The World's Greatest Blog

William Hague has been making waves in the news in his position as Shadow Foreign Secretary for the Conservatives. With a victory for the Tories in the next election looking ever more likely, Linda Haywood probed the views of the former party leader. Read the first in the set of serialised articles here:

In 2007, William Hague voted to replace the Trident system putting him clearly behind the UK’s nuclear programme. On 23 July 2008, he then reiterated his view that the UK should maintain a number of nuclear weapons despite championing the aims of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I challenged him by e-mail on the logic of UK deterrence in the light of continuing Iranian proliferation:

You said in a speech to the IISS that the driving factors behind Iran’s nuclear programme will remain whether or not the US and Russia make further reductions in their respective stockpiles. For what reason, then, should the UK retain its minimum strategic nuclear deterrent?

I believe that the UK should retain its minimum strategic nuclear deterrent because future threats are unknowable at this stage. As I said in my speech we must win the moral argument against nuclear proliferation and the UK has led the way by taking more steps than any other nuclear weapons power to reduce its nuclear capability.

Indeed, the fight for the moral high-ground has been in some disarray as the the Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr Mohamed Elbaradei, pointed out the hypocrisy of nuclear powers who renew nuclear capabilities (such as Trident) whilst denouncing the nuclear ambitions of states outside the “Big 5″ of China, Russia, France, USA and the UK. He said:”plans to replenish and modernize these weapons creates a pervasive sense of cynicism among many non-nuclear-weapon States – who perceive a “do as I say, not as I do” attitude”. In this light, then, I asked William Hague about the manner in which the unofficial nuclear states can be approached.

Do you have any specific plans for bringing Israel, India and Pakistan under the auspices of the NPT?

The UK should launch a new effort to address the decline of the NPT and to build better understanding and co-operation between nuclear and non-nuclear states. Israel, India and Pakistan need to be more fully engaged in the nonproliferation regime and a joint UK-US approach to revive the NPT is the best way to achieve this.

Now that Iran is surrounded by Western military presence in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Afghanistan, it is perhaps unsurprising that Tehran has become rather resentful of the military pressure being applied to its borders.

Iran’s rival, Israel, has nuclear weapons and its recent military forays into Syria and Lebanon show the country’s willingness to use military intervention in the affairs of its neighbours. Nuclear weapons are therefore the lynchpin in Iran’s foreign policy – its armed forces have no prospect of being able to match the Western military powers with conventional force.

For these reasons I asked the Shadow Foreign Secretary about the best approach towards containment:

Do you think the current condemnation of Iran’s nuclear programme by senior politicians such as Gordon Brown and Barack Obama will bring about real change? Was it wise for Gordon Brown to align himself with Israel on his recent visit?

Iran is one of the biggest foreign policy challenges for like-minded countries such as the UK and US and therefore both Gordon Brown and Barack Obama are right to criticise Iran’s actions when they are a threat to security and stability in the Middle East. Given that President Ahmedinejad has in the past threatened to wipe Israel off the map it is appropriate for Gordon Brown to state that those who question Israel’s right to exist and terrorise its citizens will face growing isolation and a collective response from the international community.

Read more about nuclear proliferation here.