Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

by Leave a Comment

In Germany, Long-Standing Deal to Host US Nuclear Weapons is Now in Question*

Debate about US nuclear weapons in Germany flares up for the first time since the 1980s

By Bojan Pancevski, Wall Street Journal
Spring Nukewatch Quarterly 2019
See Nukewatch’s accompanying article, How the Wall Street Journal Gets it Wrong.

The [German] center-left Social Democrats, or SPD, have appointed a commission to re-evaluate their positions on strategic, foreign and security policy, including the merits of “nuclear sharing,” a Cold War-era agreement under which German warplanes would be used to launch US nuclear weapons in case of a Russian attack on Europe, a senior party official said.

The deliberations came partly as a result of President Trump’s withdrawal from a treaty with Russia that regulates the presence of nuclear missiles in Europe, according to SPD officials. The US plans to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty after accusing Russia of violating it for years.

After Mr. Trump’s repeated criticism of the military alliance and its members, the SPD move shows NATO’s cohesion is now also under threat from a backlash among center-left forces in Europe that had long stopped questioning the alliance.

[German Chancellor Angela] Merkel’s party is continuing to back the agreement. Nevertheless, a decision by its junior coalition partner to oppose nuclear sharing would be momentous, putting into question an institution that is as old as Germany’s 1955 membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Consecutive US administrations have criticized Germany for what they called insufficient military spending, but the dispute has escalated under Mr. Trump, who has put Berlin under notice to boost its defense budget.

Parties critical of Mr. Trump tap a rich political vein in Germany. A 2018 Pew Research Center survey for the Munich Security Conference, a global security forum, showed only 10% of Germans thought the US president was doing the right thing regarding world affairs, compared with 35% for Russian President Vladimir Putin and 30% for Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The appointment of the SPD commission will also put additional stress on Ms. Merkel’s fractious coalition. The chancellor’s conservatives back higher military expenditure and want to renew the ailing German Air Force with an order of US-made aircraft that are certified to carry US nuclear weapons. Leading SPD figures have said they would block the recently proposed purchase of up to 45 Boeing Co.-made F/A-18 jets by Ms. Merkel’s defense minister.

A spokesman for Ms. Merkel said the government would continue to back nuclear sharing, adding that it saw “no reason to debate this aspect of NATO deterrence. We continue to fully support the defensive nuclear strategy of NATO.”

A NATO spokeswoman said the alliance relied on the capabilities and infrastructure of its members in Europe. “Allied aircraft supporting NATO’s nuclear deterrence mission are central to this effort and we welcome the broadest possible participation in our nuclear burden-sharing arrangements,” she added.

Asked about the policy review, US Ambassador to Germany Richard A. Grenell said, “NATO’s nuclear forces are there for deterrence and defense. This is a commitment the alliance has made together. Germany should live up to its commitment.”

Germany is part of NATO’s so-called nuclear-sharing agreement that goes back to the 1950s. While exact numbers are secret, experts believe the United States has around 180 B61 tactical nuclear bombs on the continent—some 20 in Germany and the rest spread across Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

“We don’t think that the nuclear-sharing agreement is fit for the times anymore,” said Ralf Stegner, Vice Chairman of the SPD, following a meeting of the party leadership on [February 11]. He said the SPD was extremely unlikely to support the F/A-18 purchase.

The procurement would be a key step in maintaining nuclear sharing in coming decades. The only aircraft in the German fleet currently certified by the US to carry nuclear weapons are the German-made Tornados. But some of those are 40 years old and are being retired.

Mr. Stegner added that the mounting US pressure on Germany meant that the country was headed toward a fundamental debate about nuclear armament and military spending of a kind that hadn’t taken place since 1982, when a rebellion within the SPD over the stationing of nuclear weapons in Europe contributed to the ouster of Chancellor Helmut Schmidt.

“Nuclear sharing doesn’t necessarily mean we need to host nuclear weapons,” said Rolf Mützenich, the SPD’s deputy floor leader and speaker on defense policy. Mr. Mützenich said Germany could follow the example of Canada, a NATO ally that doesn’t keep US nuclear weapons on its soil.

Mr. Mützenich said he believed a majority of SPD lawmakers would reject any proposal to purchase new US aircraft, partly because of the large cost. Growing animosity between NATO and Russia and the likelihood of a renewed arms race were all arguments against nuclear sharing, Mr. Mützenich added.

The looming dispute about military doctrine, military spending and procurement is just one of many now rocking Ms. Merkel’s coalition—a government many analysts think could unravel as early as this year.

Peter Beyer, Ms. Merkel’s coordinator for trans-Atlantic cooperation and a member of her conservative party, said nuclear sharing was indispensable. Failure to revamp Germany’s aging fleet of nuclear-capable bombers would make a farce of the country’s commitment to the NATO nuclear deterrent, he said.

“How we can get Putin to disarm if we fail to confront him in any way,” Mr. Beyer said. “This does not help peace but creates instability. Our allies, including the smaller states in Europe, would then have to wonder whether they can still rely on Germany.”

—Bojan Pancevski (bojan.pancevski@wsj.com) wrote this for the February 12, 2019 edition of The Wall Street Journal.

* See Nukewatch’s accompanying article, How the Wall Street Journal Gets it Wrong.

by Leave a Comment

How the Wall Street Journal Gets it Wrong*

By John LaForge
Spring Nukewatch Quarterly 2019

* See accompanying article In Germany, Long-Standing Deal to Host US Nuclear Weapons is Now in Question.

A Sandia National Laboratories mechanical engineer adjusts a microphone for an acoustic test on a prototype of the new B61-12 nuclear bomb, scheduled to go into production by 2020. Photo by US Energy Dept.

The Wall St. Journal’s claim that the current debate in Germany about US nuclear weapons stationed there is “the first since the 1980s” is in error. Here are just a few examples of the debate.

  • In 2008, five former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and The Netherlands published a manifesto that declared in part that a “first strike” nuclear option remains an “indispensable instrument” since there is “simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world.” The paper was signed by a former chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Germany’s former top soldier and ex-chairman of NATO’s military committee, a former Dutch Chief of Staff, a former French Chief of Staff, and former Chief of the General Staff in the UK.
  • In 2009, then German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said the US B61 arsenal in Germany was “militarily obsolete” and urged the US to remove it.
  • On March 26, 2010, following nationwide grassroots campaigning and demonstrations, the German parliament adopted a widely popular, cross-party (nonpartisan) resolution demanding that the federal government see to the removal of US weapons.
  • After it was reported that disarmament activists had gotten far inside the Büchel Air Base and occupied the top of a potential nuclear weapons bunker July 16, 2017, Green Party parliament Deputy Tabea Rössner openly criticized the base’s security, prompting an August 7 headline that read, “Is Air Base Büchel just as safe as an amusement park?”
  • On Aug. 22, 2017, Martin Schulz, the Social Democrat Party candidate for Chancellor in September’s national elections, unexpectedly called for the ouster of the US nuclear weapons. Reuters, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Politico and major German media reported: “German rival of Chancellor [Angela] Merkel vows to remove US nuclear weapons from the country”; “Searching for another point of difference, Schulz pledged on [August 22] to have US nuclear weapons withdrawn from German territory if, against the odds, he defeats Merkel”; and “Germany’s Schulz says he would demand US withdraw nuclear arms.”

The LA Times reported that Schulz said at a campaign rally, “As chancellor, I’d push for the ejection of nuclear weapons stored in Germany.” The debate continued as conservative politicians and editorials attacked Schulz as unrealistic about military matters.

  • On Aug. 29, 2017, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel made a surprise endorsement of Schulz’s proposal during a press conference with then US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in Washington, DC. Gabriel’s statement included his bold admission that, “I agreed with Mr. Schulz’s point that we need to get rid of the nuclear weapons that are in our country.”

Media around the world reported, “Foreign Minister joins call to withdraw US nukes from Germany,” and “German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel has supported Social Democrat (SPD) leader Martin Schulz’s pledge that he will push for the removal of US nuclear warheads from Germany if elected Chancellor.”

  • On Aug. 31, 2017, International Business Times and The Financial Tribune online declared, “Top German Politicians Want US Nuclear Weapons Out.” The reports noted, “Germany’s top diplomat has backed the suggestion of SPD leader and Chancellor hopeful Martin Schulz, who has pledged to rid his country of US nukes. Washington, meanwhile, is pressing ahead to modernize its nuclear stockpile.”
  • Headlines and radio waves were buzzing again in July 2018, after five separate groups of activists clipped the fence around Büchel Air Base in broad daylight, gaining entry to the base and again occupying the top of a hardened aircraft shelter. Court cases stemming from these civil resistance actions always push the issue and the debate into the public square.

* See accompanying article In Germany, Long-Standing Deal to Host US Nuclear Weapons is Now in Question.

by 2 Comments

Gerd Büntzly, Crime Fighter

Gerd Büntzly (right) with attorney in appeals court

By John LaForge

HAMBURG, Germany — I was with Gerd Büntzly, 69, of Herford, in a demonstration in Germany July 17, 2017. So were Steve Baggarly, Susan Crane, and Bonnie Urfer, all of the United States. Ours was a peaceful if covert, night-time occupation of a protected aircraft shelter or bomb bunker far inside the Büchel Air Force Base, near the beautiful Mosel River valley.

We were there to help prevent the unlawful use of the shelter in nuclear attacks or nuclear war preparations. Routine nuclear war planning by US and German Air Force personnel there, using US B61 nuclear bombs (NATO’s so-called “nuclear sharing”), violates the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and several other international treaties, all binding on the United States and Germany.

A rally in support of Gerd took place before the hearing.

In spite of our formal complaint to state prosecutors against “selective prosecution” of Gerd, and the violation of his “equal protection” rights, only he was charged, tried, and convicted of trespass and property damage (for clipping fences) in January last year. This Jan. 16, he was in court again appealing the conviction. Susan Crane from California and I travelled to Koblenz to speak on his behalf. Attorneys were quite sure that we two could testify, but ultimately were not allowed.

We wanted to explain that international law has the force of state and federal law in Germany and the United States, a fact recognized by Germany’s Constitution (Art. 25) and the US Constitution (Art. 6). According to Univ. of Illinois Law School Prof. Francis Boyle, writing recently for other nuclear weapons resisters, “International law is not ‘higher’ or separate law; it is part and parcel of the structure of federal law. The Supreme Court so held in the landmark decision in The Paquete Habana (1900), that was recently reaffirmed in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in 2006.”

Contrary to modern military strategists, there is no such thing as a “limited nuclear war.” Nuclear weapons only produce massacres. Beginning with 8 to 10 million degrees at detonation, followed by indiscriminate mass destruction from blast effects, city-size mass fires (firestorms) in which nothing survives, and uncontrollable radiation poisoning that produces genetic damage unlimited by space or time, nuclear weapons are just massacre delivery systems.

Supporters hoped to testify in the hearing.

International law has prohibited the planning and not just the commission of such massacres since 1946.

Professor Boyle wrote last November 1st: “The Judgment of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal meted out severe punishment in 1946 against individuals who, acting in full compliance with domestic law but in disregard of the limitations of international law, had committed war crimes and crimes against peace as defined in its Charter.”

The Nuremberg Charter and Principles apply to individual civilians like us and oblige individuals to disobey domestic laws that protect government crimes. And Nuremberg prohibits all “planning and preparation” of wars that violate international treaties.

The 1949 Geneva Conventions prohibit indiscriminate attacks on noncombatants, attacks on neutral states, and long-term damage to the environment. The 1907 Hague Conventions forbid the use of poison and poisoned weapons under any circumstances.

Under the 1970 NPT, it is prohibited for Germany to receive nuclear weapons from the United States and for the US to transfer them to Germany. Germany and the United States are both formal state parties to all of these Treaties.

“By implication,” Boyle explains, “the Nuremberg Judgment privileges all citizens of nations engaged in war crimes to act in a measured but effective way to prevent the continuing commission of those crimes. The same Nuremberg Privilege is recognized in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice which has been adopted as a Treaty (the United Nations Charter) by the United States” [and Germany]. In my opinion, such action certainly includes nonviolent exposure and inspection of sites of ongoing war crimes.”

Because nuclear weapons cannot be used without violating these binding international treaties; since Germany and United States at Büchel are planning and preparing war that violates these treaties; and because the Nuremberg Charter and Principles forbid this planning and preparation, and apply to civilians and military personnel alike, and hold citizens individually responsible; and require citizens to disobey illegal orders, to refuse participation in or ignore international crimes, civil resistance at Büchel is no offense but a civic duty, a lawful obligation, and an act of crime prevention.

Some of the German and international supporters from the Netherlands and United States await the trial.

In the courtroom, crowded with 40 people, the three-person “bench” (two lay volunteers and one criminal court judge) found Gerd guilty — but reduced his fine from 1,200 Euros to 750 — after making a few standard quips about “deterrence.” Prescient as ever, Professor Boyle’s latest book is, “The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence” (Clarity Press 2013).

by 2 Comments

Appeal to be Heard in Case of German Nuclear Bomb Bunker Protest Conviction: US Activists to Testify

Gerd Büntzly (right) with anti-nuclear activists before entering Büchel Air Force Base on July 17, 2017.

An appeal court trial for Gerd Büntzly, 69, from Herford, Germany, will begin Wed., Jan. 16, 2019 at 2 p.m. in County Court Koblenz, Germany.

Büntzly has appealed a January 2018 conviction on trespass and property damage charges stemming from a July 2017 protest at the Büchel Air Force Base, in Germany’s Eifel region, which experts say deploys at least 20 U.S. nuclear gravity bombs for use by the German Air Force. Büntzly was sentenced to a fine (40 times his day’s wages) that could translate into 40 days in jail.

Büntzly, 69, who teaches German to refugees, is a retired music teacher, pianist, and an orchestral arranger, and is a founding member of Liebenslaute (Life Sounds), a German resistance orchestra that combines musical performance with social action. (Büntzly is available for interviews before and after the trial.  (+49-522-138-0866)

On July 17, 2017, Büntzly along with four U.S. activists clipped through several chain-link fences at the German nuclear weapons base, and were eventually able to occupy the top of a heavy nuclear weapons bunker known as a protected aircraft shelter. The activists say they acted, to “end our complicity with the unlawful deployment of 20 U.S. B61 nuclear bombs on the Büchel air base.” German air force pilots of the country’s PA200 Tornado fighter jets train at the base to use the U.S. nuclear bombs under a NATO program called “nuclear sharing.”

Two of the U.S. activists that joined Büntzly in the 2017 occupation of the bunker on the base, Susan Crane from the Redwood City Catholic Worker in California, and John LaForge from Nukewatch in Wisconsin, have come to Germany for the appeal trial, where they hope to testify. Susan Crane said, “We don’t want to be complicit the ongoing planning, preparation, possession, deployment, threatened use or the use of the 20 U.S. B61 nuclear bombs at Büchel. These are violations of international humanitarian law and the Nuremberg Principles. We hope the court will recognize the Treaties that forbid nuclear weapons threats, and then reverse Büntzly’s conviction.”

International law experts from the US and Germany have condemned “nuclear sharing” as a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which both the U.S. and Germany have ratified. The NPT’s first two articles prohibit the transfer of nuclear weapons to or from other countries that have ratified it. Anabel Dwyer, an international legal expert from Michigan, has submitted a formal Declaration on behalf of Büntzly, arguing that citizens are permitted to try and prevent unlawful or criminal government conduct, especially alleged violations of Treaties outlawing the planning of war crimes.

Marion Küpker, spokesperson for the German-wide campaign “Büchel is Everywhere: Nuclear Weapons-Free Now!” also said that Büntzly’s nonviolent civil resistance was justified. “In 1999, a Scottish court recognized a ‘defense of crime prevention’ under international humanitarian law, when it acquitted three women who had acted against Britain’s Trident nuclear submarine program by throwing parts of its maintenance system into the sea,” Küpker said.

Germany’s “Büchel is Everywhere” campaign has now been endorsed by 60 groups and organizations, and sponsors a nonviolent action camp outside the Büchel base from March 26 to Aug. 9. In the past two years, more than 60 individuals have joined “go-in” actions during the weeks of peace camp. In 2019, there will be another 20 weeks of nonviolent protests at the base.

In the coming years, a new U.S. B61 bomb, the B61-mod 12, is set to be built at a cost of around $12 billion, and the U.S. plans to deploy the new bomb at Büchel and six other NATO bases in Europe where the U.S. Air Force’s current B61-3s and B61-4s are now used. The other “nuclear sharing” sites are in The Netherlands, Belgium, Turkey and (two in) Italy. #####

by Leave a Comment

Committed Loudmouths against Nuclear Lawlessness

Homeland Security or Abbott and Costello meet the Keystone Kops?
By John LaForge

HAMBURG, Germany — You have to wonder if the Department of Homeland Security is insecure or just lame.

On Dec. 31, I was just about to board a flight to Hamburg, when a pair of its employees stopped me and asked a few questions. My mistake was to forget to ask their names, their jobs, and if I was under arrest. Instead I calmly answered their irrelevant queries. Nothing they asked related to anybody’s homeland.

Three pieces of paper that one officer handed me did not concern me or my international travel plans. They were sections of the United States Code regarding “subversive activities” at United States military sites. I’m in Germany to attend the appeal court hearing of a nuclear weapons abolitionist, Gerd Büntzly, whom I joined in 2017, along with three other US citizens, in a protest at the German Air Base Büchel. There are 20 US-manufactured nuclear weapons (B61-4s) at the base, but it’s a German air base. The USAF just works there (under the name 702nd Munitions Support Squadron) to guard, support and train German pilots in use of the US H-bombs.

Gerd, 68, a German language teacher, pianist, orchestral arranger and former music teacher from Herford, Germany, intends to testify at his own appeal that nonviolent resistance at the Büchel base is a lawful act of crime prevention because Germany and the United States deploy the US nuclear bombs there in violation of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

The NPT prohibits the transfer of nuclear weapons to or from other states that have signed it. Both the US and Germany are parties to the NPT. (What the US has said to rationalize its nuclear lawlessness is: 1. The H-bombs are under USAF control at the base until war starts; and 2. The NPT doesn’t apply in wartime when the bombs would be transferred to German Tornado fighter jets.) Now that’s subversive activity at a military base!

One inquiring officer wanted a look inside my cornet case even though it had already passed two sets of airport security. (Of course, you never know about cornet players!) The other officer asked if I knew it was unlawful to enter a military installation without permission. I should know after having done so in at least two dozen protests. I said Yes.

After skimming the badly copied sections of the US Code, I asked why the officer was giving them to me. One said, “So you can’t say you haven’t been warned.” But none of the text I was given involved warnings, just federal statutory facts. The US Code is addressed to the US population as a whole. The material was neither addressed to me, nor had a date or the name of an issuing officer. Two pages had a DHS seal shabbily stamped in red. The pages were just photocopies or web page print-outs, complete with comical errors: One elaborately defined federal misdemeanor was said to have a penalty upon conviction of “a fine not to exceed ,000.” Wow, some warning.

The airport interruption was perhaps a sort of “proof of surveillance” demonstration by the cops — a useless and absurd one. One officer then felt the need to inform me that, “‘No trespassing’ signs at military bases are written in English.” I thought, What would become of the nation without the stern Dept. of Homeland Security!  I walked down the causeway to my seat.

Regular readers know that your Nukewatch reporter has protested and engaged in civil resistance against nuclear weapons and war since long before the advent of the Dept. of Homeland Security. Perhaps the attempted scare tactic was actually a message meant for everyone else. By reporting on the airport delay, maybe I only help the DHS put on notice those readers who may be considering opposition to US militarism.

What the DHS hasn’t figured out is that hokey theatrics used to shoo people away from political dissent only succeed against those few activists who were born yesterday. There are just too many time-honored, practical, hard-headed, ethical and strategic reasons for nonviolent political action (against the tyranny of the war system, misogyny, homophobia, racism, sexism and human exploitation) to ever intimidate committed loudmouths.

Contact Us

(715) 472-4185
nukewatch1@lakeland.ws

Address:
740A Round Lake Road
Luck, Wisconsin 54853
USA

Donate To Nukewatch

News & Information on Nuclear Weapons,
Power, Waste & Nonviolent Resistance

Stay Connected