Lobby for United Nations

‘Lobby for the UN’ is an annual campaign run by the United Nations Association throughout the parliamentary session. The campaign aims to promote dialogue between voters and parliamentarians about the UK’s contribution to the UN’s work. This year UNA are focusing its efforts in climate change and nuclear disarmament with COP15 and the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review looming close. The event featured presentations from UNA-UK Chair, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, Ashok Sinha, Director of the Stop Climate Chaos Coalition, and Dr Nick Ritchie of the Bradford Disarmament Research Centre.

In his speech, Lord Hannay explained why UNA had to prioritise itself in dealing with two issues in representing its policies. Climate change is critical. The developed world are too slow to help developing countries to teach techniques on mitigation and diplomatic failure at COP15 means that the consequences of climate change will be far more costly. Thanks to President Obama, the issue of nuclear disarmament has taken a major policy shift, recognising that the 5 nuclear weapons states and the 3 who have not signed up to the NPT will need to act on an agreement.

Coming to a diplomatic agreement on either issue will not be easy. Iran and Korea, for example, are major road blocks in the nuclear agreement with Iran becoming a potential problem. However the UK has the willingness to move in the right direction with its nuclear tactics, especially with NGO and civil society movements made against the renewal of its Trident missiles.

Ashok Sinha stated that “if we do not tackle growth of carbon, we will be looking at a dark world”, with millions of species under threat, creation of a new economic crisis, overflow of fleeing refugees, violent conflict over water... Climate change is not only affecting developing nations, but is much closer to home. 30,000 people died in European heat wave in 2003 as a contribution to climate change, and people are still dying now because of it. If the rate of carbon is not slowed down by 2015, the list of consequences will be far greater.

The Kyoto Protocol will expire in 2012, therefore whatever decision made at COP15 will determine the factors of climate change in 2015. At the negotiations, the British government must show leadership in terms of example and be bold with its targets and ambition by protecting the poor, and acting fast and fairly. Financial commitment is necessary in pursuing a low carbon development and the issue must be put at the top of the Overseas Development Agencies (ODA) projects to help build a pathway for poor nations.

Dr Nick Ritchie reminded us that successive UN Secretary-General like Kofi Anan called for a world free of nuclear weapons, therefore what is stopping countries from disarming? According to the British government, there are 2 options available with nuclear weapons:

1/ “Business as usual” – going ahead with improving the technology unless disarmament is truly underway, or;
2/ Unilateral nuclear disarmament – an idea highlighted in the government White Paper but is thought to be ‘highly unacceptable’.

For the UK to re-think its nuclear policy, a new thinking of nuclear weapons need to be addressed, whereby politicians refrain from using phrases like “minimum nuclear deterrent” as a safety measure. Four American businessmen including Henry Kissinger called for the urgency of nuclear disarmament, which after thirty years has been taken up by President Obama in Prague. The UK have ended nuclear testing, ended production of fissile material, produced historical accounts on the use of these materials and reduced the single system in Trident, but this is where the UK stops. We have potential to take Obama’s comments forward and becoming the most progressive country out of all the other nuclear weapons states. It would be incredibly democratic for the UK to not go ahead with its Trident Renewal, giving scope for future disarming capability of deploying nuclear its nuclear.

The challenge now is to hold the government into account to what is appropriate and possible. The next logical step is for the British government to end sea deterrence position (which holds bombs more powerful than those thrown in Hiroshima) and reduce readiness regimes that are permanent alert to attack.

What is stopping the government from committing to both these issues is the lack of political will and ambition. Although civil society may not be a number contributor to change, do not forget that the government survives to serve and protect the interest of its people. However we must also persuade the public that dealing with these issues is also in our best interest for both short and long term.