Martin Butcher gives his reaction to the Prime Minister's recent policy speech on the future of Britain's nuclear arsenal. Martin is a consultant on international security issues and a Nato policy analyst for the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy. This article first appeared in Comment is Free on 17th March.
Gordon Brown's speech today at Lancaster House exposed a fundamental contradiction at the heart of government policy on non-proliferation. The prime minister sees the importance of a world free of nuclear weapons because it is the only way of guaranteeing "that our children and grandchildren will be free from the threat of nuclear war". And yet, his government is committed to the development of a new generation of submarine-based nuclear weapons to replace Trident, thus maintaining Britain's status as a nuclear weapons state for half a century.
This contradiction is a fatal flaw at the heart of British attempts to strengthen the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and to ensure the success of its Review Conference in 2010. When the prime minister says that "as we approach the 2010 Review Conference, I want us to renew and refresh for our times the grand global bargain, the covenant of hope between nations, at the heart of the treaty", it is clear he understands the vital importance of the NPT in preventing the spread and use of nuclear weapons.
And, in stating forcefully that "as possessor states we cannot expect to successfully exercise moral and political leadership in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons if we ourselves do not demonstrate leadership on the question of disarmament of our weapons", he shows an appreciation of what is expected by those states party to the NPT that have promised never to acquire nuclear weapons themselves.
And yet, the prime minister cannot reconcile himself to follow the logic of his own argument. Having talked so persuasively of the need for disarmament, he then detailed the future shape of Britain's nuclear arsenal, telling his audience that "we are committed to retaining the minimum force necessary to maintain effective deterrence. For future submarines, our latest assessment is that we can meet this requirement with 12 missile tubes, not the 16 on current submarines." The prime minister also said that "in Britain our operationally available warheads number fewer than 160", and the future nuclear force he plans means that number is likely to remain the same into the 2060s.
So, what price Brown's desire for disarmament? What was the point of him saying, "The nuclear choices being made today will determine whether we face a future arms race or a future of arms control. Averting the former, and promoting transparency in the latter are both vital to our common future", when he is not prepared to act on this clear analysis?
The tragedy of that is that the prime minister is right. We must prevent proliferation, and we must achieve disarmament, both under strict international controls, or someone, somewhere will use nuclear weapons again, and the future we face will be terrible. The prime minister said today that "active steps by nuclear weapons states towards disarmament" are necessary. If he had the courage of his convictions, there is much that Britain could do to lead.
There is no need to keep a Trident submarine at sea at all times, since the government acknowledges we face no current strategic threats, nuclear or conventional. Announcing the end of continuous at-sea deterrence would send a strong signal to the global community of that nuclear weapons are not an important part of our defence policy, and that we are serious when we say we are ready to negotiate them away.
Since, by his own analysis, we face no imminent danger, Brown could go to the Nato summit in April and tell his fellow leaders that the world would be safer if they followed a policy of building mutual security through arms reduction and elimination, rather than pursuing the current policy of maintaining nuclear weapons so that if threats do emerge in future we can deter them.
The truth is that the government dances on eggshells whenever it talks about nuclear weapons, for its actions and its rhetoric are so at odds that they cannot be reconciled. Until the occupant of Number 10 recognises that fact, this uncomfortable dance will continue and the world will be less safe for it.
