One of the arguments used by anti-Trident replacement camaigners over the past several months has been that nuclear weapons are irrelevant in considering the real threats to security on this planet. I was interested today, therefore, to hear that none other than the UK goverment has initiated a debate at the UN on the security implications of climate change. Paul Rogers and others have been raising these concerns for many years, and todays debate coincides with the publication of a book (Beyond Terror: The Truth About the Real Threats to Our World- Oxford Research Group) written by him with Chris Abbott and John Sloboda - from their publicity material:
"This important book shows why this approach has been such a failure, and how it distracts us from other, much greater, threats:
* Climate change
* Competition over resources
* Marginalisation of the majority world
* Global militarisation"
And in The Guardian John Gittings helpfully (I think) makes the connection between these issues, the tensions with Iran and US plans to site Missile Defence infrastructure in Central Europe. And on the same day, AC Grayling reflects on Hilary Benn's appeal to desist from using the terms 'War on Terror' - again focussing on the deeper causes of resentment and insecurity; this seems to back up this thinking. The fact that these different issues are so interlinked could be seen as a problem - how do you tackle one without dealing with the other? Alternatively, it could be the best reason yet for the massive change of thinking that many are seeking. Janet Bloomfield will be remembered in future editions of the new book from ORG, I gather (as one closely linked with the publication project), and a fitting memorial to her would for strenuous energies to be expended to promote this agenda in whatever ways possible.
