Letter to Nick Harvey MP

Nick Harvey MP

House of Commons
LONDON
SW1A 0AA 27^th of September 2010

Subject: Trident, Maingate and NATO

Dear Mr Harvey,

I was at the recent debate on Trident that we Liberal Democrats held and listened to you explain why there is no need to make a final decision on the replacement of the Vanguard boats until 2015 at the earliest; the “Maingate” as you put it.

After our conference, I was reading a report on non-proliferation from the Edinburgh branch of the United Nations Association. It is widely known that Britain’s nuclear deployment is in fact part of the NATO deployment of nuclear weapons. What are not so well known are the potential legal obligations that could arise from this arrangement. The report mentions German aspirations to remove all nuclear weaponry from her soil but under the terms of current agreements this cannot be unless it is with the unanimous agreement of all twenty eight members of NATO. This is the same situation for countries such as Belgium, The Netherlands, Italy, Turkey and Great Britain.

Going on to quote from the report:

“8.7.2 The question was raised that in view of the unanimous agreement required to remove NATO nuclear weaponry and our interpretation of Germany’s implication that Britain is not technically a nuclear power as Trident is in fact possessed by NATO; it would necessary follow therefore, that no UK government has the right to eject Trident from its sovereignty, unless the other 27 NATO countries, agree to such a move.”

If this is a true reflection of the legal status of Trident, I am sure you would agree that not only is the current situation a grave breach of sovereignty for the United Kingdom, it is also a heavy and unjust burden on the British tax payer. I therefore seek assurances from you that in your role as Armed Forces Minister you will address this issue in all urgency. Certainly the question of whether the United Kingdom has the right to select which weapon system it is expected to pay for should be resolved before Maingate is reached. Otherwise our nation might find itself in the situation of having to purchase new boats for Trident simply in order to fulfil NATO obligations.

Yours sincerely,

Tags: Maingate, NATO, SNTT, Trident

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Martin Veart on September 27, 2010 at 4:59

This is the link to the UNA report. Once again we are in Rebekah's debt.
http://www.edinburghuna.co.uk/16.html

Permalink Reply by Rebekah Gronowski on September 27, 2010 at 8:06

Hi Martin,

This is indeed extremely worrying - mainly because it gives the very clear message that we, in the UK (and particularly in Scotland) do NOT have any conrtol over if or what nuclear weaponry is lodged on our soil!

This has to be challenged vehemently, not only by our Party through the good offices of Nick Harvey, but by the whole of the UK Coalition Government!

Is our Government, in fact, fully aware of the present situation - i.e. that we are under the control and dictat of NATO, are they totally blind to the situation or worse, not telling the Electorate, That is you, me and everyone in the UK) the true nature of our relation ship with NATO?

Permalink Reply by Rebekah Gronowski on September 28, 2010 at 6:01

This is a very long and in-depth Report. It is worth trying to go through it, but you will need plenty of time in which to read t and take it in.

(I am commenting here because the order of our Discussion list has become displaced by an "invisible comment" and the Letter to Nick Harvey has become shunted down the list of dicsussions).

Permalink Reply by Martin Veart on September 28, 2010 at 12:39

I think this letter has stirred up a bit of interest. It has been retweeted seven times so far by a range of anti-nuclear campaigners and interested individuals.

Rebekah Gronowski said:

This is a very long and in-depth Report. It is worth trying to go through it, but you will need plenty of time in which to read t and take it in.

Permalink Reply by Martin Veart on October 1, 2010 at 10:54

For those interested in this thread (and there doesn't seem to be that many of you), I think you may be interested in this link. It seems to back the argument made above.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_50068.htm

I would draw your attention to this section in particular (my added emphasis):

Like the North Atlantic Council and the Defence Planning Committee (DPC) on issues in their areas of competence, the NPG is the ultimate authority in NATO on matters of nuclear policy. It covers a broad range of subjects, such as the safety, security and survivability of nuclear weapons, communications and information systems, as well as deployment issues. The NPG also consults on wider questions of common concern, such as nuclear arms control and non-proliferation.