Kate Hudson | ukwatch.net

NATO Briefing

tim — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:13:02 +0000

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was founded in 1949, as a defensive organisation, in the early years of the Cold War. Its initial members were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United States. The Warsaw Pact was founded in response, by the then Soviet Union and its allies, in 1955. In the 1950s, Greece, Turkey and West Germany joined, followed by Spain in 1982.

At the end of the Cold War, the Warsaw Pact was dissolved, but NATO was not. With the disappearance of one superpower, the other did not just fade away and allow a harmonious world to emerge – as we were promised at the time. The US moved to fill the positions vacated by its previous rival. Nowhere is that more clearly demonstrated than with the expansion of NATO.

As the countries of eastern Europe embraced free market economics and multiparty democracy, the US moved rapidly to integrate them into the US sphere of influence via NATO. This was an effective strategy – remember the ‘new Europe’ issue at the time of the war on Iraq – with Poland vigorously backing the US, against the ‘old Europe’ of Germany and France. The first steps towards full-membership were taken via the Partnerships for Peace programme from 1994.

In March 1999, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic were all admitted to full membership. Ten days later they found themselves at war with their neighbour Yugoslavia, as part of NATO’s illegal bombing campaign. But the change at that time was not limited to NATO expansion. At NATO’s fiftieth anniversary conference in Washington in April 1999, a new ‘Strategic Concept’, was adopted. This moved beyond NATO’s previous defensive role to include ‘out of area’ – in other words offensive – operations. The geographical area for action was now defined as the entire Eurasian landmass.

In March 2004, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania were admitted to NATO – not only former Warsaw Pact members, but also former Soviet republics. This has contributed to international tension as Russia sees itself being surrounded by US and NATO bases, including in the Balkans, the Middle East and central Asia.

Over the last few years, the US drive for global domination has become increasingly active in military terms. NATO has become a vehicle for this process, in particular with the war on Afghanistan. This has been a NATO-led war since 2003, when NATO assumed control of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), established in 2002. By May 2008, there were around 47,000 troops from 40 countries in Afghanistan under the auspices of ISAF, with NATO members providing the core of the force.

Recently, the US has turned its sights on the strategic area of the Black Sea and south-western Asia. This region is very significant in terms of energy production and transportation. The US backed the change of government in Georgia in 2003, which has led to an increasing pro-western orientation. In 2005, Georgia joined NATO’s Partnership for Peace scheme, and Georgia signed an agreement supporting and aiding transit of NATO forces and NATO personnel.

At the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008, Albania and Croatia were invited to join. President Bush called for Georgia to be allowed to join the membership Action Plan, which is the next stage towards full membership. This was rejected due to opposition from several countries, led by Germany and France. But Georgia was assured in a special communique that it would eventually join NATO and a review of the deision has been pledged for December 2008.

NATO is also a nuclear-armed alliance, and US nuclear weapons are stationed in five countries across Europe. There is strong campaigning opposition to the nuclear weapons in those countries. NATO also has a nuclear ‘first use’ policy. This is exceptionally dangerous, particularly at a time of global instability where we are entering a new Cold War.

Further expansion of NATO, to include former Soviet republics like Georgia and the Ukraine, must not take place. Such a step, taken together with the development of the US Missile Defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic, would be highly provocative and destabilsing. We do not want a new world order based on NATO aggression, pursuing the US military agenda.

Boris Johnson pulls out of Mayors for Peace

Ellie Keen — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:43:21 +0000

Last month, Boris Johnson announced the withdrawal of London’s membership of the global ‘Mayors for Peace’ initiative. This was founded by the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1982, in an effort to prevent any other city going through similar suffering.

In 1945, atom bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US air force, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the devastating consequences of radiation poisoning affecting subsequent generations. Since that time, mayors of those cities have felt a responsibility to make sure people understand the consequences: ‘to prevent any repetition of the A-bomb tragedy, the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have continually sought to tell the world about the inhumane cruelty of nuclear weapons and have consistently urged that nuclear weapons be abolished.’

Mayors for Peace is hardly an extremist organisation. There are currently 2,277 member cities in 129 countries, including Paris, Berlin, Rome, Ottawa, Los Angeles and Sydney. Members are drawn from across the political spectrum. Tadatoshi Akiba, the Mayor of Hiroshima, believes that the role of city mayors in raising awareness of nuclear weapons is key, given that cities are the targets of nuclear weapons.

We were aware when Boris Johnson was elected that he supported Britain’s nuclear weapons system Trident, as well as the war on Iraq, but there is no reason for him to reject participation in an international body committed to the global abolition of nuclear weapons.

Every Conservative government has supported Britain’s participation in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the goal of which is global nuclear disarmament. This decision suggests that Boris Johnson is retreating from that common goal.

This decision is insulting to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the work of their mayors for global peace, and goes against the views of the majority of the British people, who support global nuclear disarmament.

So why has Boris Johnson pulled out? Does he have no concern for peace? Mayors for Peace was established so that cities and their residents need no longer fear nuclear annihilation — that cities should no longer be the targets of nuclear weapons. Is Boris Johnson giving up on that goal?

Johnson’s approach is in marked contrast to that of the former mayor, Ken Livingstone. Ken is a strong supporter of the peace movement and was a staunch ally during his terms in office and his moral commitment to peace and disarmament helped to work towards a culture of peace in London. This was demonstrated in many ways, not only on the nuclear issue, but also on the anti-war issue and — drawing this more widely — on building constructive and harmonious relationships between London’s many communities. In all of these areas, I believe he was in line with the majority opinions of London’s residents and working in their best interests. As Tadatoshi Akiba says, it is the residents of cities that suffer most in war.

In very stark contrast recently, was the different experiences of the two visits of President Bush, firstly in 2003, and secondly just a few weeks ago. In 2003, Mayor Livingstone supported our protests against Bush’s visit, and he welcomed the disabled US Vietnam veteran Ron Kovic to City Hall, to pay tribute to his work for peace. Our rally and demonstration proceeded peacefully and unimpeded. During Bush’s recent visit, the anti-war movement was prevented from demonstrating in Whitehall — signalling unnecessary restrictions on our right to protest — and a number of protestors were on the receiving end of police brutality. It is to be hoped that these incidents are not symptomatic of a new attitude in London, contemptuous of those who struggle for peace and disarmament, and cavalier with our right to peaceful protest.

Safety Crisis at Nuclear Bomb Factory

Ellie Keen — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:46:14 +0000

Some rather shocking news has emerged. Britain’s Atomic Weapons Establishment has just had to admit that it stopped ‘live nuclear work’ at its Burghfield plant last December owing to safety problems. Reported by the Scottish Sunday Herald at the weekend, this is apparently the first time that the MoD has ever had to stop working on nuclear weapons.

The Burghfield factory is located close to Aldermaston in Berkshire.

Six years ago, the government’s Nuclear Installations Inspectorate discovered over 1,000 saftey flaws. Since then, the AWE management has failed to deal with the problems, hence the shut down of the problem sector. Last year, documents released under freedom of information law showed that the NII was concerned about a huge range of problems.

AWE missed a number of NII deadlines to remedy the problems, but the MoD allowed them to go ahead with regular work anyway, deeming it to be too necessary to disrupt. But AWE was so slow that in the end the MoD had to call a halt.

According to a recent NII report, “AWE has agreed that no live nuclear work will be carried out until the necessary fixes are in place.”
But Burghfield isn’t the only offender. The report also showed that Aldermaston was included in the inspection process toward the end of last year. Of 59 inspections made, in only two instances were the facilities found to be “good”, 43 were deemed “adequate” and 14 “had potential improvements identified”.

So not only are our nuclear weapons illegal, immoral, a waste of money and utterly useless in meeting any real security needs, we now know their production facilities are dangerous, poorly maintained, and a risk to the workforce and the population as a whole.
What is the government thinking of? Time to disarm.

CND says No New Nukes

Ellie Keen — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 12:33:48 +0000

Just one year since the huge backbench rebellion on Trident replacement, we have seen the largest protest at Aldermaston for two decades. Five thousand protesters converged on the Atomic Weapons Establishment, marking the 50th anniversary of the first Aldermaston march in 1958. But more importantly, we were protesting about what is taking place there now.

The government is currently pursuing massive redevelopment of Britain’s nuclear bomb factory. The scale of building works, investment and recruitment taking place make it inconceivable that these are just routine improvements to facilitate ongoing work. It is clear that this work — which includes supercomputer and laser facilities which can simulate nuclear weapons testing — is for the development and manufacture of a new nuclear warhead.

But Parliament has not yet made a decision to endorse such a development. In March 2007, Parliament agreed to proceed with the ‘concept phase’ of a Trident submarine replacement — no more than that. In the 2006 White Paper on the nuclear weapons system, it was made clear that a decision on a future warhead would be taken in the next Parliament. We have not yet reached that point, and no decision has yet been taken.

It would seem that the government has made a pre-emptive decision with its £5 billion spending on Aldermaston, and the work going on there, on the scale of Heathrow Terminal Five.

This continuing development is just one side of the contradictory approach which the government has pursued over nuclear weapons during the past year.

Some of what has happened has been positive. There has been an interesting shift by the government on multilateral initiatives for nuclear disarmament. On several occasions, there have been high level statements indicating that steps need to be taken. And crucially, the government has now recognised that there is a link between the failure of the nuclear weapons states to meet their disarmament obligations, under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and an increased likelihood of nuclear proliferation. In other words, disarmament and non-proliferation must go hand in hand. This was something that Blair refused to admit, somehow trying to argue that we are entitled to have nuclear weapons.

Recently, Defence Secretary Des Browne has announced that Britain intends to host a summit for nuclear weapons states, to discuss decommissioning nuclear weapons. This is a welcome initiative.

But if Britain is serious about contributing to global nuclear disarmament, it cannot say one thing and do another. A halt must be called to the Trident developments — both submarines and warheads. That will be a real indication of good faith to the international community, and will help support any initiatives towards multilateral negotiations.

Chain Reaction

Alex Doherty — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:13:56 +0000

New information is coming through thick and fast to suggest that the government is making a big mistake in pushing ahead with a vote on Trident replacement next Wednesday.

Two new sources back up this view.

Firstly, the recent Populus poll commissioned by More 4. 48% of those polled think we should get rid of nuclear weapons. A further 24% do not think we should commit now to having new nuclear weapons in 20 years time. That is a total of 72% that do not back the government’s determination to press ahead now with a replacement for the Trident nuclear weapons system. The public is not on the government’s side.

Secondly, the report published by the defence committee on 7 March. The committee has held a series of Inquiries over the past year into all aspects of replacing Trident. The committee’s report is a rigorous interrogation of all the issues: the strategic security context, legal aspects, jobs and the manufacturing base, procurement issues, costs and much more. Through its detailed investigations, the report exposes the casual assertions and assumptions of the government’s white paper.

The report does not come down for or against replacement, but crucially, it issues a number of very specific instructions and questions for the government, which need to be addressed before the vote. Many of these are far-ranging in their scope and implications – not only for Britain, but for global stability: what does the government mean by deterrence in today’s strategic environment? How does it calculate a “minimum deterrent”? Will Britain’s ambiguity about the exact circumstances in which it might use its nuclear weapons lead to a lowering of the nuclear threshold? How are the UK’s nuclear forces integrated into the nuclear defence of Nato and what are the implications of the Alliance’s first use policy for Britain’s nuclear weapons? How will the government give new momentum to what are widely perceived to be stalled non-proliferation treaty discussions? How much will the system really cost, and where will the money come from?

Will the government be able to give satisfactory answers to these and the many other questions before next Wednesday? It seems unlikely.

But it is not only from within British domestic opinion that concerns are raised about the impact of Britain’s potential rearmament. In a letter to the Times on Thursday, Mikhail Gorbachev – who together with Ronald Reagan was responsible for massive levels of nuclear disarmament in the 1980s – stated: “The UK government’s rush to deploy nuclear missiles whose service life would extend until 2050 is, to say the least, astonishing.” He suggests that a responsible course of action would be to postpone the decision on the future of the UK nuclear arsenal “at least until the next review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty” in 2010.

A couple of weeks ago, Dr El Baradei from the IAEA stated that Britain cannot “modernise its Trident submarines and then tell everyone else that nuclear weapons are not needed in the future”.

In a tense global situation, exacerbated by recent tendencies towards pre-emptive war, for Britain to rearm – when we face no nuclear superpower threats – is to contribute to a new nuclear arms race. And to say that we need nuclear weapons for our security will only encourage others to come to the same conclusion too – we will ourselves encourage nuclear proliferation.

In the interests of Britain’s security – and of global stability and non-proliferation – a decision not to replace Trident is essential. In the interests of democracy and accountability, it is vital that the government pulls back from a railroaded decision next Wednesday, and allows time for full consultation and consideration of all the issues. All our futures may depend on it.

Trident Replacement

Alex Doherty — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:09:31 +0000

Hard on the heels of Gordon Brown’s pro-Trident replacement statement last week, the prime minister has announced that the decision on replacing the weapon will be taken later this year. With both absolutely committed to the nuclear option, they clearly have every intention of driving the policy through without the debate promised by John Reid last September. This approach, echoing the behind-closed-doors nature of previous decisions, has incensed both politicians and the public.

Today the Commons defence committee weighs in, demanding the promised full public and parliamentary debate. The report of its first inquiry looking into the strategic context of a possible Trident replacement bristles with rage at the government. It inveighs against the Ministry of Defence’s refusal to give evidence. The report lists the occasions when the government stated there would be the fullest possible parliamentary debate, and when the MoD asserted that ministers “have not yet begun to consider the range of options that might be available”. The latter point was reiterated in parliament only three months ago so it is hard to see how ministers have had time to consider all the options without any discussion having taken place.

The committee has also indicated that it will be making a series of inquiries that are certain to be timetabled beyond the end of this year. Will the government disregard this process? The government has also talked about publishing a white paper on the issue. But when will the consultation – and the debate on that take place, if the decision is to be made by the end of the year?

There is much to be commended in the committee’s report. The abolition of nuclear weapons is put forward as an option for consideration. It questions the purpose of nuclear weapons in the context of current security threats, such as terrorism, against which they are widely regarded as being useless. It questions the notion that having nuclear weapons enhances Britain’s international status.

It considers the supposed independence of Trident, and states that public debate over the future of the system should address “the operational and diplomatic impact of any potential dependency on the United States of any future UK nuclear deterrent”. This is a matter of great significance given the long-standing mutual defence agreement between the US and UK, the world’s most comprehensive nuclear sharing agreement, which is widely believed to underpin Britain’s close foreign policy relationship with the US. This relationship has most recently taken us into the illegal war on Iraq. On the question of future threats – used by Reid as a justification for advocating a replacement – the report calls upon the MoD to “consider publicly” how threats may evolve in the future and to “say clearly” whether it believes in nuclear weapons “as an insurance policy”.

Absent from the report is any discussion of the international treaty context, and Britain’s obligations to disarm under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This, we were assured, is because the remit of the defence committee is procurement issues, whereas treaty compliance falls within that of the foreign affairs committee. So far, my written request to Margaret Beckett for a meeting to discuss this matter has had no reply.

It can only be hoped that this report, added to widespread public and parliamentary pressure, will enable an outbreak of democracy to take place. In a recent ICM poll commissioned by CND, 81% said that they thought the decision should be made by parliament. Only 10% thought it should be made by the prime minister. On that issue, Tony Blair has refused to be drawn.

__Kate Hudson is chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament cnduk.org __

Nuclear Hypocrisy

eddie — Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:22:32 +0000

Attempts by John Bolton, the new US ambassador to the UN, to strip nuclear disarmament out of the draft document for this month’s UN summit, comes as no surprise. It’s just the latest in a series of efforts by the US to change the international framework on non-proliferation. These are part of the US’s increasingly aggressive foreign policy, manifested not only in the illegal war on Iraq but in contempt for international law and multilateral treaty frameworks.

For decades, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation have been linked through the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Nuclear weapons states have agreed to get rid of their arsenals, while in return non-nuclear weapons states have committed not to develop nuclear weapons. In recent years the US has sought to sideline or overturn the disarmament requirement, focusing on preventing more countries acquiring nuclear weapons. The US seeks to reinterpret the NPT as legitimising the possession of weapons by existing nuclear states, while using it as the justification for confrontation with states accused of proliferation.
It is not widely understood how strongly other nations feel, both about the need for nuclear disarmament and the hypocrisy of the nuclear states and their attitude of do-what-we-say-not-as-we-do. Many believe this is the type of approach that will lead other countries to proliferate. In Britain pressure for nuclear disarmament is often portrayed as an eccentric activity confined to campaigning organisations; but elsewhere in the world it is viewed not only as a treaty obligation that must be fulfilled but also, literally, as a matter of life and death.

This is ever more apparent as the US embraces the notion of “useable” nuclear weapons and the development of new weapons for use, even against non-nuclear weapons states. These are frightening developments that increase desires internationally for nuclear disarmament.

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty originated in enormous international pressure from the non-nuclear weapons states. It was made stronger in 2000 through efforts by states pressing for movement after 30 years of hollow promises. The world court in 1996 called for nuclear disarmament obligations to be met, as did the UN high level panel.

Britain’s attitude towards nuclear disarmament is shameful and flies in the face of demand for treaty compliance. It has made no progress on disarmament – despite government claims that getting rid of old systems and replacing them with more powerful ones is somehow a form of disarmament.

The Trident system will reach the end of its lifespan in the 2020s and a decision on replacement will have to be taken in this parliament. Reports suggest that a decision to replace it has already been taken, although the government denies this. No parliamentary debate has yet taken place. But what is the likely outcome? In April the prime minister stated: “We’ve got to retain our nuclear deterrent …” This suggests that a Trident replacement is a foregone conclusion.

But his answer raises questions. Who exactly are we deterring? Of all the threats Britain faces, how many would be addressed by spending more than £15bn on a supposed nuclear deterrent? So should we assume that Tony Blair is living in a past of predictable super-power relationships and has not realised how the world has changed? No, this is clearly not the case.

A look at replacement options reveals his appeal to the familiar deterrent rhetoric as disingenuous in the extreme. The delivery system is likely to be a multi-role submarine which can carry both conventional and nuclear missiles. The warheads may well be a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons for use on the battlefield, or so-called bunker-busters, designed to hit deeply buried facilities.

The consequences of either of these weapons would be catastrophic. Far from wanting to maintain an unusable so-called deterrent, the government is going down the US path – developing new nuclear weapons for potential use.

Britain’s empty phrases in support of the NPT mean nothing when massive building work progresses apace at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, preparing for these new developments. But there is another option for a British government committed to international law and compliance with its treaty obligations, as desired by the vast majority of the international community. There is the option not to replace Trident.

Kate Hudson is the chair of CND. CND website: www.cnduk.org