Hold UK to account on nuclear warheads

From END Info 24 | May/June 2021 DOWNLOAD HERE

In response to the UK Government’s ‘Integrated Review’, Lord McDonald of Salford – former chief civil servant in the Foreign Office – commented as follows:

“raising the cap on our stockpile of nuclear warheads looks odd. I understand that a continuous at-sea deterrent needs us to be able to deploy two boats from time to time. The new ceiling allows both boats to be fully armed. But that does not increase deterrence. It is expensive and incompatible with our obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. In 1968, the non-nuclear weapon states accepted that as their permanent status in exchange for two things: the sharing of the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology, and that nuclear weapon states would work towards nuclear disarmament. The Government assert that the objective is untouched, but the announcement is a step away from its achievement.”

For a former senior civil servant in the Foreign Office to so bluntly question the decisions contained in the Integrated Review is quite something. If such a person considers the announcements to be “incompatible” with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), then everyone concerned should stop and think. It is likely the case that similar concerns were raised by those still serving in the highest positions but, of course, their advice remains largely hidden from public view. Voices of restraint and concern seem to have been ignored. As Machiavelli noted: “A prince who is not wise cannot be well advised.” Such a ‘prince’ sits in Number 10 Downing Street.

The peace movements do not need to infer breach of the NPT from the comments of an English Lord or by use of their own good sense. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has done a significant service to the movement by securing a legal opinion on the matter. The opinion, titled Legality Under International Law of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Policy as set out in the 2021 Integrated Review, is clear that the British government is in breach of the NPT: it has broken international law.

The detailed opinion was drafted by Professor Christine Chinkin and Dr Louise Arimatsu, both international lawyers based at the London School of Economics. The full opinion can be read on CND’s website (www.cnduk.org) but it is worth quoting the conclusions of the report fully:

In our opinion, for the reasons set out above:

(i) The announcement by the UK government of the increase in nuclear warheads and its modernisation of its weapons system constitutes a breach of the NPT article VI;

(ii) The UK would be in breach of international law were it to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against a state party to the NPT solely on the basis of a material breach of the latter’s non-proliferation obligations;

(iii) The UK would be in breach of international law were it to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons in self-defence solely on the grounds that the future threat of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological capabilities or emerging technologies, could have comparable impact to nuclear weapons.

The conclusion is clear. What next? Is there a court anywhere on the planet that might take up the case and hold the UK to account? It looks unlikely and even if such a court existed, would the British government take any notice?

As with many questions of international legality or illegality, the fundamental issues are in essence political issues. As such, political responses are required. The fact that the British government is in breach of international law should spark a widespread response, including from the overwhelming majority of states which are party to the NPT. As a priority, the peace movements and organisations in Europe should report the UK to the United Nations for being in breach of the NPT. Individuals can and should do the same. Efforts can be made to get parliamentarians either individually or collectively to report the breach. Importantly, the ongoing work of CND in this respect should be followed carefully and supported fully.

What of the NPT itself? What does the UK’s action and the legal opinion imply? The next NPT Review Conference will take place “no later than August 2021”, according to the UN’s website. This conference presents an opportunity for state parties alarmed by the UK’s announcements to make a clear intervention. If such interventions are not forthcoming, then the peace movements can use the opportunity to raise the issues on their own account.

According to UN Secretary-General António Guterres:

“The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is an essential pillar of international peace and security, and the heart of the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime. Its unique status is based on its near universal membership, legally-binding obligations on disarmament, verifiable non-proliferation safeguards regime...”

If this is the case, then now seems to be the time to re-assert the “essential” character of the NPT and to finally begin the political work that has not been forthcoming in the previous 53 years of the NPT’s history. As a first step, this means working towards nuclear disarmament in line with the TPNW and halting all nuclear modernisation.