The 2011 Danish Elections: What about Nuclear Weapons?

Outside of Denmark there has been a growing call to reduce the number and role of nuclear weapons in international relations. President Obama’s Prague Speech[i] introduced his vision toward a world without nuclear weapons while Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway have been opening up debate about the utility of NATO’s tactical nuclear weapons located in Europe, with others joining the call for more transparency and dialogue.[ii] There is also the potential for countries in the Middle East to begin discussion on the region’s weapons of mass destruction, with all having been invited to participate in talks this November to consider “how the experience of nuclear-weapons free zones (NWFZs) in several regions of the world could be relevant to the Middle East.”[iii] In other words, nuclear weapons are high on the diplomatic agenda. So, what are Danish political parties saying about them?

Not much.

A search on each party’s website for their positions on non-proliferation and disarmament returned more often than not zero results. There were a few exceptions. The Conservative Party makes a mention that the “proliferation of weapons technology” is an issue it “must take firm action against”[iv] while three parties from the Left, the Social Democrats, the Socialist People’s Party and the Social Liberal Party have stated their outright support for President Obama’s vision and that they will specifically “work for the Arctic to become a nuclear-weapons free zone.”[v] Other than an unusual proposal in 2010 by the Christian Democrats to use thorium to solve the impasse over Iran’s nuclear programme,[vi] the other political parties have yet to address the international debate on nuclear weapons.

The two different platforms that have emerged deserve closer attention. The first minimalist, the second puts forward a challenging diplomatic agenda; but both are vague on details. A deeper search of the Conservative Party’s website does not provide any clarity about which weapons technology it refers to: conventional weapons, unconventional, or both? There is no supplement to explain its approach to nuclear diplomacy and no details about what firm action it will take to address proliferation. This lack of details is surprising, particularly as a foreign policy paper delivered by the Minister of Foreign Affairs (a Conservative) in November 2010, noted that “in the years ahead, great international efforts are expected to be made – particularly under US leadership – to promote disarmament and non-proliferation.” The paper underscored that “all countries including Denmark have an interest in actively contributing to ensuring that the forthcoming decade becomes a decade of disarmament.” While the objective of the paper was not to present Denmark’s future foreign policy, its stated intention was to put forward some examples and open the debate “about some of the foreign policy answers which the challenges of the next decade demand.” Election time is precisely the time for debating these challenges and how the parties plan to engage in them, if at all.

The three-party proposal from the Left supports nuclear disarmament and sets a challenging diplomatic agenda with an Arctic focus. The world already has five NWFZs in existence, making the entire southern hemisphere free of nuclear weapons. A similar zone for the Arctic would prohibit the possession, development, testing, manufacture or production of nuclear weapons within the zone; prohibit the use of nuclear weapons against any territory within; and establish measures to ensure everybody is playing by treaty rules. But it would not be easy. The world’s largest possessors of nuclear weapons (Russia and United States) used the region as a strategic arena during the cold war with submarine patrols by both still routinely undertaken. Another complicating matter is that five of the eight Arctic states are also members of NATO and therefore bound by NATO’s nuclear doctrine.[vii] That said, if the countries of the Middle East can potentially begin dialogue on weapons of mass destruction, surely there is hope for the circumpolar nations to do the same. The three-party proposal by the Left, however, does not address the challenges of nuclear disarmament, nor does it provide further clarity as to how the three parties propose to implement their diplomatic agenda.

Whether voters prefer firm action or a nuclear-free Arctic (or another alternative), they deserve more discussion about the issue. With an already-reduced staffing level and less than a handful of individuals dedicated to non-proliferation issues at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, both platforms require debate about how they propose to fund and implement their non-proliferation and disarmament objectives. If no resources are dedicated to the issue then Denmark’s disarmament policy will be passive and reactionary instead of actively engaged with a view to the long-term. Indeed, the role that a country plays on the international stage depends on the policies of its government and election time is opportune for political parties to audition for their international role. It is time for them to do so.

_______________________

[i] “Remarks by President Obama in Prague as Delivered,” 5 April 2009: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-President-Barack-Obama-In-Prague-As-Delivered/

[ii] See: Oliver Schmidt, “The Utility of U.S. Tactical Nuclear Weapons in NATO: A European Perspective,” Proliferation Analysis, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, April 2010: http://carnegieendowment.org/2010/04/27/utility-of-u.s.-tactical-nuclear-weapons-in-nato-european-perspective/7q7, and Hans Kristensen, “10 NATO Countries Want More Transparency for Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons, FAS Security Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2011/04/natoproposal.php

[iii] “UN Agency Calls Rare Mideast nuclear talks,” Reuters, 2 September 2011: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/02/us-nuclear-mideast-iaea-idUSTRE7815NC20110902

[iv] Konservative, ”Udenrigspolitik: Medansvar for verdenssamfundet,” March 31, 2011: http://www.konservative.dk/Politik/Udenrigspolitik/Udenrigspolitik

[v] ”En aktiv og ansvarlig undenrigspolitik,” September 2011, p. 12-13: http://www.socialdemokraterne.dk/download.aspx?docId=720868

[vi] ”Lad Iran få et alternativ til A-Kraft:” http://www.kd.dk/nederby/laeserbreve/udenrigs/lad-iran-faa-et-alternativ-til-a-kraft/

[vii] Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and the US are NATO members. The other three Arctic states are Finland, Russia and Sweden.