Gordon Brown stood before the UN general assembly to say that Britain might be ready to reduce its nuclear arsenal from four to three Trident submarines. This contrasts with President Obama, who called for progress towards a nuclear-weapon-free world, saying:
This institution was founded at the dawn of the atomic age, in part because man's capacity to kill had to be contained. For decades, we averted disaster, even under the shadow of a super-power standoff. But today, the threat of proliferation is growing in scope and complexity. If we fail to act, we will invite nuclear arms races in every region, and the prospect of wars and acts of terror on a scale that we can hardly imagine.
Tomorrow, the two will sit down together to debate nuclear disarmament with other world leaders, a meeting Brown rightly called "vital" as it begins a year of disarmament summits.
The momentum for disarmament, reflected in Obama's speech with Brown's reluctant accord, began two years ago, as Henry Kissinger and his colleagues began a drive for the elimination of nuclear weapons. In the UK Des Browne's new top-level group of parliamentarians and generals for multilateral disarmament has given new impetus to demands for nuclear cuts. Since Browne, as defence secretary, marshalled the vote in parliament to replace Trident, this is an indication of how far the political orthodoxy on nuclear disarmament has shifted.
All British political parties (even the Tories) are committed to at least reviewing expenditure on Trident, and there is significant pressure from the Lib Dems and others to go further and abandon this cold war system altogether. In the wider world, the US and Russia are negotiating a new treaty to cut the number of nuclear weapons they hold. The mood is of cautious optimism.
However, this is a fragile beginning. The dissenting voices are strong. France remains deeply sceptical that eliminating nuclear weapons should even be a goal. US hawks will fight the president every step of the way. In the Middle East, Iran's intentions are unclear and Israel is an intransigent roadblock. North Korea remains an irritant, using nukes to grab global attention. It is far from inevitable that current moves towards disarmament and non-proliferation will succeed. Measures far more courageous than Brown's timid suggestion of "reductions" are required, measures such as the elimination of nuclear weapons of which Obama spoke.
In this context, the significance of events in New York this week is that they can show political will on an international scale. The president is stating loudly and clearly that he wants disarmament. He recognises the threat to humanity from nuclear weapons, and wants to end that threat. Brown is somewhat hesitantly following his lead. If the prime minister really wants to stand out as a genuine world leader his next moves must be much bolder, and must resonate across the globe.
During his UN speech, Obama promised a review of America's nuclear posture. The Guardian reported this week that British politicians visiting the Pentagon were surprised to be told that the Pentagon counts the UK among those countries that oppose reductions in the American nuclear arsenal, because of a need for extended deterrence to protect us. The prime minister should say loud and clear that he supports the president in cutting nuclear forces.
At home, the PM can follow the president's lead, without irretrievably giving up nuclear weapons at this time. Since the government says we face no strategic threats, nuclear or conventional, he can delay the "initial gate" decision on the new submarine design, due this autumn. A delay of five years would be a bold signal of intent. If a genuine threat requiring a nuclear response began to emerge, Trident replacement could still move forward. If not, both money and futile effort would be saved and the programme can be cancelled.
In addition he should announce that the so-called "tactical Trident", where some missiles carrying only one warhead for use in regional wars, will no longer be deployed – that Britain considers nuclear weapons only as a strategic deterrent against the use of nuclear forces, not as a warfighting weapon. Further, he should say that we will never use nuclear weapons against a country that has no nuclear forces, strengthening non-proliferation by enhancing the security benefit of abjuring the possession of nuclear weapons.
Such moves would match the mood that Downing Street has sought to build, and contribute to a much improved international atmosphere for the non-proliferation treaty review next spring. They would show true global leadership. They would bolster Obama, with the UK acting as a loyal ally in the most positive of ways. It would show strong British leadership in Europe, and pressure France to follow suit. As Obama said today:
The choice is ours. We can be remembered as a generation that chose to drag the arguments of the 20th century into the 21st; that put off hard choices, refused to look ahead, and failed to keep pace because we defined ourselves by what we were against instead of what we were for. Or, we can be a generation that chooses to see the shoreline beyond the rough waters ahead; that comes together to serve the common interests of human beings, and finally gives meaning to the promise embedded in the name given to this institution: the United Nations.
Against that measure, the prime minister failed to match the promise his supporters had trailed.