Can David Miliband find a cure for nuclear weapons addiction?
Foreign Secretary David Miliband gave a speech today in London outlining a new '6 step programme' for creating a world free of nuclear weapons. His speech was largely a response to pressure created by recent high-profile campaigns emerging from the US, which have been calling for step by step progress towards the ultimate abolition of the world's nuclear arsenals.
Getting rid of the bomb? Sounds like radical stuff, but what's particularly radical is who is behind these campaigns. Not your 'usual suspect' peaceniks, but rather some of the biggest names in international diplomacy, who have come together to demand action on global security because they see the spread of nuclear weapons as the biggest threat to our immediate future.
Their first statement came in January 2008, when 17 former US secretaries of state and defence, led by former arch-hawks Henry Kissinger and George Shulz, warned in a Wall Street Journal article that:
The accelerating spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear know-how and nuclear material has brought us to a nuclear tipping point. We face a very real possibility that the deadliest weapons ever invented could fall into dangerous hands.
The interview describes a vision of a world free of nuclear weapons, and discusses how it might be achieved. In it Kissinger and Shulz argued that the Cold War scenario which saw massive US and Soviet nuclear stockpiles acting as a deterrent against a missile attack by either side is no longer relevant. Instead, what's needed to improve security is a series of steps that lead to nuclear weapons abolition.
"Blowing billions on replacing a cold war relic like Trident is insane.
It undermines efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons and totally ignores
the fact that the greatest long term security threat we face is climate
change."
John Sauven, Director, Greenpeace UK
This initiative has been growing steadily in the US, with more and more senators and diplomats signing up in support. On taking office President Obama immediately pledged to move towards a "nuclear free world" through bilateral and multilateral disarmament - including "dramatic reductions in US and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material." He's also indicated that development work on new nuclear weapons will be stopped.
The end of 2008 saw the launch of Global Zero - an international initiative by100 political, military, business, faith and civic leaders from across political lines. It aims to develop a step-by-step policy plan for the phased elimination of nuclear weapons and has the support of people like ex-Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev and Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Here at home anti-nuclear arguments have also been gathering support from unusual places. Last summer former UK foreign and defence secretaries Douglas Hurd, David Owen and George Robertson and Sir Malcolm Rifkind argued forcefully in a Times article that far from being a deterrent, nuclear weapons are now a source of threat. They strongly supported Kissinger's concept of a stepped reduction to a nuclear free world.
Global Zero - sign up to support a world free of nukes
And many high-ranking members of the British military feel the same (at least once they have retired and are finally able to speak freely): Field Marshall Lord Bramall, a former Chief of Defence Staff, General Lord Ramsbotham, a former Adjutant-General, and General Sir Hugh Beach, former Master General of the Ordinance, said in a letter to the Times last month that Trident had become "virtually irrelevant" and "it must be asked in what way, and against whom, our nuclear weapons could be used".
Last week General Jack Sheehan, a former Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic for NATO went further. In a BBC interview he said: "I think the UK is very close to saying we're the first permanent member of the Security Council to do away with nuclear weapons. I think it is entirely possible that the British government, for a lot of good reasons, could do it and it would lead the world."
It was against this backdrop that Mr Miliband made his speech, and while he was clearly not going to go as far as General Sheehan would like, the steps which he did propose - from enforcing the test ban treaty, to controlling bomb making materials, and securing major cuts in the US and Russian arsenals - are all logical and familiar asks. His call for talks between the nuclear weapons states was welcome, as was a commitment to developing verification techniques within the UK which would provide guarantees as the world stockpile of nukes gradually decreases.
All good stuff and nice to hear, but the obvious elephant in Mr Milliband's room is his decision to go ahead with developing a replacement for Trident - a decision which, if followed through would tie the UK into nuclear arms for the next forty years, completely undermining any vision of abolition.
How can Mr Miliband seriously propose a '6 step programme' to wean the nuclear nations off their a-bomb dependency while planning to build more British nuclear weapons? Sounds like a classic case of addictive personality disorder to me - of the 'do as I say, not as I do' variety. And like most addictions, it does not come cheap.
The government has stated that it will spend up to £20 billion over the next few years on new submarines, warheads and weapons infrastructure. However it's becoming increasingly clear this is a massive underestimate – one that doesn't include the costs of redeveloping the Aldermaston and Burghfield nuclear weapons establishments, or buying new American missiles, or the system's lifetime running costs.
Total cost? Unknowable, but somewhere between £76 billion and £100 billion at today's prices would seem to be needed to provide everything that's being proposed. For a weapons system that we don't control and that many of our senior military minds can't find a use for. In the middle of the biggest recession for 50 years? Wouldn't it be smarter to take General Sheehan's advice and start thinking seriously about doing away with Trident instead?
