Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Serious questions on the French Nuclear connection
Does the proposed UK-France ‘defence’ deal breach the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? That is a question we need answered as soon as possible.
The deal also locks us into a 50 year nuclear commitment, on the face of it wrecking the window of opportunity for a nuclear rethink won by the deferment of the Trident renewal.
As I see it, it is not possible under the treaty for a country to buy warheads from a nuclear armed power even if is itself a nuclear armed state. All Nuclear states have to build their own warheads. Joint development procedures need to be very carefully corralled to prevent treaty breaches. We need explanations from the Government as to how this initiative is consistent with our treaty obligations.
The Daily Mail (yes really!) explained some of this way back in 2006 in its expose of the huge expenditures by the (then) Labour government on expanding facilities at AWRE Aldermaston. These expenditures have never properly been explained in any coherent budget.. As an example the Mail said that Costain Construction (contracted to construct new buildings at Aldermaston) told city analysts in 2006 that the contract was worth twelve thousand million pounds over the next 12 years. That’s £1 billion a year still outgoing just for new buildings, never mind the technical stuff. It is not on the defence budget I believe but is hidden elsewhere.
At the minimum, this Coalition should now publish proper accounts for the real costs of our Nuclear development activities. For the first time ever.
The Mail said:
As an extra twist, experts believe that Britain and the U.S. are both looking at new kinds of nuclear bombs, with smaller payloads, which could more easily be used as battlefield "tactical nukes", an option that both governments officially deny considering.
In America, the Bush administration has concluded that new bombs are required, and within the next few weeks Congress is due to decide between two possible designs for a Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW).
Once America switches to a new system, Britain will be effectively obliged to do so as well, as our nuclear programme is almost entirely dependent on the U.S.
But because of international nuclear treaties, we can't simply buy the new bombs from the U.S. - we have to make our own.
For the record, a link to a posting outlining my disappointment that our party was suckered into highlighting the ‘Trident’ sideshow instead of dealing with the major issues. Especially the vast costs hidden away from scrutiny. With Ministers in a coalition we don't have any excuses any more.
Labels: Aldermaston, France, nuclear weapons
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Sarkozy, ou le nouveau Lamartine
Indeed it was the most anglophile administration in French history, even including the period of the establishment of the Entente Cordiale. Much talk about learning from British institutions, working together, and adopting similar commercial and economic strategies. Britain was for almost the only time in French history described in positive terms, and held up as a model to be copied.
The poet Alphonse de Lamartine was effectively head of government in the chaotic five-member executive and specialised in ringing declarations of intent including some of the most Liberal propositions ever floated in mainstream French politics..
Despite (or possibly because of) this rhetorical attempt to shift French foreign and domestic policy the Republic collapsed into the authoritarian nationalist and state-sponsored economic backwaters of the Second Empire. Lamartine was forced into an obscure retirement.
Visiting President Sarkozy of France is using his time here to make positive statements about ‘working together’ with Britain, and even (so far) avoiding comments about the food.
I hope that both he and Brown (or at least their respective advisors) are familiar with the entertaining book ‘That Sweet Enemy’ and are working on ways to avoid the worse of the stereotypes we have of each other. A necessary humility to underpin any ‘entente formidable’ or even ‘amicale’. Back home though, we can expect Sarkozy’s opponents gleefully to exploit the gut-distrust of the French political groupuscules towards ‘Anglo-Saxon liberalism’. Tests will come when the President has to match actions with words.
‘Voyons voir’ as my relatives in Burgundy say.
Reference: Robert and Isabelle Tombs ‘That Sweet Enemy; the French and the British from the Sun King to the present’ otherwise sub-titled ‘a history of a love-hate relationship’. See here for a review.
Labels: Britain, France, liberalism, Sarkozy
Friday, September 21, 2007
That Seet Enemy and our Eurocandidates
For my part I hope that every aspirant has read ‘That Sweet Enemy’, a remarkable book about the relationship between France and Britain since the wars of the Sun King Louise XIV. If you want to understand how France sees the world in a different way to people of British tradition, and how this complicates and mediates the politics of the European Community. A hugely good read, not only a compendium of wars but also of changing cultural influences and how stereotypes can shift or get reborn. How for example did rare beefsteaks shift from being a disgusting example of english cookery butchery to being the signature comfort food dish of France?
There are some sobering points raised for any supporter of European Union and for anyone hoping to evolve a more positive European engagement for Britain in our European home.
Written by two historians who happen to be married to each other, One French the other British.
Isabelle and Robert Tombs ‘That Sweet Enemy’ (Cette exquise ennemi) has numerous reviews, notably in 'Foreign Affairs', 'European Affairs' and the 'New York Review of Books'
candidates, dont get caught out at public histings by people who have read this if you haven't read it yourself!
Labels: European Union, France, history
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Cabinet and other Government posts accepted
The Government of France of course, not Irn Broon’s still-fantasy front bench.
President Sarkovsky appointed François Fillon as Prime Minister and they have announced 33 ‘Government Appointments’. The oddities are:
Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner (previously a Socialist party member). Founder of two NGOs : Médecins Sans Frontières and Médecins du Monde)
In favour of military interventions – he backed the Iraq invasion of 2003. So just as Blair stands down France finally gets a Foreign Minister who thinks Bush and Blair were right… what does this mean for Brown’s upcoming foreign policy wriggle room?
Apparently Koucher left MSF and founded MDM because MSF finally couldn’t stomach his repeated manipulations in favour of whatever side France supported in various wars.
He was head of the UN Administration in Kosovo ( so Paddy may have had dealings with him during his stint as Bosnia proconsul)
Minister of Defence Hervé Morin (The New Centre Party). Former supporter of Bayrou who abandoned him and set up a ‘centre within the government majority’ party.
Secretary of State to Ministry of Foreign and European affairs Jean-Marie Bockel (up to now a ‘Socialist’, current Mayor of Mulhouse). The entire government foreign policy team therefore is made up of former ‘Left party’ members, but of course under the 5th Republic setup Foreign Affairs are very much the prerogative of the President.
Secretary of State to Prime Ministers Office Eric Besson (Former socialist, quit PS when Royale became Presidential candidate and published hatched job book on her).
Secretary of State to Urban Affairs ministry Fadela Amara ( Formerly a Socialist local councillor. Founder of the organisation Ni Putes ni Soumises – neither whores nor doormats). She is campaigner for the rights of women of foreign origin. Her Cabinet Minister is a raving homophobe who literally brandishes a Bible in parliamentary debates. Should be interesting.
High Commissioner for anti-Poverty initiatives Martin Hirsch (President of the Emmaus Organisation) What this job involves only time will tell.
Minister of Environment. Jean-Louis Borloo (party –a regional ‘radical’ one from the Ventois) Minister of State for the environment, development and ‘sustainable strategies’. An emergency appointment as the governing party member (Juppé) expected to take this on lost his seat and resigned). May be sacrificial lamb for fights on Green issues. This ministry was set up specifically for Juppé to be a super-department on the Deputy Prime Minister lines so like the home life of our own dear Prescott, crossed with the power trade-off from the original Blair-Brown deal. So Borloo may have been selected as expendable when this ministry is gutted. May not be good news for effective global warming policies despite Sarkovsky's verbal commitments to these.
Quite a mash here! The President's own party may not be entirely pleased, so many big jobs going down the wrong pans. More, much more on Eurotrib.
Labels: France, government
Monday, June 18, 2007
France again
Bayrou's party seems to have ended up with just three seats according to the offical results, but four according to Le Monde. Not very good either way. On the other hand the Front Nationale ended up with none at all.
Labels: Elections, France, results
Friday, June 15, 2007
Arms industry questions around the BAe rumpus
For one thing, the company (it seems) is planning to buy US arms manufacturers and move the seat of their operations to the USA. The present publicity is certainly not helpful for any such project. Their gratitude towards us may be limited.
Maybe we should be preparing our ground for this. For example by looking at some of the other issues that could be paraded, and making sure we have our responses worked out . Doing so raises some awkward further questions for BAe.
One argument for having a ‘home-based armaments industry’ is that it means we are not subject to manipulation by foreign suppliers in case of some kinds of hostilities.
Argentina would perhaps offer evidence of this kind of supplier interference from its experience in the late Falklands incivilities. Apparently France not only blocked supplies of fifty Exocet missiles already ordered (Argentina had five operational at start of hostilities) and stopped supplies to Peru in case it passed these on to Argentina, but it also gave the UK full technical details of French equipment and how to counter it, and flew a Mirage and a Super-Etendard plane to the UK so that the RAF pilots could practice against them. Very helpful.
The assumption must be that an UK arms supplier would also make sure that UK armed forces had any necessary information to deal with its own equipment and block some details to other customers. Well perhaps not, if Lewis Page is to be believed, at least when it comes to informing UK personnel.. He says that in the recent Balkans campaigns (Bosnia and Kosova) UK forces had to deal with UK unexploded munitions manufactured by BAe. Nothing surprising about that, some munitions do fail. However he says BAe refused to release technical details of fuses to UK UXM clearance teams ‘for reasons of commercial confidentiality’. So the troops had to work out de-arming procedures from first principle. Now if true that is really something… and would an US based BAe be more amenable? (Lewis Page 2006 pp 641-642)*
*( The Lewis Page book ‘Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs’ makes a number of very specific allegations against BAe which I cannot evaluate. I just say we need to be aware that this kind of statement is being made and ask that the Party prepare some navigation guidelines for tackling these alleged issues before the press gets confused.)
Labels: BAe, bribery, defence policy, defence strategy, France
