No Major Change On French Position on Nuclear Weapons

IN the issue dated January 27 2006, The Namibian published an article by Mr Gwynne Dyer, which refers to the recent declarations by the President of the French Republic on French nuclear policy.

It is to be feared that, by selecting his quotations, by simplifying a particularly complex subject and by forgetting, deliberately or not, to take into account the present evolutions, the international commitment and geopolitics, Mr Dyer has on this specific question shown his taste for polemics rather than the qualities of an analyst caring about his readers’ information. I will be grateful if you let your readers know about the French nuclear doctrine, so that they will be able to form their own opinion.There is no “major change”, as Mr Dyer says, concerning the French position on the use of nuclear weapons.On the contrary, the President’s announcement last week was totally in keeping with the French nuclear policy.I just want to recall that the new German Chancellor, Angela Merkel (Germany cannot be suspected to have a pro-nuclear position) has publicly recognised that she has no problem with the French President’s statement.Some background information which is significant: 1. Among the five nuclear countries, France probably has the best record in terms of nuclear disarmament.For the past 15 years she has been dramatically reducing her nuclear arsenal by up to two thirds: elimination of all ground nuclear weapons, and missiles launched from aircrafts.2. Among the nuclear powers, only France and UK have ratified the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and have started dismantling production of nuclear missile material facilities 3. France does not possess mini-nukes – as Mr Dyer makes us believe – and does not plan to develop such a weapon.4. France gives Negative Security Assurances (NSA) to non-nuclear weapon states: it constitutes (legally and politically) a commitment for which France is bound not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons except for self-defence, according to the United Nations Charter.Contrary to what Mr Dyer asserts, the French nuclear deterrence has not been designed to prevent threats represented by terrorist groups.It concerns only states, as the French President has recalled.Mr Dyer also interprets Mr Chirac’s statement in parallel with the Iranian issue.It is more than a misunderstanding.In this article there is no mention to the Non-Proliferation Treaty which constitutes, when we want to speak on nuclear issues, the basic terms of reference.He says “after this, how can France demand with a straight face that Iran forgo nuclear weapons?” Iran has ratified the NPT, and as such, has taken the legal commitment not to acquire or seek to acquire nuclear weapons.And it is the concern of all parties to this treaty, including Namibia, to preserve the integrity of this treaty, and to strive to avoid any violation.Would Mr Dyer not think in the same way and assess the Iranian latest position as a real danger to the still fragile non-proliferation regime? My country is perfectly aware of what kind of responsibility it assumes.For conflict resolution, it has always been attached to multilateralism and negotiation.Comparing France with the so-called “Rogue States” is an unfortunate provocation.Let us try to avoid useless and free polemics at a moment where the non-proliferation regime is threatened.Philippe Perrier de La Bathie French EmbassyI will be grateful if you let your readers know about the French nuclear doctrine, so that they will be able to form their own opinion.There is no “major change”, as Mr Dyer says, concerning the French position on the use of nuclear weapons.On the contrary, the President’s announcement last week was totally in keeping with the French nuclear policy.I just want to recall that the new German Chancellor, Angela Merkel (Germany cannot be suspected to have a pro-nuclear position) has publicly recognised that she has no problem with the French President’s statement.Some background information which is significant: 1. Among the five nuclear countries, France probably has the best record in terms of nuclear disarmament.For the past 15 years she has been dramatically reducing her nuclear arsenal by up to two thirds: elimination of all ground nuclear weapons, and missiles launched from aircrafts.2. Among the nuclear powers, only France and UK have ratified the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and have started dismantling production of nuclear missile material facilities 3. France does not possess mini-nukes – as Mr Dyer makes us believe – and does not plan to develop such a weapon.4. France gives Negative Security Assurances (NSA) to non-nuclear weapon states: it constitutes (legally and politically) a commitment for which France is bound not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons except for self-defence, according to the United Nations Charter.Contrary to what Mr Dyer asserts, the French nuclear deterrence has not been designed to prevent threats represented by terrorist groups.It concerns only states, as the French President has recalled.Mr Dyer also interprets Mr Chirac’s statement in parallel with the Iranian issue.It is more than a misunderstanding.In this article there is no mention to the Non-Proliferation Treaty which constitutes, when we want to speak on nuclear issues, the basic terms of reference.He says “after this, how can France demand with a straight face that Iran forgo nuclear weapons?” Iran has ratified the NPT, and as such, has taken the legal commitment not to acquire or seek to acquire nuclear weapons.And it is the concern of all parties to this treaty, including Namibia, to preserve the integrity of this treaty, and to strive to avoid any violation.Would Mr Dyer not think in the same way and assess the Iranian latest position as a real danger to the still fragile non-proliferation regime? My country is perfectly aware of what kind of responsibility it assumes.For conflict resolution, it has always been attached to multilateralism and negotiation.Comparing France with the so-called “Rogue States” is an unfortunate provocation.Let us try to avoid useless and free polemics at a moment where the non-proliferation regime is threatened.Philippe Perrier de La Bathie French Embassy