Posted on

More war is not inevitable

Israel’s genocide in Gaza persists, while the war in Ukraine continues with no negotiated settlement in sight. As Europe rearms and Britain expands its nuclear capabilities, Carol Turner reviews the alternatives

FEW would dispute that 2005 has been dominated by conflict abroad and preparations for war at home. Under pressure from President Donald Trump, Europe is preparing to take on a greater share of the military burden and financial cost of the continent’s security.

The Council of Europe is encouraging military integration, promoting Europe-wide procurement, and offering loans for increased military spending. Is rearmament really the way to go?

Britain’s military budget is set rise from the current 2.2 per cent to 2.6 per cent from 2027, with the prospect of reaching 5 per cent within the next decade. As the United States’ chief ally in Europe, Prime Minister Keir Starmer is positioning himself to head of a “coalition of the willing,” ready though far from able to defend Ukraine and take on Russia. In July, Starmer signed the Britain-France Northwood Declaration and the wide-ranging Kensington Treaty with Germany.

The Labour government is increasing war readiness, including expanding Britain’s nuclear capability by accepting the return of nuclear bombs to Britain and purchasing US nuclear-capable fighter jets which will be part of Nato’s European nuclear-sharing arrangements — all without debate, let alone a vote, in Parliament.

With Trump in the White House, the drift to war is beginning to look like a stampede. Alongside these developments, however, anti-war coalitions such as Stop ReArm Europe are coming together. A new generation of peace campaigners is taking to the streets of Britain and protesting at military bases seeking to change the public dialogue.

We represent the interest of the many. Our daunting but indispensable job is to focus public attention on alternatives to war.

Urgent action needed

In Gaza, Palestinians remain under heavy attack from Israel. The West Bank is confronting spiralling attacks by Israeli settlers, supported by the government and backed up by the Israel Defence Forces. The UN reports over 260 attacks in October alone, resulting in Palestinian casualties and property damage — the highest monthly count since monitoring began in 2006.

The Ukraine war — the one Trump claimed he could end in 24 hours — is about to enter its fourth year with no end in sight as Ukrainians prepare for a harsh winter. Yet the prospect of either side opening negotiations seems slim.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s appeal for US Tomahawk missiles, long-range land-attack armaments capable of reaching Moscow and beyond is a hair-raising escalation the White House has so far resisted. Russian nuclear testing is equally concerning. Reports of a recent 9M730 Burevestnik test, a nuclear-capable intercontinental cruise missile, suggest it flew within reach of the US mainland and  Britain. In a foolhardy escalation of nuclear brinksmanship, Trump reminded President Vladimir Putin that US nuclear submarines are deployed “just off your shores.”

Iran, Syria and Yemen merit closer examination. So too does the fragile ceasefire that followed the India-Pakistan clash over Kashmir earlier this year, when a terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir led to a series of escalating military and diplomatic actions between the two nuclear-armed south Asian rivals.

Meanwhile, Venezuela is the latest addition to a growing list of hotspots, and the biggest US military build-up in Latin America for decades. The US military deployment is oriented for a land attack, however, not an anti-drugs operation Trump as claims it to be. It includes a nuclear-powered submarine and the Gerald R Ford aircraft carrier, the world’s largest warship. Concern is growing across Latin America that this will destabilise the region.

Moving forward

The 1967 Treaty of Tlatelolco signed by all 33 Latin American and Caribbean nations has played an important part in maintaining regional stability. Nuclear-weapons-free-zone treaties cover central Asia, Caribbean, the south Pacific, south-east Asia and Africa but are rarely discussed in the West.

CND believes the alternative to war is common security, which prioritises co-operation over conflict and acknowledges the importance of political, economic, social, and environmental justice in a world where the divide between rich and poor continues to grow. This is the security of international treaties which limit arms races and reduce military build-ups — not the “security” of the Nato nuclear alliance dominated by a US president whose idea of negotiation is threats and blackmail.

CND’s in-person annual conference in London on November 22, Stop Nuclear Expansion: Reverse the Government’s War Drive, is a contribution to starting a much-needed debate about alternatives to war. We open with PSC’s Ben Jamal, Ludo De Brabander from the Belgian Peace organisation Vrede, Tricontinental Institute’s Mikaela Nhondo Erskog, and Stand Up to Racism co-convener Sabby Dhalu. They join CND vice-president Jeremy Corbyn to focus on the big issues driving the world closer to war.

Workshops will drill down into some of the detail — including a briefing on Britain’s nuclear expansion and an activist-led discussion about shutting down nuclear bases. Discussion covers European rearmament, the Ukraine war, climate breakdown, the defence jobs myth, militarism in education, and the rise of the far right.

We’re looking at solutions too — building opposition to war and nuclear expansion on the streets, in the unions, and across the universities. Join us and help change the dialogue, register now at https://tinyurl.com/CNDStopWarDrive.

Carol Turner is a CND vice-chair and convener of its International Advisory Group. She is a long-time peace and anti-war campaigner, and author of Corbyn and Trident: Labour’s Continuing Controversy and Walter Wolfgang: A Political Life.

This article first appeared in the Morning Star of 18 November 2025

Photo: A block of flats damaged after a Russian attack on residential neighbourhood in Kyiv, Ukraine, November 14, 2025, Morning Star

Posted on

To address climate change, we need peace

In her latest blog, Samantha Mason addresses issues from the King’s speech on the opening of parliament.

ATTENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE HAS UNDERSTANDABLY
taken a back seat as we’ve watched the horror of events unfolding in Gaza and mobilised around the call for a ceasefire and peace.  However, as climate campaigners have pointed out, including in a letter to Ed Miliband, fighting for the “cause of freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people” is not separate from the colonial violence and dispossession which is also at the heart of the climate crisis.

There’s no bigger action for climate change
than achieving peace for Gaza

The impacts of climate change continue apace as 2023 is likely to be declared the warmest on record. The UN Secretary General’s call for the world to end the madness of the fossil fuel age which is driving don’t seem to have reached the ears of the UK government who is forging ahead with the issuing of new oil and gas licences in the North Sea.

The  oil and gas bill announced in the King’s Speech follows Rishi Sunak’s statement in September pledging a “pragmatic, proportionate and realistic approach to reaching net zero“. This also included the removal of energy efficiency standards for private landlords, condemning renters to totally avoidable high energy bills – a point well made by the UK Green Building Council and Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS).

Of course, this is all part of the new ‘Uxbridge’ narrative of the government being ‘on the side of car drivers’ pushing-back on a number of measures including targets to ban the sale of petrol and diesel cars. Unfortunately, the science of climate change doesn’t care about political posturing and the only reality here is that we cannot put off until tomorrow what we should be doing today.

Any new oil and gas in the North Sea won’t benefit
UK energy consumers because we don’t own it

Likewise, financial and health burdens will also certainly not be ‘eased’ for people as a result. Any new oil and gas produced in the North Sea will not be to the benefit of UK energy consumers as we don’t own it. It is therefore false to say it will help bring down bills – a point the new Secretary of State for DESNZ Clair Coutinho has finally conceded.

There are undoubtedly costs in transitioning to a decarbonised economy and these should not be falling on workers in terms of jobs, pay and other terms and conditions, or hard-pressed communities. These costs should be ‘proportionately’ distributed and socialised by ending the greed of fossil fuel corporation profits and bringing all energy assets back into public ownership. Not least when we see the renewables sector trying to fashion itself on a fossil fuel ‘for profit’ business model.

A crisis in the offshore wind industry, not just impacting the UK but in Europe and the US as well, has seen the main offshore wind farm developers pulling back from bidding in government auctions.  Big players such as Ørsted and Vattenfall have also pulled out of projects due to issues of “profitability” as inflation and higher interest rates have increased costs.

And the idea that nuclear power will be an answer to the energy and climate crisis is also starting to wobble (unsurprisingly) on financial grounds.  The ‘poster child’ for small modular reactors (SMRs), NuScale in the US, has ended a major project on basis of costs defeating one of the primary arguments for SMRs that they can be built more quickly and cheaply.  Indeed, many technological fixes being proposed for tackling climate change such as Carbon Capture and Storage and Direct Airsource Capture are proving to be the false solutions many climate campaigners have always argued.

The idea that nuclear power is an answer to
climate change is starting to wobble

It is clear that climate change will be one of the battle grounds in the next general election and this should not be allowed to turn into binary choices of cars over clean air or arbitrary fiscal rules. Right now, we need a coherent long-term plan that aligns reducing greenhouse gas emissions with addressing the energy, health, and cost of living crises all of which are inter-connected. Similarly, the plan needs to recognise the need for global cooperation and climate justice. This should be seen as an opportunity for the Labour Party to provide a real alternative to Tory climate and environmental policies that will continue to cause long-term harm to us all.

At the end of November, the global climate talks – COP28 – will take place in Dubai. There is little faith in these talking shops that fail to address the fossil fuels in the room and on 9 December there will be a Global Day of Action with mass demonstrations planned across the globe. In the UK these are being coordinated by the Climate Justice Coalition.  

People everywhere have risen up for Gaza and it’s possible, sadly, we may yet be coordinating joint actions that day.  Whether this is the case or not, one thing is clear, there is no bigger action for climate change than achieving peace for Gaza, or other areas of the world suffering conflicts, and it must remain an integral part of our climate demands.