Filed under: Foreign Affairs, defence, iran, nuclear weapons | Tags: iran, McClatchy, nuclear weapons, WMD
From the McClatchy group today. An article strongly contradicting the belligerent tone of the West recently. Experts seem to agree that there is no firm evidence of a nuclear program, only cause for suspicion. Read the full article by clicking on the link above. The McClatchy were the only news organisation that raised serious questions about Iraq’s WMDs before the war.
Filed under: Foreign Affairs, Liberal Democrats, defence, nuclear weapons | Tags: Chris Huhne, Leadership contest, Liberal Democrats, Non Proliferation, nuclear weapons
A number of comments on my last post drew me also to the completely illogical policy of Huhne’s nuclear policy, and since I have been criticized already for attacking Clegg’s policies I hope this post will go some way to prove my independent spirit.
Chris says that the UK should scrap trident and decide whether we should decommission entirely or keep a smaller deterrent after the non proliferation talks in 2010. He also argues that we should be less dependent on the United States militarily.
The implications are clear, if we were to have a “smaller deterrent” Britain would have to develop an entirely new generation of nuclear weapons.
No matter what the outcome of the talks in 2010, it is inconceivable that they will not prohibit the entirely new development of new nuclear weapons systems. Therefore if Britain attempts to do this, it will tear up the regime from the moment of it’s conception. Secondly the development of an entirely new system would most probably require testing violating the comprehensive test ban treaty.
This claim that this new deterrent will cost less is just plain stupid. For now the UK is entirely dependent on the US for Trident, the missiles are built maintained and designed in the US. This would mean that the UK would have to pour literally billions of pounds into research and development, before we even started building the weapons.
Chris also seems under some delusion that the UK possesses some sort of massive nuclear arsenal, he talks in his policy on nukes that Trident was built to counter the Soviet Union’s potentially massive use of force. Currently the UK has 48 nuclear missiles and probably around 200 warheads. It also only has one submarine on patrol at any one time. It is difficult to see what the point would be of reducing this stockpile drastically as this already makes the UK one of the smaller nuclear powers. By contrast the US has some 7,500 missiles.
Both candidates, whilst committing to the NPT are publicly advocating positions that would undermine it. If they are committed to a goal of universal nuclear disarmament, they will have propose their ideas for a fundamentally system, or pay more attention to the current NPT. Most of all they should credit the public with a little more intelligence.
More absolutely classic stuff from Biden. I love the way he is eating a sandwich whilst doing this, it shouts disdain at crazy Rudy. I think this is clever stuff, all the Republicans are attacking Hilary and her response has been to ignore it, by hitting Rudy like this he is positioning himself as a fighter, someone who is giving it back to the Republicans.
As I watch the daily procession of stories on immigration march across the front pages of the newspapers, I often wonder to myself whether politicians and public figures really understand the effect of their rhetoric on society. The academic veil of economic analysis that the government has attempted to place over the issue has done little to mask the aggressive tone and frequently bigoted character of the debate.
Politicians today believe that throwing in one sentence “immigration is of great economic benefit to the UK” can dispel any charge of prejudice. However that phrase in itself, essentially, what can they do for us when they come here, is in itself divisive and selfish, paying little regard to the immigrant themselves. We are told that we are in an immigration crisis, well crisis to me sounds like a bad thing. Immigration, said David Cameron today, needs to be brought under control. Does he mean to say that immigration today is out of control? that to me doesnt sound too good either. The front page of Migration Watch UK, the oft quoted “think tank” says that the problem is very serious indeed and we must act now to cut numbers.
This kind of negative rhetoric does nothing but promote a feeling of exclusion that immigrants are faced with, and will continue to divide society, delaying social integration. When people fear, they naturally tend to shy away from the object of these feelings. On the part of the immigrant they are less likely to interact with the same people attacking them. Imagine being told every day that you are a guest in your own home, sometimes the only home you have ever known. This is the reality that immigrants face in the UK, and I speak from experience.
I was born in Croatia to a Croatian mother and father from New Zealand, my father already having worked in Britain for a long time brought us to London when I was four months old. English was my first language. With my European complexion and without knowing my background, nobody would be able to tell that I was anything other than an Englishman. I have British citizenship but my birth certificate is still emblazoned with six burning torches and a red star. Despite being indistinguishable, I still feel excluded, because I know that when people fear immigrants changing society, taking jobs away from British people and overpopulating the country, they are talking about me.
Generations ago, the British too were immigrants, driving out the native populations of the counties they went to with violence and disease. The Aboriginal, Maori and Native American peoples have never recovered, the places that they now inhabit now some of the poorest places in the developed world. Is it not strange that one of the descendants of these invaders should feel unwelcome back in England? such is the hysteria surrounding immigration in Britain today.
For now, I am back in the former colonies, albeit a different one, the US. Of course there are huge political debates surrounding immigration here also, but once can easily sense the difference here. Despite explicitly being foreign, I only have to open my mouth for people to hear that I am not an American, I feel strangely more welcome here than the country I was brought up in.
Once again I firmly believe that the difference in attitude here comes down to politics. The Declaration of Independence proclaims that “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights”. The commitment to this, which still to a large extent exists, gives the immigrant the confidence that comes with knowing that they have the same rights as any American. Let us not forget the protests last year where illegal immigrants protested for the right of citizenship. I simply can not imagine this protest taking place in Trafalgar Square.
This has an effect on society too, many citizens in the US take an active role in helping the transition of an immigrant and many of my friends give up their spare time to teach English to immigrants. Our generation of middle class Brits on the other hand go to teach English abroad.
Immigration will only work if we make our residents feel included in society and work hard to integrate them. This means talking to our neighbors, helping them deal with administration and government services, inviting them round for tea and helping them to understand other British cultural practices. This exchange should not be seen as an effort as it can only enrich all who take part, greatly benefiting society. It is not something that the government can do, but it is something that the government can prevent. It will certainly not happen, if politicians continue to poison the political discourse and promote the politics of fear. This will only serve to divide society and prevent the types of social interaction that can make immigration work
Filed under: America, Foreign Affairs, Liberal Democrats, iran | Tags: brown, bush, iran, joe biden, Liberal Democrats, nuclear weapons
At the latest democratic debate last night once again it was the rank outsider Joe Biden who impressed me the most. His arguments, that were at the same time compelling, intelligent, clear and original displayed just the kind of thinking required in the White House. His statement that he was running not against Hillary but to be leader of the free world and his thirty some years on the Senate foreign relations committee shows that he understands the responsibility to act responsibly that the President of The United States has to the world and not just to his own people if he wants to ensure peace on Earth.
On complex international issues, Joe Biden has the depth of understanding to be creative and cogent. British liberals could learn a lot his arguments and would do well to listen to him. In trying to present a clear alternative to Labour and the Conservatives we too need to have the same courage to present ideas that break the mold of convential wisdom and attack the heart of an issue.
To give one example, Iran, which has become an obsession of the current US administration. In order to avoid looking weak, many Democrats have avoided taking on Bush’s sabre rattling and 75 Senators the other week voted to designate Iran’s Revolutionary guard as a terrorist organisation. Last night the candidates were asked whether the would give a guaruntee to the people of the US that Iran would not get a nuclear weapon. Biden’s answer was magisterial, reminding people that more important than that was to make a commitment to protect the American people, and an preemptive attack on Iran to stop Iran gaining nuclear weapons could be far more dangerous to the people of the United States as it would likely bring chaos in Pakistan, a country with an already substantial nuclear arsenal. The genius of Biden’s answer was to take the reasoning for why an attack would be a terrible idea out of the abstract and emphasise how it would affect the personal safety of people living in the States.
By contrast the Lib Dems statements on Iran have implored the US government to show restraint and have talked about how threatening force is not the best way to dissuade the Iranians. All true, but firstly why are we concentrating on the US and not forcefully attacking Brown for supporting such a strike. According to Seymour Hersh, Brown this summer had told Bush privately that he would support a strike against Iran. Secondly although it is true that threatening force would not be the best idea to disuade Iran, it would be much better make the argument in terms of the effect it would have on the safety of Britons. Although the issues in the Middle East are interesting in themselves, and the Lib Dems have consistent been right were it matters, we have also been poor at answering the question, how does this effect me? And in the end, this is probably the most important question in politics.
Many of the issues facing Britain today are too facing America, whilst we would do well to concentrate our focus on pressuring our own government, at the same time we can learn a lot from the US political dialogue happening in preparation for the coming presidential elections. I enclose Senator Biden’s full answers last night below.
Update, full excerpt from the fog of war, now below
I was not going to reply to the last reply by London Liberal on nuclear policy, I felt enough had been said by all. However after just finishing watching “The Fog of War” I wanted to share some of the things said by former US defence secretary Robert Mcnamara. “The Fog of War” is a documentary on Mcnamara where he himself explains the lessons he learned during his lifetime. Mcnamara was Secretary of Defence during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. He is well known for being the architect of early Vietnam policy, presiding over a massive expansion of the US nuclear capability and perhaps most importantly for this debate. was Sec Def during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
In his own words:
“Any military commander who is honest with himself, or with those who he is speaking to, will admit that he has made mistakes in the application of military power. He has killed people unnecessarily, either his own troops or others through mistakes – through errors of judgement 100 or 1000, tens of thousands maybe even one hundred thousand people – But he hasnt destroyed nations. Conventional wisdom would say, dont make the same mistake twice, learn from your mistakes and we all do…. [but] there will be no learning period with nuclear weapons, you make one mistake and you’re going to destroy nations.”
“I want to say, and this is very important, at the end we lucked out. It was luck that prevented nuclear war, we came that close to nuclear war at the end. Rational individuals, Kennedy was rational, Khrushchev was rational, Castro was rational. Rational individuals came that close to total destruction of their societies – and that danger exists today”
“The major lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis is that the indefinate combination of human fallability and nuclear weapons will destroy nations”
“Is it right and popper that today, there are 7,500 strategic nuclear warheads, of which 2,500 are on 15 minute alert to be launched by the decision of one human being?”
“I think the human race needs to think more about killing, and conflict. Is that really what we want in this 21st century”
It strikes me and even reassures me that despite the being advocates of nuclear build up men like Mcnamara and Nitze seem to have displayed a true understanding of the terrible, catastrophic moral consequences that that build up presented. I can only imagine that they advocated such policies as they saw no other course, and would have been happy to have had the opportuntity of alleviating themselves of the burden of nuclear arms.
Today however I find it worrying that advocates of the continuance of nuclear arms do not seem to display such an understanding of the gravity of situation. Nuclear weapons are still treated in terms of strategic or political tools. However nuclear weapons are much more grave. The possibility of an accident, either mechanical or human, has catastrophic consequences. Leaving aside the immorality of their use by our military, is it not insane to even possess these weapons that have the possibility to bring destruction on our society, despite the lack of any credible military threat to our homeland? To paraphrase Mcnamara is it right and proper that we have given the power to destroy the world to one man?
Filed under: Foreign Affairs
George,
First of all, a couple of clarifications in light of the much welcome comment on my last post. Whilst I concede that I was mistaken in asserting that the US was installing boost phase missile defence in Czech Republic and Poland, and am thankful for the correction, I still maintain that potentially the Czech Republic and especially Poland would make ideal locations for boost phase defence sites. The aim of such installations though would not be to deter Iran, but to deter Russia. Middle Eastern missiles could be deterred through erecting similar sites in friendly countries such as Azerbaijan.
Additionally, my point about sovereignty is still being mis-interpreted. I have not at any point challenged the statement made several times now about Trident and how it is more under American control than British. My point is simply that Britain should not dispose of this mightiest of arsenal which still exists to defend the United Kingdom even it not at its own behest for the reasons outlined in my previous post.
Now to return to my rebuttal of your last post. I always get nervous when people justify groundbreaking decisions such as nuclear disarmament on the grounds that they can’t imagine anyone actually using them. This is clearly not the point. Faced with an adversary who has nuclear weapons when you have none makes you distinctly less inclined to play Russian roulette with your nation’s security and more inclined to accede to their demands.
Indeed if the history of international relations is anything to go by then predicting a state’s actions on the basis of its perceived intentions, as opposed to merely its power to achieve its own objectives at the expense of yours, is a one way ticket to oblivion. Hence the political power of the nuclear weapon.
Whilst it is true that accidents do happen, again this is more an argument for halting proliferation, with which I wholeheartedly agree, than disarming completely. In any case, the risk is justified by the unpredictability of such an accident as this means that one is neither imminent, nor necessarily beyond our scope to control. The same cannot be said of disarmament equipped merely with the hope that others will follow suit. We can draw up all the international law we want, but -whilst I am a committed multi-lateralist- like domestic law which benefits from the existence of sovereignty within specific geographical boundaries, distinctly absent from the international system, international law has to be enforced for it to work. Bottom line, if we drop our gun whilst everyone else’s remain pointed at our head, then all the diplomacy in the world will not get them to follow suit without extreme concessions on our part.
Finally, to address the ‘moral’ aspect of your argument. There are no morals in the international system as there is no stable and enforcable body of law to reflect such moral norms as no one country has sovereignty over the world. It may sound blunt and cliche, but ultimately only the national interest should decide what action a state takes within the international community. Entangle those interests through binding agreements such as the European Steel and Coal Community example from my last post and then you have a chance of persuing efective multi-lateralism. This ultimately has to be the core pre-condition of any viable disarmament agreement.
In the Washington Mayflower last night the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, gave an insight into the future strategic outlook of the United States. “We have to realize that the the Middle East is larger than Afghanistan and Iraq, and the World is larger than the Middle East.” It would seem that that the US is far from ready to recede to the sidelines in international affairs.
The Admiral went on to remind us that we are in a generational war, and that he foresees a series of continuing engagements in the future. As belligerent as this sounded the Admiral did qualify himself by noting that these engagements would not necessarily be of an offencive nature. The US, he said had to utilise all of its efforts in future interventions, in diplomacy, foreign aid and the private sector as well as the military.
This kind of commitment will require a substantial financial commitment. When the Iraq conflict finally ends there will be no peace dividend. The Admiral told the audience that the current defence spending of the US of 4% of GDP should be considered an absolute minimum.
The Admiral was also candid about the kinds of stresses the military is currently facing. Whilst the Army is not as some claim broken, but it is breakable, the current troop rotations had to be shortened.
These goals will surely be a challenge for the Admiral who faces international suspicion of US military motives, declining enrollment, a large budget deficit and a hostile public. In the end his most pressing problems may be political rather than military. Whilst the US Military may say it stands ready to undertake a larger role in the world. It will have to rely on the White House and Congress to rebuild the political goodwill that will allow it to do so.
GinDC
London Liberal,
In terms of the prisoners dilemma and the development of nuclear weapons there are two arguments that I would use to say that the argument still does not hold. Firstly, although revealed to the public by a whistle blower in 1986 the Israeli nuclear program was known to the French, (who built the reactor) since the early 50’s and by the CIA since 1960, both log before any weapons were produced. The fact that these programs were kept secret by these governments was a product of the strategic situation of the time, but in a nuclear free world these secrets would immediately become public knowledge in order to build public anger against the program. Secondly even if a country managed to develop a bomb in complete secrecy, which I still find implausible, and I might add that Stalin knew about the Manhattan Project before Truman, the country would face two immediate problems. Firstly, only having a small arsenal it would not be able to attack Britain or the US without a serious conventional attack that it would lose. If the US and the UK still had nukes at this point it would lose more quickly, in other words, it would not be a credible offensive threat. Secondly there is the problem of delivery systems. The method of delivery would be problematic. Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles require space technology, the other means of long distance delivery, a plane, would be impossible to implement against a country with modern air defences. The type of rockets that were are needed to deliver a nuclear weapon are also difficult to conseal.
Secondly, yes the NPT is undermined by countries not participating, but at the moment is is the best prospect we have. We should concentrate therefore on bringing in the very few people who are not part of the regime rather than disposing of it altogether. One way we could start to do this, would be to uphold our end of the bargain.
A point I would make which you fail to address is the possibility for a nuclear accident. With all of the stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the world the possibility of an accident is real, and its consequences catastrophic. The scenario presented the film Dr Strangelove, although satirical was not entirely without foundation and the the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction was not given the acronym MAD without reason. The only way to really prevent this disaster happening is to work towards a nuclear free world.
Finally, I believe that the crucial moral argument here is with the intended use of the weapon. The threat they pose and any political advantage you gain from their possession can only be realized if others believe you will use them. Even though you may not explicitly threaten their use, I could only ever see any political advantage in the implicit threat carried that you have them and that they are available for use. People will only believe you will use them if you do not rule out using them and leave that possibility open. However I believe that the use of nuclear weapons is immoral. If you believe that they are immoral than you should rule out their use, making their utility redundant. With the further possibility of an accident happening I see therefore no reason why we should keep them. Yes of course I understand that there are others throughout the world with out such scruples, but if they can be prevented from gaining the weapon in other ways and if they controlled by other means, as I think is clearly the case, than this should be our policy, rather than to act as the world’s bully.
As an update, and keeping on the subject of defence, I will be attending an event with Admiral Mike Mullen, the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff tonight in Washington, which I will be blogging on tomorrow.
Filed under: Foreign Affairs
George,
Thank you for your response. It is a pleasure having this debate with you and I shall now submit my reply.
First, my rebuttal.
1) In your last post you said: “Indeed even though India and Pakistan are not signatories of the NPT, does this not demonstrate even more that for 180 signatories, in fact the rest of the world, that the NPT does work?”
Surely just one state ignoring the NPT is enough to undermine the entire agreement and start a chain of proliferation? Indeed you yourself mention that Iran would be less likely to pursue the development of nuclear power if Israel didn’t already have nuclear weapons. How has Iran responded to pressure to cease this development? By threatening to renege on the NPT fully aware that, unless the US is prepared to go to war over it, any attempt to impose hard-hitting sanctions through the UN would be vetoed by the Russians and the Chinese.
2) You said: “However you can not hide nuclear weapons, they require technology, resources, and above all testing that is impossible to hide”
Bearing in mind that Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons was only revealed by an Israeli whistleblower and that Pakistan and India, not to mention North Korea were only revealed to be developing nuclear weapons when they started testing them, I would assert that the prisoner’s dilemna remains with its fundamental assumptions intact. This is because a country that has disarmed totally is still at a significant disadvantage compared to another still in the process of testing and refining their technology and who are thus likely to have access to nuclear weapons much sooner than any of their rivals.
3) Finally, you said: “They (nuclear weapons) are even under a joint NATO command and so face restrictions in their use, except in the “extreme national interest”. If this is about sovereignty, why does Britain not develop a truly independent deterrent?
Here I think you may have mis-interpreted my point about sovereignty, which I will come back to in a moment, as it is firmly my belief that shared sovereignty between like-minded liberal democracies over the very instruments of war is a far better way of safeguarding us from total destruction than leaving us open to those whose nuclear disarmament we can barely oversee, let alone enforce.
Furthermore, my point about the UN Security Council was that even though the Security Council in 1945 represented the balance of power in the immediate post-war world, the main reason the UK have not lost their seat or been usurped by a single EU seat -not that I would necessarily be opposed to that- is that they are a nuclear power. As for the likes of those applying for UNSC status such as India, the reason they have been declined is simply because none of the P5 members can agree on a settlement that doesn’t clash with their own individual interests. At the same time, however, in this age of unilateralism, I accept that the dynamics of the United Nations Security Council is harldy an accurate barometre of the global balance of power today.
As for my main points: I would like to clarify my reference to sovereignty, re-emphasize why a nuclear free world would be both unworkable and undesirable and lay out my own vision of how best to achieve a lasting peace. Furthermore, as appropriate as I think it is to make this debate as much about British nuclear policy, as we are after all young Liberal Democrats, I would stress that my aim in referring to British nuclear policy is simply a means of practically applying and qualifying my arguments about the benevolence of a nuclear world as opposed to the other way round. I mention this to avoid restricting the boundaries of this debate purely to Britain.
My point about sovereignty was not that nukes were necessary to protect a nation’s sovereignty but simply that they are necessary to protect it from the absence of sovereignty in the international system. International law is not binding and any decisions and actions that are depend on the major powers, who often have divergent interests, co-operating with each other. As a result the capacity of one state to advance its interests is not based on principles of fairness or justice but on power and as power is relative unless states keep updating their arsenal to make sure they can inflict as much damage on their enemies as they would inflict upon them, their power wanes.
This used to result in periodic arms races and recurring wars when only conventional weapons were available as quantity was everything and meant that state leaders could calculate ‘acceptable’ losses to justify conflict.
The advent of nuclear weapons has greatly reduced this although, as mentioned before, the targeting systems available along with the total number of nukes can affect a state’s rationale to strike first or second with significant ramifications for the MAD doctrine. This is why the major powers should strive to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons amongst smaller countries at all costs, whilst retaining their own.
This said, I share just as much as you the aversion to nuclear weapons and the destruction they can cause. However, I can’t imagine a nuclear free world resulting in anything other than a return for the constant wars of yesteryear where the cost to human progress, not to mention human life, would probably be greater -albeit incrementally- than any nuclear war. Therefore, the answer surely lies in finding a way to make nuclear weapons redundant whilst still retaining the option to use them even if just for political rather than military ends.
This is where Nuclear Missile Defence comes in. However, I do not mean the nuclear defence shield comprised of ballistic missiles to intercept nukes in space, as originally envisaged by sequences of US administrations. Even if they did one day manage to actually hit something (West Wing fans take note), they would probably do little to stop the attack from succeeding as every missile carries a multiple of decoy or duds warheads. The only visible difference between the two is weight, but considering that missiles only break up releasing loaded and decoy warheads at the same time in space…well you can see where this falls down. Therefore, you need to take them out before they leave the atmosphere and the only way to do this in time is to launch interceptor missiles from close range of the nuclear missile silo. This is called boost-phase missile defence and is the reason why the Americans are setting up launch sites in Central and Eastern Europe from where an Iranian -or a Russian- missile could be tracked and interecepted much to the Kremlin’s dismay.
Incidentally, this affords those states effective protection from nuclear attack without necessitating them to develop nuclear weapons of their own due to the leverage they will have over the United States. Of course they will also be able to use this leverage for political ends, whilst the Americans will be keen to remain close politically to such nations to ensure that their interests do not diverge in order to protect such agreements. This in turn creates a more sustainable series of political networks from which evolve common moral norms and values. Thus, the security community, as first envisaged by Deutsch, is born with a ready made example of how successful such an arrangement can be in the European Union. The EU of course began merely as a small community of states whose first big decision was to fuel the industries of war -coal and steel- as the first step of many to peace and unity in Europe.
Although this may sound awfully idealistic, it is in my view the most pragmatic course of action. And as for where this leaves Britain: although we would be a natural site for the posting of interceptor missiles, this would have to become a reality before we could even consider disposing of our own nuclear weapons. Until then, it would be unfathomable to rid ourselves of Trident, but it is also crucial that we take the necessary steps to maximise our diplomatic influence such as passing the EU Reform Treaty and empowering an effective European foreign minister to represent the EU as a whole to international community.
