City Hall and Politics
Johnson Defends Anti-Nuclear Group Pull Out
Boris Johnson has dismissed complaints over a decision to withdraw from the UN registered ‘Mayors for Peace’ project saying his time is better spent tackling “issues of major importance to Londoners”.
On Wednesday a CND press release branded Mayor Johnson a “Mayor for War” after learning that he had withdrawn from the body which was founded by the Mayor of Hiroshima and campaigns to have nuclear weapons abolished.
CND chair Kate Hudson said “every Conservative government has supported Britain’s participation in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the goal of which is global nuclear disarmament. This decision suggests that Boris Johnson is retreating from that common goal.”
Hudson also claimed the decision was “insulting to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the work of their Mayors for global peace”.
CND’s stance was backed by Green Party AM Jenny Jones who said the decision to with London from the project “sends out a signal that peace isn’t an issue the Mayor wishes to engage in” adding “perhaps we can’t expect anything better from someone who voted for the war on Iraq.”
Reacting to CND’s comments a spokesman for Mayor Johnson told MayorWatch: “Whilst there may be debate about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, membership of Mayors for Peace is not a priority for the new administration, which is committed to focusing on domestic issues of major importance to Londoners, such as safety on our streets, improving public transport and making this city a better place for all Londoners to live in.”
“The Mayor is also committed to value for money for London taxpayers and it is a much better use of his and his team’s time to focus on the important day-to-day issues that need to be addressed, which is what he was elected to do.”
Discussion
11 comments for “Johnson Defends Anti-Nuclear Group Pull Out”
Post a comment
Comments RSS
Terms of Use Privacy Policy
Surely decisions about nuclear weapons should be made by national governments not a Mayor in charge of running London?
The Mayor is right to do this, even if for just one reason. If you look at the Charter and Articles of this organisation, it demands spending on all sorts of things. We are headed for a period when this will be regarded as waste. There is also the danger that the organisation can be hijacked…what on earth does signing up for ‘inter-city solidarity’ mean? At its most innocent it sounds like an echo of the Jimmy Savile British Rail ads in the 70s…at its worst it could suddenly be twisted by show of hands at some high cost international conference to commit you to all sorts of things.
Dave - I would tend to agree with you there and I think only the ultra-dedicated anti-Boris elements can really have an problem with him putting the issues he can have an impact on first.
‘I think only the ultra-dedicated anti-Boris elements can really have an problem with him putting the issues he can have an impact on first.’
I have no real objection to this. I doubt any government would let Boris within five miles of a nuclear bomb anyway.
Well done Boris.
He is there to be Mayor and improve life in London. Not to spend time and money backing an anachronistic organisation filled by Guardian reader types who wear socks with sandals and eat lentils.
If the mayors of other great cities had any sense they would pull out too….in fact I hope the new Rome Mayor who replaces a useless lefty administration to follow suit.
Aloicius, the Mayor of Rome represents a neo-facist party whose polices are abominable. The very fact that you lump him and Boris together tells us little about Boris, but quite a bit about elements of some of his supporters.
Three basic points of information to inform your discussion:
(1) The move to withdraw from Mayors for Peace is entirely gratuitous. He sights time and money as the reasons. The fact is that there is no membership fee for Mayors for Peace, and participation in the 2020 Vision Campaign is optional. While we would prefer leadership from London on these issues, the act of withdrawal sends a message that he does not wish us success in ridding the word of nuclear weapons by the year 2020. these points have been made in a letter to the Mayor from the President of Mayors for Peace. To date, no reply.
(2) We do not claim that mayors can take decisions on nuclear weapons. Our claim is that cities have every right to decry policies that retain the option of targeting cities for nuclear attack. Just threaten such attack is a war crime. And that they can use their influence to get government to do the right thing. It’s called democracy.
(3) In the last four years, for every mayor that withdraws from Mayors for Peace over 500 join. We are confident that if Mayor Johnson does not reconsider his position, then his successor almost certainly will.
I am the Director of the 2020 Vision Campaign of Mayors for Peace. Please visit our website: http://www.2020visioncampaign.org for a wealth of further information and action possibilities.
Aaron, there may be no membership fee but there is a signed up requirement to organise events, attend meetings, publish brochures and literature…all this costs money. And also there are the obligations to rather open-ended things which also open up avenues for spending. Take your point but stil think the Mayor was right.
Damien, the requirement you cite says nothing about the frequency of such activities. Mayor Johnson is under no obligation to sustain Mayor Livingstone’s level of activity. If you rest your case on the spending issue, then you have no case. Let’s talk about substance.
“If the mayors of other great cities had any sense they would pull out to”
Are you in favour of war ? Surely any sane person would be in favour in our leaders participating in some kind of peace movement. It would make a change from the death and destruction created around the world by our governments over the years.
Those posting here not in favour of peace should be ready to stand by their words and fight in the wars they approve of.
Breaking news: Mayor Boris Johnson has accepted the invitation from Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba (Hiroshima) to remain a member of Mayors for Peace. Responding to an explanation from Mayor Akiba that it would be acceptable for Mayor Johnson to be a passive member, Mayor Johnson reverse the action of an aide who had informed Mayor Akiba of London’s ‘withdrawal.’ All’s well that ends well.