Nuclear Responsibility

Tom Unterrainer. From ENDInfo 39

The following speech was made via Zoom to the GENSUIKIN (Japan) World Conference on 5 August 2023 to mark the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Tom was asked to update the Japanese movement on recent developments in the UK.

Greetings and warmest wishes to our friends in the Japanese peace and nuclear disarmament movement. Let me express our admiration and gratitude for the courageous and ongoing work of the Japanese movement, which conducts its international campaign from the only country to be attacked with atomic weapons. As we all know, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 are a stain on the history of humanity and serve as a reminder to us all of the deadly - murderous - power of atomic and nuclear weapons. I am humbled and honoured to be addressing you today. Together, we say ‘Hiroshima and Nagasaki: never again!”

The Preparatory Committee of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty convened in Vienna, Austria, at the start of August. In her opening address to the PrepCom, Izumi Nakamitsu - UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs - warned of an arms control regime that is crumbling and that “there is nothing to replace it.”

When something “crumbles” it breaks apart into smaller and smaller pieces. As we know, things - be they atoms, cake or international treaties - do not break apart into smaller and smaller pieces by magic. Forces are applied, deliberate actions are taken.

Just as the decision to unleash atomic destruction on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a cold, calculated and deliberate process the fact that the treaties, agreements and initiatives painstakingly constructed over decades have been steadily undermined, scrapped and sabotaged is a consequence of a cold, calculated and deliberate process.

The ‘conveyer belt’ commenced with George Bush Jnrs withdrawal from the anti-ballistic missile treaty and the subsequent stationing of ABM systems, and continued through to Donald Trump’s conduct and the collapse of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the ‘Iran Deal’ and similar treaties and agreements. The global system designed to control the spread of nuclear arms lies in tatters and of the two main international treaties still standing - the already-mentioned NPT and the new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons - there are substantial issues.

I want to focus on the part played by the United Kingdom in generating these issues but in so doing, it will be necessary to address the close military partnership with the United States - in which the UK plays a very junior role - and the workings of the nuclear-armed North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). In touching on these things, it will be clear that recent decisions emanating from this relationship and from NATO work to: undermine the NPT and TPNW; contribute to, rather than reducing, the acute nuclear tensions faced by the world; destabilise the Asia Pacific region.

First: news the potential return of US nuclear bombs to the UK emerged without fanfare, discussion, debate or the opportunity for dissent within Britain’s democratic institutions. When the British government was asked to account for this potential development, it gave the following non-reply: “The government is unable to comment on US spending decisions and capabilities, which are a matter for the US. It remains longstanding policy to neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons at a given location.”

News of the development only emerged following close examination of the 2023 US Department of Defence budget, where the UK was added to the list of countries where US nuclear storage sites were to be upgraded. This information appeared in a small footnote in the budget. The Lakenheath airbase was the place where the US Air Force previously stored nuclear gravity bombs. These were finally removed in the mid-to-late 2000s after a long campaign. Unlike the secrecy surrounding the nuclear storage facilities, news that the US was to deploy a new generation of nuclear-capable F-35 fighter bombers to the base was promoted. The new F-35s and the new generation of B61-12 nuclear bombs act as one system. The new bombs are not conventional free-fall bombs, they have accurate guidance systems, a new ‘steerable’ tail-fin and they have a ‘dialable’ nuclear payload. These are the type of bomb that military strategists and politicians refer to as ‘usable’ or ‘battlefield’ weapons. What does this development amount to if not nuclear proliferation? The US nuclear boot print in Europe is expanding and such developments undermine the NPT.

Second: the continued opposition of nuclear-armed states and states within the nuclear-armed NATO alliance to the TPNW is not just a matter of these countries expressing their continued desire to hold the threat of nuclear annihilation over the planet, but is a deliberate move to prevent the TPNW from ever becoming customary international law. These countries are “persistently objecting”, which - in international law - is a mechanism by which states not only ensure the non-applicability of a law within their own territory but which attempts to ensure that a law never achieves the status of ‘customary international law’. This deliberate undermining clearly demonstrates the actual intentions and thinking of those states - like the UK and US - which claim to uphold and defend the norms of a democratic world order. When it comes to nuclear questions, the only thing they defend is their own capacity to unleash nuclear genocide. I’m not sure that “crumbling” quite describes this dynamic!

The new alliance between the UK, US and Australia- AUKUS - clearly demonstrates the intent of two nuclear armed states to proliferate nuclear technology, thus undermining their stated commitments. The intention is to provide Australia with nuclear-powered but conventionally armed attack submarines. The nuclear reactors on board these submarines will contain weapons-grade Uranium. Under the AUKUS agreement, Australia will be responsible for processing and storing nuclear waste. Quite apart further question of who or what these submarines are supposed to attack - and the consequences of stationing such attack submarines in the region - is the fact that nuclear technology for military purposes is spreading. This is clearly not in line with the NPT let alone a commitment to a stable world order.

None of the developments mentioned can be separated from the global picture. They cannot be separated from US policy and they cannot be separated from NATO’s posture - which now extends to the Asia Pacific region, some enormous distance from the North Atlantic! These developments relate directly to the broader dynamics of European remilitarisation, already underway before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the so-called ‘tilt to Asia’ instigated by President Obama.

It is the responsibility of the international peace movements to sound the alarm and mobilise with energy, determination and creativity to halt and reverse the spiral towards disaster.