World March for Peaceand Non-violence
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S3M-5210, in the name of Bill Kidd, on the world march for peace and non-violence. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament endorses the ideals of the World March for Peace and Nonviolence, which set off from New Zealand on UN International Day of Non-Violence on 2 October 2009 and ends in the Andes mountains on 2 January 2010, that call for an end to war, the dismantling of nuclear weapons and an end to all forms of violence including physical, economic, racial, religious, cultural, sexual and psychological; notes that the Peace Torch, which has passed across continents and been greeted by thousands of supporters including Pope Benedict XVI, who offered his blessings to the delegation, will visit the Scottish Parliament on 17 November 2009, and would welcome support for this important endeavour from all those who share these ideals.
I am pleased and honoured, on human rights day, to open this members' business debate on the world march for peace and non-violence, which started in Aotearoa—New Zealand—on 2 October this year and will arrive at its finish in the high Andes on 2 January 2010. There, the flame of peace, which was lit at Hiroshima, the site of the explosion of the first atomic bomb, will be held aloft as the sun rises on a new year of hope for the world. The relevance of 2 October, the start date, is that it is the anniversary of the birth of Mahatma Gandhi and the international day of non-violence; the relevance of New Zealand, the start point, is that it allows no foreign military bases on its soil and no nuclear weapons to be stationed there.
Among the signatories who have supported the world march are United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, former Ireland President Mary Robinson, former United States President Jimmy Carter, the Dalai Lama and First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond.
I was delighted that, after visiting 40 countries in 50 days on the way to visiting 100 countries in total, the core team of the world march accepted, at very short notice, my invitation to come to Scotland. On 20 November this year, Alexander Mora Mora, a deputy of the Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica and the envoy for human rights in Latin America, flew into Edinburgh for a two-hour visit, with the flame of peace, on his way from Spain back home to central America.
Prior to coming here, Mr Mora Mora had met Mikhail Gorbachev, Lech Walesa and Pope Benedict, but he emphasised, through his interpreter, that it was a matter of major importance that the march and the flame of peace should come to Scotland because this Parliament had made clear its commitment to work to remove nuclear weapons from our land.
Mr Mora Mora also told us that the world march for peace had not received an invitation to visit Westminster, and that Scotland was therefore the only place in the United Kingdom to accept the message that he carried. I express sorrow on behalf of many of our parliamentary colleagues at Westminster, of all parties, who had hoped to welcome the world march delegation as they carried the flame of peace, but who had their hopes dashed. Although it was lobbied for, no invitation was issued from Westminster. The world march for peace has visited Parliaments across the world and many thousands of people have joined it, from Sydney to Los Angeles, from Rabat to St Petersburg; it is shameful that it has been ignored by the UK media. It has been wilfully ignored by the press probably because of the Westminster Government's failure to issue an invitation to the delegation. That is very parochial of the UK media.
Just two days before they came to the Scottish Parliament, the same core team of the world march for peace were received in Berlin by the 10th world summit of Nobel peace prize laureates, with the words:
"For the first time in history an event of this magnitude has been put in motion by the participants themselves. The true strength of this impulse is born in the simple act of one who, out of conscience, joins a dignified cause and shares it with others."
Three days before, the team had been received at the Vatican by the Pope with the blessing:
"May God bless you all."
It is incumbent on all of us here to celebrate the human spirit that has carried the flame of peace, which was lit at Hiroshima, around the world as a symbol of hope and of the belief that there is a better way than war and violence to settle disputes.
The aims of the world march for peace and non-violence have been stated as nuclear disarmament at a global level; the immediate withdrawal of invading troops from occupied territories; the progressive and proportional reduction of conventional weapons; the signing of non-aggression treaties between countries; and the renunciation by Governments of the use of war as a means to resolve conflicts.
Some people might believe that those aims are just pie in the sky or wishful thinking, but the impact that the world march for peace has had on so many Parliaments and populations around the world suggests that we might be pushing at an open door, even though there will still assuredly be those with vested interests and closed minds.
Scotland might be a small country in square miles, but we carry a big responsibility, as has been demonstrated by the determination of the world march for peace to ensure that this place was one of the stops that it made on its historic journey. Let us not allow the message to falter here. The flame of peace should burn strongly in this place.
I congratulate Bill Kidd on securing this evening's members' business debate in support of the ideals of the world march for peace and non-violence. The march has called for an end to war and the dismantling of nuclear weapons. Those are sentiments with which all members of the Parliament will concur.
I wish to focus on the current proliferation of nuclear weapons and the path to world peace. Conservatives believe that a world free of the threat of nuclear weapons is no less important an issue than tackling climate change.
Although I am not optimistic that total disarmament can be achieved in my lifetime or, possibly, in Bill Kidd's lifetime, far greater progress is being made in pursuit of that goal now than happened in the past. Since the cold war, significant progress has been made on reducing the threat of nuclear weapons. The UK has reduced the total explosive power of its nuclear arsenal by 75 per cent and the US, Russia and France have made significant contributions. However, progress has stagnated in recent times and much more still needs to be done. I am pleased that, this summer, the US and Russia agreed to reduce their arsenals further. Between them, they have about 12,000 nuclear weapons, which is 95 per cent of the world's capacity. They have an outline agreement to cut their stockpiles to fewer than 1,700 weapons each. That is welcome progress.
Even for people who, like me, believe strongly in the need for a deterrent, there is no reason to argue that further reductions cannot be made—an arsenal of 500 weapons would be enough to destroy the world many times over and would not change the fundamental defence strategy of the US or Russia. However, it remains vital that Britain renews its minimum strategic nuclear deterrent.
Reaching a stage at which the world is free of nuclear weapons will be a lengthy journey and, sadly, the suggestion that it will ever be achieved on a unilateral basis seems to be pie in the sky. We live in a world in which nuclear proliferation continues with the possible participation of rogue states and the possibility of terrorist groups acquiring such weapons. In those circumstances, removal of the UK's deterrent would be the most token of gestures; it would do nothing to change the rationale of countries that wish to gain nuclear capability and it would serve only to reduce our power and influence in an uncertain world.
Nuclear proliferation, not the threat of an accidental or deliberate nuclear war between the major powers, is the real threat. The only way in which to counter that threat and to move towards total disarmament is to work on a multilateral basis. I still recall from my time as a young reporter the bravado, but in my view utter futility, of the city of Dundee unilaterally declaring itself a nuclear-free zone. I recall wondering whether the pilots of the Soviet bombers that regularly flew up the east coast of Scotland on sorties in those days were aware of the Tayside city's nuclear-free status, especially since I lived in nearby St Andrews. In all honesty, I preferred the more tangible deterrent of the two squadrons of fighter aircraft that were strategically positioned at RAF Leuchars with orders to intercept any hostile action by the Russian bears.
Iran's recent posturing in pursuit of its nuclear programme highlights how important it is to take a multilateral approach in trying to prevent nuclear proliferation. Russia and China have been reluctant to impose tough sanctions on Iran because of commercial interests of which we are well aware, but as a result of pressure from the US, the UK, France and Germany, they now seem more likely to favour stiffer sanctions to curtail Iran's nuclear aspirations.
The Conservatives are pleased that the UK Government has adopted several of our party's proposals, including those on action to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency and ensuring that Britain takes a leading role in tackling nuclear proliferation. Of course, we would like the Government to take on still more of our proposals, such as that on action to track and block the illicit trade in nuclear weapons technology and to disrupt the financial networks that support the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
I believe that a nuclear-free world is a realistic ambition—we have been successful in virtually abolishing chemical weapons, which provides real encouragement—but it will be a long and complicated road and require huge co-operation between many countries, first to stop proliferation and then, we hope, to progress to total disarmament. Marches can be hugely important. I do not underestimate the yearning for world peace and non-violence—I share it—but keeping our guard up in an increasingly dangerous world is every bit as important.
I congratulate Bill Kidd on bringing the debate to the chamber and for issuing the invitation that resulted in Alexander Mora Mora's visit to Scotland on 20 November. That was an achievement of which we should all be proud.
Paragraph 3 of article 2 of the charter of the United Nations states:
"All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."
Many of the nation signatories to that charter would do well to remember that statement.
I am absolutely delighted that people across the world have decided to take part in the march for peace. It is fascinating to see who is taking part. The world march was a humanist proposal, but people of various belief systems—people of religious faith or of no faith—and pacifists and non-pacifists are coming together to say, "Enough. What is happening in our world today is ridiculous. There is too much violence of all sorts." That is not simply as if it were just about nuclear weapons; it encompasses the world. We find that more civilians are being killed in conflicts than ever before, because of the changing nature of war. We have Governments that actively carry out what I would say are terrorist acts against their own populations in order to do no more than maintain control.
I am really pleased that Bill Kidd managed to bring the beacon of peace to Scotland, which is so important. For all that we have a military history, which we talk a lot about, we also have a good history of peaceful reconciliation and of finding ways forward in conflict resolution.
I often think that Scotland is in a great position, particularly since the Parliament reconvened more than 10 years ago, to take a bit of a lead in such issues. We are a small nation that is in the process of re-establishing itself through self-government, but we should never underestimate the fact that we have achieved significant constitutional change in a totally peaceful and democratic fashion. For all that we shout and bawl at each other and take stances in here, we should never underestimate what we have achieved. In today's world, which is a very dangerous place, that is to be lauded and applauded.
We should recognise the number of people from countries and legislatures throughout the world who come here to learn from this Parliament about how those things can be achieved. In case I am accused of plagiarism, I should say at this point that I am referring to something that I wrote myself. We have had delegations from eastern Europe, Latin America, south-east Asia and Africa. A few years ago, this Parliament endorsed a visit by the Palestinian Legislative Council and agreed to share good practice. That is extremely important in today's world and very forward-looking for an institution that is as young as ours.
Scotland should be staking its place in Europe and the world and it should have the vision to promote peace and stability actively. Bill Kidd said that sometimes these aspirations are seen as a bit idealistic and naive. Elaine Smith said that, too, when she was promoting peace education during a debate in Parliament some time ago. As I said when we talked about the peace stone—the Sconestone—going around the world, if we cut off the roots to any kind of idealism, we will never advance and we will never get anywhere.
Our reputation for democratic and peaceful constitutional change means that we could be established in the world as a force in aiding conflict resolution. We can invite people here from overseas and provide a peaceful setting for mediation and negotiation. I cannot remember which countries were involved, but that was done a few years ago—I think that Angus Robertson headed it up—with some eastern European states that were suffering conflict at the time.
We can invite people here and we can send Scots outward, too, in the spirit of international co-operation and world stability. We might well be a small nation, but we can find a new way of going forward and make a real mark in the world.
I, too, congratulate Bill Kidd for securing the debate and for his support for the march, which I am happy to support, too. The march is a truly international endeavour and those who are organising it should be admired and commended by us all. They are doing it for all our futures and for the futures of our children. They want peace, justice and equality—those are the very principles and aspirations that the Labour Party was founded on and that is why I am a member.
It is therefore, for me, a tragedy that under a Labour Government we have waged war several times over the past decade and are still fighting in Afghanistan. In Iraq, we are in a war that I have spoken against both in this chamber and outwith it, and it is currently in the spotlight again because of the Chilcot inquiry. As Linda Fabiani said, the main casualties of war are civilians. In Iraq, as in other wars, they are euphemistically described as "collateral damage". In reality, they are ordinary people who are indiscriminately killed in a war that is not only of extremely dubious legality but is most certainly unnecessary and inhumane.
Like the marchers, throughout history men and women have bravely tried to stop war and the obscene violence and inevitable rape, torture and slaughter of civilians that go with it. The majority of victims of armed conflict are women and children and, of course, rape is routinely used as a weapon of war.
As the marchers identify, violence against women also exists outwith the realms of armed conflict. Kofi Annan described violence against women as
"the most shameful human rights violation, and perhaps the most pervasive … As long as it continues, we cannot claim to be making real progress towards equality, development and peace."
Around the world, we need urgently to address the plight of female victims of violence. Legislation is not enough; we must create a consciousness that recognises that any form of violence against women is repulsive and totally unacceptable. I hope that the world peace march will help to show that violence against women in all its forms—I include prostitution and pornography—must end.
We have heard this week of cuts in public sector pay, school closures and rising unemployment, yet billions of pounds are being spent on Iraq and Afghanistan and, of course, on nuclear weapons—all in a world in which millions of people die of malnutrition every year.
During wars a great many people are, of course, killed, maimed or reduced to poverty, while a very few people are made rich men—it is usually men. In the aftermath of war, capitalism gains while the poor pay the price.
I was thinking about this debate through the week and on Tuesday night I watched a BBC programme about Joan Baez. I tuned into the programme because I like her music and appreciate the power and influence of the protest songs that she sang, but the programme was also very informative from an anti-war perspective, which I had not expected. It was very interesting, because Joan Baez put herself in the front line to try to stop wars and she was frequently taken to prison as she tried to persuade young men to avoid the Vietnam draft. That takes courage and commitment. World peace might actually happen if more of us were like Joan Baez and the people on the march.
However, in spite of Joan Baez's efforts, many of those young men flocked to Vietnam with the promise of glory and a dream of escaping poverty and unemployment. Of course, the idealistic notion of "serving your country" while being paid a decent wage and learning a trade and so on remains one of the armed forces' most powerful recruiting tools.
This week, Chilcot is exposing the shambles of Iraq and Obama is digging a deeper hole in Afghanistan. Surely history cannot repeat itself yet again through a war with Iran. We must be clear that that must not be allowed to happen.
In the end, the victims of war are the poor, the powerless and the women and children. In the end, we are always left asking: what was it for? Who gained by it? What was the cost in human life?
I will finish with the words of a song, not one by Joan Baez, although she has plenty that would be appropriate, but "The Green Fields of France":
"And I can't help but wonder, oh Willie McBrideDo all those who lie here know why they died?Did you really believe them when they told you the cause?Did you really believe that this war would end wars?Well the suffering, the sorrow, the glory, the shameThe killing, the dying, it was all done in vain,Oh Willie McBride, it all happened again,And again, and again, and again, and again."
Let us hope and pray that the march for peace can prevent further wars and abominations from happening again.
I welcome the opportunity for Parliament to discuss and debate this most fundamental of human issues: the desire to live in peace and safety. The ambition for a peaceful world is one that I know everyone in Scotland will share with others around the world.
The diversity of the people who endorse the march for peace and non-violence demonstrates how peace unites people. There are modern cultural leaders, religious leaders and members of the monarchy. They come from different countries and cultures and have different aims in life, but they share a common ambition to have a world that is free from violence and hatred. That ambition must be at the heart of every Government's policy. As we pursue world peace, countries must also secure peace and safety within their borders.
We have had a stimulating discussion on a subject that is now and will be in future of prime importance to Scotland. There are steps that we can and should take towards having a world that is free from violence. We can start by removing nuclear weapons. On moral, economic and political grounds, renewal of the United Kingdom's nuclear system is untenable. Bill Kidd's membership of the council of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament and his attendance at the PNND assembly and council meeting in New York in October are a testament to his commitment, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. I know that his commitment is shared by many members.
Global opinion is changing. In September, the United Nations Security Council pledged its backing for broad progress on long-stalled efforts to staunch the proliferation of nuclear weapons and ensure reductions in existing nuclear stockpiles. When President Obama spoke to the council summit after the resolution was passed, he said:
"The historic resolution we just adopted enshrines our shared commitment to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. And it brings Security Council agreement on a broad framework for action to reduce nuclear dangers as we work toward that goal."
The Scottish Government is clear in its efforts to reduce violence and promote peace. Putting an end to all forms of violence is consistent with our national outcome:
"We live our lives safe from crime, disorder and danger."
Elaine Smith was right to talk about the importance of tackling violence against women. The Scottish Parliament has done and continues to do much in that area.
We are 100 per cent committed to supporting Scotland's ethnic minority communities, including refugees, asylum seekers, migrant workers and Gypsy/Travellers, who in many ways are the most discriminated against in our society. We have allocated £9 million over a three-year funding period to organisations that try to tackle discrimination and improve the lives of minority ethnic communities in Scotland.
Scotland is a nation of many cultures and beliefs and we have built a reputation as a rich and vibrant place to live and work, but even today there are people who harbour outdated and ignorant prejudices, which detract from the kind of Scotland that we want to be part of. There is no place for racism, discrimination and religious intolerance in Scotland—not now, not ever. We are one Scotland and we must stand together to tackle the challenges that we face and rid our society of inequality and discrimination, which hold our nation back.
A clear focus for peace and non-violence must be the elimination of nuclear weapons. The UK Government has spent £320 million on the replacement of Trident—before it has even started to build the first new submarine. The approximate cost of procuring the submarines is a staggering £25 billion and the potential total cost of maintaining the system, including new infrastructure and missiles, and extending the life of the current submarines, brings the total to approximately £90 billion. It already costs £2 billion per year to keep the current Trident fleet operational.
In a letter to The Times in January, three prominent defence heads wrote:
"Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently, or are likely to, face—particularly international terrorism … Our independent deterrent has become virtually irrelevant except in the context of domestic politics."
Does the minister agree that after spending all that money on nuclear weapons the thought that we would ever use them is quite horrendous?
Many people take a moral and ethical view on nuclear weapons. That is an important point that must be made, and it has been well argued in the debate. People are beginning to understand other arguments, which are to do with economics and foreign relations, about why nuclear weapons have become redundant in many ways, but for many people they were always redundant from a moral standpoint.
Scotland has historically played a role in facilitating peacekeeping efforts globally, for example through the Edinburgh Conversations and the Craigellachie peace talks, which were co-ordinated by Angus Robertson MP—Linda Fabiani mentioned them. Leading Scots have acted in a peacekeeping capacity and have shown that violent action is not the answer in any dispute or disagreement.
However, we should not be complacent. Climate change, peak oil and other global changes contribute to political instability and we need to remain alert to the potential for us to play a greater role on the global stage. We can start by leading by example on nuclear disarmament. I know that many of the members present—although, to judge by his speech, not Ted Brocklebank—would support me in encouraging the UK Government urgently to reconsider the renewal of Trident at a cost that we simply cannot afford.
Our recent white paper, "Your Scotland, Your Voice: A National Conversation" outlines opportunities for an independent Scotland to go further in its role as a leader in peacekeeping efforts. That is the point that Linda Fabiani made. Under current devolution arrangements, we can press the UK Government to consider its position on nuclear weapons, lead by example in our efforts to eliminate violence and go further to promote true peace, meaning not only the absence of violence but the presence of justice and the wellbeing of people. An independent Scotland would have further opportunities to build on that and to foster peace in Scotland and the wider world.
Scotland may be a small country but, like Bill Kidd, I believe that we have a big part to play in the long road to world peace. In Scotland we believe that diplomacy over military intervention, understanding over hostility and integration over exclusion are the only way forward. Only by understanding others' political, economic, cultural and religious differences and ambitions will we ever hope to gain the right basis for working towards peace.
I congratulate Bill Kidd on bringing the debate to Scotland and on fostering the opportunity for the march to come to Scotland. Perhaps the debate might, like the march, be a stepping stone into the long march towards peace. It has a strong basis and strong support in Scotland. I thank him for securing the debate so that MSPs could stake out their position and the Parliament could express its view for peace and non-violence in Scotland and throughout the world.
Meeting closed at 17:31.