|
20 March 2002 |
|
There
is much talk of WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) and the pressing need
to eliminate them - meaning military intervention, not the progressive
implementation of hard won treaty agreements. And, of course, this
excludes any consideration of the WMDs held by the United States and the
UK. Running
alongside this recurrent theme are siren voices calling for increased
defence budgets to deal with the problems of over-stretched military
forces, dated and inefficient weaponry and an inability to keep up with
the technological drive of the US. But there is no way we can keep pace
with a US budgetary increase nearly twice as large as the UK's annual
defence expenditure and which gave a green light to practically every
procurement bid, despite Rumsfeld's early assurances of restructuring
for a 'leaner, fitter, fighting force'. For
example, much-respected military historian and Daily Telegraph Defence
Editor John Keegan, "In a few years time, unless the promises are
kept, Britain will no longer be able to undertake any military missions
alongside its great ally, the United States. The writing is on the
wall." The way the world is turning, some might say this would be
no bad thing. Perhaps the biggest strain on the 'Special Relationship'
in the coming years will be down to our reluctance, or inability, to 'burdenshare'
- in the jargon. Not
that I am sufficiently knowledgeable to argue with John Keegan, it's
just that I tend to view the world rather differently and arrive at
different conclusions. Such as, what about thinking the unthinkable and
starting to plan for a non-nuclear defence policy? After all, the Labour
Party did give it some consideration some time ago, even if no effort
was put into convincing the electorate of its potential advantages, and
then capitulated in the face of a Tory advertising onslaught. The
UK does spend in the region of £1.5 billion a year for the upkeep of
Trident. Couldn't that be put to better use? And that way, we would be
getting rid of our own WMDs and ditching the irrational theory of
nuclear deterrence at a stroke. Or perhaps we could avoid an estimated
£10 billion contribution to buy into US plans for missile defence? When
I asked missile defence proponent Lord Chalfont a couple of years ago
what would have to go if Britain had to have its own missile cover for
what he called 'expeditionary forces', he readily replied 'Blair's
preposterous idea of a Euro Army'. I suggested that might leave a
shortfall but he had moved on to other, more important (and less
impertinent) questioners. But
what is the current thinking of the three major political parties on the
these lofty issues? Well, of course, there are differences but not much
room for manoeuvre as they all start from the assumption that nuclear
weapons have a military role to play, that NATO is essential for
European security and that the 'Special Relationship' is sacrosanct. CND
starts from the presumption that international treaties must be upheld
and that they take precedence over regional agreements and national
arrangements. The provisions of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
conflict with NATO's Strategic Concept, ergo Labour, Conservative and
Liberal Democrats should be pressing for the latter to be modified to
bring it into line with a United Nations Treaty which the UK signed up
to in 1968. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of some of their
members who should be congratulated for their persistence, none of the
three parties has adopted this position. The
promise of a wide ranging Strategic Defence Review were Labour to form a
government after the 1997 election engendered some hope of a new
approach to foreign and defence policy, particularly as it was going to
include consideration of industrial policy and the defence industry. In
the event Trident and the Eurofighter, the two most contentious and
expensive programmes, were ring-fenced and the proposed Defence
Diversification Agency was sidelined. I
recall listening to Shadow Defence Secretary David Clark saying that a
Labour Government would play a fuller role in any UN peacekeeping role
and hinting at an enhanced level of commitment to UN peacemaking. He
could not have envisaged exactly what lay before his party, but his
assessment has proved remarkably accurate over the last five years. David
Clark did not become Defence Secretary but he did make a very good stab
at formulating a Freedom of Information Bill before he, and it, were
undermined. Legislated access to information on government
decision-making vis-à-vis defence and foreign policy would go a long
way to overcoming inherent suspicion about institutional secrecy - but
it is not going to happen. A
new version of the 'Britain in the World' policy document is now in
circulation and I would urge careful consideration of its contents which
does call for comment about raising defence expenditure, possible
different approaches to European security, measures to strengthen global
non-proliferation efforts and the merits of missile defence.
'Deterrence' and Trident do not even get a mention. The
Conservative Party's policy document 'The Best in the World' has a
heading 'Strong Defence in a Changing World' and makes several points
which leave one in no doubt where they stand on these issues - more and
better equipped armed forces, full commitment to Britain's 'independent
nuclear deterrent', the prominence of NATO,
rejection of an autonomous EU defence identity and unconditional
support for all missile defence systems. Indeed,
the Tories are very big on missile defence. While still Leader of the
Opposition in January 2001, William Hague spoke to an exclusive
gathering in a Park Lane Hotel penthouse about his enthusiasm for
missile defence, including full UK participation. The meeting was
sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, much acclaimed by the
hawks in Washington and NATO Secretary General George Robertson. I know
this because I was there. Well briefly, before I was asked to leave for
disseminating a CND press release to their high profile guests. Iain
Duncan Smith is now making the running. His contribution 'A race against
time: Europe's growing vulnerability to missile attack' was released on
20th March. He builds on the 'Axis of Evil' theme to justify
the US making missile defence a national priority and berates European
governments and the EU for investing "considerable political and
diplomatic capital in opposing US plans". IDS is also well in with
the AEI. While
not breaking the mould, the Liberal Democrats have the most progressive
defence and foreign policy positions of the three major parties.
According to their earlier policy briefings 'Shared Security - Creating
a Climate of Peace' and 'Global Responses to Global Problems', they
would keep nuclear weapons while other states possess them. But they
seem to be out-of-step with NATO policy on the first use of nuclear
weapons and are in favour of a European collective effort on defence
procurement, armed forces integration and a much more sceptical approach
to missile defence. At
their Spring Conference this year, the Liberal Democrats significantly
moved on by overwhelmingly supporting a new document, 'Defending
Democracy'. They agreed that defence expenditure must be affordable and
sustainable in the long term, that planning is still hampered by a Cold
War posture and that parliamentary approval should be required before
any expenditure is sanctioned on a successor to Trident. They also
agreed to strengthen their opposition to missile defence as currently
proposed by the US and called for greater integration and efficiencies
at the European level. We
should note that the Scottish Nationalist Party and Plaid Cymru have
more radical defence and foreign policies than the three major
parliamentary parties as do several other parties who are not
represented in parliament. CND
does not align itself with any political party but we are prepared to
work with those parties and individuals who will engage in the debate on
the future of national and international security.
|
|
|
