Opinion: Conference delegates should vote for 'No new Trident'

12.30.00pm GMT Thu 15th Feb 2007

Colin and Sean ringing the Peace Bell in Hiroshima

Rob Fenwick of libdemvoice.org asked me to write an opinion piece for the site. Below is what I wrote.

Conference delegates should vote for 'No new Trident'

To me the answer is simple - the answer is no. No to Trident, No to son of Trident and No to any so called Independent Nuclear Deterrent.

Last year I went on behalf of the party to Pakistan and tried to engage with politicians there as to why it was wrong for Iran or any other nation to develop nuclear weapons and why Pakistan should pull back from developing more nuclear weapons. What message does our policy send to them - that it is okay for the UK to have nuclear weapons but you can't?

Last year I also went to Hiroshima. I challenge anyone who is in favour of the UK, or anywhere, having nuclear weapons to go there for a day. See what destruction they caused and come back and tell me it is a good idea. The Mayor of Hiroshima - Tadatoshi Akiba has written to Ming Campbell, he said "In the name of Hiroshima, in the name of the human race, I call on the British government to immediately terminate all new development of nuclear weapons and begin destroying all existing nuclear weapons. I ask that the United Kingdom adhere conscientiously to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice declaring that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is illegal under international law, and live up to the promise clearly stated in the NPT of an unequivocal undertaking to eliminate its nuclear arsenal. I fervently hope that Great Britain will take the lead in making the 21st a genuinely peaceful century free from nuclear weapons." The full text of the letter is at http://www.colin-ross.org.uk/news/001093.html

The Mayor of Hiroshima summarised in his letter the overwhelming moral and legal case against nuclear weapons, but there are many other arguments. www.nonewtrident.org.uk outlines seven other arguments - the ethical argument, the environmental argument, the non-proliferation argument, the military/strategic argument, the independence argument, the insurance argument and the financial argument. I want to look mainly at the deterrence argument and then look at why we should make this decision now rather than try to ignore it for now.

Trident as a nuclear deterrent doesn't work.

We are told Trident is needed as a deterrent, although the Party when it announced the motion couldn't identify who we are trying to deter. In the past, during the Cold War there was an obvious threat, now there is not. Whatever the arguments about deterrents in the Cold War (and its worth remembering that none of the countries without nuclear weapons did not suffer attacks then either), the days of two nuclear power blocks facing off against each other are in the past, there is no such threat today. Having Trident has not deterred other countries from developing their own nuclear weapons.

The UK, and the USA have both, of course, been attacked despite having nuclear weapons - both have been attacked by terrorists - Trident could not be used against the terrorists as they were not based in one country, one city or one place and if you can't use Trident when you have been attacked what's the point? One retired general summarised Trident as: "useless, expensive and dangerous".

Why now?

The Liberal Democrats need to wake up to realpolitik of the situation. Although Trident does not need to be replaced for 15-20 years, Blair has decided that a decision is going to be taken in the Parliament. Can the Liberal Democrats really get up in Parliament and say "actually we will vote later on this matter?" I don't think so. We should be bold and make a decision now or else we run the risk of missing the national debate altogether.

Proponents of the motion have also argued that if we were to not replace Trident we would lose our place at the negotiating table. Well surely it's to be leading by example, as the Mayor of Hiroshima urges us to. We could still have a say even if we have no nuclear weapons - only two of the EU3 dealing with Iran over their nuclear development have weapons and of course we are a permanent member of the UN Security Council - we will still have a voice with or without Trident.

The Conference debate should be good, I look forward to it. I will be supporting the amendment to not renew Trident and hope you will be able to too.