 |
| What should the UK spend a potential £80billion+ on? (Pic : Greenpeace) |
Back to back coverage from the Assembly. Yes, I do regret it. If yesterday was a little dry, this one was more lively.
It's a Plaid Cymru-sponsored debate on the future of the UK's nuclear deterrent, which is earmarked for replacement over the coming decade as the existing Trident missile system nears the end of its shelf life.
Some more background :
- Carwyn prostitutes Wales to the grim reaper (19.6.12)
- Fifty years, thirteen days, one relieved planet (28.10.12)
- Kim's brinkmanship - Symptom of a wider problem? (4.4.13)
- A Nuclear Error (11.1.14)
Plaid's motion called for :
- Opposition to moving Trident to Wales, and the Welsh Government to make representations to the UK Government on that.
- Opposition to any replacement of Trident.
- Support for international efforts to reduce nuclear weapons.
Although it's clearly a non-devolved issue as it spans defence and foreign affairs, it hasn't stopped the Assembly debating similar matters before.
Up & Atom
Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM (Plaid, Carms. E & Dinefwr) started by saying the National Assembly/Welsh Government needed to make a "clear and unambiguous statement" that they don't want nuclear weapons moved to Wales (clip). Nuclear weapons were a moral and economic issue as much as national security, with public money set to be spend on a Trident replacement instead of crucial public services at a cost of potentially up to £100billion.
Rhodri questioned supporters of a nuclear deterrent – who would they deter? The threat to security is from terrorism, and nuclear weapons are no deterrent to terrorists. Although a Trident replacement would be pointless expenditure, he was open to a debate on whether the money should be reinvested in conventional weapons.
He said the UK can't afford to be a nuclear power anymore and most NATO nations don't have nuclear weapons. Nick Ramsay AM (Con, Monmouth) intervened to say that the permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) have them.
Rhodri rejected Lib Dems and Labour amendments, saying there was a level of hypocrisy in the Welsh Government saying it was "nothing to do with us", yet allowing the First Minister to make statements welcoming a hypothetical relocation of Trident to Wales. Our position needed to be made clear.
Peter Black AM (Lib Dem, South Wales West) claimed that if the Lib Dems didn't manage to secure a delay when in government, a Trident replacement would already be on the way (clip).
Rhodri Glyn Thomas argued that the Lib Dem's proposal would cost more in the end. Peter rejected this, saying there had been no discussions on what would replace Trident and it would be made by the next UK Government, whatever the colour.
Peter said Milford Haven was considered as a base for Polaris, but was rejected due to the new oil refinery, the evaluation judging that a collision between an oil tanker and a nuclear submarine "would be catastrophic". Nowadays there are two oil refineries, LNG stations and power stations, so he agreed Milford Haven would be completely unsuitable to host submarines.
The Lib Dems oppose a "like-for-like" Trident replacement and are committed to non-proliferation as the "world has moved on, so should way we defend the country". Any move to replace Trident as it is would mean the UK is failing to show commitment to the treaty; ending continuous at-sea patrols and reducing the number of warheads would ensure the UK remains safe.
Alun Ffred Jones AM (Plaid, Arfon) said nobody can use nuclear weapons "without destroying the world in a way that hasn't been seen before" (clip). The SNP had created the greatest challenge to Trident in recent years, but has also created the possibility that weapons could be moved to Wales. Alun added that the justification based on job creation is irrelevant, as it's highly unlikely anyone would "look away and shrug their shoulders" if jobs were created by the hypothetical manufacture of cluster bombs.
He bemoaned Labour doing an about face on their previous opposition to nuclear weapons, but said the fact that "nukes and gas don't mix" was a saving grace for Wales. He finished by saying the Welsh Government can still make representations to Whitehall and it was important to make its views clear.
Mike Hedges AM (Lab, Swansea East) gave an impromptu history lesson (clip), saying a justification for nuclear weapons based on a premise that no country would attack a state that possesses them has been demonstrated false time and time again in the Falkland Islands, Afghanistan, Egypt (Suez crisis) etc. Mike said Russia is nowadays more likely to threaten to turn European gas supplies off than use nuclear weapons, and no respectable government would use them anyway.
Mike said that while Trident isn't completely independent as it requires US permission to launch (a fact many people seem to forget), the least worse option would be to keep current capabilities.
Mark Isherwood AM (Con, North Wales) asked whether Mike supported the views of Labour's Shadow Defence Minister, Vernon Coaker, who supports a continuous at-sea deterrent? Mike brushed it off by saying he wasn't responsible to Coaker, but his constituents. He concluded that it was a purely economic argument, not a moral one – it would be silly to spend money on weapons that can't be used.
 |
| An Astute-class submarine; cost £1.16billion each. Regardless of your views on Plaid's brand of pacifism, it's an inescapable fact that the UK's military procurement record is bloody awful. (Pic : The Independent) |
She said generals claim the government has "gone soft on its enemies" whenever defence spending is cut, but pointed to their poor handling of the new generation of Astute-class submarines - the cost of which has doubled to £9.7billion. When the Trident replacement comes online in 2025, its costs are expected to have risen from £20billion to £80billion - possibly rising to as much as £140billion if delayed for five years - making it the most expensive military project in UK history.
Bethan said there's nobody to point them at, as the likes of ISIS aren't intimidated by them. We shouldn't allow the defence establishments to lead us into this, as "our children wouldn't forgive us" for spending money on a white elephant.
Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Davies AM (Con, South Wales Central), agreed that the debate shouldn't be off-limits despite non-competence (clip). He understood opposing views, but believes a nuclear deterrent "helped defeat the Soviet Union and liberate eastern Europe". Andrew believes nuclear weapons should be considered "an insurance policy" for the UK - a democracy that plays a leading role in world politics.
Bethan Jenkins asked a question on Trident's strategic value. Andrew cited Ukraine's experience, believing that if they didn't give up their nuclear weapons in the 1990s, Russia wouldn't have annexed Crimea.
Andrew said the UK has a general responsibility as a leading member of the UNSC and one of the two* NATO nuclear powers. He reiterated that nobody would want to see nuclear weapons used, and he would welcome a nuclear-free world, but there were a clear majority who support retaining a deterrent.
*Grrrrrrrr Woof-Woof-Woof! Three – the French have them too, and returned to NATO command in 2009.
Linsday Whittle AM (Plaid, South Wales East) said nuclear weapons wouldn't make a difference considering the current threats the UK faces (clip). Leaders who use nuclear weapons would be committing suicide. From the opposite side, he questioned why the UK or US didn't launch a tactical nuclear strike on Iraq when it was said they had the capability to launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes?
He reminded the Assembly that the American war hero, General Douglas MacArthur, once called for a first strike on China during the Korean War and was eventually sacked by President Truman, becoming viewed as a "madman". Lindsay believes Trident is allowing the UK to "keep eating at the top table" when it's a second-rate power.
This is something the Conservatives strongly rejected, with Nick Ramsay later accusing Plaid Cymru of talking Wales down by proxy and getting semantic over the difference between second-rate powers and second-rate countries (clip). Nick described the debate as "misleading" as Trident would likely be relocated to Devonport and there are no proposals to move it to Wales.
Nick had no problem delaying the project as it costs a considerable sum of money, but he maintains that multi-lateral disarmament is the best way forward, as unilateral disarmament would "send the wrong signal" to terrorists and rogue states. It could be something the UK gives away without ever having a chance of getting back.
On behalf of the Welsh Government, the First Minister said it had been a passionate debate, and acknowledged that even within his own party members will have different views (clip). There is no Welsh Government policy, however Carwyn said Labour (at UK level) were committed to a nuclear-free world through multi-lateral disarmament and enforcing non-proliferation obligations.
He was concerned that people are looking at events in Ukraine and feeling "the world might be walking into a new Cold War". Labour has committed to a debate on the future of the UK's nuclear weapons and would work with the US and France towards the "Global Zero" campaign to reduce the number of operational weapons.
In reply to the debate, Rhodri Glyn Thomas said (clip) the First Minister's support for multi-lateral disarmament was a "step forward from his last statement", but was disappointed he hasn't made a clear statement one way or another on Trident relocating.
Turning to some of the arguments made in favour of a replacement, he said the Lib Dems were unsure "what kind" of nuclear weapons would replace Trident, while Ukraine couldn't afford to keep nuclear weapons and expected help from their allies under treaty obligations – help which never came.
Possessing nuclear weapons in its own right is likely to make a nation a target and a threat, and if they are to be considered an insurance policy, then the penalty clause for use is "heavy" by "destroying the human race completely".
An amended version of the motion - which deleted everything and inserted a Welsh Government statement that nuclear weapons policy is non-devolved and the responsibility of the UK Government - was passed by 38 votes to 9.
Protect & Survive
 |
| I can see myself making good use of this picture. |
It's perfectly right to ask questions on this.
Considering the cost of the project, and its potential impact on British and Welsh finances, it's bizarre that the Welsh Government wouldn't have a view on it - or at the very least an informal policy - just because it's non-devolved.
We've heard plenty from them on High Speed 2, the Barnett formula, EU membership and welfare reform down the years. Even if Wales isn't likely to be on the shortlist for a nuclear submarine base at present, it's negligent to think that will always be the case.
On the merits of unilateral vs multilateral disarmament, it's a bit like schoolkids bickering about who should be first into a classroom taught by a teacher they they don't like - "You first!" "No, you!". One way or another they'll have to go through the door.
You can understand hulking oafs like Russia, China and the United States needing nuclear weapons as they stare off in the playground, but all the UK has to protect is its banks. Before Unionists get all dewy-eyed, that doesn't make the UK any less influential on the world stage, it just means the form that influence takes has changed - the UK is now an economic power, not a military or colonial one.
It's worth summing up key issues and unanswered questions on Trident :
- We still don't know how much it's going to cost.
- We still don't know what precisely would replace it.
- There's been no explanation as to how a Trident replacement fits the UK's current strategic defence requirements, we just need them because....reasons.
- What would be the impact of the proposed US-led missile defence shield in eastern Europe – which largely negates the need for an independent nuclear deterrent?
- While it's true that permanent members of the UNSC are nuclear powers, there are nuclear powers outside the UNSC – like Pakistan, India and Israel. There are plenty of influential regional and global powers who don't have nuclear weapons either – like Germany, Japan and Brazil.
- There's still some long-term uncertainty over where they'll be based due to the political situation in Scotland (I'd agree with Nick Ramsay though that Devonport is the most likely alternative).
So you've got to take Labour's silence as tacit support for a (potentially £80billion) like-for-like Trident replacement - which could, in nominal terms, cost Wales up to £4billion.
0 comments:
Post a Comment