|
|
Trident On Trial |
 |
|
|
I first noticed the name of Angie Zelter in 1996 when she was reported as having damaged a Hawk Fighter (to the tune of over a one and a half million pounds) in order to prevent it being used (illegally under international law) for the Indonesian repression then taking place in East Timor. When, after six months in prison on remand, she was acquitted by a trial jury of the charge of committing criminal damage I was sure she was really on the right track - using the law to uphold justice, something long overdue in world affairs. This book she has written and edited, for there is a variety of contributors and a wealth of detail about what followed that splendid exploit. Since then Angie and friends have gone on to bigger and better things and the target in their sights (to be disarmed and abandoned) is the British weapons system Trident, with its four submarines and accoutrements, principal among which are the nuclear missiles capable to wiping out a country the size of Brazil, India or Canada - take your pick. Luath Press of Edinburgh have now published an account of the struggle to have Trident declared illegal. It is an absorbing read, but by no means an easy one: at $16.95 it is well worth getting hold of, both to learn how successful Angie and others have been, but more important, how to carry on the good work. There is an overwhelming case to have all nuclear weapons declared illegal under international law, a case which the British government has consistently answered simply by not replying to it. On every occasion when their servants could stand up in court in this country and defend the legality of these weapons they have refused to do so, relying instead on the notorious willingness of British judges to defer to sovereign state power and evade any criticism of it. With one exception, that is, which opened a crack in their defences which Angie and her friends were able to exploit. Early one morning, three women, with a good team to back them up, paddled up Loch Goil to a Trident support ship. Determined to make some impact on Trident's capacity to harm, they clambered aboard. Finding an open window in the empty ship they busied themselves for the rest of the day dumping scientific and other equipment overboard. Having advertised their presence, they awaited the arrival of the police and cheerfully admitted all they had done. Arrest followed and imprisonment for months. At their trial, although they based their defence on the fact that Trident is illegal under international law and brought a string of credible and impressive experts to testify, the Crown failed to bring evidence to rebut them. As a consequence, the sheriff, acting as judge, felt she had no alternative but to direct the jury to acquit Angie and her two fellow-defendants. Until that time, there had been hardly any suggestion that international law could be accepted by a court as relevant in such a case and so the Crown's failure to contest this proved very significant. The detailed legal submissions make an overwhelming case against the legality of the British government's nuclear weapons policy. Worse, it makes very clear that only by hypocrisy or refusal to consider the moral and legal questions can the policy-makers maintain their stance that it is legitimate. One experienced QC has said to me that he does not believe that such political questions can be decided by legal argument; but this is an abdication of responsibility. The practising politician's instinct is to avoid examining the issue for fear of the implications: 50 years pursuing a criminal policy cannot be wrong, can it? There is a great deal more in the book but one query remains in my mind. Judging by the index, the European Court of Human Rights does not figure in the calculations of protection against Trident and other evils. But if Russia joining the Council of Europe goes so far as to accept the right of individual appeal, what if some citizens of Moscow should complain, reasonably enough, that their human rights are impugned by the targeting of Russian cities by Trident missiles? Or even today, if some citizens of this country should have brothers or other close relatives living in Moscow (or Kabul or any other potential target? Would they have justification for going to the Court to have that abuse removed? The wriggling sophistry employed by the Scottish judges in trying to remedy the acquittal of Angie and friends provokes the reflection that perhaps it would be more honest for the government to say plainly that international law only applies to non-nuclear states. That, in effect, is what their arguments imply but they are neither open nor honest enough to say so. But it seems that they were shamefaced about it during their court submission: perhaps even backsliding lawyers can be shamed into joining the human race in its quest for survival. I confess that this is an interim account of my reading but Trident raises so many issues crucial to the movement for peace and human unity that I make no apology. Nation-states have long been the terrorists of greatest scope and execution, killing and destroying on a scale that mere amateurs like Osama bin Laden are quite unable to equal. If terror is the issue, as George W. Bush and Tony Blair are busily proclaiming, let us deal immediately with the terrorists who are to be found in Holy Loch or whichever Scottish inlet the Trident gang are skulking in.
Source of Article |
 |
|
|