Kate Hudson's Blog

A few days ago, the Foreign Office published a policy information paper entitled ‘Lifting the Nuclear Shadow'. The paper outlines some of the key debates around nuclear weapons whilst also restating the government's position. Any contribution to debate, and airing of the issues more widely, is welcome. But the paper is far less interesting - and far less significant than it could have been - because it fails to address the issue of Trident replacement.

There is now a significant groundswell of opinion, internationally, in favour of multilateral nuclear disarmament with the goal of total abolition. There have been numerous statements from across the globe and across the political spectrum, outlining some of the steps by which this can ultimately be achieved. In fact there have been so many statements of this kind from senior political figures that they hardly stir media attention any more.

Part of the problem for the government seems to be that events are now overtaking it. When Margaret Beckett made her speech in Washington in 2007, calling for disarmament initiatives, she was cutting edge. But that was the Bush era, and now we are living in the days of Obama. Things have moved on.

The same day that the paper was launched by David Miliband, the front page of The Times covered significant new initiatives on nuclear disarmament by the Obama administration. The fact is that Britain has been overtaken by the vision of the new US president. His intentions are on a par with those of Reagan and Gorbachev, who achieved the disarmament of thousands of nuclear weapons in the late 1980s. Mr Miliband's 'vision', which does not include questioning our own nuclear weapons, just doesn't match up.

But if he was prepared to question Trident replacement, that would indeed be a sigificant matter.  But old hang ups seem to be preventing him from moving forward. At the launch, he twice stated that he is a multilateralist not a unilateralist, but these dogmas belong to the past. President Obama is pursuing bilateral negotiations with Russia and wants global abolition, but he is simultaneously halting plans for new US warheads.  There is no earthly reason why Trident replacement cannot be at least suspended. If retired generals believe that Trident is militarily useless and should be scrapped, surely this is the time to rethink our nuclear weapons. This issue is not going to be solved by clinging to an expensive and delusional status quo.

 

Senior military figures want to get rid of Britain's nuclear weapons. Revealed on Newsnight last night, we heard practical common sense from General Lord Ramsbotham. He and two other military top brass find that Britain's nuclear weapons serve no military purpose, are not independent, do not secure our standing in the world, and divert scarce resources from more useful spending. It was wonderful to hear.

This position goes beyond the calls in recent months - from former UK foreign and defence secretaries and other leading figures around the world - for progress on multilateral initiatives towards nuclear disarmament. While this has been a welcome development, these politicians have scrupulously avoided giving any ground to a unilteral disarmament position - as if they would be tainted by the vile notions of CND and others opposed to weapons of mass destruction.

But the generals have made a clear statement that irrespective of what other countries do, nuclear weapons do not meet Britain's defence needs and their opportunity cost is actually detrimental to our security. This statement completely debunks the myth that nuclear weapons are necessary for our security. These generals are no pacifists - they are purely practical about Britain's needs and have concluded that we are better off without them.  

What we need now is a new debate to be opened on Trident replacement. The first report on the replacement progress is due in September 2009 - the so-called 'Initial Gate'. This must be debated fully in Parliament, taking into account the new economic and global security situation - and the views of these military experts. We do not want a behind the scenes decision by the government, flying in the face of both public (majority against) and expert opinion. This is what we will be campaigning for in the months ahead.

Israel's Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni has recently been saying that she wants to ‘change the reality' in and around Gaza. Well I would like to change it too. I would like to see an end to the bombing and rocket attacks, an end to the blockade of Gaza, the full implementation of UN resolutions calling for two states, and for Israelis and Palestinians to live together in the Middle East on the basis of justice and equality. That is the changed reality we need to see in Gaza and the West Bank. 

Instead Tsipi Livni's attempts at bringing a new reality mean that every day we mourn the loss of more innocents. But mourning isn't enough, and in the words of the US labour movement activist Joe Hill, we have to organise. Organise to show the scale of popular opposition to the crimes taking place in Gaza and to the death of innocent civilians whatever their nationality or religion, organise to argue that there are no military solutions to this issue - only political and diplomatic ones, organise to end the criminal blockade and humanitarian catastrophe it is causing, and organise - above all - to defeat the warmongers and bring peace and justice to the Middle East.

Polls show that a substantial majority of people are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. That must now be clearly articulated by the progressive movement in Britain and internationally, and translated into political action to achieve a just peace settlement. And we need to see our government playing a pro-active role in achieving that. We need to make our voices heard to ensure that happens. So organising and supporting the ongoing demonstrations against the attacks are vital. So too are lobbying of MPs and Ministers, urging them to take concrete steps. Let them know how the British people really feel.

Of course my new reality for Israel and Palestine would also be nuclear weapon-free. Don't forget that Israel has a significant nuclear arsenal - in the region of a hundred nuclear weapons - held outside any international regulatory framework. We know this thanks to the courage of Mordechai Vanunu who blew the whistle on Israel's secret nuclear weapons programme in the 1980s and spent years in solitary confinement as a result.

Since the 1970s, Israel has ignored UN resolutions calling for a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East. And the United States has ignored this non-compliance, even as it has pursued war and sanctions against other countries suspected of seeking nuclear weapons. Of course nuclear proliferation must be opposed, but this cannot be achieved on the basis of double standards and unequal implementation. There must be no nuclear weapons in the Middle East - not Israeli, not Iranian, not American.

Israeli nukes don't usually get much of a mention, but they made it into the press recently. Apparently, there have been growing fears that Hamas missiles could threaten the Israeli nuclear facility at Dimona - where Mordechai Vanunu originally worked as a technician. The disaster of a nuclear explosion, whether by accident or design, would be a catastrophe for everyone in the Middle East, irrespective of nationality or religion. The only sure way to prevent nuclear annihilation is to secure nuclear disarmament.

As the world sinks deeper into economic crisis, many understand that increased international cooperation is vital to solve global problems. Crucial to that is better relations between the US and Russia. How heartening then to open the International Herald Tribune this morning - not much in the paper shop on Boxing Day - and read its advice to Obama on this issue.

The IHT is the global edition of The New York Times, so what they have to say is not a marginal perspective. Its editorial advocates inviting the Russians to high level consultations on areas where cooperation can quickly be achieved. These include: readiness to consider renewing the START I Treaty on reducing strategic nuclear forces; toning down demands for NATO membership for Georgia and the Ukraine; and calling for a review of plans for 'missile defence' sites in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Addressing these three key areas is essential if we are to prevent a new nuclear arms race and a new Cold War. It is also essential if the world's major powers are to cooperate in solving many seemingly intractable problems.

But the IHT is particularly interesting on the role of Europe, observing that it is majority European opinion that has prevented US efforts to rapidly integrate Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO. 'America's European allies are in no mood to take their cue on Russia from Washington', it points out, noting that European trust in American leadership has eroded after eight years of the Bush presidency. 

Europe has a significant role to play in bringing the US and Russia closer together - a goal that is crucial to the security and prosperity of the continent. Unfortunately, while other European states are working to set a more constructive agenda on these issues for the Obama era, challenging the Bush framework, Britain seems to be mired in support for Bush era policies.

The British government must abandon this dangerous and discrediting loyalty and speak up for a new agenda. Backing the reasonable suggestions of the International Herald Tribune would not be a bad start.

Yesterday a new initiative was launched in Paris, Washington and Moscow, called Global Zero. Bringing together one hundred world figures calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons, British signatories include Margaret Beckett, David Owen, Richard Branson and Malcolm Rifkind. Meanwhile French President Sarkozy was busy putting out an EU plan to revive global disarmament. These add to a whole stream of initiatives calling for an end to nukes. All this is taking place against the backdrop of a big change in the White House. It is well known that Barack Obama supports the goal of global nuclear abolition.

So where are we going with all this? Are we reaching - or even at - the tipping point? Where the momentum for change becomes unstoppable?

I would like to be able to say we'd arrived at that point. But I think there's still a way to go. Yes, things are going in our direction, but there are still hurdles to be overcome.

Barack Obama has indicated that he would like to see progress on a number of issues, as part of the advance to nuclear abolition. These include ‘dealerting' of nuclear weapons - taking them off the highly dangerous ‘hair-trigger' alert on which some of them are kept; and renewing the START arms reduction talks between the US and Russia, which will otherwise expire in December 2009. These are good first steps, but they both require good relations with Russia. It is impossible to achieve global abolition without positive dialogue between the United States and Russia. Between them they account for about 95% of the world's 27,000 nuclear weapons.

Two obstacles to that progress are the US's so-called ‘missile defence' system, and its backing for NATO expansion into Georgia and the Ukraine. Both of these are perceived by Russia to be provocative and threatening to its own security. How can negotiations advance on disarmament when trust between these two countries is lacking to say the least?

The Global Zero initiative has produced a poll which shows that 76% of people across 21 countries - including big nuclear weapons states - favour an international agreement to eliminate all nuclear weapons.  Clearly the critical mass is there in sheer numbers terms, and it is increasingly there in terms of celebrities, and ‘worthies' of various sorts. But it is the politicians who wield the power who have to shift, and for that to happen they have to really experience popular pressure.

Top US intelligence group, the National Intelligence Council, yesterday warned that nuclear conflict is  increasingly likely as the world enters a more unstable phase. The NIC Report, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, looks at how the world might develop, based on intelligence gathered from across the US intelligence organisations.

The Report forsees a shift in global power to a situation where the US will no longer be able to 'call the shots' alone, and other countries, notably Brazil, Russia, India and China will have a place at the top table. The massive shift of wealth from west to east is expected to continue, but shortages of key resources such as water, food and energy will worsen. The Report anticipates that the potential for conflict will increase.

Obviously you don't need a crystal ball to work that out. The real issue is what policies the US will adopt to deal both with its changing status and the problems facing the world.

Consider the nuclear weapons issue. The Report identifies the spread of nuclear weapons as a real danger, particularly the risk of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. With that comes the increased likelihood of nuclear weapons use, either by states or non-state terrorists. The only way to deal with this risk is the course of action already identified and outlined by both experts and activists worldwide.

It is well known that top politicians across the political spectrum now advocate 'getting to zero' on nuclear weapons, precisely because of those dangers. The problem seeems now to be that the danger is recognised but not yet acted upon. Climate change falls into the same category. We face a problem of phenomenal destructive capacity, but those in a position to make decisions on the necessary scale seem unable to take steps of the magnitude required.

The world leaders who can make those changes need to do it now. Predicting a disastrous future and doing nothing to creative an alternative outcome is crininally irresponsible.

 

With Obama's victory, suddenly many things seem possible. Great hopes emerge almost overnight. Wars may end, bases may close, justice may prevail. Personally, I have no doubt that we will see some positive change. But what can we really expect from Obama, and what will he do about nuclear weapons?

He actually said quite a bit about nukes during the presidential campaign. For example: "A world without nuclear weapons is profoundly in America's interest and the world's interest. It is our responsibility to make the commitment, and to do the hard work to make this vision a reality."

But what concretely will he plan to do? During the campaign he has mentioned many specific steps that he plans to take, many of which hinge on renewed cooperation with Russia. He has emphasized, for example, his intention to seek Russia's agreement to extend the provisions of START I before it expires in December 2009. And he also plans to work with Russia to take US and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert.

He also plans to work with other nuclear powers to reduce global nuclear weapons stockpiles dramatically by the end of his presidency and to stop the development of new nuclear weapons. He will also seek to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, cut investments in unproven missile defence systems and will not put weapons in space. These are all fundamental goals of the peace movement which have seemed absolutely out of the question during the Bush years. They are also goals which have become increasingly widely embraced across the political spectrum over the past few years.

As US peace activists have pointed out today, as they celebrate Obama's victory, for the first time since Reagan and Gorbachev met at the Reykjavik Summit in 1986 and came close to reaching an agreement on abolishing nuclear weapons, the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons appears to be within the realm of possibility.

If that is really to be achieved, and Obama's intentions are to be translated into actions, the US people must mobilise to bring pressure to bear on the country's new leadership to pursue the policies of peace demanded by the electorate. Troops must be withdrawn from Iraq, the conflict ended in Afghanistan, the tension with Iran peacefully resolved, not further exacerbated. But we cannot be bystanders in this process. We must demonstrate to our own government that on these issues we stand shoulder to shoulder with the democratic will of the US people, as expressed in this most extraordinary victory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All eyes may be on the US elections, but in Prague this weekend there was cause for cautious celebration. Delegates, gathering in Charles University on Saturday for an international conference against US missile defence, were breathing sighs of relief. As we queued up to hear top politicians discuss the latest developments, talk was of little else. The Czech government's most recent attempt to secure parliamentary agreement for the US radar had failed.

The upper house, or Senate, has delayed a vote on hosting the US missile defence radar until December. By then, its political composition will have changed, following recent elections for a third of Senate seats. Those elections saw a landslide for the opposition Social Democrats, who oppose the missile defence radar. The ruling Civic Democratic Party suffered a humiliating defeat, and the big question currently is how long the Party will wait before ousting prime minister Topolanek - widely held responsible for the scale of the defeat.

Of course, this doesn't spell an end to the problem by any means. Even taking into account the influx of anti-radar Social Democrat senators, the ruling party and its allies will still hold a majority in the Senate, making its agreement likely later in the year. But all is still to play for because ultimately the issue will be decided in the Chamber of Deputies which is almost exactly split on the issue. The fact that 70% of the population oppose the radar - the key reason for the swing to the Social Democrats - is concentrating Deputies' minds.

And of course, Czech eyes are on the US presidential race too. Topolanek has recently suggested that the debate be prolonged so that the treaties on the radar need not be ratified until the New Year. Czech observers speculate that this may indicate concern about US commitment to the system under an Obama presidency. Nominally, Obama supports the system, but with a large array of almost unmeetable conditions.

So the future for missile defence in central Europe is uncertain. The only gung-ho note comes from a predictable source: General Obering, Head of the US Missile Defence Agency, who has recently been in Prague attempting to rustle up support for the system. Yes, he said on Friday, a Czech rejection would be a serious setback. But we don't need to worry, he has plan B in hand...

Monday's peaceful blockade of Aldermaston's nuclear bomb factory was the biggest for a decade. Hundreds of protestors gathered from 5.30am to block the gates and halt work at the site, which is being prepared for the building of new nuclear bombs. We wanted to delay that building process and raise public awareness of what is going on there, in our name - and at our expense.

In the event we had some success. A number of gates were blocked for several hours, and coverage of the issue has extended into the national media. The imaginative nature of the protests caught many people's attention - from locking themselves together inside concrete casings, to sitting atop a massive wooden tripod, blocking an approach road to the site. Colourful costumes were a feature, as were music and songs of protest and defiance.

Once again - as with the huge CND demonstration at Aldermaston last Easter - there were many young people on the protest, some participating in their very first blockade. More are questioning the basis on which our government pursues its war and nuclear weapons policies. And many students across the country are protesting about army recruitment, and military funded research, at colleges and universities.

This week's protest is just the tip of the vast iceberg of public opposition to Britain's nuclear weapons. Polls show a majority opposed to the replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system, yet the government persists with its plans and its pointless wasteful spending. The system is estimated to cost in excess of £76 billion.

It is folly beyond belief that at a time of economic crisis, our government is prioritising nuclear bombs over healthcare, housing, job creation and investment in sustainable energy production - or the numerous other ways in which our government could spend our money for our benefit.

There are many ways to oppose nuclear weapons. Blockading at Aldermaston is one of them. But you can also write to the Prime Minister or your MP, sign our petition on this website, or raise the issue in your trade union or students' union, run a street stall or write to the local paper. Every action no matter how small contributes to our ultimate success. After all, no one ever knows which will be the last straw.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband's address to the Labour Party Conference was a great disappointment, avoiding crucial foreign policy issues. His speech failed to address the continuing occupation of Iraq, the hundreds of thousands of deaths and the humanitarian disaster which has resulted from the US and UK-led war and occupation.

Mr Miliband referred in passing to the fact that he has visited Baghdad and Basra, but failed to outline plans on troop withdrawal or explain current British policy towards a country which has suffered enormously as a result of the decision of the Labour government to go to war.

Mr Miliband's speech was equally inadequate on the question of nuclear weapons. Referring to the need for shared solutions to global problems, Mr Miliband mentioned the need for global rules on nuclear proliferation. But he did not outline any concrete proposals for advancing this agenda, nor did he refer to the fact that Britain is flouting the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by replacing the Trident nuclear weapons system and failing in its international obligation to disarm.

What was most notable was the lack of substance to Mr Miliband's speech. Where was the timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq? Where were the concrete initiatives towards nuclear disarmament? Without real commitment to action, repeated rhetoric about 'values' and 'change' amounts only to empty platitudes.

The change we want to see is a new foreign policy. The values we want are peace and respect for international law. We need genuine new thinking from our government on these issues, not policies of aggression dressed up in hollow rhetorical flourishes.