At the end of November 400 citizen weapons inspectors converged on the Aldermaston Nuclear Weapons Facility to expose the fact that the government is about to break international law and build a new nuclear bomb. Among the weapons inspectors was Anita Roddick, founder of The Body Shop. Read her update about why she's standing up against Trident replacement and calling on politicians to find the courage to be counted on an issue that deeply affects all of our futures.
At the end of last year I joined a Greenpeace protest at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston where the Labour government are spending billions of pounds of your money to design new nuclear weapons for Trident. Of course the decision on new nuclear weapons hasn't yet been made, but you know Tony's always jumping the gun. And as with Iraq he nearly always jumps in the wrong direction.
As Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary remarked just before he tragically died, the Trident question could have been an excellent opportunity for Blair to show he was a true moderniser. It was old Labour in the 60s under Harold Wilson that launched Trident's predecessor. It was Jim Callaghan who struck the deal with the Americans to get Trident. As Robin said: "There could not be a more convincing way for Tony Blair to break from the past and to demonstrate that he is a true moderniser than by making the case that nuclear weapons now have no relevance to Britain's defences in the modern world."
These weapons were designed for the Cold War. They belonged to an era that no longer exists. The Soviet Union cannot be compared to North Korea as Gordon Brown attempted in a speech to the Scottish Labour party. Just as Saddam Hussein cannot be compared to Adolf Hitler as Blair tried to do in his justification for invading Iraq. North Korea like Iraq is not about to launch an all out frontal assault on the UK where we need to hit back with long range, intercontinental ballistic missiles tipped with nuclear warheads. As Robin Cook eloquently pointed out "It is not easy to see what practical return Britain ever got out of the extravagant sums we invested in our nuclear systems. None of our wars were ever won by them and none of the enemies we fought was deterred by them. General Galtieri was not deterred from seizing the Falklands, although Britain possessed the nuclear bomb and Argentina did not."
But paranoia and fear about the 'unknown future' are useful weapons for our political leaders to use in order to hold onto their weapons of mass destruction. And the war on terror has provided Bush and Blair's propaganda machine with the perfect excuse. As Rory Bremner recently quipped mimicking Bush "If Al Qaida didn't exist in Iraq before they sure as hell do now." But what use are nuclear weapons in tackling terrorism? We can't drop them on Bradford or Forest Gate. Baghdad maybe?
And it is easy to forget as we fret about North Korea that more countries have given up nuclear weapons over the past generation than have developed them. Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Ukraine all abandoned the bomb. Nor do G8 countries like Canada, Germany, Italy feel any less secure without nuclear weapons.
But it's not just that spending tens of billions of pounds on new nuclear weapons is irrelevant. It's immoral. It's obscene. It's even illegal. As the eminent QC Philippe Sands has recently pointed out, replacing Trident would breach the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As the treaty makes clear "Each of the parties to the treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date." International treaties, multilateral co-operation, conflict resolution - are these just words and phrases our government tosses out while our real resources go into the exact opposite?
Instead of putting our money into peacekeeping and dealing with the very real global threat of climate change we spend our money on sealing the nuclear alliance between the UK and the USA. Instead of being able to use our position in the world to argue that nuclear weapons do not bring peace and security we squander it by telling Iran they can't do exactly what we are doing. This is as Robin Cook said "a chasm too wide for logic to leap."
Both Hans Blix, the former chief UN weapons inspector and Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general have spoken out to urge the UK and other nuclear weapons states not to re-arm. As Annan put it, "by clinging to and modernizing their own arsenals, even when there is no obvious threat to their national security that nuclear weapons could deter, nuclear-weapon states encourage others - particularly those that do face real threats in their own region - to regard nuclear weapons as essential, both to their security and to their status. It would be much easier to confront proliferators if the very existence of nuclear weapons were universally acknowledged as dangerous and ultimately illegitimate."
If at the end of the day we are tearing up international treaties, wasting huge amounts of resources and undermining our position in the world for Blair's nuclear legacy then what hope is there for the world. Robin Cook was the last politician in government to stand up for what he believed in. No member of the British cabinet believes in this nuclear nonsense but not a single one will speak out. With a three line whip on Labour MPs to vote in favour of new nuclear weapons democracy in Britain takes a sad turn for the worst. Is there no politician out there that has the courage to stand up and be counted on an issue that deeply affects all of our futures?
Anita Roddick
Founder of The Body Shop
Write to your MP and ask them to take a stand in parliament against new nuclear weapons and vote against Trident replacement.
At the end of last year I joined a Greenpeace protest at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston where the Labour government are spending billions of pounds of your money to design new nuclear weapons for Trident. Of course the decision on new nuclear weapons hasn't yet been made, but you know Tony's always jumping the gun. And as with Iraq he nearly always jumps in the wrong direction.
As Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary remarked just before he tragically died, the Trident question could have been an excellent opportunity for Blair to show he was a true moderniser. It was old Labour in the 60s under Harold Wilson that launched Trident's predecessor. It was Jim Callaghan who struck the deal with the Americans to get Trident. As Robin said: "There could not be a more convincing way for Tony Blair to break from the past and to demonstrate that he is a true moderniser than by making the case that nuclear weapons now have no relevance to Britain's defences in the modern world."
These weapons were designed for the Cold War. They belonged to an era that no longer exists. The Soviet Union cannot be compared to North Korea as Gordon Brown attempted in a speech to the Scottish Labour party. Just as Saddam Hussein cannot be compared to Adolf Hitler as Blair tried to do in his justification for invading Iraq. North Korea like Iraq is not about to launch an all out frontal assault on the UK where we need to hit back with long range, intercontinental ballistic missiles tipped with nuclear warheads. As Robin Cook eloquently pointed out "It is not easy to see what practical return Britain ever got out of the extravagant sums we invested in our nuclear systems. None of our wars were ever won by them and none of the enemies we fought was deterred by them. General Galtieri was not deterred from seizing the Falklands, although Britain possessed the nuclear bomb and Argentina did not."
But paranoia and fear about the 'unknown future' are useful weapons for our political leaders to use in order to hold onto their weapons of mass destruction. And the war on terror has provided Bush and Blair's propaganda machine with the perfect excuse. As Rory Bremner recently quipped mimicking Bush "If Al Qaida didn't exist in Iraq before they sure as hell do now." But what use are nuclear weapons in tackling terrorism? We can't drop them on Bradford or Forest Gate. Baghdad maybe?
And it is easy to forget as we fret about North Korea that more countries have given up nuclear weapons over the past generation than have developed them. Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Ukraine all abandoned the bomb. Nor do G8 countries like Canada, Germany, Italy feel any less secure without nuclear weapons.
But it's not just that spending tens of billions of pounds on new nuclear weapons is irrelevant. It's immoral. It's obscene. It's even illegal. As the eminent QC Philippe Sands has recently pointed out, replacing Trident would breach the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As the treaty makes clear "Each of the parties to the treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date." International treaties, multilateral co-operation, conflict resolution - are these just words and phrases our government tosses out while our real resources go into the exact opposite?
Instead of putting our money into peacekeeping and dealing with the very real global threat of climate change we spend our money on sealing the nuclear alliance between the UK and the USA. Instead of being able to use our position in the world to argue that nuclear weapons do not bring peace and security we squander it by telling Iran they can't do exactly what we are doing. This is as Robin Cook said "a chasm too wide for logic to leap."
Both Hans Blix, the former chief UN weapons inspector and Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general have spoken out to urge the UK and other nuclear weapons states not to re-arm. As Annan put it, "by clinging to and modernizing their own arsenals, even when there is no obvious threat to their national security that nuclear weapons could deter, nuclear-weapon states encourage others - particularly those that do face real threats in their own region - to regard nuclear weapons as essential, both to their security and to their status. It would be much easier to confront proliferators if the very existence of nuclear weapons were universally acknowledged as dangerous and ultimately illegitimate."
If at the end of the day we are tearing up international treaties, wasting huge amounts of resources and undermining our position in the world for Blair's nuclear legacy then what hope is there for the world. Robin Cook was the last politician in government to stand up for what he believed in. No member of the British cabinet believes in this nuclear nonsense but not a single one will speak out. With a three line whip on Labour MPs to vote in favour of new nuclear weapons democracy in Britain takes a sad turn for the worst. Is there no politician out there that has the courage to stand up and be counted on an issue that deeply affects all of our futures?
Anita Roddick
Founder of The Body Shop
Stand up for what you believe in!
Write to your MP and ask them to take a stand in parliament against new nuclear weapons and vote against Trident replacement.
