The reactions of the federal government and the NATO Council to the nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty are an expression of contempt for the will of the peoples and for international law. This once again reveals NATO as an undemocratic alliance that poses a security risk to the world.
Since 22 January, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of the UN is international law. Since then, it has been prohibited to develop, possess, transfer or station nuclear arsenals, to threaten or use them and to assist in their use. Thus, the so-called" Nuclear deterrence “and the” Nuclear participation " of the Federal Republic of Germany is explicitly prohibited under international law. The NATO Council decided on 15 December 2020:
“As the ( … ) nuclear Non - Proliferation Treaty is about to enter into force, we jointly reaffirm our opposition to it, as it does not reflect the increasingly difficult international security environment and is at odds with the existing non-proliferation and disarmament architecture. ( … ) The Prohibition Treaty lacks rigorous and clear mechanisms for verification, and it has not been signed by any state that has nuclear weapons, and it will therefore not lead to the abolition of a single nuclear weapon. It risks undermining the global non - proliferation and disarmament architecture, which has been at the heart of the nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty for more than 50 years, as well as the IAEA security regime that supports it.”
The NATO Council reaffirms that NATO is an alliance with nuclear weapons as long as nuclear weapons exist. With this attitude, NATO is violating the intent of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, also known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which stipulates that the nuclear states must do everything to work towards nuclear disarmament.
The text of the NATO Council, as a whole document and point by point, is an expression of contempt for the will of the peoples, for the UN and for international law. It identifies NATO as an undemocratic alliance that poses a security risk to the world. It contributes to the fact that the critical nuclear scientists of the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences on 27. At a press conference held on January 20, humanity was extremely close to the danger of a final catastrophe with a symbolic 100 seconds due to high and nuclear weapons, international crises and the risks resulting from climate and other ecological threats to the future. In this situation, commitment to survival is the highest priority for all forces committed to the future.
The peace commitment also has the task of clarifying the dangers that lurk in Germany’s so-called ‘nuclear participation’ and which lead to German participation in the nuclear war maneuvers ‘Cold Igloo’ and ‘Steadfast Noon’. This is about the third World War.
Nuclear participation”: “Participation” in the inferno?
NATO denies the danger to life in Europe and in the world posed by nuclear arsenals. The so-called’ nuclear participation ' is justified by the German military, but also by Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, by the fact that it enables [Germany](https://www1.wdr.de/daserste/monitor/sendungen/nukleare-teilhabe-100.html “Nukleare Aufrüstung: Deutschlands “Teilhabe” bei Atomkriegen”) to have a say in possible nuclear war actions. This ‘voice’ of the Inferno is the bait for the maintenance of this nuclear war-oriented control, and stationing of nuclear arsenals in Germany. NATO also uses this argument to nip in the bud criticism of Germany’s nuclear strategy, or at least paralyze it. The federal government follows the NATO justification of the rejection of the nuclear weapons ban treaty and claims in a reply to a request of the left faction in the Bundestag:
“The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) pursues ( … ) the approach of categorically outlawing nuclear weapons. The resulting tension with the NPT and with the nuclear weapon states recognised in the NPT, whose participation depends on a nuclear disarmament oriented towards real progress, is reinforced by Art. 18 of the NPT, which results in the subordination of other obligations to the obligations of the NPT. From the federal government’s point of view, this can lead to fragmentation and a real weakening of international disarmament efforts in the nuclear field.”
Disinformation in the service of the nuclear inferno
These earnest sounding words turn out to be nicely packaged disinformation in the service of the nuclear inferno. The Scientific Service of the Bundestag:
“The relationship between the nuclear nonproliferation Treaty and the nonproliferation Treaty is clearly better than its reputation. While the AVV*-critical state representatives as well as government-related think tanks and disarmament experts have expressed and nurtured doubts about the legal compatibility of the AVV and NPT, the vast majority of international law literature comes from universities and research institutes-among them experts from the field of international disarmament law, but above all also participants (diplomats and academics) at the UN Diplomatic Conference, which negotiated the AVV – the result is that both contracts are less in a legal competition relationship than in a complementary relationship. This means in concrete terms: The AVV is not legally in conflict with the NVV.”
With their distortion of the facts, NATO and the federal government are also opposing the population of Germany, of which according to a Greenpeace poll about 92 percent plead for the signing of the nuclear non-proliferation Treaty. The German government and the NATO military are thus opposing the life interests of the citizens of this country and also of humanity with their propaganda and its consequences for the nuclear war danger, since a nuclear strike carries the danger that it opens up a war dynamic that gets out of control in a nuclear inferno. Before that happens, people will first lose the billions of dollars that nuclear weapons cost and which are then lacking in basic services and services of general interest, ecology, education and infrastructure. Therefore, no nuclear warheads of the new and highly developed production series B 61-12 may be stationed in Germany, which according to leading US military are more user-friendly:
“The new bombs blur the boundaries between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons,” criticises Hans Kristensen of the Nuclear Information Projects (Atomic Scientists) in Washington D.C… “The options go so far that they would improve the US nuclear weapons capability to destroy military targets on Russian territory.”
Here there is an opportunity to support the ICAN petition calling on the federal government to sign the NPT. Here follow the existential prohibitions in the NPT following the documentation of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) for the survival of humanity:
“Under no circumstances shall any State Party undertake to:
a. To develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or store nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
b. To transmit, directly or indirectly, nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or the power to dispose of them to anyone;
c. To accept, directly or indirectly, nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or the power to dispose of them;
d. Use or threaten to use nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
e. to assist, encourage or induce anyone in any way to undertake activities prohibited to a State Party under this Treaty;
f. to seek or accept from anyone in any way any assistance to carry out activities prohibited to a State Party under this Treaty;
g. a stationing, installation or deployment of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in its territory or at any place under its jurisdiction or control.”