society.
Nuclear weapons are no more affordable, accountable or safe than they were when first developed and used to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki nearly seventy years ago, and as each year progresses, the justification for maintaining their existence grows weaker.
The call to create a genuine path to a nuclear-free future is not a new one and increasingly counts significant global figures in its midst. George Shultz, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn, no traditional figureheads of the peace movement presented a compelling analysis of their view for a nuclearfree world in 2007 saying;“" We endorse setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal." And a year later, after endorsement from Mikhail Gorbachev, Margaret Beckett and former US Secretaries of State including Madeleine Albright and Colin Powell, added;“ Progress must be facilitated by a clear statement of our ultimate goal. Indeed, this is the only way to build the kind of international trust and broad cooperation that will be required to effectively address today ' s threats. Without the vision of moving toward zero, we will not find the essential cooperation required to stop our downward spiral.”
In scrapping Trident and taking pro-active steps to halt global nuclear proliferation, Britain must also review its role on the world stage. The concentration of power between nuclear states has not guaranteed global security in the last sixty years, nor has it enabled any kind of platform or forum by which other states or networks can bring forward progressive and sustainable approaches to solving problems and conflicts. Those who have historically and recently suffered the consequences of the decisions made by the global bullies should take the opportunity to lead the movement of a new global approach of co-operation- setting the example and creating the agenda for change.
' The concentration of power between nuclear states has not guaranteed global security in the last sixty years '
Investing in people
Simultaneously, the impact of the ongoing expansion of NATO, the growing military presence of the so-called US Missile ' Defence ' Programme alongside the development of US military bases encircling Russia and China is not a‘ security’ measure. It is a well-resourced, strategically planned approach to the future of regional resource domination by the US, all endorsed and facilitated by Britain. Expelling US military bases from Britain, breaking decades-long informal and unaccountable agreements that have jeopardised British safety and undermined democracy for too long would send a bold and reforming message to the US that our priorities are focussed on investment in people, not on war and the military-industrial complex.
A policy approach that acknowledges and acts upon the growing devastation caused by climate change would provide substantial long-term security to future generations than an out-dated nuclear weapons system ever could. A global co-operative approach to halting and reversing climate change, with practical strategies, treaties and protocols that are put into effect and taken seriously by all states has to be developed as an immediate priority.
Structural changes to our approaches to democracy and representation must also play a role. Genuine participatory democracy from the streets, that means we can never again go to war on a lie, is a crucial component of a genuinely progressive future. Going to war at the whim of a British Prime Minister doing anything he can to please a US President, despite all facts screaming otherwise has left a stain on our generation that can never be forgotten. Iraq is just one example of
revolutionise. it 35