Government and Military

To: Prime Minister, Gordon Brown MP, 10 Downing St, London, SW1A 2AA

From: Trident Ploughshares, c/o 65 Sinclair St, Helensburgh, G84 8TG, Scotland.

21/4/09

Dear Gordon Brown,

Ref. : Trident Ploughshares requests immediate compliance with international law

It is now eleven years since Trident Ploughshares’ first Open Letter of 18th March 1998 to the UK Government. In that letter we asked for serious nuclear disarmament measures to be taken to comply with the promises the UK Government made under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). But we hope that the time is now ripe for you, during your tenure as Prime Minster, to finally comply with the NPT by cancelling the renewal of Trident and decommissioning the Trident fleet within the next few years.

As we have not written to you for some time, let us remind you that Trident Ploughshares is a campaign to disarm the UK Trident nuclear weapons system in a non-violent, open, peaceful and fully accountable manner. We, along with thousands who support our actions by joining in our blockades and resistance work, have been engaged in many different acts of nonviolent civil resistance to the UK nuclear weapons system and over these last 11 years around 2451 have been arrested for trying to uphold international law. These have led to more than 540 trials. On two occasions we have engaged in disarmament activities that have cost the Government hundreds of thousands of pounds. These actions, both in 1999, were the destruction of the testing equipment on the conning tower of Vengeance at Barrow, and the destruction of the research equipment of the floating laboratory on Maytime in Loch Goil. On these occasions we not only took out a vital link of the illegal nuclear weapons system in an entirely accountable and peaceful manner but also argued our international law defences to juries and judges who have found us not guilty.

Our beliefs are firmly rooted in universal legal principles. Speaking in Edinburgh in February this year, former vice-president of the International Court of Justice, Judge Christopher Weeramantry, reminded us that “Every citizen has an obligation to use his or her influence to prevent crimes against humanity.” He went on to say that “... anti-nuclear civil resistance is the right of every citizen of this planet, for the nuclear threat, attacking as it does every core concept of human rights, calls for urgent and universal action for its prevention.” This is what we have been engaged in over the last 11 years. But we need you, as Prime Minister, also to act in good faith and fulfil the UK’s promise to the world community to disarm UK nuclear weapons.

At the heart of the demands for further action by all states, including the UK, towards the global abolition of nuclear weapons, is the Good Faith Obligation. In May last year Judge Mohammed Bedjaoui, President of the International Court of Justice when it gave its historic 1996 Advisory Opinion on nuclear weapons, told an audience in Geneva that “Good Faith is a fundamental principle of international law, without which all international law would collapse”, and reminded us that the Opinion, building on Article VI of the NPT requires each state to “pursue in good faith negotiations on effective measures ... relating to nuclear disarmament.”

Essentially, “Good Faith” means negotiating sincerely and flexibly to achieve the desired result - global nuclear disarmament. The International Court of Justice pronounced that the obligation is not just to talk about global nuclear disarmament. It is to make it happen. Good Faith means that this objective should be pursued consistently with real political will. The conclusion should be reached within a reasonable time and the parties must avoid policies which contradict the very purpose of the negotiations.

Trident renewal violates the UK’s NPT commitments. We strongly dispute that the proposed replacement by the UK of its Trident system can comply with the Good Faith Obligation. Indeed, the Government’s December 2006 White Paper on “The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent” contains basic assumptions which undermine it. The Executive Summary says: “It is not possible accurately to predict the global security environment over the next 20 to 50 years. On our current analysis, we cannot rule out the risk either that a major direct nuclear threat to the UK’s vital interests will re-emerge ... .” This sort of speculation, repeated throughout the White Paper, cannot qualify as an imminent need for nuclear assurance. The possibilities referred to can always be invoked. The UK could well use the same arguments for an even longer extension when the new system itself becomes obsolete.

Speaking at Lancaster House in March this year, referring to the Nuclear Weapon States which have signed the NPT, you stated that “as possessor states we cannot expect to successfully exercise moral and political leadership in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons if we ourselves do not demonstrate leadership on the question of disarmament of our weapons”, but you then went on to say that “we are committed to retaining the minimum force necessary to maintain effective deterrence. These are self-contradictory intentions.

In August 2008 a letter from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to a Trident Ploughshares member said that the December 2006 White Paper described “the decisions we must take now to ensure that future Governments can maintain a minimum nuclear deterrent, should they so choose.” However, the letter argued that replacing the Vanguard-class submarines and extending the lives of the existing Trident missiles did not mean that “we are committed now to retaining nuclear weapons until the 2050s ... .” This statement continues the obfuscation, self-contradiction and mixed messages. It is not indicative of a Government acting in good faith towards nuclear disarmament but instead indicates that the UK is still addicted to and tied up in the knots of nuclear deterrence theory.

Trident Renewal means spending large amounts of taxpayer’s money to build more submarines and develop their support structure - this is not disarmament. Moreover, the work that has progressed apace on new warhead facilities and staff recruitment at Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston and Burghfield since 2002 is gaining an impetus of its own. That very momentum will make it more difficult for the UK to change course should disarmament negotiations make significant progress. Indeed, it may well inhibit the resolve of UK diplomats in any Good Faith negotiations. Trident Renewal sends out exactly the wrong signals to the world community as actions speak louder than words and the actions show a resolve to continue reliance upon nuclear weapons rather than a desire for real and actual nuclear disarmament. In your Lancaster House speech you claimed that “Britain has cut the number of its nuclear warheads by 50% since 1997 ... If it is possible to reduce the number of UK warheads further, Britain will be ready to do so.” In the current era, over 40 years since our promise to disarm, such a reduction is not good enough. It does not meet the Good Faith requirements of the NPT. If it had been part of a continuing and brisk process towards total elimination combined with the phasing out of nuclear roles in our security policies it might be genuinely worthy of praise. As it is, it is too little, too late. We need urgent and complete nuclear disarmament.

The December 2006 White Paper is not moving in this direction. Para 4-2 refers to “holding the system continuously at a sufficiently high level of readiness... .” The Government insisting that “ ... we will not rule in or out the first use of nuclear warheads” (para 3-4) and referring to “the continued availability of a lower yield from our warheads...”, thus ensuring indefinitely the “flexibility” of UK nuclear weapons.

The measures listed in the White Paper, such as reducing the number and variety of nuclear weapons and the lengthening of notice to fire, are necessary for full compliance with the NPT; but not sufficient. Britain is retaining nuclear weapons fully deployed and ready for a variety of uses indefinitely. This negates the 13 Practical steps of the NPT 2000 Review Conference which include a “diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies ... .” Negotiations cannot be carried out “in Good Faith” whilst projecting an upgraded nuclear weapon system indefinitely. This contradicts and gives the lie to the White Paper’s claim that it stands by “our unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear weapons.”

We recognise that the UK has made some progress towards decreasing the salience of nuclear weapons. This includes the reduction in the explosive power of its nuclear warheads and of the nuclear stockpile, the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and negotiating seriously for a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. However, these measures and initiatives date back some years and were only ever fully valid as interim measures whilst negotiating full disarmament. Your recent positive statements about progress towards the elimination of nuclear weapons are welcomed. However, we will only be convinced of a real intention to disarm when you have announced specific concrete measures that would further diminish the role of the UK’s nuclear weapons in our security policy. These measures include the immediate storing of warheads ashore (there is after all no immediate strategic threat), abandoning constant submarine patrols, and a pledge never to use nuclear weapons first. Above all you need to abandon any attempt to renew and update the present Trident nuclear weapon system. In addition, you should work with NATO allies to overturn NATO’s policy that “Deterrence, based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities, remains a core element of our overall strategy” which was reiterated at Strasbourg on 4 April. It is time for NATO to denuclearise the Strategic Concept and send all US nuclear weapons back to the United States to be dismantled and eliminated. We urge you to work with President Obama to achieve this.

The issue of the de-alerting of nuclear weapons is an important immediate step for the security of us all. For the last two years there have been UN resolutions sponsored by Switzerland, Sweden, New Zealand, Chile, Nigeria and Malaysia, calling for the removal of all nuclear weapons from high alert. These were passed overwhelmingly with only the UK, USA and France voting against. This is puzzling as the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons ceased to be on high alert some years ago and a positive vote would have cost the UK nothing. In view of the renewed emphasis on de-alerting by President Obama we look for UK support for this resolution in the General Assembly.

Finally, as a very temporary step towards their early elimination, “minimum deterrence” should mean exactly that - a hedge against a specifically nuclear attack on the United Kingdom. We would find it encouraging if you were to state this clearly and unambiguously. In the present economic climate your Government will not only be hard pushed to find the resources for Trident replacement but also put under increasing pressure not to waste resources. On 17 March Edward Leigh MP, Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, said: “The Ministry of Defence’s ability to maintain continuous at-sea nuclear deterrence from 2024, when two of the current Vanguard class submarines will have gone out of service, is open to doubt.” However, the cost of Trident replacement is more than a mere accounting issue. In February 2009 the Nuclear Information Service had concluded in its report titled ’A Replacement For Trident: Can We Afford It?’, that “Evidence from polling suggests that most of us would reject replacing Trident if we knew the costs involved and had an understanding of what else might be purchased at the same cost ... .” The report goes on to say: “The United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent programme has opportunity costs. The considerable sums of money required to replace and operate nuclear weapons could be spent in other ways to address security concerns, or could be spent outside the defence budget to support social or environmental programmes. Nuclear weapons appear to have little, if any, role to play in addressing many of the threats identified in the National Security Strategy... .” To this we would add that the issue of climate change greatly exceeds any threat which Trident could conceivably meet and thus resources should be devoted to tackling climate change.

We live in a time of renewed hope for nuclear abolition. There have been increasing calls during the last year from respected authorities to end the nuclear threat.

• In December 2008, the newly-created grouping, Global Zero, comprising 100 past and current world leaders, including from the United Kingdom, called for the world to get rid of nuclear weapons within the next 25 years.

• In January, three British generals, Field Marshal Lord Bramall, General Lord Ramsbotham, and General Sir Hugh Beach, wrote in The Times “that the United Kingdom should forego its nuclear arsenal.”

• In the same month four former German statesmen, Helmut Schmidt, Richard von Weizsäcker, Egon Bahr, and Hans-Dietrich Genscher, said “The vision of a world free of the nuclear threat, as developed by Reagan and Gorbachev in Reykjavik, must be rekindled ... .”

• In February, David Miliband said that collective security regimes could enforce a global ban on nuclear weapons.

• In the same month, at the Munich Security Conference, Henry Kissinger called for disarmament using a gradual approach. “Affirming the desirability of the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons, we have concentrated on the steps that are achievable and verifiable.”

• On 5 April in Prague, President Obama said “I state it clearly America seeks a world without nuclear weapons.” and “The US will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in national defence strategy and urge others to do the same.”

We add our voices to President Obama’s and call on you to make nuclear weapons increasingly irrelevant with a view to their early global abolition by ridding us, at least, of the UK’s nuclear arsenal.

Yours sincerely, Alison Crane, George Farebrother, David Heller, Sarah Lasenby, Michal Lovejoy, Jean Oliver, Jane Tallents, Dan Viesnik, and Angie Zelter,

on behalf of Trident Ploughshares.

Printer friendly version

Home | Top