Submission from Jim McCluskey, Ministry
for Peace movement, National Co-ordinating Committee
Submitting Organisation: The Ministry for Peace
is a voluntary citizens' organisation that works towards enhancing
a culture of peace both outside government and within it. We pursue
this goal by seeking to raise awareness of peaceful non-violent
solutions to problems and conflicts, and by advocating a peace-oriented
approach to social and cultural affairs.
INTRODUCTION
1. In our view the question of non-proliferation
is bound up with issues of security, the arms trade, international
law, and democratic accountability, hence the subheadings below.
THE ARMS
TRADE
2. We would like to start by welcoming the
Foreign Secretary's recent statements regarding the need for an
Arms Control Treaty. Such a Treaty could, if adequately structured
and honoured, become a useful step towards a more secure world.
We also welcome renouncement of cluster bombs and fully support
the movement towards the banning of depleted uranium weapons.
Such measures are also useful steps towards greater security and
indirectly enhance the goal of non-proliferation by reducing the
atmosphere of threat and tension in international affairs.
3. We note that in 2007 the UK exported
more arms than any other nation, largely due to the Al Yamama
contract. The alleged corrupt practices involved in this deal
is, in itself, ample proof of the need for much better control
over the arms trade. In the average year the UK is among the five
largest exporters of arms. We consider this a shaming fact that
works towards a more violent world and we note that in modern
armed conflict the large majority of victims are innocent civilians
and a large proportion of these civilians are children and women.
4. We reject the argument that the UK arms
export industry is justified by the number of jobs created. At
a time when there is an urgent need to develop alternative energy
sources and work on means of tackling Global Warming there is
an overwhelming case for diverting destructive jobs in the arms
industry to creative ones in the burgeoning new tasks arising
from these areas of activity. These points are cogently argued
in the Report "Making Arms, Wasting Skills" by
Steven Schofield.
We welcome the announcement of the extension
of controls to cover brokering of small arms by British citizens
overseas (Cm 7291, p36).
We urge that the government continue its work
towards an internationally agreed and enforced Arms Trade Treaty.
SECURITY
5. In the National Security Strategy as
described in Cabinet Office Paper Cm. 7291 there appears
to be a fundamental misconception of what constitutes security.
There is no weapon in existence that can incinerate
most of the human race in an hour except nuclear weapons. There
are 27,000 of these weapons. It is estimated that about 5,000 are
held in a state of high alert. This means that they can be sent
on their way in about 15 minutes after the order is given.
The missiles carrying the weapons can travel at 15,000 miles
per hour, in other words they can travel 1,000 miles in four
minutes. The leader of a nuclear state has therefore, almost no
time to decide whether to order a retaliatory launch after the
Chiefs of Staff have informed him that the country is under attack;
the decision of the Chiefs of Staff have necessarily been based
on fallible electronic information.
6. In view of the above, the statement in
the Cabinet Office Paper that "…we are more secure
than at most times in our history" (p10) is simply amazing.
President Kennedy stated that the chances of global nuclear war
breaking out in 1962, during the Cuban crisis, were between one
in three and fifty/fifty. We are arguably less secure than we
were then, since there are now eight nuclear weapons states rather
than two.
There are also the huge risks of nuclear proliferation,
nuclear accidents, and a nuclear launch due to a misunderstanding
(there have already been terrifying near-misses).
There can be no true security or peace in the
world while there are nuclear weapons, nor can the drive to stop
proliferation be successful if the nuclear states insist on retaining
their stockpiles.
It is our view that security is best achieved
by establishing amicable relationship with other states and dissociating
ourselves from the policy of those who take a primarily militaristic
approach to foreign affairs.
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES
REGARDING NUCLEAR
WEAPONS
7. We fully support the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, the full amplication of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
including completion of its verification system, and the development
of a treaty to control and phase out weapons-grade fissile materials
(Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty).
We consider that the government has failed to
honour the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which
states that "There exists an obligation to pursue in good
faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear
disarmament in all its aspects…" This government
failure seems to be confirmed by the statement in the strategy
document that "… we cannot rule out a nuclear threat
to the United Kingdom re-emerging over the next 50 years"
(P31), implying a further 50 years of nuclear tension
and threat for UK citizens.
8. We also take the view that the expenditure
at Aldermaston on facilities for the electronic testing of nuclear
weapons and components is against the spirit of the nuclear Test
Ban Treaty and all such activities can only contribute to the
tendencies towards greater proliferation.
However we welcome the government's offers to
host a technical conference for the 5 NPT Nuclear Weapons
States on the verification of nuclear disarmament.
We recommend that the government should increase
its efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons and in particular
we ask that the government support the Nuclear Weapons Convention
which is now lodged with the United Nations.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
PROLIFERATION
9. The key to preventing nuclear weapons
proliferation is an enforced world-wide ban on nuclear weapons.
Any other approach will inevitably cause conflict which could
lead to escalating violence as is currently threatened between
America/Israel and Iran, and has recently been threatened between
India and Pakistan.
10. We fully support the following statement
made by Margaret Beckett, when addressing American leaders in
Washington, on 25th June, 2007, when UK Foreign Secretary
"Mine, like yours, is a generation that
has existed under the shadow of the bomb—knowing that weapons
existed which could bring an end to humanity itself. We have become
almost accustomed to that steady underlying dread, punctuated
by the sharper fear of each new nuclear crisis: Cuba in 1962,
the Able Archer scare of 1983, the stand-off between India and
Pakistan in 2002."
"But there is a danger in familiarity with
something so terrible. If we allow our efforts on disarmament
to slacken, if we allow ourselves to take the non-proliferation
consensus for granted, the nuclear shadow that hangs over us will
lengthen and it will deepen. And it may, one day, blot out the
light for good."—www.britainusa.com/sections/articles_show_nt1.asp?d=9&i=41020&L1=0&L2=0&a=46665
The underlying dread is still there and the
threat is worsening since, partly due to the nuclear posture of
the original nuclear states including the UK, proliferation continues.
11. The National Security Strategy Paper
(NSSP) states "Our approach to proliferation reflects
our commitment to act early to reduce future threats"
(p29). We trust that this does not imply the use of pre-emptive
strikes against sovereign states which we consider counter-productive.
It also states that part of the government approach to proliferation
is to "Dissuade states from acquiring, developing, and
contributing to the spread of WMD, and related materials and expertise".
With respect to nuclear weapons we consider that this is unrealistic
without disposing of our own nuclear arsenal.
12. We consider that the government is wrong
to welcome US plans to place further missile defence assets in
Europe (p44) since this will only increase the likelihood of nuclear
standoffs as will the further extension of NATO in Eastern Europe.
We consider that the stopping of nuclear weapons
proliferation can only be achieved by nuclear weapons countries
disposing of their own arsenals.
TERRORISM
13. We hold the view that terrorism in the
UK is primarily a matter for the police and the intelligence community.
We welcome the integration of the government's counter-terrorism
approach with the establishment of the Joint Terrorism Analysis
Centre, the Multi-departmental Research, Information and Communications
Unit, and the cross-government Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism.
14. We believe that a major contributor
to the prevention of terrorist activity in the UK is the establishment
of good relations with the Muslim community. We note that £2.5 billion
pounds of tax-payers wealth is currently spent on counter-terrorism
and intelligence and that this is to rise to £3.5 billion
by 2011 (p27). We urge that a significant proportion of this
expenditure is dedicated to improving relations with, and helping
to integrate, the Muslim community.
We further recommend that a substantial proportion
of defence expenditure be focussed on increasing the intrapersonal
and interpersonal skills of all military personnel to increase
effectiveness in winning hearts and minds, including violence
prevention, conflict management, community building, and humanitarian
professionalism such as rescue and infrastructure restoration.
15. The Security Strategy Paper claims
that the only threat the UK faces at the present time is the terrorist
threat. This being the case the massive expenditure of the citizens
money by this government seems wildly out of proportion. The paper
mentions a new generation of Typhoon fast jets at £50 million
each and the new Type 45 destroyers at £1 billion
(p46) each. We can add to this an estimated total cost for replacing
the Trident fleet of nuclear submarines of £70 billion,
the new Armed Forces Academy planned in South Wales at £14 billion,
two new aircraft carriers with their support vessels and aircraft
add many more billions, and so on. All this vast expenditure on
weapons of war can only increase pressure for proliferation in
countries that feel threatened. And all this is in the face of
the fact that the worst recent terrorist attack on the UK mainland
resulted in the death of 52 people.
16. Clearly the existence of our nuclear
arsenal and much of our huge expenditure on armaments, which contribute
to the tendency towards proliferation, are not relevant to the
elimination of terrorism.
We recommend that the government considers diverting
some of its expenditure on "The War On Terror" and re-scheduling
it to building alternative energy facilities in addition to the
other recommendations in Para. 14 above.
THE CITIZENS
OF THE
UNITED KINGDOM
17. We note that nowhere in the National
Security Strategy Paper is there any mention of eliciting
the views of the citizens of the UK regarding what measures they
want taken to protect their security with respect to the
threat of nuclear weapons proliferation. Nor does there appear
to be any plan put forward for an on-going dialogue with the citizenry
and NGOs—nor does there appear to be any plan to discover
whether or not the population of the UK wants our nuclear arsenals
to be retained. We consider these grave omissions.
18. The citizens of the world do not want
nuclear weapons. Of the 192 states of the United Nations
only eight have developed nuclear weapons. The remaining 184 states
are put at risk by the eight who have them. Of the eight states
that have developed these weapons, in no case has the populations
of those states been asked if they want them.
We recommend that the National Security Strategy
be worked out in consultation with the citizens of the Nation.
22 September 2008
| 
