UK Parliament / Open data

Debate on the Address

Proceeding contribution from Jeremy Corbyn (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 22 November 2006. It occurred during Queen's speech debate on Debate on the Address.
I am interested to hear that, and tragically not in the least bit surprised by such an approach. Imagine if it had been the other way round; if a Palestinian hit squad had gone into the Knesset and arrested a number of Israeli Members of Parliament. There would be uproar all around the world. That is the reality of what has happened. People complain that Palestine is turning into an extremist place, but poverty, unemployment, assassination, indiscriminate arrest, illegal behaviour create extreme behaviour. It is up to us to be much firmer with Israel on these matters, and it should recognise that there is a wish around the world for recognition of Palestine and for a long-term peace. I have only a few moments left, so I want to address two other general areas. The Foreign Secretary talked about the existence and development of nuclear weapons and talked about the danger of proliferation. Yes, there is a danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons. Yes, nuclear weapons are a danger. Nuclear weapons are fundamentally immoral; they are a weapon of mass destruction. By their very nature they are indiscriminate in their use and who they affect. This country and the other four members of the Security Council, the five declared nuclear weapon states, all signed a non-proliferation treaty, under which any signatory nation must not develop its own nuclear weapons, but the existing declared nuclear weapon states must also disarm. It is true that there are fewer nuclear warheads on patrol and fewer available to this country than there were in the past, but we are still a nuclear weapon state, and the idea that we should expend £25 billion or £26 billion on developing a new generation of nuclear weapons, and a further £50 billion on deploying them over the next 25 years, is unthinkable. If we want to be taken seriously around the world in insisting on non-proliferation by North Korea, Iran or any other country, we must be serious ourselves about the obligation that we have set ourselves, and that is of long-term nuclear disarmament. I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us when the Government’s White Paper—I wish it were a Green Paper—will come out, and if he will produce a response to the white paper produced yesterday by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, ““Safer Britain, Safer World: The decision not to replace Trident nuclear missiles””. We are in danger in the 21st century of sleepwalking into one war after another, led largely by the Unites States, but also by our own increasingly militaristic ambitions. There is a different agenda around the world that is not one of war and neo-liberal economics, but is something slightly different; that is about sharing resources, about justice and about recognising human rights around the world. If anyone doubts that they should start looking at social movements in south Asia and Latin America, and look at the thirst of those people, not for neo-liberal economics but for the economics of social justice. That is why great changes are happening in Bolivia and Venezuela, and that is why huge changes are afoot in central America and other parts of the world. We are a small island in one part of the world and we seem to think that our whole future is bound up solely with the policies of the neocons in Washington. The neocon policy has brought war, disaster and danger to the world. Surely we can do rather better than that by a more intelligent examination of the issues facing the world rather than the need to keep in with Washington at every turn.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
453 c599-600 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top