Who Is Threatening Gulf Regional Security?

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

Who Is Threatening Gulf Regional Security?
House of Commons Early Day Motions against Use of Nuclear Weapons
Britain’s Record on Nuclear Disarmament
Russian - US Arms Cuts Will Not Liquidate the Legacy of the Cold War

4% Pay Deal Ends German Strikes
Frankfurt Declaration

Palestinians Mark Nakba Day
Yasser Arafat:"Peace was and will remain our strategic choice and we will not give up the choice of peace"

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon flew to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday after talks in Kuwait about what the British government alleges are Iraqi threats to regional security.

Giving the government position, he said Britain had taken no decision about military action to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and emphasised UN Security Council measures aimed at ensuring long-term stability in the Gulf region. "These are designed to ensure Iraq remains in no position to threaten its neighbours or regional security," he told reporters before flying to Saudi Arabia.

When asked if the return of UN arms inspectors to Iraq would satisfy Britain's concerns and end support for a declared US "regime change" policy in Baghdad, Geoff Hoon said: "Let me make it quite clear there are no decisions whatsoever taken in the United Kingdom or, as far as I am aware, in the United States about any further military action against Iraq."

It should be noted that Britain has 12 Tornado warplanes deployed in Kuwait as part of the US-British mission to enforce a no-fly zone over southern Iraq which has no backing whatsoever in international law. Threatening statements against Iraq by London and Washington in the wake of the September 11 attacks and the doubling of US military presence in Kuwait in recent months to around 10,000 troops has heightened expectations of possible military action.

Nevertheless, Blair and Hoon are petulantly declaring that no decision has been taking on military action against Iraq, and are very tetchy when accused of being US imperialism’s poodle. The fact is that the British government is a "Third Way" ideologue on behalf of Anglo-US imperialism. It hypocritically denounces Saddam Hussein for possibly developing "weapons of mass destruction", or even smuggling them into the country, while refusing to release a so-called dossier about the Iraq regime for fear of ridicule and condemnation. Meanwhile the government, acting as a foreign affairs apologist for the US administration, is also behaving as a marauding gangster attempting to make Iraq an offer it cannot refuse by means of nuclear blackmail.

The Defence Secretary has stated that the government would possibly use nuclear weapons against Iraq, in contravention of its assurances given to non-nuclear states under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Geoff Hoon on April 29 again refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons, but suggested it would be in "conditions of extreme self-defence". However, it is known that the big powers’ definition of "self-defence" also includes "pre-emptive" measures, as was made clear after September 11. In addition, Geoff Hoon and Tony Blair do not acknowledge that after all Iraq may also have a right to self-defence.

As for whom is threatening the world with nuclear weapons, it need only be pointed out that a British nuclear-powered Trident submarine is out on patrol ready, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, to fire sixteen nuclear-armed missiles, each of which carries 48 independently-targeted nuclear warheads of seven times the explosive power of the first atomic bomb. The cost of maintaining these weapons is reported to be £1.5 billion annually.

In the hegemonic drive of US imperialism and the British government to impose the "New World Order", they are threatening the peace and security of nations, a situation which is causing massive harm, poverty and war throughout the world. The Middle East, the Gulf region, and the Arab world are subjected to manoeuvres, threats and turmoil as Britain and the US focus on bringing this intensely strategic area within their orbit. However, sovereignty and the just cause of peoples and nations are not to be snuffed out so easily.

The working class and people must denounce and condemn New Labour hypocrisy and double-talk, and demand that the government end its bullying intervention in the Gulf and throughout the world. They must grasp that the people are the decisive force in putting an end to imperialist domination and war.

EDM 1218 USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS 30.04.02

Llew Smith: That this House unreservedly rejects the statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence in Defence Questions on 29th April, Official Report, columns 665-6, that the Government would be prepared to use nuclear weapons in certain specified conditions; believes no circumstances justify the irradiation, vaporisation, explosive destruction or extermination of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, or conscripted military forces by exploding nuclear weapons; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to live up to its legal commitment under Article 6 of the Nuclear Non proliferation Treaty to negotiate away in good faith all its nuclear weapons at an early date.

Llew Smith; David Chaytor; Alice Mahon; John Cryer; Alan Simpson; David Hinchliffe; Terry Davis; Martin Caton; Elfyn Llwyd; Diane Abbott; Kelvin Hopkins; Robert Wareing; Annabelle Ewing; Eric Illsley; Jon Trickett; Nei Gerrard; David Lepper; Bill Etherington; Jeremy Corbyn; Lynne Jones; Tom Cox; Simon Thomas.

As at Tuesday 23rd April:

John McDonnell’s EDM 1052: Use Of Nuclear Weapons Against Iraq has 25 signatures (was 16). New – Jim Dobbin (Lab), Rudi Vis (Lab), Nigel Jones (Lib Dem), Alistair Carmichael (Lib Dem), Adam Price (Plaid Cymru), Sue Doughty (Lib Dem), Bill Etherington (Lab), Marsha Singh (Lab).

Jeremy Corbyn’s EDM 997: US Policy on Nuclear Weapons has 33 signatures (was 31). New – Alan Simpson (Lab), Marsha Singh (Lab).

Alice Mahon’s EDM 927: Military Action Against Iraq has 156 (was 147). New - Tony McWalter (Lab), David Borrow (Lab), Fabian Hamilton (Lab), Phil Willis (Lab), David Rendel (Lib Dem), Matthew Taylor (Lib Dem), Gavin Strang (Lab), Norman Baker (Lib Dem), John Thurso (Lib Dem).

Jeremy Corbyn’s EDM 649: Afghan Prisoners has 46 signatures (no change).

George Galloway’s EDM 321: Arms Trade With Israel has 77 signatures (was 71). New - Marsha Singh (Lab), Kevin Brennan (Lab), Joan Ruddock (Lab), David Borrow (Lab), Norman Baker (Lib Dem), Nigel Jones (Lib Dem).

The CND’s sixth annual report on The United Kingdom's Record on Nuclear Disarmament of March 2002 sets out the actual record of the British government. We reproduce the Executive Summary of the report.

1. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference in 2000, the UK and the four other declared nuclear weapons states gave an "unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals". They committed themselves to a programme of 13 practical steps to achieve this.

2. Two years later, there are no visible signs that the UK is implementing this commitment. Although there has been a reduction in the numbers of operational nuclear warheads in moving from Polaris to Trident, their accuracy and their destructive potential is enhanced and each warhead can now be targeted individually.

3. Far from using its influence with the United States to reaffirm the importance of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the UK is conniving with the US withdrawal from the treaty, to enable the proposed National Missile Defence programme to progress. Though, as yet, there has been no definitive statement from the UK, the signals are that it will grant permission for the use of the Fylingdales radar station and Menwith Hill communications centre, both of which are essential to the efficient operation of NMD.

4. The UK has yet to make a report to the Review Conference on its progress towards implementation of the 13 steps, as promised under step 12.

5. There is an unresolved contradiction in Labour's Foreign and Defence policies. On the one hand, the government is committed to retaining Trident, on the other to a Nuclear Weapons-Free World. Labour's Strategic Defence Review (SDR) of 1997 specifically excluded Trident, apart from saying "it would be premature to abandon a minimum capability to design and produce a successor to Trident should this prove necessary".

6. All the UK's nuclear capacity is in the Trident system, at Faslane on the Clyde estuary. The first Trident submarine has just arrived at Devonport for a re-fit, which will take two years. This, like the statement from the SDR (paragraph 5, above) is hardly compatible with the NPT commitment to work towards nuclear disarmament.

7. Co-operation between the UK and US teams working on the design and testing of nuclear warheads has increased significantly in recent years, in contravention of the spirit of Article 1 of the NPT Treaty. Presumably this work is on extending the life of Trident, or on a replacement for Trident, or both. The number of visits by UK personnel to the US Nevada Test Site rose from 4 in 1999 to 20 in 2001.

8. CND welcomes the UK commitment to cease the withdrawal of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons from safeguarded stocks but regrets that the Ministry of Defence will continue to withdraw from safeguards for testing purposes.

9. The UK has rejected several initiatives towards nuclear disarmament, such as the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion (July 1996), the Generals’ and Admirals’ Statement (July 1996) and the Canberra Commission’s Report (August 1996). It criticised the New Agenda Coalition, which detailed practical steps on how to achieve nuclear disarmament, saying that some of its suggestions were incompatible with a "credible minimum deterrent", another example of the contradiction referred to in paragraph 5 above.

10. CND believes the UK is well placed to take a lead on the path to global nuclear disarmament. It sets out ten steps which the UK could take before the next NPT Review Conference in 2005.

The 13 promises of the 2000 NPT Review Conference

11. Generally acclaimed to have been a major success, the 6th NPT Review Conference ended with a final document in which the NWS gave an "unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals". In addition, all the 187 State Parties to the Treaty agreed to take several other practical steps for the systematic and progressive efforts to achieve the complete elimination of the world’s nuclear weapons. The 13 steps agreed by the five acknowledged Nuclear States at the NPT Review Conference in 2000 were to:

a) sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) without delay, and achieve its early entry into force;
b) honour a moratorium on nuclear-weapon-tests pending entry into force of the CTBT;
c) immediately commence negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) with a view to their conclusion within five years;
d) immediately establish in the Conference on Disarmament a body with a mandate to deal with nuclear disarmament;
e) honour the principle of irreversibility in relation to nuclear disarmament;
f) accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament to which all States parties are committed under Article VI of the NPT;
g) facilitate the early entry into force and full implementation of START II and the conclusion of START III as soon as possible while "preserving and strengthening the ABM Treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons";
h) ensure the completion and implementation of the Trilateral Initiative between the US, Russia, and the IAEA;
i) take the following further steps towards nuclear disarmament in a way that promotes international stability and peace for all:

· unilaterally reduce their nuclear arsenals;
· increase transparency with regard to their nuclear weapons capabilities and their implementation of agreements under Article VI of the Treaty;
· further reduce their non-strategic nuclear weapons as an integral part of the nuclear disarmament process;
· further reduce the operational status of their nuclear weapons systems;
· ensure a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in their security policies as a means towards their total elimination;
· engage in the process leading to the total elimination of their nuclear weapons as soon as appropriate;
j) arrange to place all fissile material no longer needed for military purposes under IAEA safeguards to ensure it remains permanently outside military programmes;
k) reaffirm that their ultimate objective is general and complete disarmament under effective international control;
l) provide regular reports on their progress toward nuclear disarmament as agreed under Article VI of the NPT, commitments which were confirmed by the 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice;
m) further develop their verification capabilities relevant to assuring compliance with nuclear disarmament agreements, and for the achievement and maintenance of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

What the UK has done since the 2000 NPT Review Conference

12. British anti-nuclear campaigners are dismayed, but not surprised, at the lack of progress since the Review Conference in 2000 given the unhelpful statement which was made on 5th June 2000 by Mr Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence. He told the House of Commons: "the non-proliferation treaty agreement is an aspiration; it is not likely to produce results in the short term". Two years on, there are no visible policy moves to suggest that the UK intends to implement an "unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination" of its nuclear arsenals either in the short, or long, term. For example, the UK:

13. Has not renewed it efforts to comply with its NPT commitments in relationship to the CTBT and the July 2000 report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee inquiry on Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). This urged "the Government to co-operate with the US Administration and encourage the new US President to re-submit the CTBT to the Senate for ratification as an urgent priority", and recommended that "the Government should fully support the proposed 18 per cent increase in the CTBT Organisation's budget for 2001 report, given the importance of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation in stemming nuclear proliferation". The number of visits by UK personnel to the US Nevada test site has increased from 4 in 1999 to 20 in 2001 (Hansard 22.01.02), giving rise to fears that the UK may abandon its commitments under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and resume testing should the Nevada test site re-open.

14. Failed to act on the July 2000 report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee hearing on WMD which recommended that "the Government make renewed efforts to help to break the impasse on the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) negotiations and ensure that substantive negotiations commence quickly". This is in spite of the commitment made by the UK at the 2000 NPT Review Conference that it would "immediately commence negotiations on FMCT with a view to their conclusion in five years".

15. Failed to reach agreement on the establishment in the CD of appropriate subsidiary bodies with a mandate to deal with nuclear disarmament.

16. Failed to make a firm commitment that it will not extend the life of its present Trident nuclear weapons system, and will not replace it when its current service life runs out. This is the one step that would accomplish the total elimination of its nuclear arsenals to which it committed itself at the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

17. Failed to unilaterally reduce its nuclear weapons arsenal. Although Ministers often claim that the UK has made significant unilateral reductions in the number of its operational nuclear warheads, the remaining Trident warheads have more explosive power, longer range of 7400 km, and more accuracy with ability to hit different targets spread over a much wider area.

18. Failed to take action to reaffirm the importance of the ABM Treaty, which is breached by the proposed US Missile Defence programme. On the contrary, on 1st August 2001, Mr Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary issued a briefing paper to all Parliamentary Labour Party Members explicitly supporting the system. It said: "Missile Defence is not an alternative to our wider non-proliferation effort, but part of it". Indicating his support for Missile Defence, he said, at King's College, London, on 6.02.02, "What Missile Defence should do is give pause to those tempted down the path of proliferation". The indications are that the UK will give massive practical support to the programme by granting permission for the use of the two North Yorkshire bases, Fylingdales radar station and Menwith Hill listening post.

19. Enacted, in December 2001, the UK the Anti-terrorism law which makes it illegal for anyone to disclose information about the location of its nuclear installations, thus breaching its 2000 NPT commitment to increase transparency with regard to its nuclear capabilities and confidence-building measures in nuclear disarmament.

20. Failed to significantly reduce the operational status of its nuclear weapons systems as agreed at the 2000 NPT Review Conference, by, for example, de-alerting and removing its nuclear warheads from their delivery systems.

21. Failed to abandon its ‘minimum nuclear deterrent policy’, a vital move that would ensure a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in their security policies, as agreed at the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

22. Failed to declare that its stocks of fissile material are no longer required for military purposes under IAEA.

23. Failed to affirm by action rather than words that its ultimate objective is general and complete disarmament under effective international control.

24. Has yet to make any report on its implementation of Article VI of the Treaty, and to provide any assurance of compliance with nuclear disarmament agreements for the achievement and maintenance of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

The Strategic Defence Review

25. As the major political party in opposition to the Conservative Government, the Labour Party developed its own policy on nuclear weapons in preparation for the expected victory at the General Election in May 1997.

26. In August 1996, the Labour Party leader Tony Blair was asked whether he, as Prime Minister, would authorise the use of nuclear weapons. He replied, "These are enormously difficult decisions, but yes, you have to envisage circumstances in which your nuclear deterrent could be used. But I don’t think it is ever sensible for a Prime Minister to spell out those circumstances". ...and he went on to say that he was prepared to use them, "whilst we are under any type of threat elsewhere in the world".

27. The electoral message from the Labour Party was that it would no longer support the policy of CND, which the leadership decided had helped the party lose previous elections. Tony Blair had been converted to the theory of nuclear deterrence, was prepared to use nuclear weapons and would continue with the construction and deployment of Trident.

28. The less obvious ramifications for the future of the NPT were not stated. Britain would abrogate its obligations under Article VI of the NPT and retain its predecessor's sub-strategic role for Trident to be deployed to deter "potential aggressors" who might "threaten Britain's vital interests" -anywhere in the world.

29. The Labour Party came to office with an unresolved contradiction at the heart of its Foreign and Defence Policy, saying it would "retain Trident as a minimum nuclear deterrent" while seemingly also committed to achieving a "nuclear weapons-free world". A ‘Strategic Defence Review’ was then launched which explicitly excluded any substantive debate on Trident despite moves to more open and consultative decision-making.

30. Fourteen months later, in July 1998, the results of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) were released in a flurry of publicity and fine sounding words about "unprecedented steps towards nuclear disarmament". CND published a detailed analysis of the document, which is available on request and on our website. Suffice to reprint here some of the key phrases from the SDR:

...our minimum deterrent remains a necessary element of our security. ..minimum necessary to deter any threat to our vital interests. ..Trident must also be capable of performing this "sub- strategic" role. ..nuclear deterrence still has an important contribution to make in ensuring against the re-emergence of major strategic military threats, in preventing nuclear coercion and in preserving peace and stability in Europe. ..we intend to maintain continuous at-sea deterrent patrols. ..we need to ensure that it can remain an effective deterrent for up to 30 years.

31. The SDR was presented as a substantial development and initially accepted as such by many commentators. The Government did make some welcome announcements at the margins but, in essence, there was to be no fundamental change in nuclear policy from the previous government and they fell far short of the expectations of many observers and campaigners. Collectively, the announcements amounted to a useful, if minimal contribution to controlling nuclear proliferation but they could in no way be described as progress towards a nuclear weapons-free world. This approach set the tone for the UK’s contributions to the Conference on Disarmament, the NPT Preparatory Committees and the United Nations General Assembly.

The Trident nuclear weapons system

32. All the UK's nuclear capability is now concentrated on one system under the command of one force and at one location -Trident submarines with the Royal Navy at the Faslane Base on the River Clyde in Scotland. The last one was commissioned in November 1999.

33. The four Trident submarines (Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance) were built at the shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria and are referred to in military terms as the Vanguard Class. They are powered by nuclear reactors and have 16 vertical tubes to house the D5 missiles and its independently-targeted nuclear warheads with a range of 7400 km and accuracy within 120 meters. Vanguard has just arrived at Devonport for refit which will last two years. This is hardly compatible with the NPT commitment to work towards nuclear disarmament.

34. Design teams from the Ministry of Defence and the Barrow shipyard worked very closely with their US counterparts. The US has 18 Trident submarines in service. The missiles in the UK Trident submarines are leased from the US and there was close co-operation on the design and testing of the nuclear warheads. British nuclear weapons are incorporated into NATO strategic planning and are dependent on targeting information from the United States.

35. The warheads were designed and developed at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment (AWE) at Aldermaston and assembled at AWE Burghfield, both near Reading. From here they are transported in unmarked articulated lorries, in convoy, to the Royal Navy Armaments Depot (RNAD) at Coulport near to the submarine operational base at Faslane.

36. There is always "one submarine on patrol at a time, carrying a reduced load of 48 warheads" (SDR). There are 58 missiles in service and a "stockpile of less than 200 operationally available warheads" (SDR). Each warhead has an explosive yield of 100 kilotons, which is approximately 5 times the destructive power of the plutonium bomb dropped on Nagasaki.

37. Most missiles probably have just 4 warheads deployed. A small number of missiles carries only 1 warhead for the ‘sub-strategic’ role of destroying a target as a warning, short of a full nuclear attack. The total yield of all the warheads deployed on submarines or stored in Scotland could be 20 megatons, which is the equivalent of 1000 Nagasaki bombs.

38. Trident submarines remain deep underwater for weeks or even months and their patrols take them far from their bases. This capability, coupled with a much greater accuracy to hit designated targets over much greater distances and sophisticated communications means that the military have the capability to 'go nuclear' very quickly if ordered to. This reality is not affected by the SDR rhetoric that, "the submarine's missiles will not be targeted and it will normally be at several days notice to fire".

39. The way to lower the nuclear threshold is to take Trident off 24 hour patrol and remove the warheads from the missiles to storage ashore, but the government has declined to go this far and has even abandoned its pre-election pledge to adopt a ‘no first use’ policy.

40. When Labour politicians ask parliamentary questions about Trident, their colleagues who became Ministers in the Government invariably remind them that they themselves were elected on a manifesto pledge to "retain Trident as a minimum nuclear deterrent". This is a means of both stifling debate on the issue and telling MPs not to be disloyal if they are interested in promotion. Retaining Trident always takes precedence over nuclear disarmament, regardless of any international obligations to which the UK is also committed.

Continued research and development

41. In August 1999, CND and Alan Simpson MP released a report called ‘The Next Chevaline Scandal’ based on information gathered from the US and official UK publications. In the late 1960s, the British Cabinet secretly decided to modernise the warhead capability of Polaris missiles in order to confuse the Soviet anti-ballistic missile defences. The new warheads on Polaris were called ‘Chevaline’ - no debate, no consultation, no scrutiny.

42. The 1998 Strategic Defence Review (SDR) White Paper concluded that, "it would be premature to abandon a minimum capability to design and produce a successor to Trident should this prove necessary". This was confirmed by the Defence Secretary as he gave oral evidence to the Defence Select Committee following the publication of the SDR.

43. In an annual report on Aldermaston there is reference to exchanges with the United States, "in preparation for the refurbishment that will be required for Trident early in the next decade". In the US the Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile Warhead Protection Program (SWPP) is developing a replacement for the existing W76 and W88 Trident warheads and the Mk5 Trident re-entry vehicle. As there is already close co-operation between the US and UK on nuclear weapons, it comes as no surprise to be told that Britain is participating in work which could result in a new warhead for the US missiles carried on the four British Tridents.

44. The US Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programme (SSMP) attracted government funding in order to keep the nuclear weapons laboratories open so that existing stockpiles can be monitored for safety and reliability since the decision to forgo underground test explosions. The highly sophisticated and hugely expensive laboratory equipment and advanced computer simulation technology also gives the scientists the capability to design, develop and test new weapons capability without the need for underground test explosions. There is a parallel Stockpile Stewardship programme being developed at Aldermaston.

45. US/UK co-operation on nuclear weapons has increased markedly in recent years. A total of 235 visits, involving nearly 500 people, was made to the US under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement between 1998 and 1999, a two-fold increase from 1995. These are the last available figures. There have been 110 visits from the US to AWE Aldermaston in the same period. Two AWE staff were seconded to the US nuclear weapons laboratory at Los Alamos and one to Lawrence Livermore, "to assist with the technical development of facilities of mutual interest".

46. Britain has an input into the US ‘National Ignition Facility’, the world’s largest laser and advanced computer modelling programme. In July 1999, the MoD admitted to investing "in the region of £100 million to cover a short rate enhancement programme and the design and construction of a UK target chamber". A £150 million refurbishment programme follows £1.2 billion spent on new facilities for the production of Trident warheads at Aldermaston.

47. The Ministry of Defence's response to CND’s report was that, "there are no current plans for any replacement for Trident, and no decision on any possible successor would be needed for several years". As the US is openly working on new warheads, and given the close co-operation between the two countries, we believe the MoD is being less than forthright.

48. Further evidence of this US/UK relationship can be seen in the developments at Menwith Hill and Fylingdales, two bases in England which are integral to the proposed US National Missile Defence (NMD) system. Despite the implications for international relations, given the US announcement of notification to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM), the UK’s response is merely, "we have received no formal request from the US Administration regarding use of either site in support of NMD".

49. CND believes that the UK and the US are in breach of the spirit of Article 1 of the NPT in their collaboration on nuclear weapons development. This collaboration might not be a legal breach of Article 1, as written, but it certainly contributes to the devaluation of the treaty.

The UK’s response to disarmament initiatives

50. In his contribution to a parliamentary debate on ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ (Westminster Hall 18th January 2000) Peter Hain, the Minister of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, made some helpful and interesting comments. He started by agreeing with his colleagues, "that the years ahead will be challenging for those of us who wish to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and to improve global security".

51. He went on to say, "The main instrument for preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons is the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, or the NPT" and detailed examples of non-compliance. He then said that, "The United Kingdom is in a particularly good position to press the case for those treaties" [NPT, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty] since the UK have (sic) not conducted a nuclear weapons test explosion since 1991, have (sic) signed and ratified the CTBT, announced in 1995 that the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons had ceased and have (sic) placed more nuclear facilities under international safeguards.

52. CND welcomed all these measures but pointed out that each must be analysed contextually. The UK has not been able to do any underground testing since 1991 as the US closed the Nevada site where UK explosions were conducted. As explained in the previous section, advanced technology means that new warheads can be designed without the need for underground explosions thus undermining the spirit of the CTBT. There is sufficient fissile material in the military stockpile for current and future requirements. A commitment to cease the withdrawal of fissile material from safeguarded stocks for use in nuclear weapons is particularly welcome but the MoD will continue to withdraw from safeguards for testing purposes.

53. Unless existing stocks of fissile material are addressed and a commitment not to withdraw material from safeguards is given, then progress on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty would be of limited value. Any agreement on a FMCT would be further undermined by the UK’s refusal to consider ceasing the production of tritium [hydrogen atoms which boost thermonuclear explosions] in the nuclear reactors at Chapelcross in Scotland and putting the plant under international safeguards.

54. The Minister concluded that his Government is, "working extremely hard not only to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but to make progress towards our goal of the elimination of all such weapons. Ultimately, the achievement of both objectives is essential to long-term global security". Essentially this government, like its predecessor, appears to believe that the gradualist approach will eventually result in a nuclear weapons-free world.

55. Since the 1995 NPT Conference, the UK has shown lukewarm interest in nuclear disarmament initiatives at best, and downright hostility at worst. Any suggestions of a timebound framework for the elimination of nuclear weapons has been dismissed as impractical and unachievable. The July 1996 International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons was considered and then rejected on the basis that the UK did have legal justification for continued possession. The August 1996 Canberra Commission was originally thought to be helpful then buried. The December 1996 General's and Admiral's statement was ignored, as was a similar statement by International Civil Leaders.

56. The New Agenda Coalition, with its practical steps on how to achieve nuclear disarmament, received particular criticism from the UK as some of its suggestions are said to be incompatible with a ‘credible minimum deterrent’. Exactly so, and the future of the NPT rests on resolving this contradiction.

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament demands from the Government

57. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament believes that the UK, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and one of the five declared Nuclear Weapons States that gave an "unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear weapons" at the 2000 NPT Review Conference, is well placed to take a lead on the path to global nuclear disarmament.

58. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament therefore demands that the UK Government take the following practical steps before the next NPT Review Conference in 2005:

· Use the UK-US special relationship to "press the United States to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty" as recommended by the December 2000 report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which said: "We note the importance of ensuring a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing". The Treaty needs to be signed and ratified by all the 44 States deemed to be nuclear capable in order to come into force.

· Commit the UK not to resume nuclear testing, even if the Nevada Test Site should reopen, which seems increasingly likely.

· Adopt without delay, the ‘no-first use policy’, which was advocated by the Labour Party while in opposition, given that the Party is now in government.

· Abandon its current ‘sub-strategic role’ policy relating to the Trident nuclear submarines.

· De-alert and remove all nuclear warheads from their delivery systems and place them in safe storage.

· Use its leading position in NATO and in the European Union to press for the establishment of an internationally recognised Nuclear-Weapon-Free zone in Europe in accordance with the Principles and Objectives of the NPT.

· Establish an annually updated Fissile Material Inventory, which includes provisions for existing stock-piles and addresses the issue of tritium, a non-fissile material required to boost the explosive power of nuclear warheads.

· Make a firm commitment not to extend the life of the present Trident nuclear weapons system and not to replace it when its current service life runs out.

· Make a firm commitment for the progressive and verifiable closure of all sites designated for nuclear weapon systems research, testing, development and deployment, including laboratory testing and computer simulation.

· Give an unequivocal undertaking not to allow the US the use of any base in Britain for the NMD project. Given the strong concerns that have been expressed both in the UK and in Europe about the destabilising impact of the US National Missile Defence system and a range of other systems under active consideration on nuclear disarmament regimes, and the danger of undermining international efforts to control proliferation.

59. In summary, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament urges the British Government to fulfil its responsibilities to the British electorates by implementing the recommendation of the UK Foreign Affairs select Committee hearing on British-US relations, which said: "The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is currently ‘leaking’, and we recommend that the Government works in the closest conjunction with the US Administration to devise further specific and effective measures to enforce this crucial arms control agreement".

60. We also urge the government to present a written report back to the 2002 PrepCom on the progress the UK has made on implementing the 2000 NPT nuclear disarmament ‘Plan of Action’.

61. Thirty two years after it entered into force on 5th March 1970, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is in danger of being universally perceived as enshrining the privileges of the few to retain nuclear weapons indefinitely against the needs of humanity to achieve their abolition, sooner rather than later.

62. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament therefore calls on the British Government to put the needs of humanity first and lead the way to global abolition of nuclear weapons by putting words into deeds.

CND issued the following press release on May 13, 2002

"Any reduction in nuclear warheads is to be welcomed," said CND Chair Carol Naughton this afternoon, "but President Bush's claim that this treaty will liquidate the legacy of the Cold War suggests he is even further detached from reality than we feared."

The proposed reduction in Russian and US warheads has been well-trailed since the start of the Bush presidency and was the subject of some discussion at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Conference in New York last month.

In her report from the NPT Carol said:

The willingness of the US and Russia to decrease current warhead numbers is part of the strategy to replace some of them with new, reduced yield 'bunker busters' and medium range delivery systems which will lower the nuclear threshold.

Also aired at the NPT was the problem with 'handshake diplomacy' instead of nuclear disarmament agreements, which include detailed clauses about verification and transparency.

"Storing surplus warheads for possible future use is not nuclear disarmament" said Carol Naughton, "and the legacy of the Cold War will only be liquidated when the last warhead has been dismantled and the doctrine which fed it has been consigned to the history books."

Engineering union and industry leaders on Wednesday reached a pay agreement set to end Germany's most widespread strike actions since 1995. A deal had been reached for workers in the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg.

The engineering union IG Metall has used a so-called "flexi" strike pattern, which involved as many workers and companies as possible. The individual strike targets, chosen by IG Metall at short notice, were limited to one day at a time, with the daily work stoppages moving on to other companies on following days. Some companies were hit more than once.

Such a flexible tactic was said to make it more difficult for employers to carry out threats of a lockout. IG Metall's vice-president, Jürgen Peters, says that with one-day interruptions in production "we hit the companies in a neuralgic spot – the efficient flow of production". He warned the employers about arbitrarily locking out workers and said that the "strike is a citizen's right; the lockout is the misuse of power."

As the agreement was reached, employers welcomed the longer-than-usual 22 month-period over which the deal will be valid. IG Metall and employers federation Gesamtmetall agreed on a deal that amounts to a 4% pay rise for the 12 months to June 1, 2003, followed by a 3.1% rise for the six months to end-2003. It also includes a one-off payment of 120 euros for May 2002, but no increases for March and April this year.

The compromise followed day-long talks between IG Metall and engineering employers, and 10 weeks of unrest which has affected some of Germany's best known firms, including DaimlerChrysler and Porsche. More than 100,000 workers from 85 firms had joined one-day strikes called in support of pay rises of at least 4%. Employers had offered 3.3%.

The two sides of industry also agreed an opt-out clause for companies that are in financial difficulties, in particular among Germany's small and mid-sized business sector. Furthermore, the deal includes a clause ensuring identical pay for white-collar workers and blue-collar workers, IG Metall said.

Wednesday's deal covers only 800,000 factory employees Baden-Wuerttemberg, and still requires agreement by union members. A separate deal needs to be struck for the Berlin region, where the strikes spread to over the last week. "We are sure that the large majority of our members and other workers will approve of it too," IG Metall leader Klaus Zwickel said. The agreement is likely to be adopted across the country for the industry's 3.6m engineering workers.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on Wednesday welcomed the agreement, saying it displayed "common sense for the economy as a whole".

Analysts were warning that after Wednesday's deal, investment could be shifted abroad. "Even the mid-sized employers already have subsidiaries in Eastern Europe. For these guys, it won't take long," said Deutsche Bank Economist Stefan Schneider. Otmar Zwiebelhofer, chief negotiator for the Gesamtmetall employers' federation in Baden-Württemberg, said that the deal was too high to protect employment in the sector. "Companies will have to rationalise more strongly," he warned. Even the expected recovery in the economy in the second half of this year would not limit looming job cuts in the metals industry, he added.

Support for the German metalworkers' strike had come from across the world, with metal unions in Asia, Latin America, North America, Europe pledging solidarity with their metalworker colleagues in Germany and stating they would not allow German employers to circumvent the strike by transferring production to their countries, nor accept overtime to compensate for production losses in Germany. The "Frankfurt Declaration" signed on May 10 by the leadership of the European Metalworkers' Federation and IG Metall states that European metal unions would step up cross-border exchange of information and co-ordination during conflicts.

Strike in the German metal-working industry – solidarity between the European metal-working trade unions

European integration will only be successful if it is perceived to be a social project for more jobs and justice for the people of Europe. Only a socially just Europe can be an economically strong Europe – which is why Europe’s trade unions are fighting for more growth and more jobs. In European history the chances of achieving this objective have never been as great as they are now. If the wage increases in Europe are not high enough, however, these chances will turn into a risk factor throughout Europe. Every wage agreement which fails to exhaust the available distributive margin (sum of productivity and inflation) will put a strain on the labour market and economic development. The wage policy of the trade unions over the last few years was to favour stability. We want to continue along the same lines. At the same time, however, we need wage agreements which strengthen purchasing power in the Euro area. And this requires a collective bargaining policy which provides stability, but which also promotes growth – just like the policy pursued by IG Metall thus far.

Exercising restraint in demands for wage increases is neither the basis for more jobs or growth, nor does it lead to more social justice. The employers have refused to admit this fact in the past 47 rounds of negotiations which have taken place in the German metal-working industry. IG Metall will not accept any loss in purchasing power on the part of employees. This is why it is going on strike – for an increase in income, growth and jobs. This strike by IG Metall is the first nation-wide strike in Europe since the launch of the Euro. As a result of the economic weight which Germany wields in the Euro zone (35% of GNP), this is also an event of European magnitude, as a collective agreement which is commensurate with increases in productivity and inflation also sends out a positive signal to serve as a standard for other countries.

The members of the European Metalworkers Federation (EMF) are also responding to the risks inherent in a European monetary policy in their project co-ordinating collective bargaining policy. In this way they are sending out an unmistakable message that they will resist the wage dumping favoured by employers. The trade unions are banking on the solidarity of employees in Europe in resisting wage dumping with its ruinous effect on wage and social standards.

The co-ordination rule is a political tool for fighting against wage dumping in Europe. With a reporting system created by the European trade unions themselves to cover all of Europe, they are in direct contact with other collective bargaining movements. At the heart of these activities is the obligation on the part of European trade unions to prevent, according to their possibilities, any strike-breaker activities or measures aimed at undermining these strikes. European works councils also play a major role in practising solidarity. That is why the EMF is involving European works councils in this information and support work. EBRs of multinational corporations which have production sites in Germany are being asked to show their solidarity and support particularly in resisting strike-breakers and relocation of production. In the event of a strike, the cross-border exchange of information and active solidarity on the part of the trade unions will become something which is to be taken for granted. There is no national collective bargaining any longer since the launch of the Euro!

Frankfurt messages:

First: IG Metall will do everything in its power to continue the course of non-inflationary wage policy. This line will only promote growth and employment if the result of collective bargaining is at least commensurate with the increase in productivity and inflation.

Second: The European metal-working enterprises underscore their solidarity with the strike in the German metal-working industry and reject any efforts to relocate production and use strike-breakers.

Third: The strike in the German metal-working industry is the starting gun for the EMF to intensify its co-ordination work. The European metal-working trade unions will be co-operating closely in the future whenever there are cross-border conflicts by setting up their own co-ordination group for this purpose.

Fourth: It is in the interest of the European metal-working trade unions to strengthen their European Metall-Working Federation in order to better meet new challenges emanating from the completion of the Single European Market.

(signed) Industriegewerkschaft Metall: Klaus Zwickel / Jürgen Peters

European Metalworkers' Federation: Tony Janssen / Reinhard Kuhlmann

10.05.2002

Palestinians at home and in the Diaspora on Wednesday observed the 54th anniversary of the Nakba, the loss of their ancestral motherland.

Marches and rallies were held in major Palestinian towns and refugee camps stressing determination to cling to the inalienable right of millions of Palestinian refugees to return to their native towns and villages from which they were expelled at gunpoint when Israel was created 55 years ago.

In Ramallah, thousands of people marched through the Manara thoroughfare, holding placards accentuating the paramount importance of the right of return.

"There can be no peace without the implementation of the right of return," read one large placard.

"Ethnic cleansing must not be allowed to succeed," read another, referring to Israel's policy of uprooting Palestinians from their homeland in order to allow for the settling Jewish immigrants.

In Nablus, speakers stressed that the Palestinian Authority or any Arab or Islamic state has no right to sign away the Palestinian refugees' right to repatriation.

"Even if they sign agreement compromising our sacred right of return, we, our children, grand children, their children and future generations will not be bound by such agreements. We shall not accept anything less that the full dignified return to our homes," said Husam Khader, a Palestinian lawmaker from the Balata refugee camp. "As far as we are concerned, the right of return is far more important than Palestinian statehood."

In 1949, a few months after the expulsion of close to 800,000 Palestinians from their towns and villages by armed Jewish gangs, the UN on December 11 issued resolution 194 which states in paragraph 11 that: "...the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date... compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return."

Resolution 194 was affirmed practically every year since with a universal consensus, except for Israel and the US. This resolution is further clarified by UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 which reaffirms in Subsection 2, "the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return".

In May 1949 Israel was accepted as a UN member under the condition that it would fulfil its obligations towards the Palestinians and permit their right of return. Israel secured its admission into the UN, but the Palestinians were never secured their rights.

The Zionist regime, backed by western powers, rejected resolution 194, claiming that the return of the refugees to Palestine might undermine the Jewish identity of the Israeli state, and thus erode its ethnic purity.

About eight million Palestinians at home and in the Diaspora today observed the 54th annual anniversary of the Palestinian Nakba, according to Palestinian News Agency WAFA. The agency described the Nakba (Catastrophe) the seizure by the occupation of Palestine and the resulting expulsion and dispersal of the bulk of its people from their ancestral homeland.

Tens of thousands of Palestinians marched in the streets of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, carrying placards and shouting slogans affirming the right of some four million Palestinian refugees to return to their native hometowns and villages in what is now Israel.

"Denial of right of return means victory for racism and apartheid," read one large placard in Ramallah.

At noon local time, Palestinians observed three minutes of silence during which verses from the Qura’an were recited in honour of more than 200,000 Palestinian martyrs who lost their lives defending their country.

Afterwards, Palestinian President Yasser Arafat delivered a speech in which he called for reforms of the Palestinian National Authority to prepare for new elections.

"I call for a review of all our administrative, ministerial and security forces," President Arafat told lawmakers gathered in the West Bank city of Ramallah. "It is the time for change and reform," he said, calling for re-evaluation of "all aspects of our national life''.

"Allow me to propose to you the speedy preparation of elections and to implement whatever is possible,'' the President said in his speech which was broadcast live on Palestine Television.

President Arafat also took responsibility for any mistakes the Palestinian leadership had made and said, they must be rectified.

President Arafat condemned the Israeli government’s brutal aggression against the Palestinian people during the 19-month-old Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation, but said the struggle for an independent Palestinian state would continue and that peace remained his "strategic" goal.

President Arafat said that the government in Israel had tried to wreck the interim peace deals reached with the Palestinians but that he remained committed to seeking a lasting peace agreement.

"They have tried to abolish the peace deals. They tried with the military option of their occupation forces," President Arafat said.

He added that the Palestinians' will would not be broken in their uprising against occupation in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

''Our dream is real freedom and complete independence in the state of Palestine with Jerusalem as the capital. Whoever likes it or not, it is our aim to have that," he said.

"Peace was and will remain our strategic choice and we will not give up the choice of peace," the President added.