|

What lies ahead?

Gordon Brown finally became Prime Minister in June and, having told the whole world a year ago that he supported Trident replacement, it is perhaps not surprising that he has so far made no pronouncements on the future of Britain’s nuclear weapons.
 
Earlier this year, the government forced a vote on the replacement of the submarines designed for launching Trident missiles. It survived a rebellion of 100 Labour MPs, only getting parliamentary approval for the decision with the help of Tory support. The argument against replacement is firstly a straight moral one: there can be no justification for holding, threatening to use, or firing nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapon is an indiscriminate weapon of mass destruction that kills and maims civilian populations. The arguments used in the parliamentary debate included this moral one, as well as emphasising the huge cost (more than £76 billion). For those MPs representing the shipyard or naval cities the issue of potential job loss remains significant. 
 
It is essential that the peace movement tackles the jobs issue head on. Since World War II British obsession with high levels of military expenditure has probably damaged our economic standing in the world; it has certainly damaged the prospects of the civilian manufacturing industry. It is vital however, that we work with unions to produce a serious alternative jobs plan.
 
In her final speech as Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett addressed the US Carnegie Institute, her audience included former Secretaries of State and other luminaries. She outlined a very strong case for the NPT and multilateral disarmament, and the vision, ultimately, of a nuclear-free world. This speech was apparently approved in advance by Downing Street and Gordon Brown (yet to become Prime Minister). Margaret Beckett didn't remain as Foreign Secretary, but in a parliamentary adjournment debate in July, Megg Munn, the new Foreign Office Junior Minister, in reply to my own contribution, specifically endorsed Margaret Beckett’s statement.
 
At the NPT Preparatory Committee meeting in May (PrepCom), UK Ambassador John Duncan refuted the charge of hypocrisy against Britain: that it is developing a new nuclear weapons system while at the same time claiming to support the NPT. He insisted that Britain was genuinely committed to the NPT. The overwhelming majority of states at the PrepCom were united in their desire for disarmament. It remains to be seen if their will can prevail in 2010.
 
Moving forward internationally
To achieve a nuclear-free world it is necessary for all countries to sign the NPT and to strive for disarmament. India and Pakistan, neither of them NPT signatories, both possess nuclear weapons. Thankfully there is dialogue between them but it is crucial that we work with both countries to try to achieve a nuclear-free subcontinent. 
As regards North Korea, it is important to recognise that the six-party talks have, in many ways, been quite successful in that, in return for economic aid and trade, North Korea no longer appears to be proclaiming nuclear ambitions.
 
Effective nuclear-free zones have been established in Africa, Latin America and now, in Central Asia. The prospect of a nuclear -free Middle East will only be possible if Israel divests itself of around 200 nuclear warheads and signs the NPT. Furthermore, diplomatic relations with Iran must be strengthened to ensure that it remains an NPT signatory.
 
CND has been in existence for almost 50 years. It has had enormous influence on British politics and has consistently been an important voice for peace and sanity in the world. The huge parliamentary opposition to the Trident replacement vote could not have been achieved without CND’s work over all these years. It is on this foundation that we must continue campaigning to expose the exorbitant cost, immorality and danger of nuclear weapons. We must ensure that next time parliament votes on nuclear weapons MPs feel forced by public pressure to oppose this step into even greater danger.