Ever since then British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett got sacked a day or two after making a speech on disarmament at last year’s Carnegie Conference, British officials have been at pains to point out that the two events were entirely unconnected. Indeed, from what I’ve heard the current PM has a much stronger personal interest in the subject than his predecessor. Anyway, the new PM said what I think were his first public words on the subject in a speech in India on Monday.
…And facing serious challenges from Iran and North Korea, we must send a powerful signal to all members of the international community that the race for more and bigger stockpiles of nuclear destruction is over. The expiry of the remaining US-Russia arms deals, the continued existence of these large arsenals, the stalemates on a fissile material cut-off treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty must all be addressed.
And let me say today Britain is prepared to use our expertise to help determine the requirements for the verifiable elimination of nuclear warheads. And I pledge that in the run-up to the Non Proliferation Treaty review conference in 2010 we will be at the forefront of the international campaign to accelerate disarmament amongst possessor states, to prevent proliferation to new states, and to ultimately achieve a world that is free from nuclear weapons.
Around the world we are already seeing new interest in nuclear power as a source of energy supply and this increased interest in civil nuclear power also brings with it increased risk of proliferation for military purposes. So we want to press ahead for early agreement on a new IAEA-led international system to help non-nuclear states acquire the new sources of energy they need, including through an enrichment bond for uranium. And this offer that we want to make to non-nuclear states is one that we will make only in return for firm commitments to the highest non-proliferation standards. Because the threat and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is now compounded by the continuing proliferation of conventional weapons, and we know that one person is killed every minute from small arms, Britain will also work internationally to achieve a global arms trade treaty.
Andreas Persbo has blogged about the progress of one of the UK initiatives highlighted in the Carnegie speech.
[Erratum: “to ultimately achieve a world that is freer from nuclear weapons” has been corrected to “to ultimately achieve a world that is free from nuclear weapons”. The mistake was on the text put up by the UK embassy in Berlin. Serves me right for not using the Downing Street version].
P.M. Brown’s remarks on nuclear and conventional weapons are indeed titillating … but they raise some important questions that the U.K. government must reckon with and should be pressed to answer, especially given the fact that he gave the speech in India.
First, on the “impasse” on CTBT and FMCT. The U.K. can do more to change the current USG opposition to a verifiable FMCT. It could also call upon India to join the U.K., France, United States, and Russia in declaring publicly that is will cease further fissile production for weapons until such time as a global FMCT is concluded.
On CTBT, where is his call for India to formalize its test moratorium pledge, or even sign the CTBT?
And, given Brown’s advocacy of an IAEA-backed “uranium bond” for states that meet the highest nonpro standards, does this apply to India, which is seeking U.K. support for a new IAEA-India safeguards agreement that would provide fuel supply assurances? The current U.S. proposal for an NSG exemption for India <http://www.armscontrol.org/projects/India/20060327_DraftNSGProposal.asp> would NOT automatically cut off NSG trade if India tests.
Until and unless the U.K. gov’t clarifies these issues, it is hard to determine whether Brown’s “nuclear freer” talk is just talk, action, or doublespeak.
– Daryl Kimball
The text has a small mistake in it (now corrected on the Downing St web site). The word freer should be replaced with free.
I agree with Daryl PLUS:
-what about immunizing non-nuclear states from nuclear attack? Both the US and Britain have claimed the right to use nuclear weapons under various scenarios including, on the part of the US, if they are simply doing badly in a conventional war.
-what about “No First Strike?”
-what about criminalizing the use of nuclear weapons?
In the end, Brown’s assumptions are quite common: he feels threatened by states that don’t have nuclear weapons, but might in the future. He just can’t understand why other people might be more concerned about the nukes that already exist rather than notional future weapons. Even stockpile reduction does not address the fact that if the possessor states feel free to use their weapons, then any possible target nation would be foolish not to acquire a deterrent.
Paul: Thanks for that. I thought freer was an odd word to use.
James
James, Maybe like Bush, Brown is still wrestling with determining how few weapons are enough to provide the UK with that elusive credible deterrent against not only states but them pesky non-state actors too.
Don’t be modest James. You were and are pretty involved in the enterprise as well. Shame you moved on to greener pastures 🙂
Regardless of what Brown could be doing more than making these remarks, let’s appreciate what a vast departure they are from those of his predecessors and other chiefs of nuclear states. Even if his comments are just empty talk, they are more heartening than the deadly serious rhetoric we have been hearing from Washington like “preemptive nuclear strike,” “regime change,” “strength beyond challenge,” “unilateral military action,” “Global Strike,” and “full spectrum deterrence.” Brown is to be wholeheartedly commended for taking a bold position on disarmament. I personally don’t believe that Brown is telling us a fairy tale, and I plan to send him a thank you note for his positive leadership in nuclear disarmament so sorely lacking in the world today.