Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Nuclear weapons: why I might vote for an amendment that I don't agree with

Nuclear weapons? What are they good for?...

I am a relative defence hawk. Many years ago, I proposed a motion at a Young Liberal Council meeting which called for major improvements in defence procurement thus allowing the resultant savings to be spent on... more weapons. I am not a tree-hugging, cheese-eating surrender monkey. Well, I am cheese-eating, even though it is bad for my diet.

So, naturally, I'll be supporting the motion currently being proposed by my former colleague in the East of England, Julie Smith, won't I? It is, I admit, wholly reasonable, and addresses two of my concerns - support for veterans, improved procurement. But it does leave an enormous, pointy elephant - our nuclear deterrent.

You see, my viewpoint hasn't fundamentally changed. I believe that the United Kingdom should seek value in its spending, and that nuclear weapons are the very worst means of addressing the threats that we face - terrorism, cyber or physical, climate change, competition for resources. They make no meaningful contribution to our diplomatic effort.

So, I'm not minded to support the retention of a nuclear deterrent.

I am, however, minded to invest in properly equipping our armed forces, to establish them at a level that allows us to fulfil our international commitments, contribute to UN peacekeeping, and support those countries suffering from natural and other disasters. I also believe that our international aid programme acts as an adjunct to our defence strategy, addressing potential failed states and causes of support for terrorism across the globe.

The amendment allows me to trash our nuclear deterrent, but it does not actually commit to doing what I believe is necessary, and I suspect that the movers are merely making the 'right noises' in order to win over enough waverers to ensure success.

So, I agree with what the movers want initially, but not necessarily with their version of the future.

What am I to do?

It looks to me that I should vote for the amendment, and then vote down the amended motion. It is a gesture, possibly a futile one, but it expresses a view of a strong nation playing its part in maintaining our collective security.

I can't imaginably be on the winning side here, but I can at least be true to my beliefs...

No comments: