Author: Kate Hudson

  • Kate Hudson: In Her Own Words

    Kate Hudson: In Her Own Words

    Do you think the UK can rethink its position on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons?

    The UK will only rethink its position on the TPNW when the argument has been won to get rid of Britain’s nuclear weapons system Trident. The UK cannot sign up without putting in place a time-constrained plan for disarmament, without any conditionality on other nuclear weapons states disarming, so signing up to the TPNW is understood, in effect, to be unilateral nuclear disarmament, given that no other nuclear weapons states are planning to give up their nuclear weapons. While opinion polls over the last decade and a half generally show a majority of the population (especially, young people) in favour of scrapping Trident, this has not affected the policy of the major parties. While smaller parliamentary parties like the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party oppose nuclear weapons, the Conservative Party, Labour Party and Liberal Democrats all continue to back Trident and its replacement. The key reason for this is the view that nuclear weapons are necessary to maintain Britain’s status as a world power. While many in the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats favour nuclear disarmament, the leaderships are not willing to risk looking weak on defence by abandoning the nuclear arsenal. So even though recent governments have recognised that cyber warfare, climate change, terrorism and other contemporary factors are actually the key security threats, not nuclear weapons, there is no appetite to change the totemic status of the UK’s nuclear arsenal, in spite of its enormous cost.

    How does Brexit affect the dominant beliefs on nuclear deterrence?

    Brexit has pushed virtually all other political issues down, or off, the political agenda, so it has been very difficult to raise the issue at all through our Parliamentary CND group. One of the effects of Brexit has been to increase the role and influence of the far right, and to increase nationalism, so no doubt nuclear disarmament would be seen as weakening ‘the nation’. So in so far as it is possible to judge, I would say that Brexit will make the political climate less amenable to progress on nuclear disarmament.

    Do you think women have a specific role to play in paving the way to the abolition of nuclear weapons?

    Women are often more prominent in peace and nuclear disarmament movements than in other civil society movements and campaigns, although that may be changing these days with more women entering public life. I have tended to think that this is because some elements of our dominant culture may see peace as ‘weak’ and that warfighting is a male characteristic, along with often more aggressive posturing, whereas caring and nurturing – and protecting future generations – has tended to be the preserve of females. But I do not consider these to be innate, rather to be learned through social conventions. Equally they can be unlearned, and the path to peace and disarmament is open to all to embrace, irrespective of gender.


    Kate Hudson is a British left-wing political activist and academic. Since 2010, she has been the General Secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), having served as chair since 2003. She first became active in the peace movement in the early 1980s during the surge of activity against cruise missiles. With the end of the Cold War, like many others, Kate felt that the issue of nuclear weapons had greatly declined, so she turned to other campaigning work. One of her proudest moments was helping to Embrace the Base at Greenham Common in December 1982, along with 30,000 other women. By the mid-1990s, with the expansion of NATO and the escalation of the U.S. ‘Star Wars’ system, she came back to lead CND just as the ‘war on terror’ was beginning. She has been a key figure in the anti-war movement nationally and internationally and considers international cooperation and solidarity to be the key to the nuclear non-proliferation movement’s ultimate success.

  • An Open Letter to President Loeak of the Marshall Islands

    Dear Mr President,

    cndI am writing on behalf of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament to express our great appreciation for your decision to institute legal proceedings against the nine nuclear weapons states. We sincerely welcome your decision to take them to the International Court of Justice for their failure to comply with Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: to ‘pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control’.

    We feel a debt of gratitude to you, in particular, for instituting proceedings against our own country, the United Kingdom, the governments of which we have challenged since our foundation in 1958. Your principled and courageous stand will assist our current struggle to prevent the replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system. It will expose the hypocrisy of our government as it claims to support the goals of the NPT yet plans to spend vast sums on building new nuclear weapons; it will reveal the obstructionism of our government as it boycotts and derails sincere initiatives towards global abolition; and it will lay bare our government’s contempt for the fundamental NPT bargain – that non-proliferation and disarmament are inseparable.

    As well as the undoubted legal weight of your case, we believe that the case you have put to the International Court of Justice also carries extraordinary moral weight. We are well aware of the terrible suffering and damage inflicted on your people. We recall with horror that between 1946 and 1958, the US tested 67 nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands, earning your country the description ‘by far the most contaminated place in the world’, from the US Atomic Energy Agency.

    Together with our support for your legal proceedings and our recognition of the intense suffering from which this was born, I would like to say that we also feel a strong and long lasting bond with the people of the Marshall Islands. Our movement, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, was founded in large part as a response to the H-bomb testing of the 1950s, so much of which was carried out in your islands. In our early years we campaigned strenuously for the abolition of nuclear weapons testing until the achievement of the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963.

    The test on Bikini Atoll, in your country, in March 1954, with its terrible radiation impact on the people of Rongelap, moved countless people around the world to action. The tragic consequences for the Lucky Dragon, caught in the impact, stirred a whole generation of activists to oppose nuclear weapons. The experience of your country and your people is at the very heart of our movement.

    We pledge our support to you and wish you every success in this most crucial of struggles.

    In peace,

    Kate Hudson

    General Secretary

    Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

  • The Doublespeak of Nuclear Disarmament

    This article was originally published on the Huffington Post.

    Kate HudsonIt’s easy to say you want a world without nuclear weapons. Nearly everyone does: even David Cameron. It’s like saying there should be no global poverty: the hard part is taking action to do something about it.

    Imagine if David Cameron returned from his recent trade-boosting visit to China and had to concede, shamefaced, that he hadn’t mentioned trade with the UK.

    Worse still: what if he returned and boasted of the fact that he hadn’t mentioned trade with the UK?

    Well this is precisely what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has just done following a UN meeting on nuclear disarmament.

    ‘What discussions,’ FCO Minister Hugh Robertson was asked in Parliament, ‘were held by [the FCO] on the replacement of the Trident submarines at the recent High Level Meeting on nuclear disarmament at the UN?’

    ‘No discussions’, he replied.

    Even more disturbingly, Robertson went on to claim that this was all good and proper.

    ‘Maintaining the UK’s nuclear deterrent beyond the life of the current system is fully consistent with our obligations as a recognised nuclear weapon state under the treaty on the non-proliferation (NPT) of nuclear weapons,’ he stated.

    Disingenuous doublespeak. He may as well have said: “building new nuclear weapons is the same as negotiating to get rid of them.”

    And that is precisely what the UK, and all other nuclear armed states, are bound to do by the NPT. Article VI of the treaty states:

    ‘Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to… nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament.’

    The UK government claims to have a long-standing commitment to multilateral initiatives towards a world free of nuclear weapons, but it simply doesn’t practice what it preaches.

    One recent initiative which the UK won’t even engage with is around the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons: supported by 125 states as well as NGOs around the world.

    But the UK, in a joint statement with France and the US, expressed ‘regret’ that states and civil society actors have sought to highlight these dangers.

    After a landmark conference on this issue in Oslo this year – which the British government failed to attend, despite Defence Secretary Philip Hammond being in Norway at the time – the UK still hasn’t RSVP’d to an invitation from the Mexican government to go to the follow-up conference in 2014.

    Here, our friend Hugh Robertson at the FCO can shed a little more light on the government’s position:

    ‘We are concerned that some efforts under the humanitarian initiative appear increasingly aimed at negotiating a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the possession of nuclear weapons’.

    What a concern! States and global civil society want the UK to fulfil its treaty obligations and ‘negotiate’ towards disarmament!?

    The government’s apparent aversion to a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC) is all the more disturbing given how instrumental the framework of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) has been recently in the historic elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons. These treaty apparatuses have been shown to enable and facilitate true progress on disarmament, yet the UK still refuses to join the call for similar initiatives for nuclear weapons.

    When this is the attitude of our politicians, how can we see their professed commitment to disarmament as anything other than shallow and meaningless rhetoric?