David Cameron is guilty of "appalling immaturity" on the issue of nuclear weapons, according to David Miliband.
Speaking during the first of the BBC Daily Politics debates between party spokesmen, the foreign secretary said Cameron appeared to want to "upend" sixty years of cooperation with the Chinese.
"To put China and Iran in the same bracket displays an appalling immaturity," Miliband said.
"Frankly, to try to overturn 60 years of cooperation with a fellow Security Council member is grossly irresponsible".
He warned people not to believe Conservative "scare tactics" that China was "out to overrun us".
During a discussion on nuclear policy in last week's prime ministerial debate on ITV, Cameron warned against giving up Britain's nuclear deterrent.
"I think the most important duty of any government, anyone who wants to be prime minister of this country, is to protect and defend our United Kingdom.," he said.
"And are we really happy to say that we'd give up our independent nuclear deterrent when we don't know what is going to happen with Iran, we can't be certain of the future in China, we don't know exactly what our world will look like?
"I say we should always have the ultimate protection of our independent nuclear deterrent. That's why we voted to make sure that happened."
Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesmen Ed Davey said it was a "dangerous mistake" by Cameron to suggest the Chinese may be a threat.
Davey said the foreign policy establishment in Beijing would "pick over every single word" said during the election campaign.
"Bet your bottom dollar there are people in Beijing looking at this," he said.
Cameron and Hague would not get a warm welcome on their first trip to China if elected, he added.
But shadow foreign secretary William Hague said Cameron had not said Britain should point nuclear weapons at China.
Rather he was merely "illustrating the pace and extent of change in the world".
"David and I have excellent relations with Chinese leaders," he added.
The debate between the three party spokesmen offered a glimpse of this week's prime ministerial debate, which will focus on foreign affairs.
Pressed on what Liberal Democrat policy was on nuclear weapons, Davey confirmed that his party wanted to maintain Britain's deterrent.
But he said there were alternatives to the replacement of Trident on a "like-for-like" basis.
He said that while other countries maintained their weapons Britain needed to keep theirs, but said his party wanted to "negotiate them away" in a multilateral manner.
The United Nations review of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in New York is set begin on May 3, three days before polling day.
The debate between Miliband, Hague and Davey this afternoon also addressed future strategy for the Afghan war, terrorism and Britain's relations with the European Union.
Miliband said foreign policy was about "judgement and leadership" based on "clear values and a clear understanding of the modern world".
Hague said the whole of the Whitehall machine needed to be mobilised in order to promote British interests abroad.
"At the moment Britain is shrinking in world affairs," he said. "If we are going to extend influence we have to get organised."
And Davey attacked what he called the "two old parties" for past mistakes in foreign affairs.
"We should be proud of Britain, but our international reputation has been damaged by two old parties who backed Iraq war," he said.
Article Comments
The most significant thing about David Cameron's comments on China is that they highlight how weak the case for replacing Trident nuclear weapons is.If David Cameron is struggling around to find a justification for new nuclear weapons, it raises the question of whether we really need them.There are plenty of real and urgent security threats - fundamentalism, cyberwarfare, piracy - which we are struggling to find resources to tackle, so why are we wasting money on a very expensive nuclear weapons system that has no clear purpose except to hedge against vague future uncertainties?
20th Apr 2010 at 11:48 am by Yvonne LampettAl-Qaida is not the first to use suicide as a weapon, for Japan's Kamikaze and the Western MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy both preceded it. Nuclear deterrence is a policy of despair and no nuclear conflict can spell victory.The recent Haiti and Icelandic earth movements are localised yet we can barely manage their effects. "Gunfight at the OK corral" shows that nuclear hair-trigger politics (Cuba in 1962) does no favours to diplomacy and is merely international hooliganism.However, nuclear submarines are excellent launch platforms for high calibre conventional warheads and these submarines should be updated if necessary with a policy of developing the current generation of targeted TNT - as opposed to indiscriminate nuclear - weapons (the latter are against the Geneva Convention and a Security Council member has no business deploying them).Finally, China (albeit a Security Council member) with a population well over a billion is not going to start a nuclear war! Their possession of atomic weapons is essential whilst others have them.
19th Apr 2010 at 9:49 pm by Adrian Scollin
