Push for de-escalation as danger of nuclear conflict escalates

As the war in Ukraine continues and escalations risk a much wider war, London Region CND Chair Carol Turner wrote the below article for Labour Outlook on the need for de-escalation.

The call by President Zelensky to be allowed to use long-range cruise missiles supplied by its NATO allies deep within Russian territory posed an imminent threat of a Europe-wide war between nuclear armed states. The announcement by Prime Minister Starmer, that talks with President Biden resulted in no decision permitting Ukraine to do so is a welcome though temporary respite in this rapidly escalating conflict.

In a statement at the end of the talks, Starmer reiterated his ‘ongoing’ and ‘unequivocal’ support for Ukraine, and emphasised the discussion had been ‘productive’ and concentrated on ‘strategy’, rather than a ‘particular step or tactic’. The White House issued a similar statement. Behind the scenes, the talks also signal the UK government is positioning itself to become the NATO lead amongst European allies. This will put Britain on the front line.

This current phase of the Ukraine conflict started on 7 August when Ukraine launched a ground incursion into Russian territory for the first time, after the US and other NATO allies gave the go-ahead for weapons they’ve supplied to be used against military targets within Russia. This permission is needed because many of these weapons require access to guidance systems controlled by the US.

Russia responded to the August incursion with heavy bombardment of Ukraine’s second city, Kharkiv, and stepped-up its military action in the Donbas region. This prompted Zelensky to seek US and UK agreement for long-range cruise missiles, including the Anglo-French Storm Shadow system.

The summer escalation in the Ukraine war took place against the backdrop of a NATO Summit in July that signalled further steps towards ‘globalising’ the role of the North Atlantic Alliance –beyond its Euro-Atlantic axis, to further extend its growing presence in the Indo-Pacific. Note for example, increasing references to a Russia-China-Iran-North Korea axis, when discussing the Ukraine war. More tangible manifestations at the July Summit of globalisation the Alliance included:

  • announcing plans for long-range US cruise missiles to be deployed periodically in Germany from 2026, and
  • identifying China as the ‘decisive enabler’ of Russia’s military action in Ukraine.

Britain’s role

There can be little doubt that more calls to intensify the conflict will follow in the weeks and months ahead. The anti-war and labour movements must remain alert to the dangers of Ukraine becoming a Europe-wide war. Not only NATO but also Russia is preparing for this. In May, for example, Russia concluded an agreement to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, the first deployment of Russian nuclear weapons outside its territory since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Intensification of the war creates a particular danger for Britain. The UK recently agreed to become one of NATO’s European nuclear bases. Earlier this year, US nukes were cleared for delivery to locations in Europe. Lakenheath airbase in Suffolk already has the facilities needed to house them. The F-35 fighter bombers which will deliver them to their targets are already stationed at Lakenheath and pilots trained to fly them.

This not only puts Britain on the front line of a European war, it also makes us a direct target for retaliation. The situation remains extremely dangerous and should be treated as such.

Missile diplomacy

At present NATO and Russia are engaged in what might be termed missile diplomacy. In response to Zelensky’s threat of a long-range cruise missiles attack and the discussion taking place between the US and UK, President Putin said (quoting the English translation used by the BBC):

‘If this decision is made it will mean nothing other than direct participation by NATO countries, the United States and European countries, in the war in Ukraine. And this of course changes the very essence of the conflict. This will mean that NATO countries – the United States, European countries – are fighting with Russia.’

The Russian Ambassador to the UN has reiterated this.

Putin’s response has been widely interpreted in the West as a declaration of war by Russia. However, the English translation of Putin’s statement suggests his language is crafted to avoid making such a clear and definitive declaration.

The US and its NATO allies have both conventional and nuclear superiority over Russia, although the number of US and Russian nuclear warheads are approximately balanced. It must also be borne in mind that a direct military confrontation between Russia and NATO would be likely to prompt other states to engage on the side of Russa.

Divisions over strategy

The Biden administration was seen as divided over Ukraine’s proposal to escalate – unsurprisingly, perhaps, in the run up to a presidential election. It is already being pointed out that this doesn’t mean Ukraine won’t get the green light for Storm Shadow missiles in future, It does suggest though that the US would seek to take a back seat and, if the OK were to be given, Britain would likely take the lead.

The relentless war propaganda in the UK media and across Europe serves to cover growing unease amongst the movers and shakers – different assessments between NATO countries, as well as between military and political leaders.  

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz made a call to rekindle diplomatic efforts to end the war in Ukraine, for example, though Deutsche Welle Germany’s leading international broadcaster points out reception has been ‘muted’. Speaking on the BBC’s Sunday with Kuenssberg programme General Sir John McColl, former NATO Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said ‘the question of winning or losing is not something we will be able to achieve’. Ukraine will result in ‘some kind of  stalemated negotiations’.

The UK is particularly exposed and vulnerable to the dangers that a war in Europe between nuclear armed combatants presents. The crisis which loomed at the end of last week should leave us in no doubt of the immediate and urgent task for the anti-war movement which is to:

  • alert the public to the real and present danger that intensifying the war in Ukraine brings
  • put pressure on the UK government to encourage de-escalation, and
  • step up the call for a ceasefire and negotiations before it’s too late.

Contemporary motion for Labour Party conference

Labour CND’s contempoary motion for Labour Party conference meets the criteria

  • Must be an issue that has arisen after the Friday 5 July 2024
  • On one subject
  • No more than 250 words in length
  • Not considered by the CAC as an organisational matter or constitutional amendment.

The deadline for submitting these motions for Annual Conference is 5pm Thursday 12 September.

This motion which calls on Labour to publish the likely cost of raising defence spending is set within the framework of Labour’s non-negotiable fiscal rules. It is suitable for debate as a CLP policy motion as well as a conference contemporary. We have produced an Explainer with references below also included below.

EXPLAINER

MoD’s Finance and economics annual statistical bulletin: international defence 2024,15 August 2024, is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/international-defence-expenditure-2024/finance-and-economics-annual-statistical-bulletin-international-defence-2024

Military data is compiled and computed differently by different countries and institutions. Making international comparisons about military spending presents a number of widely documented difficulties to do with the comparability and granularity of international military data. For purposes of transparency and comparison, the MoD takes spending and other data for its statistical bulletin from internationally recognised and authoritative sources – in the case of the statistics presented in this motion, the IISS (International Institute for Strategic Studies) and SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) are the main sources. NATO and the MoD, also compute military data differently, as do the IMF and World Bank. Because the data for the MoD’s annual statistical bulletin does not originate from the UK Government Statistical Service they are not designated as ‘official statistics’. This does not mean they lack authority, on the contrary all government seek to present their data in the most favourable light and may sometimes avoid international comparison.

Press Release announcing the SDR, 16 July 2024, is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-root-and-branch-review-of-uk-armed-forces

The SDR’s purpose is given in the Terms of Reference, 17 July 2024, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/strategic-defence-review-2024-2025-terms-of-reference/strategic-defence-review-2024-2025-terms-of-reference#:~:text=The%20SDR%20will%20consider%20the,sovereign%20requirements%20and%20strategic%20reach.

The MoD’s budget is ‘protected’, meaning inflation-proofed, together with health, education, childcare, and overseas development budgets. All other government department budgets are unprotected. Transport, housing, local government, etc could all take a hit if military spending rises to 2.5%.

See IFS Figure 14: Estimated change in day-to-day departmental budgets (average annual real-terms growth) under existing spending plans, 2024–25 to 2028–29, in How have the size and shape of the UK state changed?, June 2024, available at https://ifs.org.uk/publications/how-have-size-and-shape-uk-state-changed

Labour’s non-negotiable fiscal rules can be found at https://labour.org.uk/change/labours-fiscal-plan/     

Labour finally abandons legal action against Corbyn staff as ‘eye-watering’ costs mount

With media attention focused on GE 2024, you’d be forgiven for having overlooked news that the Labour Party has finally abandoned its longstanding legal action against five former members of Jeremy Corbyn’s office team during his leadership, including his Director of Communications Seumas Milne. The five were accused of ‘conspiring’ against Keir Starmer’s leadership by leaking a controversial report soon after he was elected leader in 2020. They ‘strenuously deny’ any involvement or complicity in the leak.

The 860-page leaked document which ostensibly examined the handling of antisemitism complaints during the Corbyn period, included unredacted emails and WhatsApp messages from critics of his leadership, which exposed factionalism and derogatory comments about Corbyn, his staff and MPs who supported him. The Forde report found, for example: ‘the criticisms of Diane Abbott are not simply a harsh response to perceived poor performance – they are expressions of visceral disgust.’

The legal suit is estimated to have cost the Labour Party millions of pounds. Documents presented in open court in late 2023 showed Labour had spent £1.5m on its action at that time, and estimated it would spend nearly £900,000 more. The figures do not reflect the full cost of the litigation. It remains unclear whether or not the party will meet the costs of the five.

A BBC report includes the view of one unnamed former shadow cabinet member that ‘this is a huge embarrassment for the party, which has wasted eye-watering sums which could have made the difference in key seats in this election’. Martin Forde KC, the lawyer who carried out the wide-ranging report into Labour Party culture told the BBC: ‘It is a great shame that money has been spent on legal fees that could have been spent on the general election.’

Artists for Palestine puts pressure on Labour to stop arming Israel

As Israel’s Rafah operation takes shape, and concern over Britain’s role in supplying arms to Israel grows, over 100 leading UK artists have added their names to a letter calling on Keir Starmer to take a stand against the atrocities and commit to stopping arms sales to Israel if he becomes prime minister on 4 July. The letter urges Starmer, as a former human rights lawyer, to lead the way in ‘ending UK complicity in war crimes in Gaza’.

Signatories include filmmakers, poets, musicians, actors, broadcasters, writers, and journalists. There are some familiar CND-supporting figures among them, including Juliet Stevenson, Kamila Shamsie, Maxine Peake, Michael Rosen, Peter Kennard, and Victoria Brittain. Visit Artists for Palestine for the full text and a list of a;l signatories.

Arming Israel’s war on Gaza: Tory scandal, Labour shame

Above: Khan Younis bombing during the early phase of Israel’s operation in Rafah provence

In a guest blog which appeared on CND’s website, CAROL TURNER explains why Britain is complicit in what’s happening to Palestinians across the Occupied Territories right now. Instead of promising to stop this, Labour is echoing the misdirection of David Cameron and Grant Shapps who argue UK arms exports to Israel are derisory.


If anything can convince the British government, out-going or in-coming, that the UK must halt arms exports to Israel, the Rafah offensive should. Day by day, hour by hour, the toll of Palestinian dead and injured slowly mounts. As far back as December President Netanyahu made clear that military operations would go on throughout 2024. In the midst of the Rafah carnage, and despite the international outcry, he recently reiterated this.

David Cameron has dismissed the idea of halting arms sales as gesture politics. Britain, he claims, supplies ‘less than 1% of Israel’s arms’.[i] Grant Shapps recently told parliament ‘defence exports to Israel are relatively small—just £42 million last year’.[ii] This deliberate misdirection is echoed by Labour.

The UK is among the world’s biggest arms exporters, the seventh largest in 2023.[iii] Arms manufacturers in Britain need a government license to export military goods, software and technology overseas.[iv] Applications are evaluated against criteria which include Britain’s obligations under international law and the risk that exported items might be used in the violation of human rights.

No arms export license should be granted if there’s a clear risk the items: [v]

  • might be used to ‘commit or facilitate’ internal repression or a serious violation of international humanitarian law; or
  • would undermine internal, regional, or international peace and security.

Existing licences can be revoked if they don’t match the criteria. But the government has resisted the introduction of post-shipment verification or end-use monitoring of military exports from the UK.[vi]

BAE Systems is a British company and leading supplier of parts for American F35 fighter bombers that the US supplies to Israel, They are being used against Gaza. Campaign Against Arms and others point out that 15% of every US F35 supplied to Israel is built in the UK.[vii]

This means Britain is complicit in what’s happening to Palestinians across the Occupied Territories right now.

Individual MPs have spoken up. Leyla Moran, a British Palestinian and a LibDem MP broke the parliamentary consensus by speaking on national media about what was happening to her family there. Labour MPs Richard Burgon and Imran Hussain recently delivered a dossier of evidence on Israeli war crimes in Gaza to the International Criminal Court, evidence compiled from a series of panels they organised in parliament.

In April this year, UK opinion polls[viii] showed a majority in favour of banning arms sales after aid workers were killed, including three UK citizens. Plaid Cymru wanted parliament reconvened. Green Party spokespeople have called for the cancelling of all arms export licences, and the LibDems and SNP want suspension.

Last October, Labour MP Zarah Sultana introduced a Private Members Bill calling for a halt to exports to countries ‘where it cannot be demonstrated that arms sold will not be used in violation of international law’ and led a Westminster Hall debate in December. At the end of March, recognising Israel would disregard the UN ceasefire resolution, she coordinated an open letter to Cameron, condemning the government’s failure to act, and calling again for a suspension of arms sales. It was signed by 134 parliamentarians from across the parties, including a Tory peer.

Under pressure from the solidarity movement which, week after week, has taken to the streets in cities and towns across the country, both Conservative and Labour have slowly been forced to increase criticism of Israel. To date, actions have not followed words. Not a single step towards halting British arms exports has been taken by the government, nor has any demand they do so come from the official opposition.

CND takes this issue very seriously indeed. Israel is one of only nine nuclear armed states in the world, and the only one that doesn’t admit to having them. Israel has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty designed to limit their spread and secure nuclear disarmament.

The nuclear risks involved in the war on Gaza may not be as remote as they seem. Since the October attack by Hamas, a few Israeli politicians have floated the prospect of using nuclear weapons against Iran or Lebanon. Most of the drones and missiles Iran launched against Israel in April were taken out before they reached their targets. One missile was not. It successfully reached its target, Nevatim in southern Israel, near the Dimona nuclear facility. 

Far from being gesture politics, the unwillingness of the US, UK, and other governments to halt arms sales has emboldened Israel which is pressing ahead with its attack on the Palestinian people in defiance of international law and international outrage.

The next 5 weeks of general election campaigning is an opportunity to make our voice heard by every candidate in every constituency across the country. CND members should act, and act now.


[i]David Cameron, Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, 12 May 2024 at https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001z828/sunday-with-laura-kuenssberg-arms-to-israel-gaza-protests-eurovision

[ii] Grant Shapps, Hansard, House of Commons, 20 November 2023 at https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-11-20/debates/776C2068-C460-402F-8826-ECAE91256A56/UKArmsSalesToIsrael#contribution-7ACCD6F1-79D9-4859-9429-EFA71569E209

[iii] D Pieter et al, Trends in International Arms Transfers 2023, SIPRI at  https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/fs_2403_at_2023.pdf

[iv] Louisa Brooke-Holland, An introduction to UK arms exports, House of Commons Library Briefing, 24 January 2024 at https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8312/

[v] Louisa Brooke-Holland and Nigel Walker, Arms export licences for sales to Israel, Housse of Commons Library Briefing, 7 December, 2023 at https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2023-0223/CDP-2023-0223.pdf

[vi] Committees on Arms Export Controls (CAEC) joint report ‘Developments in UK Strategic Export Controls’, 9 January 2024 at  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/caec-report-on-uk-strategic-export-controls-government-response

[vii] BAE Systems, F-35: a trusted partner on the world’s largest defence programme, at https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/f-35-lightning-ii

[viii] YouGov polls in March and April, reported by the Guardian and others, showed majority support for a suspension of arms sales to Israel, see for example https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/majority-of-voters-in-uk-back-banning-arm-sales-to-israel-poll-finds  In May, YouGov found opinion had remained static: ‘56% would support the UK ending the sale of arms to Israel for the duration of the conflict in Gaza. Only 20% would oppose this move’ reported https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49366-british-attitudes-to-the-israel-gaza-conflict-may-2024-update

WeThink digital polling, reported by Byline Times in April, found 68% of those surveyed would support a ban, compared to 32% who were opposed https://bylinetimes.com/2024/04/03/brits-want-the-uk-to-ban-arms-sales-to-israel-but-its-political-parties-arent-listening/

Starmer’s ‘triple lock’ on Trident

Within days of the general election being announced, Keir Starmer committed Labour to a ‘triple lock’ on Trident, an attempt to demonstrate nuclear weapons are safe in Labour’s hands. He also reaffirmed Labour’s commitment to match Sunak’s 2.5% increase in military spending which NATO is demanding.

Labour will build four new Dreadnought class submarines to deliver Britain’s nuclear warheads, he said, with at least one submarine at sea 24/7. Starmer also reaffirmed Labour’s decision to match the Tory government pledge to raise military spending  by 2.5% of gross domestic product as soon as possible.

This is a dangerous waste, which mirrors the approach of the Tory government. It signals more war, more military spending, and more nuclear weapons, as CND General Secretary Kate Hudson has pointed out. CND has estimated the cost of upgrading and maintaining Trident at £205 billion. The Conservative commitment to raise military spending to 2.5% by 2030, part of the Spring budget, will amount to an additional £87 billion a year.

CND Chair Tom Unterrainer commented that Starmer had  offered no justification of how nuclear weapons might protect Britain’s security. ‘For a man who claims to care about international law,’ said Unterrainer, ‘there is no mention of how expanding and modernising Britain’s nuclear arsenal goes against these norms. We need a bold vision for what real security means: one that puts climate, food security, and people at its heart, not more militarism and conflict.’

Read CND’s press release here

Labour CND’s role in the general election

There was plenty to do and say during the bank holiday weekend. Labour CND responded to the horrific scenes of a burning encampment in what the Israeli government had called a ‘safe’ haven for Gazans, drawing attention to what a Labour government’s ethical policy should be.

and we were quick off the mark too in response to Rishi Sunak’s announcement about national service. Quoting ex-military responses in the Guardian and a pertinent comment from Andrew Marr in New Statesman, we said:

and

Visit @LabourCND and www.labourcnd.org.uk for regular updates

GE 2024: CND says bring it on!

CND is off to a strong start with advice, information and tools for supporters to play an active part in the 6-week General Election 2024 campaign.

You’ll find some of what you need on a special CND webpage, which includes a campaign guide, some information from the polls, a digital lobby tool, and a bit of info on what the parties policies are.

Labour CND will be focussing on pertinent issues in Labour’s campaign, as well as taking Sunak and his team to task! You’ll find more details on the web posts which follow

Nuclear power: a harmful distraction to climate change? Webinar recording

On Monday 13 May Labour CND hosted a nuclear power webinar with Sam Mason, principle author of Labour CND’s pamphlet Labour, Climate Change, and Nuclear power – Not Cheap, Not Safe, Not Peaceful. We also had contributions from Linda Clarke on the construction side of the industry and Dr Phil Johnstone on the links between civilian and defence nuclear projects.

You can catch up with a recording of the webinar below.