BASIC NOTES

20 August 2001

Straw Warms to US Missile Defence

By Mark Bromley

On August 1, 2001 the office of Britain's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, sent a briefing paper on US plans for a missile defence system to all 412 Labour Members of Parliament.  The briefing amounts to the strongest backing yet for the controversial scheme from a senior government minister.  Recent press reports also claim that during their July meeting, Prime Minister Tony Blair told President George Bush that that he supports US missile defence plans, but cannot say so publicly for fear of further alienating Labour left-wingers.

The Labour government is giving its clearest indications yet that it supports US missile defence plans and that the possible use of UK based radar facilities will be permitted.  However, the government is missing a key opportunity to influence the Bush administration’s plans.  With strong objections to missile defence being raised in the public debate both in the United States and Britain, Blair has an ideal opportunity to temper what is potentially a deeply destabilising policy choice.

Briefing Omits UK Role
The Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) Briefing Paper addresses a range of issues including the threat posed by ‘rogues states’, limitations of the ABM Treaty, and the perceived failure of recent attempts to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their delivery systems.  On all counts, the paper is widely in accordance with the Bush administration’s position, and in conflict with many in the international community who continue to raise strong objections to the direction Washington is taking.

The briefing downplays possible conflict with both Russia and China, asserts that efforts to control the spread of WMD have widely failed, and implies that missile defences are an essential tool that the United States must employ to ensure its security.  In reality, while some form of agreement with Russia and China is possible, these countries will undoubtedly respond by raising the alert readiness of their nuclear arsenals and developing new and improved weapons.

No mention is made of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which Bush refuses to submit for ratification, nor does it make any mention of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) Protocol, which was recently abandoned by the United States.  Instead, Washington is seeking to remove all restrictions to its military flexibility and intends to move beyond the boundaries of international law.  Missile defence, and its impending collision with the ABM Treaty, is the battering ram being used to bring the system down.  While the current network of arms control agreements are far from perfect, the greatest threat it currently faces is from the United States.

The paper also ignores the possible involvement of UK based radar facilities in a US missile defence system.  In reality, some level of British involvement is already guaranteed.  Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) satellites will detect missile launches and provide initial trajectory information, thus forming an integral part of any future US missile defence system.  While the first SBIRS satellites are not due to be launched until 2005, initial work on a ground relay station at Britain’s Menwith Hill already has been completed, with two new radomes installed earlier this year.

Support for the CTBT and the BWC Protocol are stated British government policy, yet we are now witness to the spectacle of Blair applauding from the sidelines as Bush tears them apart.  Meanwhile, the use of British radar facilities in a US system raises serious strategic implications.  A recent MORI opinion poll demonstrated that 72% of the general public feel that such a step could make Britain a military target, yet no debates or consultations with the public or in Parliament have taken place.

Timing
More unusual still is the timing of the release, surfacing as the missile defence scheme faces its most concerted period of criticism both in Britain and the United States.  The paper was released as US Senate Democrats are becoming increasingly vocal, raising objections to the unilateralist tendencies of the Bush administration.  Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, recently stated that if the Bush administration fails in its current diplomatic efforts to win acceptance for the system, he would use his influence to block the plans.  Principled objections to US missile defence from the UK government at this time would strengthen the hand of Congressional opponents and temper Bush’s plans.

'Special Relationship' Too Close For Comfort
The UK government is clearly in an unenviable position.  Britain’s ability to “punch above its weight” on the world stage is determinate on retention of the Trident nuclear force and its status as number one strategic partner to the United States in matters of trade, intelligence gathering and military technologies.  All of this would be put at risk if London refused to cooperate with Washington on so minor an issue as missile defence.  As Robin Cook’s Special Adviser, David Clarke, wrote recently, “the political imperative has always been to avoid any questions over Labour’s commitment to the special relationship”.

But if the benefits of the ‘special relationship’ can only be retained by aiding and abetting a scheme that will destroy the principles of arms control and spark a new arms race, is it really worth retaining?  Britain has been seeking to “punch above its weight” since the end of the Second World War, but as any boxer will tell you, if you do that for too long you’re liable to get knocked out.  Perhaps it is time Britain dropped down a few divisions, and gave itself the space to offer principled objections on an issue where it is clear the US needs to be reined in.

To read the briefing go to:
UK Government Brief on Missile Defence, including BASIC analysis, 14 August 2001
.

Back to Nuclear and WMD home page

Back to BASIC Publications home page