SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
brexit
UK Nuclear Arsenal Plan Slammed as 'Irresponsible, Dangerous' Violation of International Law
"As the world wrestles with the pandemic and climate chaos, it beggars belief that our government is opting to increase Britain's nuclear arsenal."
Mar 16, 2021
In a move that peace campaigners say violates Britain's disarmament commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Tuesday unveiled a plan that would increase the size of the nation's nuclear arsenal by up to 40%.
"A decision by the United Kingdom to increase its stockpile of weapons of mass destruction in the middle of a pandemic is irresponsible, dangerous, and violates international law."
--Beatrice Fihn, ICAN
The integrated defense review--entitled Global Britain in a Competitive Age--describes the Conservative-led government's vision for post-Brexit Britain's role in the world over the next decade.
Under the 2010 Strategic Defense and Security Review (pdf), the U.K. had previously planned to reduce its nuclear stockpile to not more than 180 warheads by the mid-2020s. However, the latest review states the policy has changed "in recognition of the evolving security environment, including the developing range of technological and doctrinal threats," and now "the U.K. will move to an overall nuclear weapon stockpile of no more than 260 warheads."
Britain's nuclear arsenal consists entirely of Trident II D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles manufactured by Lockheed Martin in Sunnyvale, California. The missiles--which can each carry as many as 12 independently targeted thermonuclear warheads--are carried by the Royal Navy's four Vanguard-class submarines.
\u201cUNA-UK is alarmed at today\u2019s announcement of a dramatic increase in the UK nuclear arsenal.\n\nThis decision reverses Britain\u2019s longstanding principles and commitments to nonproliferation, disarmament and international security. \n\n#IntegratedReview \n\nRead the @ICAN_UK statement:\u201d— United Nations Association - UK (UNA-UK) (@United Nations Association - UK (UNA-UK)) 1615902111
Anti-nuclear activists argue Britain's planned nuclear expansion is a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), under which signatories must commit to gradual disarmament and to which successive British administrations have adhered.
"A decision by the United Kingdom to increase its stockpile of weapons of mass destruction in the middle of a pandemic is irresponsible, dangerous, and violates international law," Beatrice Fihn, executive director of the Geneva-based, Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), said in a statement.
"While the majority of the world's nations are leading the way to a safer future without nuclear weapons by joining the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the United Kingdom is pushing for a dangerous new nuclear arms race," added Fihn, referring to the landmark accord ratified earlier this year by over 50 nations--but none of the world's nine nuclear powers.
\u201cDeeply dissapointing to see Britain end its nuclear weapons reduction policy and instead join the nuclear arms race by increasing its nuclear weapons stockpile from less than 200 to 260. https://t.co/f0aZdsE7TG\n\nThis will put Britain in violation of its NPT Article 6 obligations.\u201d— Hans Kristensen (@Hans Kristensen) 1615848044
\u201c\u262e\ufe0f The UN is actively seeking to negotiate nuclear disarmament.\n\n\u2622\ufe0f But the government is trying to increase our stockpile of nuclear weapons.\n\n\ud83d\udc9a This isn't the Global Britain we want to see - let's end Trident instead.\n\nhttps://t.co/u4dHb8MdqF\u201d— The Green Party (@The Green Party) 1615896059
Noting last month's agreement between the United States and Russia to extend the New START Treaty by five years, Kate Hudson, general secretary of the U.K.'s Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, told the Financial Times that "ratcheting up global tensions and squandering our resources is an irresponsible and potentially disastrous approach."
"As the world wrestles with the pandemic and climate chaos, it beggars belief that our government is opting to increase Britain's nuclear arsenal," Hudson added.
The Scottish National Party (SNP), which governs the part of Britain where the nation's nuclear arsenal is based, also condemned the government's planned proliferation.
"Renewing Trident nuclear weapons was already a shameful and regressive decision, however, increasing the cap on the number of Trident weapons the U.K. can stockpile by more than 40% is nothing short of abhorrent," SNP defense spokesperson Stewart McDonald told The Independent.
McDonald added that "it speaks volumes of the Tory government's spending priorities that it is intent on increasing its collection of weapons of mass destruction--which will sit and gather dust unless the U.K. has plans to indiscriminately wipe out entire populations--rather than address the serious challenges and inequalities in our society that have been further exposed by the pandemic."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The European Union: Free at Last
The goal of 'ever closer union', anathema to English exceptionalists, is back on the agenda.
Dec 27, 2020
Blaming the victims is never a good look. As Britain finally leaves the European Union, 1,651 days after the Brexit referendum of 2016, we should try to remember that 48% of the turkeys didn't vote for Christmas.
Brexit was not exactly a national act of self-harm; it was really an attack by the nostalgic and nationalist old on the young. 60% of British over-65s voted to leave the E.U., but 61% of the under-35s voted to remain. Having had four years to think it over, most British now think it was a mistake--by a 48-39 majority, according to a YouGov poll in October.
Too late. Boris Johnson is prime minister and he dares not anger the English ultra-nationalists on the right of his own Conservative party. After months of the amateur dramatics that accompany any Johnson decision, on Christmas Day the United Kingdom concluded a pathetically thin 'free trade' deal that reflects the real balance of power between the E.U. and the U.K.
It looks pretty good for manufactured goods and commodities, which make up 20% of Britain's GDP: no tariffs, no quotas. But the E.U. sells far more stuff to the U.K. than the other way around: it has a $45 billion trade surplus in goods. Of course it made a deal on that.
By contrast there is no trade deal at all in services, which account for 80% of the U.K. economy and used to produce a $112 billion surplus for the U.K. The U.K. is entirely vulnerable to whatever restrictions the E.U. may choose to apply to its banks, insurance companies and providers of other professional services.
Johnson will smear lipstick all over this pig of a deal and declare it a triumph. Those who want to believe it will do so, and the only early evidence of the huge defeat that it really is will be some delays at the ports as customs officers learn their new jobs. The real bill will come in later and almost invisibly, in lost trade, investment and opportunities.
The last official British government estimate was that 15 years from now the British economy will be between 5% and 7% smaller than it would have been as an E.U. member (but still a bit bigger than it is now).
That's not the raw material for a counter-revolution--and besides, any projection about the economic situation in 2035 is really pure guesstimate. One Covid more or less could make just as much difference as Brexit.
All one can say is that the British economy will not "prosper mightily" outside the E.U., as Johnson promised, but it won't collapse either. And then, in due course, the younger, pro-E.U. Brits will become the majority thanks to the magic of generational turnover. But until then, if Britain comes knocking at the E.U.'s door asking to be allowed back in, Brussels should say 'no'.
What really happens on December 31 is that the European Union is finally freed to develop in the way that its other major members clearly want. The goal of 'ever closer union', anathema to English exceptionalists, is back on the agenda.
There is ambivalence in every member country about the idea of creating a semi-federal European super-state, but in a world where democracy and the rule of law are under siege most people can see the need to strengthen the European Union. Last July the E.U.'s leaders took a huge step in that direction: for the first time they agreed to borrow collectively on the financial markets.
France and Germany were all for it, and Italy and Spain needed the money to finance a trillion-euro aid program to help them through the coronavirus crisis. Those four countries now contain more than half the E.U.'s population, and they outvoted the 'frugal four' (the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and Denmark) that opposed taking on debt to support 'feckless' Mediterranean members.
If Britain had still been a member, it would have vetoed the measure because it infringed on the U.K.'s sacred 'sovereignty'. French President Charles de Gaulle, who vetoed British membership applications twice in the 1960s, was right: England does not have a 'European vocation', and it should not be allowed in.
The financial precedent that was set in July opens the door to a future E.U. that acts much more like a state. Even a common defense budget is now within reach--not something vital in military terms, but a European army would be a hugely important symbol of unity.
The United States may be back soon, but the world could certainly use a second powerful advocate for democracy and the rule of law. Brexit may be giving us just that by freeing the E.U. to move on, and we should be grateful.
Keep ReadingShow Less
What's Wrong With the US-UK Trade Deal
On Monday, the UK is expected to release its negotiating objectives for a trade deal with the United States, at the same time as it begins formal negotiations with the European Union over future trade arrangements.
A US-UK trade deal could have far reaching implications for global justice - this briefing outlines the big issues to watch out for, including what we already know has been discussed, the secrecy of the negotiations, and the timeline for the talks.
Feb 29, 2020
On Monday, the UK is expected to release its negotiating objectives for a trade deal with the United States, at the same time as it begins formal negotiations with the European Union over future trade arrangements.
A US-UK trade deal could have far reaching implications for global justice - this briefing outlines the big issues to watch out for, including what we already know has been discussed, the secrecy of the negotiations, and the timeline for the talks.
1) What are the big issues?
Food, environmental and other standards
The US wants the UK to move to the US approach to standards. This is the fundamental play-off between a deal with the US and a deal with the EU - it's not possible to align closely with both. Leaks from the talks so far reveal that US officials said that commitment to a level playing field with the EU would make a US deal a "non-starter".
In general, the UK's current approach is that products must be proved safe before they can go on the market, whereas in the US the burden is the other way around - products can be on the market unless and until they are proven unsafe. The UK has traditionally also taken more account of factors such as animal welfare.
Particular issues for the UK public include:
- Chlorine chicken: this iconic issue is primarily an animal welfare issue. Currently we take a 'farm to fork' approach that seeks to improve hygiene and conditions at every stage, whereas the US tolerates dirty, crowded conditions until the end and then blitzes the carcases with chlorine or acid washes. Spraying the bleaches can cause health problems for workers. And on top of this, recent evidence from the University of Southampton suggests that chlorine may not remove bacteria but just mask it.
- Cosmetics: Over 1,300 toxic ingredients have been banned from use in cosmetics in the UK, with restrictions of another 500 ingredients. By comparison, only 11 are banned in the US - for instance formaldehyde, which causes cancer, is allowed there. Animal testing of cosmetics is legal in the US, but banned in Britain.
- Baby food: the UK has specific regulations for baby food, over and above normal food standards. These ban pesticide residues, arsenic traces and artificial food colour e-numbers, and set limits for added sugar. The US has none of these.
- Hormone beef and ractopamine pork: hormones and steroids such as ractopamine are used to promote growth in pigs and cattle in the US, despite the risks both for the animals and for human consumption. These are banned in the UK
Climate
A US-UK trade deal will have implications for fossil fuel emissions and could prevent necessary climate action. The recent Heathrow decision reinforces the need for all public policy to be coherent with climate goals. Yet leaks last year showed that the US has refused to even discuss climate change in talks with the UK.
Trade deals tend to promote trade in fossil fuels and carbon intensive sectors such as industrial agriculture and transport, while at the same time insisting that rules cannot consider the climate impact of different products and sectors. Recent US trade deals and mini-deals with China, Canada and Mexico, and the EU have even specifically required increased trade in fossil fuels at a time when we should be leaving them in the ground.
To tackle the climate crisis we need strong binding regulation that can shift us out of decades of inertia and business as usual. Yet trade rules are written to prioritise voluntary self-regulation - exactly the approach that has resulted in continued inaction.
This is not the only way that trade deals can block climate action. If meaningful regulation on climate issues is passed, corporations can turn to 'corporate courts' to seek damages (see below). This has already started to happen elsewhere. The Netherlands recently took the decision to phase out coal power over the next decade in the light of climate change. In response a German energy company, Uniper, which owns a power station in the Netherlands, has started threatening to sue in a corporate court. In Canada, when the province of Quebec introduced a fracking moratorium, energy company Lone Pine sued in a case that is still ongoing.
Corporate courts
There is a high risk that a trade deal with the US will include 'corporate courts', officially known as investor-state dispute settlement or ISDS. These allow transnational corporations to sue governments outside of the national courts. The amounts involved can be in the billions, and even the threat of a case can be enough to cause governments to change policies and plans.
The range of cases is huge:
- Cargill sued Mexico when it first introduced tax on sugary drinks;
- Ethyl sued Canada over a ban on the chemical MMT in petrol, which is suspected of causing nerve damage;
- Vattenfall is suing Germany for deciding to phase out nuclear power following the Fukushima nuclear disaster;
- Philip Morris sued both Australia and Uruguay over anti-smoking measures;
- Infinito Gold is suing Costa Rica over the introduction of a ban on open-cast mining for metals.
Last year's trade leaks revealed that US and UK officials have had extensive discussions about the inclusion of corporate courts in a trade deal.
Medicine prices
Leaks from the talks with the US have shown that there are proposals for the extension of monopolies for big pharmaceutical corporations, which could massively increase the cost of medicines for the NHS. There is also mention of another US concern: at present the NHS's bulk purchasing power allows it to negotiate prices, while the regulator, NICE, assesses whether medicines are effective enough to justify their price. Trump considers this to be 'freeloading' and has asked trade negotiators to fix it.
The two sides have effectively concluded all the preliminary negotiations they need in this area and say, in the leaked papers, that they are ready to begin agreeing text on this for the final deal.
NHS
A sweeping opening up of services is a big focus of the talks. The US is insisting on an approach called 'negative list' where everything is on the table unless it is specifically excluded. Trade deals usually have a standard exemption for public services, but the existing level of privatisation and internal market within the NHS means that it doesn't fall within the definition. It and many other public services would have to be specifically excluded - and we know that in the previous negotiations between the EU and the US over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the UK chose not to do so when other European countries did.
Power of internet platforms
Governments are just beginning to address the challenges posed by the internet and the power of online platforms such as Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple - issues such as fake news, political advertising, hate speech and online bullying. Yet leaks show that in the talks so far the US has been pushing to protect big tech platforms from regulation in trade rules.
Ensuring that big tech companies pay the tax they owe is also increasingly urgent, and the UK now plans to introduce a digital services tax. The US has publicly threatened to impose trade sanctions if it does.
The US is also pushing for an unrestricted 'free flow of data' between the two countries, which would undermine existing data protection and privacy standards in the UK. It could also prevent data flows between the EU and the UK.
2) Secrecy
Much of what we know about the US-UK trade talks is from leaks, because negotiations are being conducted in great secrecy, without democratic oversight.
The UK parliament does not get to approve the objectives, does not get to properly scrutinise progress, nor is it guaranteed a vote on the final deal. The devolved administrations and legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are similarly shut out, even though the negotiations will touch on areas of devolved responsibility, such as agriculture and health.
A US-UK trade deal will impact on many issues which are usually assumed to be part of domestic policy making, and there is a strong public interest in knowing what is on the table in the negotiations.
3) What is the timeline?
The first formal round of negotiations with the US is expected to be held in the near future. The pressure is then on for the next four months, to see if a deal can be agreed by the summer, before the US goes into election mode. As six informal rounds of trade talks have already been held since 2017, the negotiations are not starting from scratch, so it is feasible that some kind of deal could be reached in this period.
The US should need Congress's approval for the deal. This would mean that the deal would need to be put together by 26 June in order for Congress to be given the required 90 days notice to vote on it before breaking up for the elections. Alternatively it could be left a bit later and be voted on in the lame duck session after the elections.
It is also possible that a mini-deal could be done that the Trump administration would argue does not need Congressional approval.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular