| ||||||||||||
Speech in Scottish Parliament Chris Ballance |
||
| 21 December 2006 | ||
|
Chris Ballance (South of Scotland) (Green): I will return to the subject of the debate. "There is today no direct military threat to the United Kingdom or to Western Europe. Nor do we foresee the re-emergence of such a threat ... The Strategic Defence Review has conducted a re-examination of our deterrence requirements. This does not depend on the size of other nations' arsenals but on the minimum necessary to deter any threat to our vital interests." That was the UK strategic defence review reporting in 1998. What has changed since then? Nothing. In August 2005 at Hiroshima, Kofi Annan said: "We are witnessing continued efforts to strengthen and modernise nuclear arsenals. Without concerted action, we may face a cascade of nuclear proliferation." On which side do we stand? Do we stand with those who are working hard to encourage multilateral or unilateral disarmament or with those who are rushing headlong into that "cascade"? On which side do we want Britain to be? Dr Hans Blix, the United Nations weapons inspector, said in London in November that modernising Britain's arsenal would put the nuclear non-proliferation treaty under strain and would increase the feeling among non-nuclear states such as Iran that they are being cheated by the nuclear powers. He pointed out the "strong sense of frustration" at the way in which nuclear nations are in the process of developing new types of weapons rather than moving towards their treaty commitments. The last time Hans Blix spoke, Tony Blair ignored him—there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and international weapons inspections and control had succeeded. Tony Blair was wrong then and he is wrong now. When Tony Blair called for Labour back benchers to follow him into Iraq, they believed him; they trusted that he had information that he could not disclose, but they discovered that he had nothing. That mistake has cost them hundreds, if not thousands, of members and thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of votes. Will they follow him into the desert again, or will they stand up this time for their consciences, for what they know is right, for what they know the people of Scotland want and for what the Church of Scotland and the Catholic church have called for? Will they support the anti-Trident motions and amendments tonight—even if it means voting for the Liberal Democrat lowest-common-denominator amendment? This is a conscience issue. It is the supreme conscience issue and it transcends party politics. I am optimistic that we will get rid of weapons of mass destruction. We might not win the vote in Westminster in March, where an undemocratic voting system maintains the stranglehold of the old parties, but that vote will mark not the end but the beginning of the campaign against Trident's replacement. The white paper makes it clear that very little expenditure will be incurred for at least five years from now and that the main expenditure will not be incurred until after 2020. The campaign against Trident and son of Trident will continue over the next 13 years—more if necessary—because the world has two possible futures: one in which we move to disarmament and to policing the world to ensure that nations do not have or achieve nuclear capability, and another in which more and more nations go nuclear until an accident or dictator starts a disastrous nuclear war.
|