Memorandum by the British Pugwash Group
THE DEFENCE WHITE PAPER
The Defence White Paper "Delivering security
in a changing world" is of great concern to the British Pugwash
Group, who wish to make the following comments:
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
In the 2000 Review Conference on the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty the UK, along with the other declared
nuclear weapon states, made an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish
the total elimination of their nuclear weapons. The Government
has frequently reiterated its intention to do so, but in practice
has moved only slowly in that direction. The UK still has four
nuclear submarines, each of which can carry up to 16 missiles
(Hansard 5 February 2004).
We are greatly concerned because statements
in the Defence White Paper amount to a reversal of the Government's
stated policy on this issue. The Government's undertaking is diluted
to "We are committed to working towards a safer world in
which there is no requirement for nuclear weapons", but announces
the Government's intention to maintain nuclear weapons for at
least 30 years, and possibly longer.
1. The White Paper pleads that our "minimum
nuclear deterrent capability" is likely to remain necessary
for our security because there is a continuing risk from the proliferation
of nuclear weapons and the certainty that a number of other countries
will retain them. This argument can, of course, be turned on its
head: other countries will retain or acquire them if the UK and
other declared nuclear powers retain theirs. The White Paper makes
no reference to the obligation under the Nuclear Proliferation
Treaty for the declared nuclear powers to proceed to complete
nuclear disarmament. Someone must take the lead.
2. The White Paper also implies that nuclear
deterrence is necessary for countering the threat of an attack
by nuclear missiles. However the nature of the threat of a nuclear
attack is not specified. As the White Paper states, there are
no conventional military threats to either the UK or NATO. The
possibility that any of the states known to possess nuclear weapons
will use them to threaten the UK is remote either for political
reasons or for the technical problem of delivering them over long
distances. If at some point we were to initiate their use, the
consequences of retaliation on the UK would be catastrophic. Moreover
the possession of nuclear weapons will not serve as a deterrent
against a terrorist attack.
3. Policies of nuclear deterrence have long
been recognised as ineffective and dangerous. The possession of
nuclear weapons results in an escalation in nuclear weaponry;
the supposition that they would act as a deterrent rests on the
improbable assumption that any enemy will act rationally; and
their presence enhances the risk of widespread destruction through
accidental discharge or the acquisition of nuclear material by
terrorist groups. It is extremely improbable that they would ever
be used: indeed, when pressed the Minister of Defence has declined
to specify the circumstances in which they would be used on the
tenuous excuse of confusing the enemy (Hansard, 30 January
2004).
4. By failing to fulfil its obligations
under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the UK is undermining
the validity and utility of international treaties. The Government
attaches much importance to the prevention of nuclear proliferation:
the appropriate policy response is surely multilateral nuclear
disarmament, a process that the UK could lead. We acknowledge
that the abolition of nuclear weapons poses problems, but the
proper place for those problems to be solved is the Conference
on Disarmament in Geneva, where the UK has so far failed to put
the issue on the agenda.
THE "SPECIAL
RELATIONSHIP"
The Agreement for Cooperation on the uses of
Atomic Energy for Mutual Defense Purposes (Mutual Defence Agreement)
with the USA covers cooperation on nuclear weapons systems. It
is due for renewal this year, a matter not mentioned in the White
Paper. However its renewal is implied by the intention to maintain
Trident in service. The Government has apparently already agreed
to allow Fylingdales to be used in the US Missile Defence scheme
and has done so without full discussion in Parliament (Statement
by the Defence Minister, 18 December 2003). This is a matter of
public concern and should be debated because, apart from anything
else, the use of Fylingdales in this way may make us more prone
to be a target ourselves.
In addition the White Paper implies that we
shall continue to follow where the US leads in matters of Defence.
It argues that "the most demanding expeditionary operations,
involving intervention against state adversaries can only plausibly
be conducted if US forces are engaged either leading a coalition
or in NATO". It even assumes that that will be the case:
". . . in the most demanding military operations we will
be operating alongside the US and other allies". And it seems
to give that priority over operations with other allies: ".
. . a major focus will be on furthering interoperability (sic)
with US forces", though adding: "we will continue to
improve our capacity to operate with our European allies".
Thus the Government apparently intends continued close cooperation
with the USA on defence matters for the forseeable future.
The implication that we should follow the USA
in a coalition that does not involve NATO and does not have the
support of the UN is unacceptable. The USA appears to be embarking
on the development of new types of nuclear weapons, in direct
contravention to its international undertakings. It is extremely
questionable whether the UK should be so closely associated with
a state that fails to honour international agreements and whose
current foreign policies many perceive to be undesirable.
United Nations
While the White Paper professes that the UK
will support the UN, it also indicates an intention to act independently
with such phrases as the "need to be realistic about the
limitations of the UN". In the long run, the only guardian
of world peace must be the UN, and the UK should do all in its
power to support and improve it.
Conclusion
The British Pugwash Group therefore:
(a)
Urges the UK Government to abide by its international
obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and discard all
its nuclear weapons.
(b)
Believes that UK Defence Policy should not be based
on the assumption of close cooperation with the USA.
(c)
Urges the UK Government to support the UN as the
best long-term policy for world peace, seeking reform of that
body as seems necessary. In the first instance the Government
should call for a discussion on the nuclear issue by the UN body
set up for this purpose, the Geneva Disarmament Conference.
Finally, the British Pugwash Group understands
that the MOD has stated that the White Paper will not be debated.
This is a serious matter, contrary to custom, but in keeping with
the Government's authoritarian style. We urge that the White Paper
and the renewal of the Mutual Defence Agreement should be both
subject to public discussion and debated in Parliament.
February 2004
| 
