Nato summit in Warsaw, Poland, where Cameron announced MP vote on replacing ageing Trident submarines on July 18. Dominic Lipinski / Press Association. All rights reserved.The UK
has consistently opposed discussion at the United Nations on possible routes
toward the elimination of nuclear weapons.
This has been described as ‘scandalous’
by some and for good reason. In recent
years the UK has strongly resisted any discussion of multilateral disarmament
in forums outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review
Conference. At the 2010 NPT Review
Conference, the UK was instrumental in voting down the proposal of the United
Nations Secretary General for an international conference on his five-point
plan for multilateral disarmament. The
UK has opposed the establishment of two UN Open-Ended Working Groups on
multilateral disarmament – these have subsequently taken place anyway. The UK government is currently boycotting
UN talks that will deliver proposals on multilateral disarmament to the UN
General Assembly this year.
Under the NPT, the UK is committed
to ‘negotiation in good faith’. Yet these
recent talks among UN member states do not even amount to ‘negotiation’ at this
stage. These are discussions,
no more, and they are necessary as the path to zero nuclear weapons is not
yet clear. The elimination of
nuclear weapons will take time and effort to achieve. It will require some of the brightest and
most experienced diplomatic minds to work out how best to make progress. All the more reason then for the UK to join with
others in mapping the route to zero and the likely stages on the journey.
The UK’s status as a nuclear weapons power
The UK Government’s reticence can
be partly explained in that the UK is one of only five states to have a temporary
status as a recognised nuclear weapons power under the NPT. In the past the Government has perceived that
the UK gains status as a nation by holding and maintaining nuclear
weapons. The leasing of Trident missiles
from the United States is a unique arrangement that is viewed as cementing the
UK’s special relationship on security matters – although it also says something
about the balance in this relationship. In
addressing the fallout of ‘Brexit’ on international relations, further commitment
to spending on Trident was hailed
by Theresa May as demonstrating that the UK remains engaged in world
affairs.
The current reframing of the debate
But international perspectives on
nuclear weapons are changing fast. There
is a growing appreciation that the unequal status of nuclear-weapon and
non-nuclear weapon states in the NPT cannot be maintained indefinitely. The humanitarian
agenda around nuclear weapons is re-framing the debate. Inevitably, the UK will find even exploratory
discussion of the path to zero challenging as any clarity here will potentially
diminish, or even reverse, the diplomatic value of Trident. The likely introduction of a treaty banning
nuclear weapons, supported by a majority of states, will further stigmatise the
UK’s nuclear arsenal. A relatively
active civil society in Britain and respect for international humanitarian law
causes the UK Government to be a little more exposed to such pressure than most
other nuclear-armed states.
If the UK continues to attempt to
block discussion in the UN, this discussion will nevertheless take place
without us. The message is clear – you
can run but you cannot hide.
A distinctive UK contribution to the non-proliferation regime
There is another way. The UK occupies a unique position. Among the recognised nuclear powers, the UK
is the only state that considers itself bound by the International Court of
Justice. The nation enjoys strong relationships
with Commonwealth states, many of whom are located in Nuclear Weapons Free
Zones. This uniqueness provides the UK
with an unparalleled capacity to engage the international community in defining
paths to zero while simultaneously addressing the concerns of nuclear weapons
states and their allies around strategic stability. The UK could, with a little difficulty, pursue
this mission even if Parliament decides to build new Trident successor
submarines. At the eye-watering cost of
£41 billion, these submarines would remain a colossal waste of money. But they should not prevent us from
delivering on the stated commitment of successive UK Government administrations
to multilateral disarmament.