Politics
Trident - it's not too late to stop Blair's latest military blunder
Published 11 December 2006
New Statesman leader opposing a new generation of Trident
It was the not so late, and not so great, Donald Rumsfeld who said: "There are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know." We know there is an enemy out there somewhere who might one day, over the next few decades, launch a dirty bomb at us. We're not quite sure, but let's suppose there is. It is on these terms that Britain's future military security and diplomatic legitimacy are now based.
Britain has committed itself to a new generation of nuclear weapons. In Tony Blair's world, that is that. The public was consulted (although nobody can remember when); the cabinet held a discussion (although it seems nobody said anything meaningful). In March parliament will vote, safe in the knowledge that, thanks to David Cameron, on whom our Prime Minister has come to rely, the decision will be endorsed.
Before discussing issues of democracy and accountability, it is worth reminding ourselves of the military case. That case has changed significantly since the time of mass unilateral protest, from Polaris and Aldermaston to first-generation Trident in the Thatcher years. During the cold war the enemy was a visible rival, with similar weapons systems. The dispute then, with Hiroshima still fresh in the memory, was about the principle of the nuclear deterrent and the attendant threat of mutually assured destruction. The five big powers dictated the terms and stockpile levels were settled at grand US-Soviet summits.
The proliferation of nuclear technology and weaponry across a plethora of countries has changed all that. The world now faces the twin threat of terrorist groups and rogue states, as Blair never tires of proclaiming. The question is: what are the best means of tackling it? Would Trident Mk II deter the potential suicide bombers in Leeds or Leicester? Patently not, as Blair was forced to admit to MPs. He entreated them to trust his "judgement", prompting several of them to note that his very judgement is at the heart of the problem.
Now that Robert Gates, the US defence secretary-designate, has admitted the obvious - that the coalition forces are not winning the war in Iraq - it is worth recalling the bases on which Blair committed the UK to war: a hunch, flawed diplomacy and dodgy intelligence. The parallels with Trident are inexact, but salutary. The government's white-paper costings of £20bn for Trident appear calculated on little more than a wing and a prayer.
Perhaps the most disingenuous part of Blair's presentation was his assertion of moral superiority. Britain has overtaken France as the world's third-largest arms producer (something one imagines Blair is proud of). Most of the jobs in this sector have been created through state-sponsored, monopolistic deals, amid allegations of backhanders. Much of the arms industry violates the norms of the free market.
This government is locked in a mindset of the 1980s, frightened to project progressive credentials, eager to show "toughness", and driven by post-imperial delusions of grandeur. But Britain has moved on. Opposition to Trident is not confined to ardent unilateralists. There are many, on all sides of politics, who see it as an expensive and misguided folly, a toy in search of an enemy. Even if every penny saved were spent on alternative defence and security, it would still be a better investment.
The New Statesman has long opposed the next generation of Trident. The military case has not been made. The costs are out of all proportion to the notional threat. And, as Dan Plesch points out on page 12, the decision destroys any future UK efforts to achieve non-proliferation. Finally, the decision should have been left to a future prime minister with more credibility; and that man, Gordon Brown, should have had the courage to debate the issue openly.
We will support any effort by the Scottish Parliament to use whatever powers it has - environmental perhaps - to stymie the project. We will back all peaceful protest at Faslane and at other sites, encouraging activists to use our website to swap ideas. And we will name and shame MPs who profess discomfort but, when the time comes, will roll over, just as they did with Iraq. There is no hiding place for cowards.
Let the monster stay a bit longer
Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator and torturer, is close to death after a heart attack. Given that he is aged 91 and has lived an easy life, in contrast to the victims of his brutal regime, few will feel the need to feign solemnity or sadness. True, Margaret Thatcher may be welling up, remembering her words in 1999 when she thanked him for bringing democracy to Chile and, in the Falklands war, "giving our shipwrecked soldiers shelter" (what on earth was she talking about?).
For the rest of us, Pinochet's impending death is an opportunity to recall that regimes which abused human rights were rife across Latin America during the 1970s, often supported by the US and Britain. General Pinochet, Thatcher's dear friend, led a coup in 1973 against a democratically elected leader, Salvador Allende, and then set about organising the death of anyone who might oppose the new regime. Pinochet's rule was based on abduction, torture, disappearance and execution. The official victim count was 2,095. Many more, unnamed, simply vanished.
There is one reason to wish that Pinochet, who is said to believe that he is on his way to heaven, survives a little longer. He has several times avoided a legal challenge and still faces trial in Chile on charges of human-rights abuse and fraud. Let us hope he stays alive long enough for the civilised world to deliver its temporal judgment on a monstrous human being.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
