Registered user login:

A nuclear shift on Trident?

Kate Hudson

Published 24 April 2007

CND's chairwoman Kate Hudson asks when people will learn that abolishing nuclear weapons is the only solution

The scale of the parliamentary rebellion against Trident’s replacement on March 14 indicates a significant shift in attitudes on nuclear weapons. Forced to rely on Conservative support to get the vote through, the government faced the largest backbench rebellion on a domestic issue since Labour came to power in 1997. Indeed, the size was of historic significance: it was also the biggest rebellion on defence policy since Labour first entered government in 1924.

Even better news is that this parliamentary opposition is just the tip of a massive iceberg, which represents greater opposition to nuclear weapons than ever before. The size of that iceberg was revealed by an opinion poll in early March. According to the poll, 72 percent of the population is opposed to proceeding with a replacement of Trident now. And we know from our work over the past months that the iceberg is made up of people from all walks of life—from trade unions, faith communities, and all political parties to people who oppose a Trident replacement on a huge number of grounds: moral, legal, costs, security.

In every case, we have had the best arguments on our side. Those arguments have convinced many people that our future safety cannot be provided by weapons of mass destruction, and they are irrelevant to our security needs.

What is most significant for me is how many people have changed their minds about nuclear weapons and now oppose them. Countless people have demonstrated their minds are open to change and new ideas. Now our government has to come in line with the people and abandon its Cold War thinking.

What is striking is the obvious lack of confidence displayed by the government on this issue – it is clearly aware it is on the back foot. Not surprising, having lost countless debates throughout the country and numerous votes on television and radio programmes. This is nicely summed up by the Foreign Secretary, who pointed out that the decision to replace Trident was ‘not irreversible.' Indeed, it is not. We are working to reverse that decision and we will be successful.

But there must be two strings to our campaigning bow in the months ahead. First, to work to reverse the replacement decision. Second, to put pressure on the government to pursue genuine multilateral disarmament initiatives. The Defence Committee Report on Trident replacement called for a ‘stronger forward narrative’ on multilateral disarmament, and internationally there have been calls from Kissinger, Gorbachev, ElBaradei, Annan and Blix for progress toward a nuclear-free world. The second part of the government’s motion on March 14th called for progress on our nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty commitments, and this is very positive, providing we take care not to endorse erroneous government claims to have made progress already on disarmament.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Conference in Vienna in May is the first major opportunity for the government to make progress on multilateral nuclear disarmament initiatives. We need to know what the government is going to do—above all that it does something to break the nuclear logjam out there. Every day in the press there are reports about nuclear issues: Iran, North Korea, Israeli nuclear weapons, the US/India nuclear deal, body parts at Sellafield, the award of $1 billion compensation to Marshall Islanders exposed to fallout from US nuclear tests. None of the news says anything positive about nuclear weapons; it is either potential dangers posed or the tragic consequences of their development and manufacture. When will we learn that abolition would be the best for everybody?

A draft Nuclear Weapons Convention is already lodged at the UN, which, like those already in existence for landmines and chemical and biological weapons, would outlaw nuclear weapons and cover issues such as verification, inspection, criminality and control of fissile materials. A new push is beginning, internationally, towards progress on achieving a Nuclear Weapons Convention. CND, together with Medact, the British section of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, is working to advance public awareness and support for this practical and highly desirable goal. There is strong support for such an initiative internationally, and opinion polls show a strong majority for it in Britain. Now let’s work to get the government active on it. Our future may depend upon it.

Kate Hudson
Chair CND
www.cnduk.org

See who in Labour backed the renewal of Trident on 14 March by checking this list of the 235 Labour MPs

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

4 comments from readers

mitchy
25 April 2007 at 14:07

I agree with Kate, clearly nukes have no place in the world, they represent an outmoded means of warmongering completely removed from the way in which wars are fought in the world today. Wars were fought in Napoleonic times with great solid ranks of men advancing across the battlefield, a tactic which persisted into the great war, and led to catastrophic losses of life owing to technological advancements, such as the machine gun, which affectively made tactics like these obsolete.

Just so with nuclear weapons. There was a time when threatening each other with mutually assured destruction was accepted (by some) as the way to conduct ourselves, and now the goalposts have shifted again. How can terrorist groups be fought with nuclear missiles? Bomb their countries of origin? By that reckoning the state sanctioned terrorist activities of the UK and US governments should have assured our destruction long ago. The answer is of course, they cant be used in this way, or in any other as a sane means of conducting a war. If we seriously want to protect ourselves from terrorist groups, properly trained and equipped armed forces are what we need, not an army suffering from equipment shortages and being sent to places without proper support and manpower.

africa
25 April 2007 at 17:39

As an African, I have reasons to believe that nuclear weapons are as inhuman and immoral as the slave trade. It is therefore strange that no sooner had the Prime Minister expressed "deep sorrow" for the UK’s role in the slave trade than he pushed through the renewal of Trident nuclear weapons system.

Writing in the New Nation in November 2006, Mr Blair said: “It is hard to believe what would now be a crime against humanity (The slave trade) was legal at the time.” He added, it is “profoundly shameful”.

Yet the UK’s possession, use or the threat of use of nuclear weapons is just as inhuman, immoral and profoundly shameful as our participation in the slave trade. Consider the following:

Just as the 1945 autonomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki indiscriminately killed tens of thousands of men, women and children, so did the slave trade which took away millions of African men, women and children and ferried them across the Atlantic, never to be seen again.

Just as the 1945 atomic attacks left an enduring legacy of environmental degradation and health problems on the Japanese, so has the slave trade, the psychological impacts of which are still afflicting the African peoples today.

Just as the slave trade provided free labour, which made a few ship owners, insurance companies and plantation owners extremely rich; a few companies involved in the design, manufacture, deployment and maintenance of the replacement Trident are guaranteed to earn over £100 billion. This is in spite of the growing poverty in the UK and Africa. To underline the point, it was reported today that only 10% of the £12.5bn aid promise, which the UK and the other G8 countries gave at Gleneagles has been given so far.

The British government should not wait for 200 years to express regret for our possession of nuclear weapons. They should begin to actively work to get rid of them now.

Meanwhile, everyone, especially the black people who suffered most from the slave trade should stand up and oppose nuclear weapons with the same conviction.

gnuneo
25 April 2007 at 20:31

Good Luck Kate, never give up the fight.

xx

Methusalem Thorisson
26 April 2007 at 13:51

Reykjavik 26th april 2007

Thank you CND – thank you Kate Hudson for your great work and article. From Reykjavik Iceland I send you these lines to draw your attention to an european campaign for a Europe without nuclear weapons.

A campaign for a Europe free from nuclear weapons www.europeforpeace.eu

The idea of carrying out this campaign arose in Lisbon, in the European Humanist Forum of November 2006 in the working group of Peace and Nonviolence. Different organizations participated and different opinions converged very clearly on one issue: violence in the world, the return of the nuclear arms race, the danger of a nuclear catastrophe and the need to urgently change the course of events. The words of Gandhi, M. L. King and Silo resounded in our minds on the importance of having faith in life and on the great force that nonviolence is. We were inspired by these examples.

Today there are numerous movements against war: organizations, scientists, artists and millions of people who are seriously committed to disarmament. However, and this is typical of this historical moment of destructuration, each one is busy in their own area, sometimes in a specific place, with few contacts with other realities and without efficient coordination. The need, therefore, is to find points of convergence and unite all forces in a common direction, keeping those differences which enrich the whole.

We believe that the majority of people disagree with the disastrous decisions which are being taken at an international level, but their dissent is limited to their conscience

without expressing itself in the world.

We have looked for answers and asked Giorgio Schultze, President of the European Region of the Humanist International, to write a declaration "for a Europe of peace". The declaration was officially presented in Prague on February 22, 2007 during a conference organized by Humanist movement. The declaration is the fruit of the labor of several people and organizations and tries to synthesize common opinions and concentrate on the issue of nuclear weapons.

This campaign is open to all, and everyone can give their contribution to develop it.

Methusalem Thorisson

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

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.

Read More

Vote!

Is this the worst economic situation for 60 years?