Dropping Trident will lead to a richer, safer Britain

Labour should consider the non-renewal of the trident nuclear weapons system as part of its future defence and security policy, writes Nick Brown.

It is not possible to envisage a situation where Britain would, independently, use its nuclear weapons system without the support of our NATO allies. In the instance that Britain did use nuclear weapons, international law dictates that this would be in response to nuclear weapons being used against us, in which case the Trident system would have failed to have fulfilled its main purpose; that of a deterrent. Our membership of NATO provides us with collective protection under its nuclear umbrella, with the Trident system acting as an unnecessary duplicate of this.

The nature of international politics is changing. The threats faced today are not the same as in the second half of the 20th century. International instability is caused by factors such as terrorism, cyberwarfare, economic, political and social upheaval, as well as environmental issues. Many of these are key development issues which pose a threat to international security. An independent nuclear deterrent does nothing to address any of these factors. It distracts attention and diverts resources from the real challenges facing the world today and in the future.

In the current economic circumstances, and with large cuts to government budgets including the defence budget, it is difficult to justify spending nearly £100bn on a new nuclear weapons system, which we cannot use , which does not protect Britain from the threats to international security today and which does nothing to address these.

Britain under the Labour Government can rightly, and proudly, make claim to have played a leading role in promoting the international development agenda, both domestically and internationally. This helped to raise Britain’s standing on the world stage and increase our respect and influence abroad. ‘Soft’ power is an increasingly important aspect of international relations. By making a commitment to non-renewal of our independent nuclear weapons system and increasing our attention to new and emerging threats, Britain (and the Labour Party) can remain at the forefront of the international development cause, as well as taking a forward-thinking approach to our own defence and security policy.

By non-renewal of our independent nuclear weapons system, Britain will be setting an example to other nations who are either developing or aspire to have nuclear weapons. It would allow Britain to play a leading role in securing new nuclear weapons free zones, including in Africa and the Middle East. We should be realistic about the capacity for the UK to project military power across the globe and make greater efforts to lead by example rather than through force and coercion. The best way of achieving this would be through making a clear statement of intent through non-renewal of Trident and a redefinition of our defence and security policy towards new and emerging threats, including the need to address development issues which span national borders.

Nick Brown is Labour MP for Newcastle upon Tyne East and the former chief whip

Photograph: Getty Images

Nick Brown is the former chief whip of the Labour Party.

European People's Party via Creative Commons
Show Hide image

Ansbach puts Europe's bravest politician under pressure

Angela Merkel must respond to a series of tragedies and criticisms of her refugee policy. 

Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, is supposed to be on holiday. Two separate attacks have put an end to that. The first, a mass shooting in Munich, was at first widely believed to be a terrorist attack, but later turned out to be the actions of a loner obsessed with US high school shootings. The second, where a man blew himself up in the town of Ansbach, caused less physical damage - three were seriously injured, but none killed. Nevertheless, this event may prove to affect even more people's lives. Because that man had come to Germany claiming to be a Syrian refugee. 

The attack came hours after a Syrian refugee murdered a pregnant Polish woman, a co-woker in a snack bar, in Reutlingen. All eyes will now be on Merkel who, more than any other European politician, is held responsible for Syrian refugees in Europe.

In 2015, when other European states were erecting barriers to keep out the million migrants and refugees marching north, Merkel kept Germany's borders open. The country has resettled 41,899 Syrians since 2013, according to the UNHCR, of which 20,067 came on humanitarian grounds and 21,832 through private sponsorship. That is twice as much as the UK has pledged to resettle by 2020. The actual number of Syrians in Germany is far higher - 90 per cent of the 102,400 Syrians applying for EU asylum in the first quarter of 2016 were registered there. 

Merkel is the bravest of Europe's politicians. Contrary to some assertions on the right, she did not invent the refugee crisis. Five years of brutal war in Syria did that. Merkel was simply the first of the continent's most prominent leaders to stop ignoring it. If Germany had not absorbed so many refugees, they would still be in central Europe and the Balkans, and we would be seeing even more pictures of starved children in informal camps than we do today. 

Equally, the problems facing Merkel now are not hers alone. These are the problems facing all of Europe's major states, whether or not they recognise them. 

Take the failed Syrian asylum seeker of Ansbach (his application was rejected but he could not be deported back to a warzone). In Germany, his application could at least be considered, and rejected. Europe as a whole has not invested in the processing centres required to determine who is a Syrian civilian, who might be a Syrian combatant and who is simply taking advantage of the black market in Syrian passports to masquerade as a refugee. 

Secondly, there is the subject of trauma. The Munich shooter appears to have had no links to Islamic State or Syria, but his act underlines the fact you do not need a grand political narrative to inflict hurt on others. Syrians who have experienced unspeakable violence either in their homeland or en route to Europe are left psychologically damaged. That is not to suggest they will turn to violence. But it is still safer to offer such people therapy than leave them to drift around Europe, unmonitored and unsupported, as other countries seem willing to do. 

Third, there is the question of lawlessness. Syrians have been blamed for everything from the Cologne attacks in January to creeping Islamist radicalisation. But apart from the fact that these reports can turn out to be overblown (two of the 58 men arrested over Cologne were Syrians), it is unclear what the alternative would be. Policies that force Syrians underground have already greatly empowered Europe's network of human traffickers and thugs.

So far, Merkel seems to be standing her ground. Her home affairs spokesman, Stephan Mayer, told the BBC that Germany had room to improve on its asylum policy, but stressed each attack was different. 

He said: "Horrible things take place in Syria. And it is the biggest humanitarian catastrophe, so it is completely wrong to blame Angela Merkel, or her refugee policies, for these incidents." Many will do, all the same.