Labour risks being left behind on nuclear disarmament

September 30, 2012 11:40 am

Labour risks being left behind on nuclear disarmament as recent media coverage reports that senior government figures and serving military officers are willing to reconsider and downgrade the nuclear weapon system being designed to replace Trident.

At the Liberal Democrat conference, former defence minister Nick Harvey – who had led the government’s Trident Alternatives Review while at the MoD – warned of a ‘perfect storm’ of defence expenditure in the next ten years, as Trident replacement submarines compete with other major spending projects. One general who spoke to the Independent said, ‘in terms of pure defence we must explore whether the money spent on Trident can’t be spent better elsewhere’.

Whilst many on the left want to scrap nuclear weapons altogether, the Trident Alternatives Review was established to consider only alternative nuclear delivery platforms and postures. Responsibility for that is now handed to Danny Alexander but interestingly, before becoming a Minister, Alexander asserted his view in Parliament that a genuine review of Trident needed to look at non-nuclear policy options. Similarly, in discussing the Strategic Defence and Security Review during the 2010 leadership election, Ed Miliband rightly said that everything – including Trident – should be up for consideration. With serving officers now questioning whether Trident is the best use of resources for national security, Labour should reopen the debate on the retention of any nuclear weapons.

The National Policy Forum report to Labour’s Annual Conference next week does actually reflect the party’s desire for a debate, which is a step forward. But the Britain in the World Commission says it will wait until the Trident Review reports before it next discusses the issue. As Jon Lansman explains in detail on Left Futures, despite obvious clamour amongst the National Policy Forum delegates meeting in June to initiate a full debate within the party on Trident, the Report to conference states ‘further discussions would take place… after the Government have published their findings of the Trident Alternatives Review’!  Why should Labour tail behind the Lib Dems and wait on their Review’s outcomes? In any case this might be hard to achieve because there is no commitment to full publication of the Review.

Activists are tired of such methods being used to shut down debate. Labour Party conference was prevented from debating Trident in 2006 when contemporary resolutions submitted on Trident were ruled out of order because the NPF report referred to the subject. However the report that year actually said, ‘The question of the replacement for the Trident system is one of central importance to our future defence and security requirements and we have said that there should be a full debate on the issue, including the publication of a government white paper.’ Months later – before any realistic prospect of a ‘full debate’ within the party, Tony Blair relied on Cameron’s support to win the vote, as he suffered one of his biggest backbench rebellions: nearly 100 Labour MPs rebelled on replacing Trident. It was a key illustration of the membership being ignored.

There should be no attempt to delay the debate on whether the next Labour Government should continue to back Britain’s possession of nuclear weapons. While welcoming its contribution to the debate, Labour should not be forced into the narrow framework of the Trident Alternatives Review.

Labour should be bold in rejecting Cold War nuclear weapons – most countries do perfectly well without – and instead address real security concerns. We should revive support for a Nuclear Weapons Convention (which Robin Cook endorsed as Shadow Foreign Secretary) which provides a pathway to global abolition of nuclear weapons.

Given the widespread demand for a nuclear weapons free world, and the urgent need for the party to make clear choices about its spending priorities when next in government, the choice for Labour is clear. Scrapping Trident should be next Labour Government’s contribution to progress on global disarmament.

The party cannot delay this discussion.

  • TomFairfax

     Given that neither the Lib-Dems or Conservatives are proposing to go non-nuclear, merely to look at a more flexible and cheaper alternative to an SSBN squadron it’s difficult to see where we are being left behind in still proposing to keep some nuclear capability.

    Proposing to scrap Trident without any clear replacement strategy is merely repeating the errors of 1983 all over again by giving the Tories a stick to beat us with.

    However, in an era when even surface vessels are mounted with supposedly Anti-Ballistic Missile systems it’s rather difficult to justify replacing something as expensive as Trident with an updated more expensive version of the same thing.

    Land based US supplied Patriot missiles were shooting down Scuds over twenty years ago. The military problem now is that there is no delivery system that guarantees a hit unless the attacker has the capability to swamp the defences by sheer weight of numbers, or smuggle one in on a lorry or boat pre-emptively.

    Trident is a solution to a problem that no longer exists, but that doesn’t mean a different delivery system is no longer needed to deter someone else. (Suggestions to the MOD on a postcard please.)

    Use of chemical weapons in WW2 was zero because both sides had them, and rather fortunately the German’s hadn’t realised ours weren’t as dangerous. They merely assumed we’d carried on development in the way they had. (It also helped that the German’s didn’t launch Sealion, because almost certainly Churchill would have used ours in that circumstance. Something the German’s weren’t blind to.)

  • uglyfatbloke

    There has been a strong body of opinion in the military for scrapping Trident since before Trident was even invented…in fact there has always been a strong view that there was no value to Britain joining the nuclear powers in any way at all, but both parties have made a point of selecting senior officers who agreed (or who claimed to agree) with the ‘deterrent’ principle. Trident has nothing to do with defence – or even with attack – it is just about politicians feeling important.
    All the parties are being left behind; the debate is long over as far as the public are concerned, but the parties are still talking about it nuclear arms as if they had some utility.

Latest

  • Comment Planning the revolution – Labour and the Spending Review

    Planning the revolution – Labour and the Spending Review

    In four weeks time the Chancellor will announce the results of the 2015 spending Review. There won’t be many winners but some will have lost more than others. Political commentators and discussion forums will pass judgement and public sector managers will, yet again, pick through the debris, making do and mending from what ever they can salvage. Before we get overtaken by the detail we should reflect on the bigger picture. What ever the chancellor says on June 26th it [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment A call for action at the G8

    A call for action at the G8

    In less than a month’s time, the UK hosts the G8 Summit. With hunger, tax, trade and transparency all on the agenda, the UK has a unique opportunity to show global leadership on these issues. The scale of hunger is devastating. There is enough food in the world for everyone, yet 1 billion people still go hungry. 2.3 million children every year die from malnutrition – to put that in perspective, that is around 16,000 children every day. Or one [...]

    Read more →
  • News TUC suggests Football World Cup vote should be re-run – Media roundup: May 24th, 2013

    TUC suggests Football World Cup vote should be re-run – Media roundup: May 24th, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. TUC suggests Football World Cup vote should be re-run “The TUC along with its international equivalent – the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) – is calling on UEFA to address the appalling treatment of workers and players in Qatar and [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured A Northern Tory that Labour should be afraid of

    A Northern Tory that Labour should be afraid of

    The Labour Party spends a great deal of time beating itself up over its performance in Southern England. We know it simply isn’t good enough, but we can’t seem to put our finger on why exactly that’s the case. Is it demographics? No. Culture? Perhaps. Lack of basic party organisation in some areas? It’s certainly a factor. But whilst we’re flagellating ourselves over our inability to perform south of the Watford gap (outside of London), we should remember that the [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Why we love Woolwich

    Why we love Woolwich

    Woolwich is an amazing place. It’s where the Labour party was founded as a mass membership organization. The Woolwich Provident was one of Britain’s first building societies. The Royal Arsenal Coop one of our first cooperative societies. Woolwich had the second Polytechnic in the country, created with the aim of providing education for working adults. Woolwich is my nearest big town centre, where I shop and go to meet friends. In the last few days, for many people, its name [...]

    Read more →