YO.
My apologies for lacking regularity. It’s been a rather busy week. Busy in terms of nuclear news too, so let’s have a little look over.
In terms of weapons-
Gordon Brown has made a distinct commitment to participation in multilateral disarmament talks.
Perhaps a slow clap is in order?
I realise how petty it may seem to quickly dismantle this potentially positive declaration, a fact New Labour have used to undermine their radical factions for years, but tiny piecemeal and tokenistic gestures must be treated as such.
Yes, yes, yes, any move towards disarmament is a good one. Well done Brown, a few less marbles for your catapult and the other kids might follow suit… let’s be clear here, Gordon is talking about reducing the number of missiles per submarine to 12, as apposed to 16, and each missile can carry multiple warheads with around 8 times the explosive capacity of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
Not quite laying down your arms then guys, more just trimming your fingernails.
But I am genuinely glad that its being talked about… as opposed to the dismayingly undemocratic way Blair handled Trident renewal (No Green Paper consultation, false claims of ‘Nothing is ruled in or out’ followed by a detailed White Paper days after, no official parliamentary debate, let alone a public one) hopefully Brown’s statement at least means there’s a chance for discussion.
So why now?
Well perversely, the whole ‘America’s poodle’ insult seems to working in our favour this time, clearly Barack’s commitment to reduction of America’s nuclear arsenal is helping.
Obama has been consistent in a way that makes me genuinely hopeful-
Through the election-
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/16/obama.speech/
To office-
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1873887,00.html
Though as that article will tell you: he faces considerable struggle from the Pentagon, particularly his own defence secretary Robert Gates, who has remained in the post since 2006. Gates has a masters in Soviet history and has masterfully over-emphasised the Soviet threat throughout the last two decades. He also embroiled at the CIA in the Iran-Contra affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair , when weapons were sold for hostages to a few powerful Iranians (It would be interesting to see where they all ended up!). He is committed to a large American nuclear deterrent, but I guess they make you tattoo that to your eyelids when you join the pentagon team.
Also- it’s worth noting that during the presidential nomination campaign Hillary Clinton took a slightly different line on nuclear weapons to Obama…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html
Namely that unlike Obama, she would not rule out the use of nuclear weapons against terrorists in the middle east, a blatantly ridiculous idea considering the potential for civilian death, international disgust, full blown nuclear war and complete lack of success (if we can’t find them on the ground, what good would a nuclear attack do?!).
Clinton is of course now Secretary of State, with all the foreign affairs responsibilities that brings.
They may just be two potentially pro-nuclear US policy-makers, but they are a very powerful two, and there are more. My point being that we should not assume American nuclear disarmament, and the domino affect it has on the rest of the world, is now a closed case.
We need to keep fighting for more, keep pushing for serious steps towards an end to the nuclear age.
Clearly America and Britain want to see this gesture catch on in Moscow, and crucially Iran, Pakistan and India.
But what none of them have managed to do is link a reduction in Nuclear Power to a reduction in Nuclear Weapons, quite the opposite.
The crucial, disastrous, clause in the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty is one of expanding Civil Nuclear Power; particularly that the big nuclear states will not help develop Nuclear Power unless a country adheres to the NPT. This has undoubtedly led to a spread of nuclear materials across the world, becoming even more dangerous when, in 2006, the Bush administration agreed to help fund India’s civil nuclear power program, despite them being one of three countries which refused to sign the NPT.
So as much as it is trumpeted, the NPT is actually fuelling the spread of nuclear materials, and since 2006, has left developing nuclear states with no reason to not develop weapons as well as power.
What will Obama do about that?!
Brown’s speech made clear the link between the two branches of Nuclear Power, but still painted a picture of ‘Atoms for peace’ spreading their gleeful way across the globe, with western nuclear weapon’s states in complete control of technology and fuel. If nuclear power is so separate from nuclear weapons then why won’t the NPT elite relinquish their grip of civil technology?
Because deep down they know that a rise in civil nuclear technology will undoubtedly lead to a rise in nuclear weapons.
So the mood at the moment is one of renewed commitment, ahead of the 2010 NPT talks, to international nuclear disarmament. Brilliant! Let’s seize that. Clearly political and financial circumstance has meant that western powers see now as a good time for a slight reduction in our arsenal.
http://www.cnduk.org/index.php/press-releases/trident/trident-replacement-costs-grow-delivery-date-may-slip-us-missiles-may-not-fit-say-mps.html
Stories like that can make you see why.
People don’t want to see their money wasted on utterly abhorrent ‘deterrents’.
The challenge now is to show the inextricable link between power and weapons, to show how money on civil nuclear ‘solutions’ is wasted too.
Withdrawn investments and lack of government backing are having a hard effect on renewable technologies, whilst Brown sets himself up as a ‘wise purveyor’ of nuclear ‘sense’ – less weapons, more power (an impossible equation) - It’s up to us, the anti-nuclear lobby, to make sure people realise that all nuclear technology is toxic, corporate and disastrous for both people and planet.
