Window on Westminster

David Cameron's government was once mocked for commissioning aircraft carriers with no aircraft, which would arrive later. Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has been mocked for toying with the idea of submarines without any nuclear weapons, ever.

The atomic bomb has long divided Britain since the post-war Labour government secretly developed it. Labour's then Foreign Secretary, Ernie Bevin famously said 'We've got to have this thing over here whatever it costs. We've got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it.'

My view a generation ago was that unilateral nuclear disarmament was right but required a major campaign of public persuasion to increase its credibility. That didn't happen and unilateralism was one of the vote-losing policies abandoned by Labour.

It has largely become the preserve of the political fringe. The Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament became an increasingly hard-left body which bizarrely invited the Iranian Ambassador to its conference even though Iran was seeking its own bomb. But some right-wing thinkers and military professionals pragmatically oppose the deterrent.

Its renewal will come before the Commons in the next few weeks, probably timed to maximise Labour divisions before crucial elections in May. It is a major decision which will cost many billions over several decades, and about 6% of the annual defence budget. It requires dispassionate analysis and, as David Clark, who advised Labour's former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, rightly argues, 'policy based on a taboo is always likely to unravel under pressure.'

Clark clears the decks of irrelevant arguments such as falsely linking nuclear possession and national prestige, or as an eternal test of the left’s fitness to govern because voters 'take an unsentimental, cost-benefit view of nuclear weapons and expect their political leaders to do the same.'

But Clark concludes that, while creating realistic conditions for a nuclear free world, we now 'live in a Europe threatened by the return of armed conflict. It is dangerous to assume that disarmament in all circumstances is a step towards peace. To those with aggressive intent, it can also be taken as a signal to act. Vladimir Putin has shown himself to be an aggressive risk-taker with no respect for international law or Russia’s treaty commitments. The last thing Britain should do is give him or his successors additional reasons to miscalculate. Whatever the intentions, a decision to scrap Trident now would be the wrong signal at the wrong time.' Persuading the British public otherwise won't be done in the next few months.

The focus could then return to substantial foreign policy issues such as Iran. The nuclear deal is seen as positive and supporters believe it substantially lengthens the potential break out period for the swift development of a usable nuclear weapon and enables remedial action.

Much is understandably said about Saudi human rights abuses but too little is known or said about the condition of the peoples of Iran, a subject this week of a major Centre for Kurdish Progress meeting in the Commons. The Kurds and other large minorities are excluded from power and repressed. There are no Kurdish governors in the country's four mainly Kurdish provinces. Executions under 'reformist' President Rouhani are at a high. There is much of what KDPI speaker Loghman Ahmedi called 'wishful thinking' about the possibility that lifting sanctions will lead to liberalisation or less Iranian external subversion and destabilisation. A participant asked why many in the West seems to think Iran is its darling.

This is not academic for the Kurdistan Region which, as its leaders often remark, does not choose its neighbours but seeks proper relations with all. A recent report from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs argues that Iran has made deep inroads in Kurdistan that many see as a nascent pro-Western and largely democratic ally. Iran has positioned itself as a reliable military backer of Kurdish forces, filling a vacuum the West has left through tepid support. But Iran is motivated by exporting its revolution and challenging the West. If Kurds continue to be disappointed by Western military and political support, Iran could expand its influence in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Last year's landmark House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report on UK relations with the Kurdistan Region concluded that 'the UK must reinforce our influence in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq or we risk it turning to powers who may not share our values.' Such warnings should be heeded and combined with an urgent understanding of Kurdistan's deep economic and political crises, and the need for major internal reform. A regular theme of the discipline of international relations is how the West 'lost' various countries and I hope Kurdistan never joins the list.

David Clark's article on Trident is at https://www.fabians.org.uk/the-lefts-nuclear-choice/

Gary Kent is the director of All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG). He writes this column for Rudaw in a personal capacity. The address for the all-party group is appgkurdistan@gmail.com The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.