Evidence of Annika Spalde

Preston Crown Court

Can you tell me who you are and where you come from?

My name is Annika Spalde and I’m 30 years old. I was born in a town on the west coast of Sweden, and I grew up in a small society. In school I remember that we talked a lot about the world around us and that I often thought about people in other countries and the conditions in which they lived.

Have you done any travelling?

When I was 16 I went to Paraguay, in South America, for a year as an exchange student. I lived with a family and went to school there. This experience meant a lot to me, getting to know a different country and culture, seeing the poverty in which many people lived, and also to see that in spite of our differences, all people on earth have the same basic needs and longings.

How did this affect your choice of a career?

I decided to become a nurse, with the intention of one day returning to South America to work for better conditions for the people. I completed my training as a nurse in 1993, and then worked in both general nursing and psychiatric nursing.

Did your experience from Paraguay have any religious effect on your life?

Yes, it made me interested in the catholic faith (my family belonged to the lutheran church) and after two years of reflection and prayer I decided to become a catholic.

Since then I’ve been involved in different groups in my parish, and also in the work of Caritas (which in England I think is CAFOOD), with projects both in South America and Africa.

When did you get into contact with the peace movement?

From 1996 I’ve been involved in the peace movement, and then I became more aware of the enormous consequences of the existence of nuclear weapons. I also learnt of the efforts of so many people to eliminate these weapons of mass destruction. I understood then that the dangers of NWs hadn’t gone with the end of the Cold War, that in fact new kinds of NWs were being developed and that the NW states, e g Britain, didn’t want to give up these weapons.

I heard of the movement Abolition 2000, which consists of more than 1200 organizations from 80 different countries, all working for the abolition of NWs by the year 2000, and about many other efforts to rid the world of these horrendous weapons.

Did you go to university?

Yes, after working a couple of years as a nurse I went back to university and from –96 to –98 I studied International Relations at the University of Gothenburg. What I learnt during that time strengthened my belief that the NWs posed a threat to the whole of humanity and also gave me an insight into how these weapons are used as a power tool in the politics of the world.

I learnt that there are more than 35 000 nuclear warheads in the world, and that even if all past agreements on the disarmament of NWs were implemented, the majority of those would remain.

Did you also learn about the risks for accidents?

Yes, I learnt that there is an ongoing potential for accidents and misunderstandings which can lead to a catastrophe at any time. E g warheads have been dropped accidentally, submarines have been lost at sea. Up until 1988 five submarines, 2 American and 3 Russian, had been lost, with the crew and the warheads.

A high number of US military personnel have had to be removed from involvement with NWs because of drug abuse or psychiatric problems. So, there’s always the risk for human errors.

The British submarines have also had problems, e g in July last year when HMS Vanguard had a power failure and went into an uncontrolled dive. A major catastrophe was avoided by only minutes.

When did you come into contact with the ploughshares movement?

In 1996 I met people involved in the ploughshares movement. I became involved myself, at first particularly with the attempts to stop the Swedish arms sales to Indonesia. We knew that weapons sold by e g Sweden were used in the repression of people in East Timor. I heard about a group of women in England who had disarmed a Hawk jet who was about to leave for Indonesia. They had strong evidence that it would be used against civilians on East Timor, so they took action and disarmed this plane themselves, after having tried all other possible ways of stopping it from being exported.

I heard about their acquittal in Liverpool Crown Court, and this was very important because it showed that their actions were understood as lawful by a jury. I also met these women and came to know a couple of them well.

It’s my understanding that this plane never was exported to Indonesia and that probably a number of lives were saved because this jet wasn’t available.

How come you focused your attention on the Trident system, Britain’s nuclear weapons?

I had heard about Trident in 1996 and knew they were one of the most powerful weapons in the world, one of them being able to destroy all the major cities in Europe.

Then in 1997 I heard about plans within the peace movement in Britain to work in a focused manner to get the government to disarm Trident and, if that didn’t work, to take action and start the disarmament themselves. They felt this was an urgent task because of all the dangers Trident represent.

The idea with this campaign, TP 2000, was that if a lot of people concentrated their energies on the same thing, then there would be a real possibility of achieving disarmament.

I know the campaign wants to uphold international law. Can you explain that?

Yes, in international law there are several laws that apply to nuclear weapons, e g about what kind of behaviour that is lawful when a country uses force in self-defence (which is the only situation where a country may use force). It is e g illegal to use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets.

When you read these laws it is quite clear that the use of any nuclear weapon would be illegal under international law, and that the use of Trident, which carries warheads 8 times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb, definitely would be illegal.

There was a ruling in the World Court in 1996 concerning NWs, has this influenced the campaign?

Yes, the World Court, which is the court of the United Nations, was asked by the UN General Assembly if the threat or use of NWs would in any circumstance be permitted under international law. The court couldn’t find any circumstance in which this would be lawful. It stated that the threat or use of NWs generally is unlawful, and that the NW states have an obligation to pursue negotiations leading to complete nuclear disarmament.

It’s very serious that Britain isn’t complying with this, so the campaign is an attempt to make the British government follow international law.

When was your own group, Bread not Bombs Ploughshares, formed?

It was in November of –97 that the decision was taken to form the group. During the winter and spring we worked together with people in Britain to set up a structure for the campaign and to initiate a contact with the British government. From May onwards our group met regularly to think and talk about if we ourselves would have to take action to disarm Trident and what this would mean.

Why is the group called Bread not Bombs?

Because we were concerned about how the threat of NWs today is directed mostly against poor countries, and how they in this way help maintain a world order where poor countries are getting poorer and rich countries richer. Also because it’s a crime to spend huge amounts of money on weapons of mass destruction in a world where 30 000 children die of starvation each day.

How did you prepare?

We talked and studied together to learn more about Trident and about the NW policies of Britain. We read a book called "Tactical Trident" by Milan Rai that shows how an important task for the British nuclear weapons is to defend the economic interests of Britain in the world. We also read the Strategic Defence Review from the British government which confirmed this. This task is called the sub-strategic role of Trident, and the vital national interests that Trident is supposed to protect are: investments abroad, trade, the sea routes used by this trade and raw materials from other countries. We were shocked to see that the government openly states this policy since it so clearly is illegal according to the ruling from the World Court.

We also prepared ourselves to take action if the negotiation with the government wouldn’t succeed. More than preparing the practical details, our preparation was about our fears and worries, about creating the community and support needed for us to be able to take action. We talked a lot about the possible consequences of our action, like fear of prison and being separated from our families. We invited our family and friends to discuss our plans with us, to give them a chance to influence our action and to talk about their concerns.

(The Handbook)

As you can see in the handbook on pages … there are several guidelines for the campaign, the most basic of these is the nonviolence. All the groups participating in the campaign have to go through a two day training to ensure that they have the same understanding of nonviolence, and that the actions will be safe. We’re not risking to put anyone in danger.

How did the campaign try to achieve negotiation with the government?

There was, and is still, a Dialogue and Negotiation team within the campaign and they have written several letters to the Prime Minister, to other ministers, to the Armed Forces etc. Since the beginning of 1998 they’ve tried to get a meeting with representatives from the government, without success.

There are as a matter of fact 33 parliamentarians who are members of the campaign.

First of all a meeting, to discuss the legality of Trident. We also had a list of nine realistic requests, e g to take warheads off the missiles, which would reduce the risks considerably. We said that we wouldn’t take any action before August of –98, and that if the government showed they were serious about disarmament, we wouldn’t take action at all.

Sent to the Prime Minister was also a list of names. Who are these people?

They are people, including us, from different countries who have signed a pledge to prevent nuclear crime. We have pledged to, in a peaceful, safe and accountable way, try to disarm the Trident system, if the government fails to do this. This list was also sent to the police, as a part of the openness of the campaign.

In Sweden we officially opened the campaign on the 2^nd of May by publicly stating our intentions, and we also sent our names to the Swedish police for their knowledge. A couple of days later we had a meeting with the British consul in Gothenburg, where we informed him of the campaign. He promised to send the material we gave him, including our pledges, to the British Embassy in Stockholm.

I see here that the handbook of the campaign also was sent to the Prime Minister.

Yes, it was sent to him in March of –98. We wanted to be completely open about who we were and what we were planning to do if the negotiations failed.

There’s another pledge here, what’s that?

(Look in the Handbook.)

Yes, everyone taking part in the campaign also had to sign a Nonviolence and Safety Pledge, promising that they would not harm anyone in any way, and e g not use alcohol or other drugs in relation to the work of the campaign.

When did you come to Britain and what did you do then?

We arrived in Britain in the beginning of August of last year, and first we went to the disarmament camp organized by TP2000 close to the Faslane base in Scotland. We took part in the opening ceremony on the 11^th of August, and in workshops and trainings.

When and why did you decide to go to Barrow?

We learnt sometime during the summer that the 4^th Trident submarine, being constructed in Barrow, was almost ready to be launched. We felt that we had to prevent this, because as soon as it was launched, it would go up to Scotland to get its nuclear weapons. At least, this was what we thought, what happened was that it stayed for a while in Barrow. And as soon as it’s out in the sea, or even at the base in Faslane, it’s much more difficult to reach it to disarm it.

We wanted to prevent those weapons from being deployed, to prevent the crime that it constitutes to threaten to use NW. Also to prevent the risk of accidents, risks that are ongoing when you deploy NWs.

Why did you decide to go on the 13^th of September?

As I’ve said, we wouldn’t take action before the 11^th of August because we wanted to give the government some time to respond to our requests. After that date we still needed some time to prepare before we could go in to VSEL in Barrow. We knew that HMS Vengeance would be launched on the 19^th of September, so it had to be before then.

Can you tell us what happened that night?

Yes. We had been in Barrow few times and looked around at VSEL Shipyard. So we knew about places where we thought we could go in. This night we took a Taxi from Ulverston, and arrived in Barrow between 1 and 1:30 in the morning. Stellan got off at one side of the shipyard, and Ann-Britt and I on the other side. We had decided to split so that there would be a greater chance that someone of us would reach the submarine. Ann-Britt and I went to a housing state adjoining the shipyard, and waited some time in the street there to make sure that no security vehicle was nearby. We then climbed up onto a wall and over the fence into the VSEL area. We slowly walked closer to the hangar where we knew the submarine was. After a while, we reached another fence and we understood that we had to climb that one too to get to the hangar. We did this with the help of a rope ladder.

We were now very close to the water, where the submarine would be rolled out, and around 50 meters from the hangar.

When we looked around the corner of a building, to see how we could proceed, we were discovered by security guards in the area. They, as you have heard, took us to a room where we waited for the police to arrive. We were then taken to the police station.

In the shipyard, in an area called Trident store compound, there was a platform. We started to dismantle this, taking off bolts and putting them on the ground, as a symbolic sign that we want the whole shipyard to be rebuilt for civilian purposes.

What did you bring to the shipyard, and why?

1 Tea and chocolate. We wanted to have something to offer to the guards and/or workers that we would meet, to show them that we came with friendly intentions and that we had nothing against them as persons.

2 Bread. As a symbol of what the world needs instead of weapons.

3 Bible. Because the bible has given me a lot of inspiration to make a stand against violence.

4 Crucifix I wanted to leave the crucifix on the site of the disarmament as a reminder of the nonviolent Jesus.

5 Statements. One personal and one of the group.

6 Books.

TP 2000 Handbook. Because it contains a lot of information on Trident and the importance of disarming this weapon. There is also guidelines of nonviolence and why we act in openness.

Path of Resistance – About how our obedience towards authorities can prevent us from acting to save peoples lives and to protect human rights.

Paul Eskin – About the different threats to our security in today’s world and how weapons, and especially Nuclear Weapons are incapable of giving us securiy.

The Other Half Dies – About our unjust world where the gap between rich and poor widens each day. We brought this because we see the connection between poverty and the military power of Britain and other rich countries.

7 Wrench and screwdriver. I had these tools with me to use if we’d find equipment used in the production of Trident to then dismantle it, instead of hammering on it. Dismantling equipment would be symbolic to show that we wanted the whole shipyard to be rebuilt for civilian purposes.

We had called the shipyard before our action and they had told us that all production in the shipyard was for military purpose. It was important for us not risking to disturb any civilian production.

If you hadn’t been stopped, what would you have done then?

We would have gone to the hangar and there Ann-Britt and I would first go to the tracks on which the submarine would roll out into the water. There we would disable the tracks with crowbar or hammer so that HMS Vengeance wouldn’t be able to roll out.

Then we would have gone in to the hangar and joined Stellan, who would first of all try to get in there. Together we would have hammered on certain parts on the submarine where it was safe to hammer. Authorities and experts had told us in the Trident campaign where it would be safe to hammer. E g the nose, the communication equipment on the conning tower and the propeller. The submarine would then have been disarmed, it would have been incapable of going out in to the sea and be armed with nuclear missiles.

So, what were you intending to do that night?

We intended to prevent a crime from taking place, the crime of deploying and threatening to use weapons that are illegal.

It was above all an attempt to physically prevent that submarine from functioning, but also an act in the hope that we together with other people could achieve complete nuclear disarmament by Britain. If we could stop this submarine then we would have reduced Britain’s nuclear capability with a quarter and by that reduced Britain’s nuclear threat with a quarter, and the risks of accident with a quarter.

But what if the submarine had been repaired in a few months, what good would your action have done then?

Well, we would hope first of all that the government would decide not to repair it, that they’d finally listen to the majority of British people, 59 %, and the majority of the nations in the world. All this people, and all these nations want Britain to disarm Trident once and for all.

If we only could delay the deployment of Trident we would then have delayd HMS Vengeance from being used as a threat. Also, this action has already created dialogue and discussions among a lot of people. We have received letters from more than one thousand people since the action. I have been invited to discuss our action in different places in England and Sweden. Groups have come together to work against Trident, and all this is part of what it will take to finally rid Britain of these weapons.

Why was it necessary to do damage to work for nuclear disarmament?

People have worked against nuclear weapons for decades, in many different ways. This seem to be an area where our democracy doesn’t work. The majority of people in Britain and in the world don’t want nuclear weapons. So, I thought, what methods are left to try? Every possible, peaceful and legal method have been used in the work for disarmament, e g demonstrations, lobbying, peace camps, media work, peace walks.

People have also tried to prosecute e g individuals within the government for nuclear crimes, but failed. No authority would do the investigation.

(I’d like to read a statement from Fred Starkey who has worked a long time with trying to prosecute nuclear crimes: …)

It was the peace movement, together with other movements, that worked to get the World Court to consider the legal status of NWs, but now, after the ruling, the NW states ignore it.

In this situation we, as ordinary people, has a responsibility to disarm these illegal weapons. We can’t let them endanger the future of humanity.

What was the crime you wanted to prevent?

To risk people’s lives with an illegal, highly dangerous weapon.

Trident is illegal in more than one way:

1. It’s illegal because it can’t be used without breaking international law. It’s too powerful, it can’t distinguish between civilians and soldiers e g , it can’t avoid to affect neutral states etc, etc.

2. It’s illegal because Britain is threatening to use it in situations which are not self-defence, e g to defend another country or to defend British vital interests.

3. Britain is flouting the World Court Ruling, and it’s obligation under the Non Proliferation Treaty, by not only retaining NWs but even escalating it’s nuclear capability. Compared with Polaris, the submarines that Trident has replaced, it has three times the range, is far more accurate and can hit three times as many targets.

All of this, plus many other reasons, make me convinced that deploying Trident constitutes a serious crime.

Even if it hadn’t been illegal, I would still have felt obliged to take action against Trident, because of the constant danger to life and humanity that this system represents.

Is it really likely that Britain would use its nuclear weapons?

The government has repeatedly stated a willingness to use NWs. But, it’s important to see that these weapons are being used without being fired. It’s like if someone has a loaded gun and says that he or she is prepared to use it, then this person gets enormous power over other people. To threaten to use NWs is a form of international terrorism, threatening to use violence to secure one’s own interests. And why is there always a Trident submarine on patrol, if not to make clear that it may be used, that other countries should be aware of this?

Why do you say that Trident puts us all in danger?

Because there’s a constant risk of accidents and misunderstandings leading to a catastrophe. There has already been several accidents where radioactive material has damaged the environment and damaged and killed people.

According to General Lee Butler, who has been in charge of all American NWs, it’s a miracle that a global catastrophe hasn’t yet happened. He has also said that the risk for this is increasing.

We must remember that NWs aren’t any ordinary weapons, they have characteristics that no other weapon has:

1. The amount of energy released is at least 1000 times as great as that produced by a powerful non-nuclear weapon.

2. Radiation, in addition to intense heat and light.

3. The substances which remain after an explosion are radio-active.

The radiation destroys the human body in several ways:

Short-term: Haemorrhage, bone marrow damage, damage to the CNS etc…

Long-term: Cancers and keloids.

Genetic damage: Many generations to come will suffer from the radiation released at an explosion, as has happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If we had really listened to the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki I think we would have no NWs today. The stories they tell are so horrible, so scary.

Even if there is no explosion, radiation kill people. There has been leaks of radiation from Trident submarines at sea. There has also been leaks from nuclear plants, e g at Sellafield where plutonium for the Trident warheads was produced. I’m sure that you’ve heard of this, and about the increase in the number of children with leukemia in the surrounding area.

Another thing is that there is still no solution to the problem of nuclear waste. The three main military sites in England produce 750 tonnes of nuclear waste each year and no one know how to dispose of this waste in a safe way. The submarines themselves becomes waste…

Is this kind of action suitable in a democratic society?

When a crime of this dimension is taking place, and so much is at risk, I think that we, as ordinary citizens, have a duty to intervene. The Nuremberg Principles confirm this. If the authorities are preparing for war crimes or crimes against peace, citizens have a responsibility to resist. If not, we become accomplices.

We also have the right, under British law, to use reasonable force in the prevention of crime.

Why did you, as a Swedish citizen, do this in England?

This is a global issue, it concerns everyone on earth. Sweden doesn’t have nuclear weapons, but we are part of the EU, and maybe soon of NATO, so we are closely involved.

The refusal of the British government to disarm increases the instability in the whole world. New countries want to acquire nuclear weapons since Britain and the other nuclear weapons states are determined to keep theirs. This means that the risk for a nuclear disaster increases every day. So, obviously, this is not an issue for the British people only.

Do this kind of actions have any effect?

I am convinced that they have. I know about the campaign in Germany, with similar actions, that succeeded in removing the Pershing missiles from Germany.

Also the US missiles in their bases in England have been removed because of campaigns like this ones.

The women who disarmed the Hawk jet in Warton, both saved lives in East Timor and helped to focus the world’s attention on what is going on in East Timor.

Now with the Trident Ploughshares Campaign I believe there’s a real possibility of achieving nuclear disarmament in Britain.

And meanwhile we would have protected life by disabling one Trident.

How does your christian faith relate to this?

The life of every person is of infinite value. It’s therefore an enormous crime against God and humanity to prepare and plan for massmurder, for the destruction of whole cities.

It is also, I believe, a crime against God to support a world order where 30 000 children die each day. This is also what nuclear weapons do.

I feel that it is my duty as a christian to work for peace and justice, and that nuclear weapons are one of the biggest obstacles to peace and justice in the world.

Is your aim to get publicity?

No, our aim was to prevent the submarine from being launched, to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons.

It’s still important to explain our actions to people, so that more people take action against Trident. Information is important in a democratic society. But this I think can be done in better ways than through the media.

Is your aim to encourage other people to do this?

Yes, to be effective we need to get more people to do the disarmament of Trident. There are four Trident submarines and they are illegal, dangerous and immoral. So, yes, I want to encourage people to do what they can to peacefully and safely disarm Trident, as long as the government doesn’t take this responsibility.

Do you believe that you are entitled to enforce your views on others by damaging property belonging to someone else?

To disarm Trident is not only a view I have, it’s a question of upholding international law. And it’s not about damaging property, but about saving lives by disarming weapons of mass destruction.

These weapons are illegal and immoral – I only acted to prevent crime, the crime of threatening to use nuclear weapons.

Property of this kind, property that only exist for the purpose of killing people, shouldn’t exist at all.

Did you want to be arrested?

We know that we most probably would be arrested, but that was not the purpose of our action. The purpose was to prevent nuclear crime. We thought that it might not be obvious to the police that we had a lawful excuse for doing what we did. Because of the importance of this, we were prepared to risk arrest and prison, which of course was not easy. We needed the support of a lot of people. It is part of our openess to take full responsibility for what we do. Yes, we anticipated that there would, probably, be a trial, but it was obviously not the purpose of our action. It was one of the possible consequences of our action.

I do think this trial is important because it is a forum to discuss the illegality of Trident. To show that we are not the criminals in this case. If the jury will acquit us we can put the government on trial.

Why didn’t you talk to the police at the interview?

We had decided only to give some information about who we were, and to refer to the material that we had with us. E g personal statements, group statement, handbook, books etc. We felt that what we wanted to say at that time was all in the material, and it was also a way for us to reduce the pressure on us in this rather stressful situation.