Former International Development Secretary Clare Short MP delivered a withering critique of the case for Trident replacement during the Greenpeace Debate on the future of UK nuclear weapons at Hay Festival earlier this week.
The debate, entitled War and Peace, was organised to highlight the conspicuous lack of parliamentary discussion about a replacement for the existing Trident nuclear weapons system. The government has said that a decision will be taken before the next general election. Chaired by Stephen Tindale, Executive Director of Greenpeace UK, the case for keeping a nuclear capability was put by Michael Codner, Director of Military Science at the Royal United Services Institute, the world's oldest defence and security think-tank.
Responding to Michael Codner's assertion that Britain needs a new generation of weapons to act as a general deterrent, even though we face no current threat, Ms Short said that replacing Trident would make the world a less, not more, secure place:
"Nuclear proliferation is a massive danger to us, and Britain deciding to go for a new generation of nuclear weapons is an encouragement to proliferation. Lots of other countries will say 'if Britain needs them, so do we'. If we get further proliferation, the risks of a nuclear exchange become ever larger.
"So how can Britain best contribute to preventing nuclear proliferation? Under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) we are meant to reduce our dependence on weapons, to inspect the non-weapons states, and guarantee them access to nuclear power. There's a meeting every five years to look at how the treaty is going. If we don't reduce our weapons, they are entitled to argue that the NPT is breaking down, and there's no reason for them to cooperate.
"I think Iran, situated where it is, is entitled to argue that if the NPT breaks down, that it needs nuclear weapons in order not to be a target. And if Iran does, then Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey would also want them..."
Her opponent, Michael Codner, said that nuclear weapons gave the UK a degree of international influence that it could not afford to give up. He argued that if we gave up Trident it would leave France as the only European nuclear power. "Would the British people be comfortable with a situation where there was only one nuclear nation in Europe and that was France?"
Ms Short, who resigned from the cabinet over the Iraq war in 2003, attacked the idea that Britain is an independent nuclear power
"It's purely a pretence. It's a joke," she said, "We are completely dependent on getting the missile from the US and having it serviced there. So it absolutely locks us into the poodle role with the US."
She went on to say:
"The question is 'What kind of country do we want to be, and how do we deploy what ever influence we have in the post-Cold War world?' Now nobody is pointing any weapons at us; we have some nuclear weapons going around in submarines - they are not targeted because we don't know who to point them at. Michael tells us that somebody might be against us one day, so we'd better keep them now.
"The point about that argument is that virtually every single country in the world could use it. Many countries in more unstable parts of the world, where they are under threat, can make a much better case for needing weapons than we can. In recent years India and Pakistan have gone for nuclear weapons. Israel has got nuclear weapons, sitting there in the most unstable region in the world, and causing further instability.
"We're on the brink of an international crisis because Iran insists on its rights under the NPT to have civil nuclear power, and the world is worried that if it does it might develop nuclear weapons in the next eight to ten years. There's a very real danger that we might see another US led pre-emptive war against Iran in the next few years. Is Iran happy that the only nuclear power in its region is Israel? Is it rational for an Iranian government, even a good Iranian government, to want nuclear weapons? I think you can say it is very rational after the invasion of Iraq and the non-invasion of North Korea."
The decision on whether or not to replace Trident will be taken during the life of this Parliament. The government have promised a full debate on the issue. We will be watching closely to see if they keep their word, and making the case for the Britain to start taking practical steps towards disarmament.
Podcast: listen to Clare Short's speech (7Mb mp3)
Podcast: listen to Michael Codner's speech (7Mb mp3)
Podcast: question and answer session following the debate (9Mb mp3)
