Government and Military

1/11/98.

Dear Tony Blair,

Thank-you for your reply of 4/9/98, referring to the letter of 5/8/98 from Cdr Simon Gillespie. There are several new points that have come up in these replies that we would like to address. 1. The Government may be confident that Trident is not illegal but we believe that confidence is misplaced. If Trident is not illegal then why can the Government not furnish us with even one detailed example of how and where and when a 100 kt nuclear warhead could be used lawfully? We await an example. We have not been assured that a full legal audit has been done on the many targets that are held ready for insertion into the computers that control and guide your Trident missiles. The International Court of Justice concluded its Advisory Opinion on the legal status of nuclear weapons by stating that even in an extreme case of a nation’s survival, the use of nuclear weapons would have to comply with international humanitarian law. Thus, any use of a weapon which would inevitably cause widespread civilian casualties would fail to pass this test. One probable target is Yulyamy, a town in Northern Russia, close to the border with Norway. It has a population of over 28,000 and it is close to several Russian Navy shipyards which are used to repair nuclear powered submarines. A Trident warhead exploding in the air above the shipyard would create a fireball 870 metres across. The town would be completely flattened. Around 90% of the population would be killed by a combination of radiation, extreme heat and collapsing buildings. The death toll would probably include around 7000 children. The explosion would destroy schools, hospitals and churches - as at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The few survivors would all be seriously injured. Even 4.5 kms from the explosion, anyone in the open would suffer from third degree burns. There would be extensive blast damage and hundreds of casualties in the town of Severomorsk, 10 km away. All this is to say nothing of the extensive secondary radiation which would effect the inhabitants of Norway. On any interpretation of international law it is perplexing to see how this could be legal. Can you assure us that Yulyamy, or any similar places are not on your target lists? What is needed is a full legal audit of Trident whereby the Law Officers consider details of the current nuclear weapons themselves, their targets, and their likely effects on civilian populations, as well as their long-term environmental effects. These should then be matched with the restrictions imposed by international law. This audit should then be subjected to open public debate, both inside and outside Parliament. Will you institute such a legal audit of Trident?

2. You say that you are ’committed to the goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons’ but that in the ’current security environment the Government has concluded that the minimum nuclear deterrent remains a necessary element of British security’. In the Strategic Defence Review, the Government stated ’The end of the Cold War has transformed our security environment. The world does not live in the shadow of World War. There is no longer a direct threat to Western Europe or the United Kingdom as we used to know it, and we face no significant threat to any of our Overseas Territories.’ As the survival of the UK is not presently under threat, the present threat by the UK to use nuclear weapons, represented by its deployment of Trident, is unlawful. If the Government were to counter this by arguing that a direct threat to British survival might re-emerge at some future date, it would be in effect arguing that it could never agree to eliminate its nuclear weapons - a clear violation of its NPT undertakings. 3. ’The Government does not believe that setting arbitrary deadlines for the elimination of nuclear weapons without reference to the broader security environment represents a realistic or practical approach’. However, in our opinion it is emminently realistic and practical to set deadlines of some kind other wise we may have to wait forever. The failure of the NPT, after so many decades, to complete global disarmament, is a prime example of the problems associated with not setting deadlines. If you consider our deadline as arbitrary then please come up with your own but at least make some real and practical commitment. 4. Cdr Gillespie states that ’Trident Ploughshares has stated publicly, and on a number of occasions, intentions to commit criminal acts’. We totally refute that we are engaged in any criminal acts whatsoever. We are merely trying to uphold international law and prevent the Government from continuing to engage in what we believe are criminal acts on a massive scale. Customary international law has evolved over centuries to protect neutral countries, innocent bystanders, and the environment from the worst excesses of war. These laws were the basic legal premises used to condemn those Nazis responsible for the holocaust. These laws are now being applied at the War Crimes Tribunals in the Hague where leaders and officials implicated in the atrocities in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia are being prosecuted. The British Government is right to condemn those who violate these basic norms and standards of humane behaviour, but it has still to accept its own culpability under them and to apply these same norms and standards to its deployment of weapons capable of annihilating millions of people and destroying entire eco-systems. 5. It has been stated in several communications from the Government that it is ’totally unacceptable’ to directly encourage ’service personnel to refuse to carry out their legal duties’. This is to miss the point that service personnel are being misled as to the law and that they are being given unlawful orders, the effect of which makes them complicit in major and extremely serious breaches of customary international law. It is our duty as responsible global citizens to inform them of the Nuremburg Principles and of customary international law and to remind them that they must never obey unlawful orders. In our view it is the UK Government which ’has stated publicly, and on a number of occasions, intentions to commit criminal acts’. However, our perception that the Government is involved in criminal activities does not inhibit us from seeking a face to face meeting so as to continue our dialogue more effectively. Whatever our differing interpretations of international law, ethics, and defence, it is surely more constructive and in tune with the open government ethos you have personally espoused, to begin to talk. We therefore repeat our request for a face to face meeting. In the meantime, in line with our open and accountable methods, we would like to inform you that our second ’open’ stage of TP2000 disarmament work will proceed from 9th -16th November at Faslane and Coulport. We have enclosed a current list of all TP2000 Pledgers. Yours in peace and love,

Morag Balfour, Sylvia Boyes, Clare Fearnley, David Mackenzie, Joy Mitchell, Brian Quail, Jane Tallents, Ian Thomson, Rachel Wenham, and Angie Zelter.

Printer friendly version

Home | Top