Trident and the case for regime change

In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the American and British governments fabricated stories about Saddam Hussein’s supposed array of weapons of mass destruction. These were said to include nuclear and biological devices, with missiles capable of being launched in 45 minutes. UN weapons inspectors could find no evidence that Iraq had such capabilities. Their work was cut short before the inspectors had an opportunity to visit all the sites on their list. Despite, or because of, the lack of proof, the invasion of March 2003 followed soon afterwards. All the consequences of this imperial adventure for the Iraqi people are too painful to observe. Another result is that ordinary people in Britain have also become prime targets for terror attacks. Well, if the alleged existence of WMD is a ground for regime change, surely the same logic should apply even more forcefully to a government that actually admits it has them. In this regard, New Labour entirely fits the bill. The vote in parliament to renew the Trident nuclear missile system means one thing above all else: the government is prepared to launch these weapons in anger. Ministers are ready to commit mass crimes against humanity in breach of international law.

In the days of the Cold War, successive governments argued that nuclear weapons were needed to counter the alleged threat from the Soviet Union. Well, this hasn’t been the case for more than 15 years. So spending £20 billion on new missiles – a vote only made possible by Tory support – is justified by the Blair/Brownites on the spurious grounds that we live in an uncertain world with threats as yet unknown just around the corner! This is real 1984 stuff. In George Orwell’s book, truth and reality are inverted and perverted. We are not under attack but we could be at any moment from enemies unknown. So just to keep everyone wound up, it is necessary to be armed to the teeth with weapons that can destroy life on earth within minutes (this, incidentally, a day after the government claimed to be "saving the planet" with its climate Bill). The uncertainty in the world is real enough. But it is a product of an out-of-control globalisation process dominated by rampaging corporations and financial institutions. There is understandable resistance to the imposition of market and Western "values" on other countries. This takes many forms, including Islamic-inspired opposition and terrorism. Pointing nuclear weapons at countries like Iran will only intensify this growing crisis and add to global destabilisation. The case for regime change in Britain, with the aim of scrapping WMD, has never been stronger.

Paul Feldman, communications editor

Marketing Star Wars

To justify spending more than $18 billion on a missile defence system that is unproven requires a "threat". Just like the sale of any other commodity, marketing is essential to create an irresistible desire to buy and consume. The marketing in this case centres around the "threat" from Iran. Poland and the Czech Republic were not too keen to be part of Washington’s anti-ballistic missile defence system, aka Star Wars. They knew it would anger Russia, who rightly perceive Star Wars as a threat to their own security and the trigger for a new arms race. Step up Iran, with its alleged plan to build nuclear weapons. It doesn’t matter that evidence is scant to non-existent about an Iranian nuclear weapons’ programme. Marketing is, after all, all about perceptions. ''This is all a result of Iran,'' explains Tim Williams, a European security analyst. ''Governments see that Iranian missiles can hit Europe, and suddenly they are very worried about the threat from ballistic missiles.'' Prime minister Blair is begging Washington to place part of the system in Britain to strengthen his "legacy". If that comes to pass, it will ensure that Britain is a key target for anyone with a missile to spare. You can add that to the fact that Britain is now a No.1 target for terror attacks thanks to New Labour’s imperialist foreign policies. These include the decision to spend countless billions on replacing the Trident nuclear missile system as well as the policy towards Iran. It is a little known fact that the British navy’s presence in the Gulf has doubled since October, joining American fleets in what amounts to a stand-off with Iranian warships in the same area. Commodore Keith Winstanley, who serves as deputy commander of coalition maritime operations for US Central Command, said: "There have been a series of Iranian exercises in the northern Gulf to the point that it's a bit like with the Russians at the height of the Cold War. We just have to hope that's not a recipe for miscalculation." Actually, that is just what Washington and London are hoping for. The Iranian regime is divided amongst itself and could easily fall for a provocation in and around its territorial waters. That would be the signal for an attack on Iranian targets such as nuclear facilities. Star Wars and the aggression towards Iran are further evidence that the American and British regimes are driving the world towards deeper into a period of military instability and potential catastrophe. A return to nuclear brinkmanship combined with a permanent state of war against nations with politics that don’t fit in is a frightening prospect.

Paul Feldman, communications editor