Wednesday 15 April 2015

How "independent" is Britain's "nuclear deterrent"

A "Vanguard" nuclear submarine at its naval base, Faslane, Argyll, in Scotland.
HOW "INDEPENDENT" IS
BRITAIN'S NUCLEAR 
DETERRENT?

By Dr David Morrison (Exectutive Member, Peace and Neutrality Alliance Ireland).


Britain’s nuclear deterrent isn’t “independent”

The Conservative Party is in favour of Britain retaining a nuclear weapons system, and so is the Labour Party.  To that end, both are committed to the replacement of the four submarines built in Britain from which US-supplied Trident II missiles carrying nuclear warheads can be launched. Labour in government initiated the process of replacement by publishing a White Paper, The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent, in December 2006.  This recommended that the new system should provide ‘continuous at-sea deterrence’ (CASD) as the current one does – in other words, that at least one submarine be on patrol armed with Trident missiles at any time.  The White Paper left open the possibility that this capability could be provided by three submarines instead of the existing four.  The White Paper proposals were approved by the House of Commons in March 2007. The final decision on the issue is due next year.  Irrespective of the outcome of the general election, there will be an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons in favour of building the submarines necessary to maintain ‘continuous at-sea deterrence’, though the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and a number of Labour backbenchers will vote against.  The replacement of the present Trident submarines is certain to proceed. On 9 April 2015, Minister of Defence, Michael Fallon, has tried to suggest that it won’t proceed if Labour has to rely on the SNP for a majority after the general election.  This piece of fantasy was invented by the Conservative election machine for the purpose of mounting a personal attack on Labour leader Ed Miliband, attacking him personally being the main thrust of the Conservative electoral campaign at the moment.

There is no doubt that the UK will have a submarine-based nuclear weapons system that could remain operational into the 2060s.  It will cost the British taxpayer about £25 billion to build the replacement submarines and the related infrastructure, plus about £2 billion a year to operate them, that is, upwards of £100 billion during the lifetime of the system.




Deterrent independent?
Conservative and Labour advocates for the system describe it as an “independent” nuclear deterrent.  On 9 April, Michael Fallon said that, if a Labour government scrapped it, this “would shatter the 60 year consensus that has existed among governments of all colours in favour of an operationally independent nuclear deterrent”.  Labour responded by insisting that “Labour is committed to maintaining a minimum, credible, independent nuclear deterrent, delivered through a ‘continuous at-sea deterrent’”.  But is Britain’s nuclear deterrent really “independent”? At least eight (and perhaps nine) states ­in the world now possess functional nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them.  All of them, bar one, manufacture and maintain their own nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them.  All of them, bar one, have complete control over the use of their systems.  In other words, all of them, bar one, possess what can reasonably be described as an “independent” nuclear deterrent that doesn’t rely on another state to provide vital parts of it.



The exception is Britain.  China has an “independent” nuclear deterrent.  So has France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and the US and perhaps North Korea.  Britain hasn’t. Unlike other states that have nuclear weapons systems, Britain is dependent on another state to manufacture an essential element of its only nuclear weapons system – the Trident missiles that are supposed to carry Britain’s weapons to target.  These are manufactured by Lockheed Martin in the US. And Britain’s dependence on the US doesn’t end with the purchase of the missiles – Britain depends on the US Navy to service the missiles as well.  A common pool of missiles is maintained at the US Strategic Weapons facility at King’s Bay, Georgia, USA, from which the US itself and Britain draw serviced missiles as required. There is some doubt about the degree of “operational” independence that Britain enjoys in respect of its nuclear weapons system (of which more later).  But there is no doubt that Britain is dependent on the US for the manufacture and maintenance of a key element of the system.  So, to call it an “independent” nuclear deterrent is fraudulent. 


Independent foreign policy?

The plain truth is that, if Britain doesn’t maintain friendly relations with the US, then it won’t have a functional nuclear weapons system, despite having spent billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money on it – because the US would simply cease providing Britain with serviceable Trident missiles. So, there is a strong incentive for Britain to follow the US in foreign policy, since independence from the US in foreign policy could lead to its nuclear weapons system becoming non-functional.  Sustained opposition to the US in foreign policy certainly would.  As long as Britain is tied to the US by a requirement for US-supplied and maintained missiles for its nuclear weapons system, it cannot have a wholly independent foreign policy. In these circumstances, it is highly unlikely that Britain would use its nuclear weapons system to strike a target without the approval of the US, whether or not it is theoretically possible for Britain to do so.  So, it is absurd to describe it as “independent” nuclear deterrent. The above applies to the UK’s current nuclear weapons system.  But it applies equally to the proposed replacement.  To ask the British taxpayer to fork out upwards of £100 billion in the pretence that the UK will continue to possess an “independent” nuclear deterrent is fraudulent.



Surprisingly, December 2006 White Paper conceded that our US-dependent nuclear deterrent will become non-functional if relations sour with the US.  Paragraph 4-7 puts it this way: “We continue to believe that the costs of developing a nuclear deterrent relying solely on UK sources outweigh the benefits. We do not see a good case for making what would be a substantial additional investment in our nuclear deterrent purely to insure against a, highly unlikely, deep and enduring breakdown in relations with the US. We therefore believe that it makes sense to continue to procure elements of the system from the US.” It would be more honest to say that Britain is incapable of building a credible deterrent relying solely on UK sources.  It lost that capacity over 50 years ago with the termination of the Blue Streak ballistic missile project, which is why we ended up buying first Polaris, and then Trident, submarine-launched missiles from the US.


Operationally independent?

 British Governments have always insisted that Britain’s nuclear weapons system is “operationally” independent of the US.  The December 2006 White Paper (4-6) states that “the UK’s current nuclear deterrent is fully operationally independent of the US”.  Apparently, if a British Prime Minister decides to press the nuclear button, it is impossible for the US to stop the launch of missiles or prevent them from delivering British nuclear warheads to the selected target.  Maybe so. Is a British Prime Minister really free to strike any target he/she chooses in this world with nuclear weapons, at a time of his choosing, using US-supplied missiles?  I doubt that the US would sell any foreign power – even a close ally – a weapons system with which the foreign power is free to do catastrophic damage to US allies, not to mention the US itself.  Surely, the US must have a mechanism, under its explicit control, to prevent the targeting of states that it doesn’t want targeted?

David Morrison

9 April 2015

(Dr David Morrison is a distinguished academic at the Queen’s University of Belfast, Northern Ireland, an expert on international affairs and global politics and Executive Member of Peace and Neutrality Alliance Ireland )
 



Israeli Elections


ISRAELI ELECTIONS,
REPORTS AND COMMENTARY:

The Israeli elections of March 17, 2015, produced another, and unexpected victory for Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, despite polls showing his Likud Party had reduced support among the diverse electorate which exists in Israel.

On the surface, Israel has many attributes of a normal liberal democracy. But when push comes to shove the predominant instinct is that of a military region under siege. The clash between the reactionary and liberal Zionists may seem like a typical election battle. But down deep Israel society is similar in essence to one big military base or a giant aircraft carrier. You can criticise the level of management or efficiency but you cannot convince people to change course or that they can live in peace with their neighbors because they have been successfully conditioned to see them as their mortal enemy. 

The situation is even more dangerous when the Israeli hawks are enthused by the growing strength and influence of their virtual partners in Washington, the Republican Insanity Party. The masses of citizens in Israel are frightened by the Arabs and will follow the forces that seem to promise them continued military superiority over their neighbours. In short, the attempt to beat Netanyahu foundered on the conception that people would vote their social and class interests. His rivals were mainly supportive or silent regarding the big policy questions on peace or war. 

The inevitable consequences of Israeli militarism remained hidden from view. Netanyahu’s path can only lead to greater conflicts and more dangerous developments. This is the reason that there is room for a fighting left in the country which combines its social program with a clear renunciation of Israel’s aggressive role in the region. It will not be easy but there is no short-cut. The Israeli Labour Party has forgotten its Socialist heritage in recent years and should return to its original policy without further ado and cease trying to appease Netanyahu and his extremist allies. The Israeli Peace Movement could be a solid ally in this endeavour.

That Left will find consolation in the relative success of the United list of Arab parties which fought off an attempt to oust Israel’s Arab citizens from the electoral process and even boosted their representation. There are more opportunities for expanding the joint action in all sections of society and organizing the underprivileged. But, it is clear that the Netanyahu government will do everything to sabotage the unity of the list and block its potential in the Jewish sector.




 Commentary by veteran Israeli Peace Activist, Uri Avnery:



In my first article after the election, I devoted a large part to the danger of a "national unity" government, though at the time the possibility of such a government, based on Likud and the labour Party, seemed very remote indeed. But, looking at the figures, I had a gnawing suspicion: this looks like something that will end with a Likud-labour combination. Now, suddenly, this possibility has raised its head. Everybody is talking about it.


All my emotions rebel against this possibility. But I owe it to myself and my readers to examine this option dispassionately. Though pure logic is a rare commodity in politics, let's try to exercise it. IS A "national unity government" good or bad for Israel? Let's look at the numbers first. To form a government in Israel, one needs at least 61 seats in the 120-seat Knesset. Likud (30) and Labour (24) have 54 between them. It can be assumed that Binyamin Netanyahu almost certainly wants to renew his party's historic alliance with the two orthodox factions, the Ashkenazi Torah Party (6) and the Oriental Shas (7) – together 67, quite enough for a stable government. Netanyahu seems to be determined to add Moshe Kahlon's new party too (10), as a kind of subcontractor for the economy. Together an imposing 77. Who would be left outside? First of all, the Joint Arab Party (13), whose new leader, Eyman Odeh, would automatically assume the title of "Leader of the Opposition" – a first for Israel. No Arab has ever held this title, with all its prestige and privileges.

Then there is Meretz (5), reduced to a small leftist voice. And then there are the two extreme rightist parties: the one of Naftali Bennett (reduced to 8) and the even smaller one of Avigdor Lieberman (now a mere 6). Somewhere in between is the star of the previous elections, Yair Lapid, (now reduced to 11). The initial prospect seemed to be a far rightist coalition, consisting of Likud, the two orthodox parties, the two far-rightist parties and Kahlon – altogether 67. (The orthodox refuse to sit with Lapid in the same government.) These then, with minor variations, are the two options.



WHY DOES Netanyahu prefer – as it now seems – the National Unity option?First of all, he detests his two co-rightists – Bennett and Lieberman. But you don't have to like someone in order to take them into your government. A far more important reason is the growing fear of Israel's isolation in the world. Netanyahu is now engaged in a ferocious fight against President Obama. He opposes the Iranian deal with everything he has. But this deal is also underwritten by the European Union, Germany, France, Russia and China. Netanyahu against the entire world. Netanyahu has no illusions. There are hundreds of ways Obama and the European Union can punish Netanyahu. Israel is almost totally dependent on the US as far as weapons are concerned. It needs the US veto in the UN, and US subsidies also come in handy. The Israeli economy is also heavily dependent on European markets.In this situation, it would be nice to have Isaac Herzog on board. He is the ultimate fig-leaf, a nice liberal leftist as foreign minister, son of a president, grandson of an Irish chief rabbi, well mannered, European looking, English speaking. He would pacify the fears of the world's foreign ministers, cushion Netanyahu's rough edges, prevent diplomatic crises.



Labour in the government would also block the deluge of anti-democratic bills which accumulated in the last Knesset. It would also halt the planned onslaught on the Supreme Court, Israel's last bastion against the barbarians. The leading group of Likud extremists make no secret of their intention to castrate the Court and to enact the bills they hold in store. Labour might also mitigate the economic policies of Likud, popularly known as "swinish capitalism", which have made the poor poorer and the ultra-rich even ultra-richer. Housing might become affordable again, the decline of the health and education systems mighty be halted. The prospect of becoming ministers again makes the mouths of some Labour functionaries water. One of them, Eytan Kabel, a close ally of Herzog, has already published a statement totally supporting Netanyahu's Iran policy, raising many knowing eyebrows. The Labour Party has yet to take a critical position towards Netanyahu's Iranian stand. It only criticises – halfheartedly, if not quarterheartedly – the Prime Minister's attacks on Obama.


ON THE other side, what's so wrong about a National Unity Government? Well, first of all, it leaves the country without an effective opposition. In order to function, democracy needs an opposition that develops alternative policies and provides a choice at the next elections. If all the major parties are in the government, what alternative forces and ideas can provide the necessary choice? A cynic may remark here that the Labour Party was not much of an opposition anyway. It supported last year's superfluous Gaza War with all its atrocities. Its ally, Tzipi Livni, has dragged the Palestinian negotiations on and on without coming an inch nearer to peace. Labour’s opposition to the rightist economic policies was feeble.


Truth is, Labour is not built for opposition. It was in power for 44 consecutive years (from 1933 to 1977, first in the Zionist Organization and then in the new state). To be "governmental" is deeply ingrained in its nature. Even under Likud governments, Labour was never a determined and effective opposition. But for Leftists, the main objection to a Unity Government is exactly what may induce Netanyahu to install it: because it provides the big fig leaf. Labour in the government will blunt all foreign criticism of Netanyahu's policies and actions. Israeli Leftists, who despairingly pray for foreign pressure on Israel, such as an all-inclusive boycott (BDS) and pro-Palestinian UN resolutions, will be disappointed. To get such a campaign moving, you need a far-right government in Jerusalem.

Under the National Unity umbrella, Netanyahu can continue to enlarge the settlements, sabotage the Palestinian Authority, conduct endless negotiations that lead nowhere, even make war from time to time. After four such years, the Labour Party may cease to be an effective force in Israeli politics. Some might think that this is a good thing. With this degenerating force out of the way, a new generation of political activists may have a chance to eventually create a real opposition party.

PERHAPS THE decision on this will not be shaped in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, but in Las Vegas.I have a lurking suspicion that in reality Netanyahu takes his orders from Sheldon Adelson. Adelson owns Netanyahu as much as he owns his casino in Macau or the US Republican party. If he wants to install a Republican president, in order to add the White House to his portfolio of assets, he needs to widen the chasm between the Obama administration and the Israeli government. This might cause US Jews to flock en masse to the Republican banner.


If this suspicion is true, Netanyahu will not really woo the Labour Party, but only use it as a trick to beat down the price his prospective far-right partners are demanding.