It’s time for Britain to move on from nuclear weapons

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/11/letters-trident-not-desirable

Version 0 of 1.

The election campaign to date suggests that decommissioning Trident nuclear weapons is a dangerous, minority demand led by the SNP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru. Yet poll after poll reveals that it is in fact a majority popular demand throughout the UK. One poll recently revealed that 81% of 500 general election candidates are opposed to renewal. There are increasingly obvious reasons why we think it’s time to move on from Trident.

Pinning our security on a nuclear deterrent encourages others to do the same. The UK should become the first permanent member of the UN Security Council to give up all its nuclear weapons, transforming the nuclear club from within. Instead of protecting us, hosting nuclear weapons makes us a target for the disaffected. And any accident would lead to a humanitarian disaster. Having nuclear weapons diverts resources and attention from tackling our most urgent security problems, including climate and environmental destruction.

Finally, continuing to invest in nuclear weapons is actively depleting military and other effective defences we might need in the 21st century. We should invest military spending on conflict prevention. By moving on from Trident, we can more effectively serve the needs and the potential of our country and a changing world.

www.moveontrident.org ; Helena Kennedy QC; Young Fathers, Mercury prizewinners; Prof Peter Higgs, 2014 Nobel prize for physics; Vivienne Westwood, designer and activist; Frankie Boyle, comedian; Neal Lawson, Compass; Gabrielle Rifkind, Oxford Research Group; Konnie Huq, presenter; Massive Attack; Sir Michael Atiyah, ex-president of the Royal Society; Marina Cantacuzino, founder of The Forgiveness Project; Jonathon Porritt, Forum for the Future; Robin McAlpine, director, Common Weal; Kamila Shamsie, writer; Lindsey Coulson, actress

Internal tensions in Kenya

The analysis by Murithi Mutiga (“Are the terrorists of al-Shabaab about to divide Kenya into two”, World News) rightly points out the consequences of disparities in Kenya between the north east and the rest of the country.

Worryingly, the article does not mention one of the root causes of the escalation of al-Shabaab attacks in Kenya – Kenya’s intervention across the Somali border in October 2011. The attacks of al-Shabaab escalated after that. Their targeting of civilians is despicable but we have very little knowledge of the kind of violence that the Kenyan armed forces have meted out in Somalia. It would not be surprising that driving al-Shabaab out of the rural areas and towns in Somali has resulted in Somali civilian casualties.

It is also well known that the Kenyan security services consider the entire Kenyan Somali population as an “enemy within”. After Westgate, the Somali community in Eastleigh in Nairobi was attacked by special forces. There have been assassinations of religious leaders in Mombasa. When I last visited Kenya, I found a disturbing level of Islamophobia in public discourse. This is leading to the alienation of the Somalis and Muslims of Kenya.

It is time the Kenyan government reviews its treatment of the Kenyan Somalis, otherwise Kenya will be in a cycle of violence and counter-violence for years to come.

Saleh Mamon

Carshalton

The church and its money

I was inspired by the summary of the anti-austerity stance being taken by the Church of England in Julian Coman’s essay (“Should the church be a radical voice in politics?, New Review). I agree that the church has the right to speak out against austerity and support fairness. I applaud its efforts to speak boldly, when the main political parties are lacking any passion.

Coman is right to base his argument on Jesus’s words “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” but, for me, this provokes another question. If the senior leaders of the Church of England are passionate about wanting to bring an end to austerity, shouldn’t they should be equally bold about how the income generated by their investments could be better used to create a fairer society?

Paul Parker

Bradford

Garden bridge is grievous error

As a landscape architect, I find it hard to think of a worse location for plants than the middle of a river (“Growing opposition to London garden bridge, as row grows over ‘misuse’ of funds” News). Plants do not grow naturally in the exposed, windy, cold environment in the middle of a river. Moreover, trees are heavy and they need heavy topsoil in which to grow. To build a very expensive structure to support all this weight seems perverse. A bridge for cyclists would make a lot more sense.

Jim McCluskey

Twickenham

Perfect portrait of a painter

The Towner Gallery, Eastbourne, has a collection of the work of Eric Ravilious. Familiarity has made me guilty of passing his work with hardly a glance, so I would like to thank Laura Cumming for her enlightening analysis (“Ravilious the marvellous”, New Review). I will in future always think of Ravilious as the “Seurat of Sussex”.

Kathleen Dawson

Seaford

East Sussex