| ||||||||||||
Speech in Scottish Parliament Chris Ballance |
||
| May 2006 | ||
|
Chris Ballance (South of Scotland) (Green): The United Kingdom Government is deciding now whether to replace Trident, Britain's nuclear weapons system. The decision will determine whether we will have weapons of mass destruction based in Scotland, at Faslane, for the next 40 years. That is a crucial economic, strategic and moral issue for Scotland, and I am delighted to welcome to the public gallery so many visitors from the Church of Scotland, the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Trident Ploughshares and nukewatch Scotland. This Green party debate focuses on the recent legal opinion that the use of nuclear weapons is illegal; that the threat of the use of nuclear weapons is illegal; and that the proposed replacement of Trident is illegal. The need to distinguish between enemy combatants and civilians is central to international law on war crimes. Nuclear weapons injure and kill civilians indiscriminately. It has been suggested that the UK Government will simply agree the replacement of Trident without recourse to Parliament, despite the strategic implications, the £15 billion price tag and adverse public opinion. The decision will be taken not at Holyrood or even at Westminster, but in the White House and at the Pentagon, with number 10 simply signing the cheque. Scotland must voice its opinion on a decision that would make us a target, that would give us yet more nuclear waste and that would be illegal. Bill Butler (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab): Mr Ballance will be aware that, along with many thousands of members of the Labour and trade union movement, I am supportive of the terms of the Green party's motion. For clarity, and for the record, are the Greens going to accept the facile amendment that has been lodged by the Scottish National Party? Chris Ballance: We will hear the debate and decide which way we will vote at the end of it. The motion draws on a legal opinion that was provided by Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin of Matrix Chambers—Cherie Blair's own firm. That opinion is quite clear: the use of Trident or its replacement would "breach customary international law, in particular because it would infringe the 'intransgressible' requirement that a distinction must be drawn between combatants and non-combatants." Given the fact that the explosive power of each warhead is at least eight times that of the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, that point can hardly be in dispute. Furthermore, the 1998 Rome statute of the International Criminal Court states: "Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians ... which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage" is a serious violation of the laws of warfare, as is "Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings ... which are not military objectives". More damning, the Matrix Chambers lawyers go on to consider whether even the threat to use such weapons might be illegal. Citing the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the "Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons", they note: "If the envisaged use of force is itself unlawful, the stated readiness to use it would be a threat prohibited under Article 2, paragraph 4" of the United Nations charter. So, it is illegal to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons. However, there is more. The legal opinion finds that the replacement of Trident would be likely to constitute a material breach of article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. That article states: "Each of the parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." Let us be clear about this. If the UK unilaterally extends, enhances or improves its nuclear provision, it will be tearing up the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, having abandoned any vestige of commitment to "pursue negotiations in good faith". Where will that leave the prospect of negotiating away the nuclear weapons that are already in existence? Where will that leave the prospect of persuading countries that do not have nuclear weapons not to acquire them? The world is considerably worried at the moment about the nuclear ambitions of Iran. How can we expect to persuade Iran to respect the NPT when we treat it in so cavalier a fashion? How hypocritical are we? If we are serious about nuclear disarmament, we need to do something about it. Let us begin by deciding that we will not seek to replace the Trident system, nor extend its life. For once, let us take the lead instead of following the United States of America. Nuclear weapons are irrelevant against today's threats. What we need is greater respect for the United Nations, a strengthening of international law and action in support of our treaty obligations. The use of nuclear weapons, the threat of their use and the planned replacement of Trident are illegal and against our international treaty obligations. Let us today, in the Scottish Parliament, send a clear message to Whitehall that Scotland expects Downing Street to uphold the rule of law. I move, That the Parliament believes that the United Kingdom should not seek to replace the Trident nuclear missile system; notes that in 2005 the UK Government reaffirmed its commitment to all its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 1967 (NPT), including its legally binding obligation to negotiate nuclear disarmament in good faith; agrees with the legal opinion of Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin of Matrix Chambers on 19 December 2005 that any replacement of the Trident system would constitute a material breach of Article VI of the NPT, and calls on the Scottish Executive to seek an early assurance from the UK Government that it will fully comply with our legal obligations in respect of the NPT and that it will not seek to replace the Trident nuclear missile system with another weapon system of mass destruction. |