country to host US nuclear bombs and the allies’ agreement to spend 5% of GDP on their militaries.
On the eve of the summit in The Netherlands, British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, announced the UK would buy the nuclear capable F35A made by Lockheed Martin and would join NATO’s nuclear mission. This means the UK will be the sixth NATO country to join the so-called nuclear sharing arrangement with the US which many countries believe is a breach of the spirit and letter of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The official UK government press release did not mention the nuclear weapons the aircraft would be armed with, but we know it will be the same B61-12 bomb deployed by the US in Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and Türkiye. The weapon has a maximum yield more than three times the power of the bomb that killed 140,000 people at Hiroshima.
This move is a major shift by the UK that retired its own air-launched bombs in 1998 and shows London – in spite of its legal obligations under the NPT to pursue disarmament - is doubling down on its dependence on nuclear weapons.
NATO leaders, with the apparent exception of Spain’s Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez, agreed to increase defence spending to 5% of gross domestic product (GDP) which will see the alliance spend hundreds of billions of dollars more on their militaries over the next 10 years. The previous target was 2% of GDP. This also applies to Iceland, the only NATO member that does not have standing armed forces, which one Icelandic campaigner described as “ludicrous”.
These two decisions show NATO has turned to increased militarisation rather than diplomacy in its relations with Russia which it identified as “the long-term threat” to it and claims Russia is preparing to attack NATO within a few years.
The final declaration does not mention nuclear weapons suggesting its members are concerned about public reaction to the deepened role for nuclear weapons, described by the alliance as “ a core component of NATO’s overall capabilities”.
In response, the Russian government spokesperson has accused NATO countries of demonising Moscow in order to justify increasing their military spending.
Some of NATO’s European leaders went into this summit worried that President Trump is not committed to their security because of previous comments he has made, both about them and about Russia. In the event, Mr Trump left the summit pleased with its outcome.
ICAN’s Deputy Director, Daniel Högsta, who leads the organisation’s advocacy with NATO governments said: “This summit was another missed opportunity for NATO to demonstrate actual sensible leadership in response to Russian aggression. Instead, they talked up the threat Russia poses to them in order to persuade their publics that big increases in defence spending are needed on top of the billions they already spend, including on nuclear weapons. All this at a time when vital public services need investment after years of cuts and other security threats like climate change remain underfunded. It’s time to change this broken record and invest in diplomacy by engaging with Russia on nuclear disarmament and joining the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.”
Photo credit: NATO