Even for a Government led by
such a dissembling, shameless, reprobate Prime Minister, they have outdone
themselves in hypocrisy over security policy this week.
Johnson told MPs: Commons
“Today the Government is setting out its approach to the
Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy.
The Government has set in train the biggest review of our
foreign, defence, security and development policy since the end of the Cold
War. We need to grasp the opportunities of the next decade and deliver upon the
Government’s priorities. This is a defining moment in how the UK relates to the
rest of the world and we want to take this unique opportunity to reassess our
priorities and our approach to delivering them.
The Integrated Review will
i) Define the Government's ambition for the UK's role in
the world and the long-term strategic aims for our national security and
foreign policy.
ii) Set out the way in which the UK will be a
problem-solving and burden-sharing nation, examining how we work more
effectively with our allies.
iii) Determine the capabilities we need for the next
decade and beyond to pursue our objectives and address the risks and threats we
face.
iv) Identify the necessary reforms to Government systems
and structures to achieve these goals.
v) Outline a clear approach to implementation over the
next decade and set out how we will evaluate delivery of our aims.
The Review will be underpinned by the commitments the
Government has already made to continue to exceed the NATO target of spending
2% of GDP on Defence, to commit 0.7% of GNI to international development and to
maintain the nuclear deterrent.
A cross-Whitehall team in the Cabinet
Secretariat, and a small taskforce in No10, will report to me and the National
Security Council. The review will be closely aligned with this year’s
Comprehensive Spending Review but will also look beyond it. The Government will
consult with experts beyond Whitehall – in the UK and among our allies – in
order to ensure the best possible outcome and to build a strong platform for
the decade ahead. We will keep Parliament fully informed during the process as we deliver a review that is in the
best interests of the British people across the United Kingdom.”
This is a commendably wide review
platform, and it follows serious defence and security reviews initiated by Johnson’s
predecessors as PM.
On the same day in New York at a United
Nations Security
Council briefing on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Ambassador Jonathan
Allen, UK Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN
“.. over the
last 50 years, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, has minimised the
proliferation of nuclear weapons, provided the framework to enable significant
levels of nuclear disarmament … It has
played a crucial role in providing the basis for our discussions on Iran and
DPRK. And the UK is committed to the NPT review process and will work with all
partners for a positive outcome.
We know that
some states feel progress on nuclear disarmament has been slow. The United
Kingdom continuously engages with a wide range of states and it takes these
concerns seriously. The UK’s view is that any meaningful discussion on
disarmament must take into account the wider security environment, which is
increasingly difficult. We all have a responsibility to work towards a safer,
more stable world in which those states with nuclear weapons feel able to
relinquish them.
He went on to
assert:
“we want to
ensure that the upcoming 2020 Review Conference allows us to hold full and
frank discussions with the widest number of state parties about all pillars of
the NPT; reflects on the successes so far, and; sets collective direction for
the future. Our ambition is that state parties agree a consensus outcome.
Madam
President, let me highlight four of the United Kingdom’s contributions to a
successful RevCon. Firstly, we will be submitting a final national report,
setting out how we’ve implemented the NPT across all three pillars during this
cycle. We tabled a draft version during the NPT Preparatory Committee last year
and have hosted a series of feedback sessions with a wide range of states,
civil society and academics.
Secondly, we
have coordinated the P5 process since Prep-Com, continuing the excellent work
that took place under Chinese leadership. The United Kingdom hosted a P5
Directors General conference in London on the 12th and 13th of February this
year and welcomed there Ambassador Gustavo Zlauvinen and other members of the
bureau for a fruitful exchange of views. P5 discussions at that conference
covered all three pillars of the NPT and included improving transparency and P5
cooperation on a range of initiatives.
Thirdly, in
light of our focus on transparency, the conference included a day for civil
society and think tanks to engage with P5 officials and discuss these important
issues.”
He then added,
perhaps more controversially:
“On the treaty
on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, which others have raised, the United
Kingdom has been clear we will not sign or ratify the treaty. Instead, the
United Kingdom will continue to promote the step by step approach and work for
universalisation of the NPT; early entry into force of the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty, and; promote the early commencements and conclusions of
negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty in the Conference on Disarmament.
We must also
ensure the NPT RevCon gives proper regard to the achievements that it is made
possible under Pillars 2 and 3. On Pillar 2 the NPT has played an unparalleled
role in curtailing the nuclear arms race. Historic predictions were made of
tens or even 20 nuclear arms states. Today, there remain fewer than 10.
For these
reasons and more, the United Kingdom continues to believe that the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, approaching its 50th anniversary, remains essential
to the maintenance of a safe and secure world. We look forward to engaging with
all Security Council members and all state parties to achieve a successful
outcome at this year’s review conference and help to ensure the
Non-Proliferation Treaty remains effective and central to our collective
security for many years to come.”
All of which sounds very
sensible and constructive, except on the day before these two statement on
nuclear weapons, nuclear disarmament and security, UK Defence Secretary Ben
Wallace released another Written Statement to Parliament ( “Nuclear Update, Ministry
of Defence, 25 February
2020; Lords
“[The MOD’s] Defence Nuclear Organisation is working with
the Atomic Weapons Establishment: to build the highly skilled teams and put in
place the facilities and capabilities needed to deliver the replacement
warhead; whilst also sustaining the current warhead until it is withdrawn from
service. We will continue to work closely with the U.S. to ensure our warhead
remains compatible with the Trident Strategic Weapon System.
Delivery of the replacement warhead
will be subject to the Government’s major programme approvals and oversight. My
Department will continue to provide updates through the annual report to
Parliament on the United Kingdom’s future nuclear deterrent.”
In collaborating with the United States
on the development of a new Trident nuclear warhead, both the UK and US will be
in direct violation of the NPT- for which both nations are depository
states and drafters of the treaty- in particular Article 1. This stipulates:
“Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons
or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or
explosive devices directly, or
indirectly…”(https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/text)
Collaborative work on Trident
replacement warheads in any normal use of language at the very least is an “indirect
transfer.” When challenged on this contradiction , the UK Foreign Office
usually adopts the Humpty Dumpty verbal
juggling posture:
"When I use a word," Humpty
Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I
choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make
words mean so many different
things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
“Earlier this month,
Pentagon officials confirmed that its proposed W93 sea-launched warhead, the
nuclear tip of the next generation of submarine-launched ballistic missiles,
would share technology with the UK’s next nuclear weapon, implying that a
decision had been taken between the two countries to work on the programme.
Wallace’s statement provided the
context for the MOD decision to renew
Trident nuclear WMD warheads, stating:
“In 2007 the Government, endorsed by a Parliamentary
vote, began a programme to maintain the UK’s nuclear deterrent beyond the early
2030s. The 2015 Strategic Defence & Security Review (Cm 9161) confirmed the
UK’s commitment to an independent minimum credible deterrent, reaffirmed in
2016 when the House voted overwhelmingly to maintain the Continuous At Sea
Deterrence posture. Our independent nuclear deterrent is essential to defend
the UK and our NATO allies against the most extreme threats to our national
security and way of life. The Government’s 2019 manifesto pledged: “We will
maintain our Trident nuclear deterrent, which guarantees our security”. To
ensure the Government maintains an effective deterrent throughout the
commission of the Dreadnought Class ballistic missile submarine we are
replacing our existing nuclear warhead to respond to future threats and the
security environment.
So,
the MOD has pre-empted any genuine review of the role, if any, the Trident strategic nuclear WMD system should play in
future UK security policy, by committing the UK in advance to pay billions of
pounds of taxpayers’ money to upgrade one part of the UK’s security apparatus hardware.
And all was done in a 24 hour period with very little media coverage.
This is
atomic hypocrisy of the worst kind!
Other
nuclear disarmament and proliferation events this week are summarized in this article
from Euractiv below
Annex 1
Nuclear arms control treaty
set for review as divisions over non-proliferation mount
Security
Council meeting on non-proliferation and supporting the Non-proliferation
Treaty ahead of the 2020 Review Conference. [UN Photo/Loey Felipe]
As we
approach the 50th anniversary of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (NPT) in March, the United Nations is preparing to review the accord
amid growing signs that divisions and distrust are rife among countries that
possess nuclear arsenals.
“Relationships
between states – especially nuclear-weapon states – are fractured. So-called
‘great power competition’ is the order of the day. Division, distrust and a
dearth of dialogue are increasingly the norm,” UN disarmament chief Izumi Nakamitsu
told a UN Security Council meeting, requested by Germany, on Wednesday (26
February).
Nakamitsu
warned that “the spectre of unconstrained nuclear competition looms over us for
the first time since the 1970s”.
Although she
did not directly point the finger at US, Russia and China, Nakamitsu warned the
world is “witnessing what has been termed a qualitative nuclear arms race – one
not based on numbers but on faster, stealthier and more accurate weapons.”
“Regional
conflicts with a nuclear dimension are worsening, and proliferation challenges
are not receding,” she added.
In force
since March 1970, the NPT is the only binding multilateral commitment to the
goal of disarmament by states which officially stockpile nuclear weapons.
Initially intended to last for 25 years it was indefinitely extended in 1995.
According to
the landmark accord, the non-nuclear power states have undertaken not to
acquire nuclear weapons and the states with nuclear arsenals are obliged to
pursue disarmament, while all have the right to access nuclear technology for
peaceful purposes, under certain safeguards.
So far, 191
states are parties to the NPT and only India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea,
and South Sudan remain outside.
The UN
conducts a review conference every five years, with the next one, due in
April/May, meant to address the North Korean nuclear and missile developments,
the shaky Iranian nuclear deal, last year’s collapse of the Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, and the continuing modernisation programs of the
five recognised nuclear-weapon states.
Since 1947,
the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists annually adjusts its symbolic Doomsday
Clock, which indicates how close humanity and the planet are to complete disaster.
This year, we’re closer than ever, the scientists announced on Thursday (23
January).
Against this
background, Nakamitsu said she hopes to encourage “a spirit of flexibility”
during the conference in April, which is meant to reaffirm commitment to the
treaty and all its obligations, and to the norm against the use of nuclear
weapons.
At the
meeting, UN Security Council members “expressed their resolve to further
advance the goals” of the NPT, in light of current international geopolitical
challenges, but they also stressed “the importance of upholding and
strengthening the Treaty,” current UN Security Council President, Marc Pecsteen
de Buytswerve, said on Wednesday (26 February).
They called
on all states parties to the NPT “to cooperate in facilitating progress in
non-proliferation, the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and nuclear
disarmament” and “expressed their readiness to work together and join efforts
to achieve a successful outcome at the 2020 NPT Review Conference.”
Although all
15 Security Council members supported the final statement on the NPT, UN
sources said the Russian and the US representative clashed at the meeting over
the breakdown in arms control negotiations.
Germany’s
Foreign Minister Heiko Maas told the Council that the only realistic way ahead
is applying pressure and stepping up nuclear diplomacy.
A role for Europe?
On Tuesday,
foreign ministers of 16 countries gathered in Berlin to support the
Swedish-brokered Stockholm Initiative on Nuclear Disarmament and adopted a
political declaration calling nuclear weapons states to take measures.
Swedish
diplomats had repeatedly warned the ‘NPT community’ not to “turn up
empty-handed in 2020” and initiated a process to carve out joint proposals for
the upcoming talks in New York.
According to
Maas, the meeting proposed “a number of practical steps to help avoid
misperceptions, reduce nuclear risks, and restore trust”, including
verification measures, greater transparency with regard to nuclear weapons
stocks, crisis-proof communication channels and open dialogue about strategic
stability and nuclear doctrines.
After the
INF Treaty collapsed last summer and with several other accords in jeopardy or set to
expire, disarmament experts have called for an “urgent response”, including
from the Europeans, who had largely looked on during its demise.
<img width="800" height="600"
src="https://www.euractiv.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/07/h_55029606-800x600.jpg"
class="attachment-4x3 size-4x3 wp-post-image ea-media-unrolled
ea-media-formatted img-responsive" alt="">
A landmark
agreement of Cold War-era arms control signed by Soviet leader Mikhail
Gorbachev and US President Ronald Reagan in 1987, the Intermediate-range
Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) banned a whole class of medium-range
ground-launched nuclear-capable missiles of 500 to 5,500 kilometres.
As NATO
members, the majority of EU member states are covered by the military pact’s
‘nuclear umbrella’, with several of them (Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands,
Italy and the UK) hosting US nuclear weapons on their territory.
In a
post-Brexit push in February, French President Emmanuel Macron called on
Europeans to propose together “an international agenda of arms control”.
According to
Macron, the moment has come for Europeans to “define together what their
security interests are” and act to establish “a renewed international agenda
for arms control”, an area where new treaties are to be written.
In
mid-February, EU lawmakers in the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs
Committee (AFET) adopted recommendations for the European Council and the EU’s
foreign policy chief Josep Borrell on what stance to take on preparing the 2020
NPT review process, nuclear arms control and nuclear disarmament options.
“The EU
needs to continue to work hard to make the upcoming NPT Review Conference a
success,” rapporteur Sven Mikser (S&D) said, adding that the treaty
“continues to be the best instrument available to the international community
to pursue a path towards a world free of nuclear weapons.”
In a recent
Parliament report, MEPs recommended the Council and the EU foreign policy chief
should “reaffirm the EU’s and member states’ full support to the NPT and its three
mutually reinforcing pillars of non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful use
of nuclear energy”.
After the
2019 INF treaty collapse, MEPs urged EU officials to call on the US and Russia
to resume dialogue and put in place a new legally binding instrument for short-
and medium-range missiles. They also sought clear commitments from Russia and
the US to extend the new START Treaty before it expires in February 2021.
EU lawmakers
also recommended the EU should continue its commitment to keep the Iran nuclear
deal (JCPOA) alive as a guarantee to keep Tehran’s nuclear enrichment programme
in check.
Iran
ratified the NPT in 1970 but has been under international pressure since 2005
for not providing relevant information on its nuclear programme, while North
Korea unilaterally withdrew in 2003 and has since conducted six increasingly
sophisticated nuclear tests.
Annex 2
Ministry of Defence
27 February
2020
Lords
Defence Equipment Plan
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence
(The Rt Hon Ben Wallace MP) has made the following Written Ministerial
Statement.
I am pleased to place in the Library of the House the
2019 financial summary of the Defence Equipment Plan, which sets out our plans
to deliver the equipment needed by our Armed Forces to defend the country and
protect our national interest.
The threat to the UK and our interests is intensifying
and diversifying. As we set out in the Modernising Defence Programme, we need
to modernise to keep pace with these threats. The forthcoming Integrated
Security, Defence & Foreign Policy Review will provide us with the
opportunity to re-visit our equipment plans to make sure that we are spending
the Defence budget on the right capabilities to keep our country safe in the
decades ahead. This will inescapably bring some difficult choices.
We will need to create the financial headroom in our
Equipment Plan to harness emerging technologies and develop the battle-winning
capabilities of tomorrow. We know that to get this right, we must accelerate
our work to mobilise, modernise and transform so that we deliver more
effectively and efficiently over the long term. Reviewing our acquisition
process will be an important part of this work.
Whilst there is clearly work still to do, the Department
has made encouraging progress in improving financial management, including in
the Equipment Plan. We have balanced the budget for equipment in the 2019/20
financial year and refined our assessment of the financial shortfall in our
plans for the next decade, which has reduced from £7 billion to £2.9 billion,
or 1.6% of our equipment budget.
We take seriously the recommendations of the 2018 Public
Accounts Committee inquiry into the Equipment Plan and in April 2019 reported
the actions we are taking in response. These include revisions to this report
to include further analysis of changes to the affordability of the Plan and
provide further background information to individual projects.
The Government remains committed to meeting the NATO
target of spending at least 2% of GDP on defence and at least 20% of that
spending will be on equipment. During 2018/19, the Government committed £1.6
billion additional spending for Defence and a further £2.2 billion was
committed in Spending Round 2019. The detailed implications of this most recent
settlement on the Equipment Plan are being reviewed and will be reported in due
course.
The Department is alert to the
financial challenges rooted in previous SDSRs that were over ambitious and
underfunded. That is why the Prime Minister granted a £2.2 billion uplift at
the last Spending Review and it is why the Integrated Defence, Security and
Foreign Policy Review will be vital in ensuring the Department’s plans are put
on a stable footing.
