Kate Hudson argues that Britain does not need to wait to seize the initiative on defence and disarmament
THE really big question following Barack Obama’s election victory is: where will he go on foreign policy? Things don’t look great on all fronts, as he speaks of putting more troops into Afghanistan. But with regard to nuclear weapons and disarmament, the new President may shift things quite a bit. Attitudes towards nuclear disarmament have changed significantly in the United States over the past few years. Indeed, a wave of opinion across the political spectrum – including cold warriors such as Henry Kissinger and George Shultz – now favours US initiatives towards global nuclear abolition.
During the presidential election campaign, Obama – and John McCain too – expressed support for the vision of a nuclear free world. This view has become surprisingly uncontroversial in the US. During the election campaign, Obama stated that: “A world without nuclear weapons is profoundly in America’s interest and the world’s interest. It is our responsibility to make the commitment, and to do the hard work to make this vision a reality.”
The question now is how this translates into policies and actions. When he is in the White House, what will Obama actually do? During the campaign, he mentioned a number of specific steps that he plans to take – many of which hinge on renewed co-operation with Russia. He has emphasised, for example, his intention to seek Russia’s agreement to extend the provisions of START I before it expires in December 2009. He also plans to work with Russia to take US and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert.
This is all to the good, but there is a major obstacle to improved American-Russian relations, namely the so-called US missile defence system, which would give the Americans the capacity to attack other countries without fear of retaliation. Not surprisingly, Russia believes itself to be the target for this, especially as the latest bases for the system are planned for Poland and the Czech Republic.
Indeed, it has so annoyed and alarmed the Russian government that President Dmitry Medvedev has recently stated that, if the system goes ahead, he will place Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad. So will Obama go ahead with Missile Defence? So far, he has not opposed it. However, the conditions he places on it seem to be almost prohibitive – not least that it has to be “proven to work”, which has not yet happened, and that it mustn’t be expensive. Neither of those conditions is likely to be met any time soon.
What is most striking about these issues is how silent the British Government is. Is it really the case that US and British foreign policies are so joined at the hip that we just have to wait and see what Obama will do? Is our future role in the US missile defence system – or with regard to nuclear weapons – entirely determined by what the US President wants? It is increasingly looking like that is the case.
Last week, at an European Union summit with Russia, French President Nicolas Sarkozy expressed concern about missile defence plans in eastern Europe. He described them as misguided, concluding that: “Deployment of a missile defence system would bring nothing to security”. True, Sarkozy has not said this before, but at least he is trying to shape the new agenda now.
In fact, there have been strong voices against missile defence in Britain, too, over the past few weeks. Seventy senior figures from the Labour Party and wider labour movement signed a statement calling for a full parliamentary debate on this country’s participation in Missile Defence, including prominent Labour MPs Jon Cruddas, Tony Lloyd, Peter Kilfoyle and Chris Mullin. According to a new opinion poll, 61 per cent of the British population now believe that Missile Defence increases rather than reduces the security threats that we face. This figure is up from 54 per cent holding that view last year. Unfortunately, at ministerial level, there appears to be radio silence.
The British Government, which has repeatedly stated its commitment to multilateral disarmament over the past year, must now be proactive for change on these issues. It must end its support for US missile defence, which is utterly counter-posed to achieving any progress on the disarmament front.
Gordon Brown has stated that he shares values with Barack Obama. Let this be an area where they make progress together. The special relationship between the US and Britain has been underpinned by extensive nuclear agreements since 1958. Now is the time for that special relationship to be put to work for peace.
Kate Hudson is general secretary of CND
About The Author
