Hague's eight point strategy for "by far the biggest challenge we face today"

William Hague spoke to members of the respected International Institute of Strategic Studies this afternoon on the subject of "preventing a new age of nuclear insecurity":

"The certainties of the Cold War, when nuclear weapons were concentrated in the hands of a few and mutually-assured destruction prevailed, have been replaced by a far more unpredictable array of threats. We are facing a new era of nuclear insecurity which left unchecked, could lead to the unravelling of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has been a fundamental pillar of our global security for the last four decades. We therefore must act now while time is still on our side and while there is a remaining chance of turning this tide."

He actually gave a speech there on the same subject exactly two years ago. This time he had eight specific recommendations to deal with nuclear proliferation and the tensions in the Middle East caused by Iran's nuclear programme:

1. A constructive conference should be held before the next Non-proliferation treaty conference, between the five recognised nuclear weapons powers - the US, UK, China, Russia and France.
2. A new drive is needed to revive the NPT and restore the broken consensus at its heart.
3. A new Security Council resolution to close loopholes in the NPT, including the difficulty in getting a proliferating country before the UN Security Council (taking about two years) and preventing countries from withdrawing from the NPT as nuclear weapons powers.
4. A mechanism to bring the dangerous nuclear fuel cycle under international control.
5. Steps to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency and the international system of safeguards and inspections - IAEA monitors have had a greatly increased workload but haven't had more resources.
6. Steps to clamp down on the trafficking in nuclear technology and materials
7. Steps to isolate proliferators from the international financial system
8. A stronger international strategy to deal with Iran.

On Iran he also said the fact that sixty Iranian students had been allowed to study proliferation-sensitive nuclear physics course in the UK didn't inspire confidence in there being a joined-up counter-proliferation strategy, and in answering a question said that whilst not the best course of action at the moment the option of military intervention couldn't be ruled out in the future.

An arms control expert from Kings College said that the speech had made her think about changing political affiliation, to which Hague replied without missing a beat: "in which direction?!". She also asked about resolving the Israel/Palestine issue which Hague rightly said wasn't in itself an answer to the nuclear proliferation problem.

It's worth noting that as with Liam Fox's speech on nuclear proliferation last October, the usual political hacks weren't to be seen at today's speech. You would have thought that warnings about time running out for tackling the biggest threat to our way of life should merit some mention in the media. Looking at the BBC website at the moment, and even the much more comprehensive PoliticsHome, it seems not!

Comments

[Susan]

A tough-sounding speech from Hague and, let's face it, in the matter of Foreign Affairs we expect nothing less from him. The problem is: how much can we believe he believes?

I used to like Hague but he's so pro-EU I'm losing my trust in the Conservatives now.

What happened to the tenet of representing the people who vote for you? Stop all pronunciations on the EU and stop tackling Foreign Affairs from an EU viewpoint.

Stand in the British Isles and take a view from here.

[James]

What was her answer (to the question of "in which direction")?

[Deputy Editor]

Sorry if it wasn't clear but she didn't really need to answer directly as she clearly implied it would be in the direction of the Conservatives, so Hague got a lot of laughs for joking that it was feasible that he had put her off!

[John W]

Article: discussing potential global nuclear war
Susan's comment: I can't believe what a Europhile Hague is

Have you gone completely mental? I really think you need some perspective.

[Cnservative Friend of Palestine]

Editor's comment: "You would have thought that warnings about time running out for tackling the biggest threat to our way of life should merit some mention in the media."

For goodness sake, this is the sort of ridiculous hyperole we can do without. This entire neocon agenda of trying to ram down the message "OH MY GOD, WE'RE ALL ABOUT TO DIE" in order to justify permanent war in the Middle East is not something the Conservative Party needs to be signing up to.

Iran has said it wants nuclear power for peaceful electricity generation purposes. Who are we to argue with that, and why shold it concern us anyway? Let us not forget that Israeli/Zionist terrorists were murdering the British in the aftermath of WW2. We owe the Jewish state nothing.

[Libertarian]

Israel has at least 300 nuclear weapons. It should give them up to guarantee a nuclear weapon free Middle East.

[Ulster Tory]

"Iran has said it wants nuclear power for peaceful electricity generation purposes. Who are we to argue with that, and why shold it concern us anyway?"

That is possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. Including the Labour manifesto.

They are hardly going to say they want nuclear power to blow Israel off the face of the map, attack Coalition troops in Iraq/Afganistan, and hold the whole region to ransom.

"Let us not forget that Israeli/Zionist terrorists were murdering the British in the aftermath of WW2."

And let us not forget that in the 18th century the Americans, French, Dutch, Spanish and Germans were all at war with us. And in WW2 Germany, Japan and Italy. History is history - let's focus on the present and future. After all, we are the future.

"We owe the Jewish state nothing."

We owe democracy something. We owe world peace something. We owe stopping genocide something.

[stephen hoffman]

the only reason israel got a peace deal with egypt and jordan and staved off war with them and syria etc etc was because of nuclear weapons - israel a country already facing massive security threats -would lose it's one thing which has stopped middle eastern countries taking on a full blown attack on them for the last 20 years -it's nuclear weapons - israel has never used them - yet the threat is needed for the national security and unlike iran israel is a democracy not some mad theocracy.

if iran nuclear facilities are for peaceful means -why so much of it and can it be enriched into uranium so easily - and why make such bellicose statments such as calling the holocaust a myth and saying israel should be wiped off the map whilst having missles saying death to israel on it - amongst other things -hardly a responsible government you can trust - the amount they have can be turned into a nuclear weapon -which would be used to destroy israel this cant take place on a conservative government's watch -

this situation was made worse by invading iraq -iran's main enemy -which has emboldened it.

[stephen hoffman]

and why were they attacking the british, thanks to the British the arab revolts happened as they put the nazi lover Haj Amin Al husseini in charged who created the arab revolts which killed hundreds of jews- and which the british who had the mandate of what was then palestine at the time took place on their watch -the worst massacre being in hebron- the peel paper bought jewish immigration to a standstill at a time when jews needed to escape from nazi germany .

the british army - trained the Jordanian Army who invaded israel -and had a hand in training the Egyptian army which also invaded israel .

remember the haganah , palmach , and even irgun(which was the most extreme element -and was wrong and still is wrong -yet was condemed by the israeli state and disbanded ) fought with the british in world war 2 - so their is a depth of gratitude oweed particularly when arab leaders including haj amin al husseini collaborated with the nazis.

[Travis Bickle]

I thought that the world (sorry planet) was already doomed due to global warming/dangerous climate change unless we all scrapped our cars, turned off our heating and walked around in three sweaters. Are we now saying that nuclear war could happen before this squillion metre rise in sea levels and dead polar bears floating down the Thames?

Gordon and Alistair must now be frantically working on the solution of how to tax us in the name of nukular weapons.

[tired and emotional]

Bravo Ulster Tory