Government arms strategy queried by Quakers
Government ‘blinkered by the military approach to security’, says QPSW
Quakers have accused government ministers of ignoring the most important questions in their recent review of ‘defence’ priorities. The government have announced plans for restructuring military spending, but campaigners and faith groups say that they have missed the point. Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, published a Green Paper – a means of outlining early plans – to lay the foundations for a full Strategic Defence Review after the general election. He said the UK’s armed forces may need ‘further integration’ with allied countries’ forces. But Sam Walton of Quaker Peace and Social Witness (QPSW) said that the government had the wrong focus and remained ‘blinkered by the military approach to security’.
He added, ‘Real security involves political, economic and social justice; therefore to focus on military spending is folly. Instead the government could invest in fulfilling for instance the Millennium Development Goals [for tackling global poverty]’.
The Defence Review was announced last year, after Conservative politicians and elements of the media criticised what they saw as under-spending on equipment for troops in Afghanistan.
However, there has been anger over the exclusion of nuclear arms from the remit of the Review. Ministers are accused of trying to avoid controversy around their commitment to renew the Trident nuclear weapons system.
‘Excluding the ruinously expensive Trident is like avoiding the huge white elephant in the room,’ said Kate Hudson of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).
Speaking for QPSW, Sam Walton pointed out that ‘scrapping Trident would free up billions for life-giving projects’.
The exclusion of Trident from the Review was also criticised by the Liberal Democrats, who want a cheaper nuclear weapons system, as well as the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party, who all want to scrap Britain’s nuclear arsenal. The last year has seen evidence of cabinet splits on the issue, fuelled by evidence that renewal could cost up to £100 billion.
Chris Cole, director of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, urged the Review’s critics to act on their dissatisfaction with its narrow scope.
He said, ‘We need to grasp the opportunity to press the government to invest in sustainable human security that tackles the root causes of the problem rather than continuing to pour resources into the failed model of addressing the symptoms through military security’.
