The November 2 edition of the London newspaper The Independent on Sunday revealed the role of a British government-owned company in making nuclear weapons for the U.S. armed forces.

It is sheer hypocrisy for Britain and the United States to be developing a new generation of nuclear weapons while at the same time making strenuous efforts to prevent other countries from gaining access to nuclear technology meant for peaceful purposes.

The weekly warns that the company's joint venture to make battlefield nuclear weapons, dubbed micro-nukes, prompts fears for the future of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which is a cornerstone of efforts to promote world peace and stability.

This has raised the concerns of the international community, which still has bitter memories of how the United States arrogantly withdrew from other important international treaties, such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court (ICC), with no thought of the repercussions.

British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) is aiming to make millions of pounds helping U.S. President George W. Bush build his controversial new generation of "battlefield" nuclear weapons, according to the report published by The Independent on Sunday.

The weekly reported two weeks ago that British Energy Minister Stephen Timms would be visiting Japan to try to persuade it to end a four-year ban on buying nuclear fuel containing plutonium from the company.

The two developments severely undermine the British government's professed position on preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the rationale behind both the Iraq war and the intense diplomatic efforts to hinder Iran’s civilian nuclear program.

The Savannah River plant, which has been producing weapons-grade plutonium for nuclear bombs, now is involved in the actual production of the weapons.

Last year the White House revealed in its Nuclear Posture Review that it wished to develop smaller battlefield nuclear devices which could destroy reinforced bunkers where chemical or biological weapons are stored.

Strategists believe that these relatively low-yield weapons would pose a more credible deterrent to rogue states, as the U.S. would be more willing to use them than traditional nuclear weapons, which produce much more widespread damage.

But experts also warn that production of such weapons could be interpreted as a violation of the NPT and might lead to a new arms race.

Up to now, there has been no debate or discussion about BNFL's role in Britain. But the revelation that a company wholly owned by the government is involved in efforts to develop such controversial new nuclear weapons has sparked fury among MPs. Labour MP Llew Smith, who is to table a series of questions on the issue this week, said, "For BNFL to be using British taxpayers' money for boosting Bush's bombs is nothing short of scandalous." Liberal Democrat Party environment spokesman Norman Baker added, "It is outrageous that a publicly owned British company can do this with no discussion in the UK. They seem keener to build bombs for Bush. The public are not likely to support BNFL's role in making American bombs. They are even less likely to support a government that won't come clean on this issue."

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has repeatedly stated that terrorists would make and use nuclear bombs if they could only get hold of plutonium. But he approved BNFL's plans to make and export mox fuel only a few weeks after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, despite warnings from ministers of the dangers.   Political experts say the manufacture of the ultramodern nuclear weapon by the British government for the U.S. will trigger another arms race among nuclear powers such as Russia, China, and France. Maybe this is the reason why the French government has decided to reevaluate its nuclear doctrine.

British officials, and Tony Blair in particular, pretended to be die-hard advocates of the NPT in the case of the recent dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.

However, it is clear that the arrogant world powers, namely Britain and the U.S., seek to monopolize both civilian and military nuclear technology, but expect other countries to be denied access to that technology, even when it is meant for peaceful purposes. Why is a joint venture with a controversial, British government-owned company as a partner lobbying to build parts for a weapons program which could cause the collapse of the NPT, leading to global instability?