WMD: Undermining international peace
In the defence debate a year ago I started my speech by saying "There appears to be a reluctance to debate nuclear weapons.." (Official Report, 16 October 2003 : Column 295)
I was wrong, and for that I want to say sorry. But the debate over nuclear weapons has been over the mythical Iraqi nuclear weapons of mass destruction. There remains a reluctance to debate our own real and deadly nuclear WMD - Trident - dubbed the £15 billion mass killer. Or the tens of thousands of nuclear WMD deployed by the United States and Russia. Or the 200 nuclear WMD deployed by Israel - as the only nuclear power in the middle east tinder box. And in raising that a year ago I was right.
I make no apology for returning to this important issue today. In several debates on defence I have asked ministers which country or countries they are defending us against with nuclear weapons. Not one minister has been prepared to say. But oddly ministers say they would be willing to press the nuclear button. The present Defence Secretary admitted to me two and a half years ago:
"The United Kingdom would, in the right conditions, in extreme circumstances of self-defence, be prepared to use nuclear weapons."-[Official Report, 10 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 30W.] I repeat: sadly, it is clear that the leadership of the two major political parties in the House are prepared to commit mass murder with our nuclear weapons of mass destruction. That is chilling. Just as in the case of the reasons ministers give for invading Iraq, the
justifications for Britain keeping its nuclear WMD change continuously, as the stated reasons are one-by-one challenged, and become indefensible.
The latest nuclear WMD justification was put in response to a question from my Rt.Hon Friend, the member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) last month by Foreign Office minister Mr MacShane, who said "Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), five states-the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Russia and China-are legally entitled to possess nuclear weapons." (Official Report, 1 Sept 2004, c. 689) The problem with this statement is it is untrue. The minister conflated the definition of a nuclear weapons state under the NPT, with their legality, on
which the NPT is clear Under the NPT, article nine (IX) paragraph 3 it states:
"For the purposes of this Treaty, a Nuclear Weapon State is one which has manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to 1 January, 1967."
This defines a nuclear weapons state, but does not make legal our continued possession of nuclear WMD.
In fact, as ministers well know, the NPT explicitly requires our nuclear WMD to be negotiated away under article six (V1) which says:
"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and
complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
It was a Labour Government in the late 1960s that negotiated the wording of this Treaty.
Yet the Secretary of State for Defence admitted earlier this year - as I pointed out in my adjournment debate on the Nuclear Global Threat on 16 March - that
"Negotiations to implement Article VI have not yet commenced and are not
scheduled."[Official Report, 26 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 498W.]
And six months on that remains the case.
In refusing to negotiate away our nuclear weapons this country remains in breach of United Nations resolutions dating back to 1968. Yet Iraq was illegally invaded on the pretext of being in breach of UN resolutions since
1991.
Next spring at the United Nations the NPT comes up for review. It is certain many nations will rightly press the nuclear weapons states to explain their own inaction in carrying out nuclear disarmament, when two members of the United Nations Security Council - that is the UK and the United States - which bristle with their own nuclear WMD, prosecuted an invasion of Iraq - to disarm that country of nuclear weapons it never possessed.
But not only does the UK not participate in nuclear disarmament, ministers are planning to escalate the nuclear arms race, with their intention to extend for another 10 years the bilateral agreement with the United States
that allowed the purchase of Trident, and the continued nuclear weapons co-operation with the Americans.
I objected to this in EDM 1407 - which I tabled on 24 June on the 'US-UK Mutual Defense Agreement renewal and the NPT'.
[That this House notes the proposed 10-year extension to the 1958 United Kingdom-United States Agreement for Cooperation on the uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence purposes, as amended, suggested in Cm 6261 as presented to Parliament on 21st June; believes that the extension of this bilateral treaty undermines United Kingdom and United States' commitments under Article 1 of the 1968 Nucelar Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), for which they are depository states, which states each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; is concerned that the Government does not see a potential conflict of interest between the MDA and the United Kingdom commitment to the NPT as stated by Lord Bach in the House of Lords on 22nd June, at column 1119; recalls the comment by the NPT review conference, Main Committee on 8th May 1995 that among states parties there are variations in the interpretation of certain aspects of Articles I and II which need clarification, especially regarding the obligations of nuclear-weapon states parties among themselves... which may have resulted in transfer of nuclear weapons in violation of the spirit and objective of [NPT] Article I; and therefore calls for a debate in Government time in advance of possible ratification of the treaty, as amended. Britain also remains in breach of Article I of the treaty, which requires that each party "undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly."]
These plans for the escalation of our nuclear WMD will rightly be condemned for the hypocrisy it is by many of the 200 or so NPT member states attending the Review Conference next year.
International lawyers at Matrix Chambers (of which the Prime Minister's wife is a member) in London have examined the text of the 1958 US/UK Mutual Defense Agreement in relation to the text of the NPT, which was drawn up 10 years later, and have concluded in a recent report that the bilateral nuclear pact with the US is a breach of the NPT.
As I have pointed before, the Trident nuclear WMD system was bought from the US, its warheads tested in the US, which also provides targeting technology and command and control support, by any independent judgment constitutes indirect support of nuclear weapons of mass destruction by one state from another, which is not permitted under Article 1 of the NPT.
Yet Lord Bach, the defence minister, told peers in the Other Place on June 22:
"The United Kingdom remains fully committed to the NPT in its entirety. Movements under the MDA [Mutual Defense Agreement] do not involve nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices; hence they do not contravene the treaty."
While this self-serving attitude prevails, the UK and US are in no position to lecture other states against nuclear proliferation - let alone take the lead in counter-proliferation, as the Prime minister said was his aim in
his evidence to the Liaison Committee in Parliament on 6th July this year.
Meanwhile, having invaded Iraq, the United States is now threatening its neighbour Iran, over Iran's atomic aspirations.
But as a detailed article on nuclear proliferation in the Financial Times on 9 September pointed out, doubts persist over Iran's true intentions regarding its nuclear programme, but inspections have not brought proof that
the Iranian regime has military intentions.
Yet John Bolton, President Bush's hawkish Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security at the State Department, wrote another article two days earlier in the Financial Times - titled 'An all-out war on
proliferation'- in which he rattled the cage for invasion of Iran.
He wrote in chilling words:
"The Bush administration is reinventing the non-proliferation regime it inherited, crafting policies to fill gaping holes, reinforcing earlier patchwork fixes, assembling allies, creating precedents and changing perceived realities and stilted legal thinking. The frontlines in our non-proliferation strategy must extend beyond the well-known rogue states to the trade routes and entities engaged in supplying proliferant countries."
He concluded:
"We are just at the beginning, but it is an extraordinary beginning. Not only are we meeting this ultimate of threats on the field, we are advancing on it, battling not only aggressively, but successfully. And so we must, for
the outcome of this battle may hold nothing less than the chance to survive."
So it is clear that despite being illegal under the UN Charter, the US is prepared to implement "Regime Change" wherever and when ever it chooses.
I am saddened that our own Prime Minister was prepared to go along with Regime Change in Iraq, despite all the opposition, including from within the Cabinet and Foreign Office legal advisors, some of whom have resigned over
the issue; as, for the same reason, did a senior British diplomat at the United Nations, who handled Iraq affairs for the UK in New York up to last month.
Will the minister now say whether he agrees that regime change is illegal?
I was told in a written reply earlier this month by Foreign Office minister Mr MacShane that "Issues of compliance with the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) form an integral part of our dialogue with a number of overnments and other bodies...."
And he added that the Foreign Secretary
"...is confident that the United Kingdom continues to fulfil all of its obligations under Articles I and VI of the Treaty." (Official Report, 4 October, column 1839W ) I doubt many NPT member states will agree with him. It is not diplomatically credible to say to other countries
"Do as we say, not as we do" when it comes to nuclear WMD. Fingers will rightly be pointed at us at the NPT review in New York next spring.
Luckily, there is a positive motion, put forward on 8 October to the United Nations Disarmament Committee by the New Agenda Coalition of countries including Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, and
Sweden entitled: 'Towards a nuclear-weapon free world: Accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments' These countries express their "grave concern at the danger to humanity posed by the possibility that nuclear weapons could be used and at the lack of implementation of binding obligations and agreed steps toward nuclear disarmament and reaffirming that nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation are mutually reinforcing processes requiring urgent irreversible progress on both fronts"
Will ministers support this resolution at the United Nations? Having been so discredited at the UN over their false claims of Iraq's mythical nuclear WMD, the least they could do is to support something positive to rid the world of our own nuclear WMD. Will they grasp the nettle, an d recover some of our lost international credibility in peace and disarmament? I hope so.
|
