Government and Military

Dear Tony Blair,

It has been nine months since we last wrote to you to request a meeting to discuss UK nuclear policy and the continued deployment of Trident.

Since then, a growing number of people have joined us in taking personal responsibility to disarm Britain’s nuclear weapons, undertaking nonviolent actions at Coulport, Faslane, Aldermaston and Devonport. Since we began our campaign in 1998 there have been 1523 arrests, mainly at the blockades and disarmament camps at Faslane. There have been over 240 trials completed and over 1500 days have been spent in prison. The vast bulk of the fines so far imposed remain unpaid as a matter of principle, leading to bailiffs confiscating property and to the threat of more prison sentences. Hundreds of cases have yet to come to court and the local judiciary is already buckling under the strain. These figures hide an accelerating civil challenge, epitomised by the growing, principled People’s Nonviolent Resistance against one of the sources of real terrorism, shamefully committed in our name - the ever-present threat of mass destruction held over the world by the continued deployment of nuclear weapons by Britain and the other nuclear weapon states.

All around you the world is changing in dramatic and deeply worrying ways, and yet Britain’s nuclear policy remains essentially the same as it has for over 45 years, a cold war relic, so weak that it must be protected from public and parliamentary debate. There has been no serious debate on British nuclear policy since New Labour came to power in 1997. The UK Strategic Defence Review undertaken in 1997-8 was supposed to examine Britain’s defence needs to the year 2015, but put Trident off limits, so that its deployment and future were not open to the same degree of scrutiny as other aspects of defence policy and force disposition.

The government cannot hide from decisions about British nuclear weapons forever. An inescapable question must be asked: what are they for? Certainly not for:

  deterrence against what you yourself have identified as the major security threat facing the world. It is not only President George W. Bush and his administration who acknowledge that nuclear weapons have no deterrent effect against terrorism.
  war-fighting, for that would breach international law. Your Government still refuses to indicate its criteria for the application of the principle of proportionality to its contingency plans regarding Trident. Without this information we can only conclude that its use in any conceivable circumstance would entail a near-certain risk of violating this principle.
  status, for even if nuclear weapons were once a symbol of great power status, a strong economy and well run public services are a far more respected indicator of civilised nationhood these days. Instead, Britain is ridiculed in the international press for the mess our health service is in and the confusion and delays on our railways.

General Lee Butler, Commander in Chief, US Strategic Command (1992-94), supported cuts in US nuclear forces and managed to get the heavy nuclear bombers taken off alert when the Cold War ended. But it was only after he retired that his true understanding of the absurdity of deterrence was revealed. In 1997 he recalled:

"Deterrence was our shield and, by extension, our sword. The nuclear priesthood extolled its virtues and bowed to its demands. Allies yielded to its dictates, even while decrying its risks and costs. We brandished it at our enemies and presumed they embraced its suicidal corollary of mutual assured destruction. We ignored, discounted, or dismissed its flaws and even today we cling to the belief that it remains relevant in a world whose security architecture has been transformed."

Despite the significant changes in the world and the post cold war exposure of the emptiness of nuclear deterrence, Her Majesty’s Government has been afraid to make necessary changes to Britain’s posture. In the Strategic Defence Review, Labour assumed our continuing commitment to NATO, and at the same time assumed that the Atlantic Alliance would not significantly change (notwithstanding NATO’s expansion eastwards).

US Republican unilateralism, all the more pronounced since the terrible tragedy of September 11, is putting its allies under increasing strain, not only because of the widening differential between US military spending and the rest, but also because the Bush Government seems determined to tear up the arms control treaties and agreements that its European allies have worked hard for over decades. Britain, proud of being the US’ closest transatlantic ally, must have the courage to speak out about these dangerous developments.

In just the past two months, while proclaiming the importance of wide and unconditional support for its own actions, the United States has:

  boycotted the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) entry into force conference;
  announced its intention to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty;
  pulled the plug on six years of multilateral negotiations to strengthen and verify the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC); and
  flouted the Geneva Convention in its treatment of prisoners captured during the conduct of its self-defined "war on terrorism".

You may be as appalled about these developments as we are, but what is Britain doing to protest against these dangerous, ideological moves by President Bush that undermine international security regimes and the rule of law?

Though we would of course welcome any further reductions in nuclear arsenals, we are worried about the intentions and effect of the Bush-Putin proposals. They do not go nearly far enough, and there are worrying signs that the US plans to resume testing in order to design even more modern, flexible nuclear weapons for use in warfighting. Even if the proposed reductions go ahead, by 2011, America and Russia will still be deploying up to 4,400 nuclear weapons plus several more thousands of nuclear weapons in reserves. Who are these weapons to be aimed at?

Who, for that matter, is Trident supposed to be targeted on? Though Bush spoke of destroying warheads, his national security adviser Condoleezza Rice made it clear that the Crawford proposal said nothing about destroying the weapons that will be removed from deployment. It also said nothing about the many non-strategic or ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons that are still in both arsenals or the MIRVed missiles that multiply the targeting and explosive power of nuclear weapons. Is it likely that those omissions can be rectified in the US-Russian talks prior to President Bush’s visit to Russia this spring? With Bush proposing a military budget of $396.1 billion for 2003 we fear that Britain and the rest of the world will be dragged into supporting a US restructuring of international relations to suit narrow military priorities, which it will be more and more difficult to question or extricate ourselves from.

We are deeply concerned about terrorism and threats to the international rule of law, whether such threats and attacks come from within a state or from freelance mercenary terrorists and groups. We agree that it is important to provide much better health and education resources and make sure that emergency planning and provision is better equipped to deal with and, hopefully, minimise damage and loss of life in the event of an attack, especially if chemical or biological weapons were used. But rather than increase the incentive of attackers by adding to military arsenals, we are in agreement with the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan that "the total elimination of nuclear weapons is the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons". Addressing the International Atomic Energy Agency General Conference just days after September 11, Mr. Annan emphasised that "Making progress in the areas of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament is more important than ever in the aftermath of last week’s appalling terrorist attacks on the United States".

Mr Annan cited the important agreements that were adopted by consensus by the 187 States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in May 2000. We congratulate your government, particularly the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, for making a constructive contribution towards achieving those agreements, which included a very useful 13-point plan of action on nuclear disarmament. But in 20 months, we are disappointed to note that you have not yet taken any concrete steps towards implementing those agreements. Since May 2000 Britain has made no moves to reduce its nuclear arsenal further or to undertake further measures to reduce the operational status of Trident (presently detargeted and on reduced notice to fire, but not de-alerted). Nor have we or our NATO allies taken any steps to diminish the role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimise the risk that these weapons ever be used. Your government appears mute as the United States violates other NPT commitments, such as refusing to ratify the CTBT - which President Bush now openly states he does not support - and announcing its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. Worse than that, Britain is seen to have colluded in the Bush government’s undermining of international treaties by signalling that Her Majesty’s Government would be willing to let them upgrade the bases of Menwith Hill and Fylingdales for missile defence deployment.

In successive opinion polls, the British People have made clear that they want no part of missile defence. We want a more assured security, such as comes through addressing world poverty and global inequalities; such as can be reinforced by international discussion and agreements, and the establishment of norms and the strengthening of international law. Last July, an Early Day Motion expressing concern about missile defence and endorsing the unanimous conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee was signed by 279 MPs from all sides of the House. Of these, 219 were Labour MPs, more than half the Parliamentary Labour Party.

This year, on February 4, Mr Annan warned that increased defence spending would do far less to combat terrorism than increased spending to battle poverty and disease and provide education and development resources to the world’s poor people. Trident, which can never be used without breaching international laws and treaty undertakings, pointlessly diverts scarce resources every year, preventing us from directing that money more wisely towards improving our own health, education and social services and helping others in the world, who are even poorer and more disadvantaged than the poor in our own communities. It also adds to our long-term health problems with the build up of radioactive contaminants in our air, soil and water. The tritium discharges into the River Tamar from the Trident refits at Devonport alone will increase by 700%.

We conclude this letter by appealing to you not to ignore the contradictions inherent in British nuclear policy. Please face up to them before it is too late. We believe that deploying Trident, thereby posing an ever-present threat to use nuclear weapons against other human beings is immoral. Keeping Trident afloat so that it might "project power" at some unknown and unnamed adversary in the unforeseeable future is absurd. Spending millions of pounds on this when our taxes would be better spent on health, education and the eradication of poverty is obscene.

Whether you agree with us or not about the moral arguments, waiting in the wings are several further challenges to the practicality of deploying British nuclear weapons "for the foreseeable future", as the SDR put it.

  If we halt tritium production, as seems likely (and desirable on environmental grounds), we would face the following options: a slow attrition and loss of warhead reliability; or buying from the Americans, who seems set on restarting their tritium production - which would merely add to our dependence on the United States, from whom we lease the missiles already. Alternatively, we could take the positive decision to increase our world stature and effectiveness against terrorism by being the first nuclear weapon state (as defined by the NPT) to renounce the possession and use of nuclear weapons and implement all our NPT obligations.
  A second challenge comes from the fact that British nuclear weapons are operated out of Scotland. Already, Trident Ploughshares has been joined by Scottish MSPs, members of the churches and the judiciary, in our responsible protests at Faslane. As outlined in a recent book by Professor William Walker of St. Andrews University and Professor Malcolm Chalmers of Bradford University, entitled "Uncharted Waters: the UK, nuclear weapons and the Scottish Question", Trident is very unpopular in Scotland, and running it involves extensive cooperation between the UK government and various Scottish public bodies, which some of those bodies are increasingly reluctant to sustain.
  Britain will face a decision of whether (and how) to replace Trident in 8-12 years. There is even less political consent for spending money on such a useless thing than there was in 1979, when the First Sea Lord, Sir Henry Leach, dismissed Trident as a "cuckoo in the [naval] nest".

We urge you to meet with us to discuss how best we can help the British government to disarm Trident and convert into a non-nuclear-weapon nation, in full compliance with our international treaty commitments. We know it won’t be easy, but we believe that the discussion must be bravely started.

I have enclosed as usual a current list of Pledgers to Prevent Nuclear Crime. As you will note there are 177 Pledgers from 14 Countries.

In peace and love,

Angie Zelter

on behalf of Trident Ploughshares.

---

Printer friendly version

Home | Top