Nick Harvey MP

DEFENCE AND THE NUCLEAR DETERRENT

On the 14th March the House of Commons saw a lively debate on the replacement of Trident. It is an issue that arouses strong and principled feelings, and in recent months the age-old debate over the best way to achieve stability, security and ultimately a nuclear-free world, progressed once again towards the floor of the Commons.

We are all too aware of the devastating and phenomenal power of these weapons - were they ever to be used - so working towards international disarmament is a keystone of Liberal Democrat defence policy.

We do believe that Britain should retain the minimum deterrent for the time-being, not least as a precaution against the potential threat that states such as Iran and North Korea - and their neighbours reacting to them - might pose in developing nuclear capabilities and triggering wider proliferation. We have to be aware of long-term threats, and the world has not become more stable or secure since the end of the Cold War.

So the Liberal Democrats favour keeping options open and planning for possible replacement. However, this vote to decide definitely to replace the submarines was premature. We will continue to call for a further vote before the 'Maingate' decisions are made - once there is a better idea of the cost, design and strategy of replacement.

Making a decision now harms the global disarmament agenda and we must turn our attention to engaging with the other nuclear powers to seek to limit and reduce nuclear stockpiles at an international level. We do not want to risk triggering greater proliferation by states perceiving Britain as signing up to a nuclear system for another fifty years or more. Disregarding our obligations, when calling on states like Iran to meet theirs, is perverse. As Kofi Annan rightly said: "No state should imagine that, by pushing ahead with a nuclear weapon programme, it can pose as a defender of the Non-Proliferation Treaty; still less that it will persuade others to disarm…"

The NPT has had reasonable success in containing proliferation for nearly forty years, but we cannot afford to be complacent. The Treaty will only work if its members are committed to its objectives. Although the vote in the Commons saw the Government's motion passed, effectively marking the start of Trident's replacement, we must now strive to go to the NPT Review Conference in 2010 with a clear commitment and a coherent and credible strategy. Robin Cook played a leading role in the 2000 Conference with great success and we must repeat this in three years time.

If seven days in politics is a long time, then seven years is an eternity, and the fact that the Government has no strategy for this conference and barely mentions it in the White Paper, whilst committing us to premature renewal, is irresponsible. We have seven years ahead of us to make progress and use our leverage in international negotiations to achieve further steps in promoting international disarmament. Such an achievement might facilitate a different decision in 2014.

Our international standing, however, has already taken many blows. The War in Iraq damaged our reputation in foreign policy, and our unquestioning alliance with the United States has hindered greater co-operation with our geographically closer allies in Europe.

As we approach the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, anti-war sentiment remains stronger than ever, and with good reason. As the only party to have voted against the invasion, even we did not anticipate the scale of the tragedy that has unfolded in Iraq. Pre-invasion planning was lax, short-sighted and alarmingly overlooked.

The Allies did not know the domestic situation well enough, did not take account of latent sectarian divides and were not properly prepared for rebuilding the political and economic infrastructure of the country. These errors have cost us dear, but are felt far even more keenly by the Iraqi people. In future missions, these same mistakes cannot be made.

A recent opinion poll of 5,000 Iraqis showed that while 49% felt they are better off now than under Saddam, 26% believe the reverse. This is a significant figure considering the idealism of the pre-war rhetoric and the hopes of bringing a 'ready-made' democracy and stability to Iraq.

It is precisely for this reason that the Liberal Democrats believe we should start a phased withdrawal from Iraq. We should not cut and run, but we should realise that our being there is doing little to improve the situation, and we should be trying to reduce the pressures on our overstretched armed forces.

As we continue to fight in two theatres, as well as maintaining our commitments in peacekeeping forces elsewhere, it is our troops who feel the strain. Our Armed Forces are critically overstretched. Reports from the frontline repeatedly highlight the shortages in equipment and resources. This is not good enough. The Government has not honoured the military covenant and ensured sure that our Armed Forces are cared for and looked after both at home and abroad.

On the frontline, the mission in Afghanistan has suffered as a result of our mission in Iraq. There are increasing problems in sustaining the level of effort, expertise and commitment needed. Funds and troops have been diverted at the expense of the mission and, despite a need for both land and air power, there is a serious shortage of helicopters and of specialists needed for the more technical operations. The mission in Iraq faces similar problems. The continued use of Snatch Land Rovers in a hostile terrain rather than more durable and protective vehicles has cost lives, as have equipment shortages and the failure to fit foam retardant to all Hercules aircraft.

If we send our troops on missions, they must be well-prepared and protected. At home the deal is little better with nearly half of accommodation considered sub-standard and medical care whose quality is, at times, questionable as recent reports have indicated. These are just some of the most prominent incidences. There are more.

The impact of recent missions can be seen on morale, with retention levels falling and recruitment becoming harder. There are few incentives to join up to our Armed Forces, despite their world-class reputation. If we are to play a positive role, it is therefore essential that our defence forces feel valued, respected and supported. At present they are in want and the Government must honour its commitments.