"It's one thing to revisit the scene of a crime. It's another to revisit the scene of a suicide"

So said Gerald Kaufman this afternoon in the debate which is currently going on on the issue of whether or not we replace our submarines which carry our Trident nuclear missiles. Of course, Kaufman was the man who called Labour's 1983 manifesto "the longest suicide note in history". I find it impossible to impugn the motives of anybody who argues that nuclear weapons are immoral and we should get rid of the things altogether. I do not find it impossible to impugn their reasoning, as I've briefly set out before. (I should add a caveat. I don't find it difficult to impugn the motives of one Jon Cruddas, who in an e-mail to party members as part of his campaign for the deputy leadership says: "Des Browne made it clear that he was not interested in the views of party members like you ... Some politicians may not think your voice matters but I do.")

The ever more annoying Alex Salmond got something right for once this afternoon: this debate is about Britain's place in the world. Despite the rhetoric about us abandoning our commitments to non-proliferation, this is about getting serious on just such that issue. I'm a little tired of hearing the argument that "We can't tell Iran it shouldn't have nuclear weapons when we're renewing ours". Excuse me, but yes, we can, for several reasons. One: Iran claims that its nuclear programme is strictly for civilian, energy-generating purposes, and time and again Britain has said that it supports Iran's right to develop such a programme under the NPT — but it must also open up that programme to international inspectors so that we can verify that weapons-grade uranium is not being processed. If Iran doesn't seek a bomb (which is what the CND types are always telling us, and that we imperialists should stop threatening the Iranians), then we shouldn't have to worry about any decision which we take in this country affecting her. And second: if she is planning on developing a bomb, which she blatantly is, then there's one key difference between our country and that one: we haven't threatened to wipe anyone off the map recently or hosted an international conference denying genocide.

The decision of whether or not to retain our deterrent is crucial to the role we see ourselves playing in the global community over the next 50 years. It's not simply about cosying up to George Bush; Bush will be gone in a few months' time and America's agenda may be wholly different. It is about retaining our role at the top of world politics; and for all the carping, with a seat on the Security Council, a key role in the G8, being a leading partner in NATO and at the heart of the EU — all of these things do mean that the UK has a key role to play in international relations. Any decision to scrap our nuclear weapons completely has to be seen in that context. This is not about "aspiring to superpower status", as Salmond put it; it's about living up to our obligations.

The key argument for me though, unsurprisingly, is only peripherally about Britain's role in the world. It's about threats, both current and possible. The NPT permits us to have nuclear weapons, with a commitment to moves towards multilateral disarmament (note: multilateral). There is nothing contradictory in us maintaining our own weapons while dissuading others from acquiring theirs. The overriding security question looms large: how can we wilfully decide to cast away our deterrent when Iran is developing its own weapons; when North Korea has its own (despite recent developments); when we know that states such as those two, plus individuals like A.Q. Khan, are actively engaged in proliferating WMD technology? Nuclear weapons, it's true, almost certainly won't deter individual suicide terrorists. But they may just dissuade rogue states from supplying terrorists with the materiél they desire to carry out their atrocities.

The other, most abstract, but also in my view most persuasive argument in favour of renewal is simply that we have no idea what will happen in the world in the next few decades. It's my view that any idea that we've come to a new 'end of history' and that wars between major powers are gone forever is hopeful at best and naive at worst. It's the same mindset which had it that 'peace is breaking out' and that history came to an end with the fall of the Berlin Wall. For my part, I look at China's seemingly unstoppable growth and its occasional sabre-rattling against Taiwan and Tibet; I look at Russia's slide backwards into presidential authoritarianism and human rights abuse; and I consider that, decades hence, it is impossible to conclude that a confrontation between major powers is unthinkable. In those circumstances, to misquote Bevan, why should Britain go naked into the conference chamber?

Nuclear weapons are vile things. They are weapons of mass destruction in the most literal sense. But the notion that if we have Trident it lies unused is false. If you have a nuclear deterrent, you are always using it. The very fact that it exists and is in your hands makes your enemies reconsider the notion that they can hold you to ransom. That may be, literally, MAD logic; but it is logic nevertheless, with historic precedent.

Comments

[Wostol]

How have Des Browne and the party leadership demonstrated their interest in party members' views on Trident?

[Rob]

By the process of including a commitment in the 2005 manifesto to retain the deterrent, which involved party members and the National Policy Forum, and by over the last few months travelling around CLPs talking to local parties about the issue. But that wasn't my point; my point was that Cruddas, for all his protestations about reinvigorating the membership and doing things differently, is wrong to use an issue like Trident to spread cynicism and disgruntlement.

[Cyre]

I like the tone of your piece, but i noticed a few things that are a might inaccurate. One thing you might want to catch up on is the history of iran, which has a long history of resisting imperialism.

Further, while i don't like Ahmadinejad, i think he's playing both sides for his own benefit, he never said anything about 'wiping israel off the map', it was a mistranslation made by Israeli translators tha the mainstream media picked up and circulated far and wide.

The obvious agenda: setting him up as the next Saddam, prepping the populace for war in Iran.

Links that wouldn't html:
History of Iran:
http://world.mediamonitors.net/headlines/war_without_win_a_white_paper_on_iran
Ahmadinejad never said 'Wipe israel off the map':
http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/articles/show/113411-Ahmadinejad+Did+Not+Say+-+%22Wipe+Israel+Off+The+Map%22

[MR Worstleworstle]

"By the process of including a commitment in the 2005 manifesto to retain the deterrent"

The commitment to retain the deterrent is not the same as a commitment to renewing Trident. There has been minimal debate on the various options before us.

"which involved party members and the National Policy Forum"

What role exactly did party members and the NPF have in commiting us to replacing Trident?

"and by over the last few months travelling around CLPs talking to local parties about the issue."

Not in my area, and if they had they would have found a lot of hostility. Not just on the issue of rearmament/disarmament but the way in which it has been managed by the leadership.

"But that wasn't my point; my point was that Cruddas, for all his protestations about reinvigorating the membership and doing things differently, is wrong to use an issue like Trident to spread cynicism and disgruntlement"

I agree that Cruddas was wrong to crudely attack Des Browne like that. But I would also say that you are deluded if you don't believe that there is a great deal of cynicism and disgruntlement in the party anyway. The popularity of the Cruddas campaign is a sympton not a cause of that. Again, while I disagree with Cruddas blaming Browne like that, I think it is obvious that there are great many ordinary party members out there who feel completely disenfranchised on issues like Trident. The leadership invite cynicism when they ignore concerns and stifle debate.

By the way, I enjoyed hearing about the Labour Students chair's performance at the NEC meeting where Des Browne asked him what arguments he would use in favour of keeping trident. The chair went on to claim that he hadn't met anyone who didn't think maintaining Trident was a good idea (ha!) before explaining his views on the matter, which Des Browne instantly dismissed as rubbish. That is why I respect Des Browne.

[Rob]

Cyre — thanks for the comments and the links. I don't support war with Iran, but I'm also under no illusions that the goal of Iran is to obtain a nuclear weapon. Whether Ahmedinejad believes his own rhetoric or not (and incidentally, I don't recognise a great deal of difference between "Israel should be wiped off the map" and "As the Ayatollah said, the Occupier regime of al-Qods must be wiped off the map"), I don't believe that an Iranian nuclear weapon is an acceptable thing.

Mr "Worstleworstle". Look, I think the issue of Britain's nuclear deterrent has always been an emotive and difficult issue for the Party, whoever the leadership is. In the 1950s it caused enormous ructions; in the 1980s it was one of the primary reasons for the formal schism that resulted in the SDP. My main point would be this: if you didn't get a Defence Minister come to you to talk about Trident, why the hell didn't you invite one?

As for the last paragraph, I'm unsure why the chair of Labour Students would be addressing an NEC meeting. But knowing him as I do, I find both the idea that he couldn't argue for renewing Trident and that Des Browne would dismiss him as "rubbish" utter nonsense.

[mr Worstleworstleworstle]

My mistake, it was not a NEC meeting but a NPF one. I found this on Ann Black's website (www.annblack.com):

"National Policy Forum, 3 February 2007"

"Various members had consulted widely, most finding a majority against Trident: two-thirds of over 100 responding to south-east representatives, an “overwhelming” proportion in London, 57% of
200 replies to two NEC representatives, 84% of 1090 responses to a Compass on-line poll. The exception was the Chair of Labour Students who reported that 80% of 120 people at a meeting backed upgrading Trident, so young people may not be radical in quite the way that some assume. He feared Britain would lose its position on the world stage, its UN security council seat, and its influence in tackling climate change and world poverty. Des Browne said that this was untrue and a poor argument."

[Rob]

I can vouch for the Labour Students result as I was present at the debate in question and the vote was overwhelmingly in favour of Trident renewal. If Des Browne did indeed say that the argument that we could lose influence on the world stage was a poor one, then I must beg to differ. The notion that the United States in particular would look upon a British decision to unilaterally disarm with indifference strikes me as unlikely to say the least — and when progress on issues like global poverty and climate change depends so much on the engagement of the United States, it strikes me that Trident disarmament could indeed jeopardise our position as the US's closest ally. Of course, I'm guessing that you would welcome that so this may not bother you one jot; but I'd be surprised if Des Browne thought the same way.

If you ask me it's perfectly legitimate to wonder if Britain would lose ground on the 'world stage' with a decision to dismantle the deterrent — particularly when you consider that our position as one of the permanent five members of the Security Council is based entirely upon our position of nuclear weapons.

[Harry Rose]

Completely agree. Unfortunately, I can count on one hand the number of cabinet ministers who are capable of articulating this argument.