Britain's special relationship with the United States may not be worth maintaining if it means having to support President Bush's national missile defense system.
By Mark Bromley
LONDON -- On August 1, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw sent a briefing paper to parliament, outlining Whitehall's support for the Bush administation's national missile defence system. The paper follows Prime Minister Tony's Blair's meeting with President Bush in July, when Blair reportedly pledged Britain's support for the missile defense scheme in private, explaining he could not say so publicly for fear of alienating Labor left-wingers.
With the distribution of the briefing paper, those fears appear to have disappeared. In Straw's strongest backing yet for the controversial scheme, the paper once more underscores Britain's role as America's most reliable strategic ally and opens the way for the possible use of British- based radar facilities as part of the missiles defense system.
But by reflexively falling in line behind Bush, Blair is ignoring both British and American public objections to the missile defense plan and passing up an opportunity to influence what is potentially a deeply destabilizing policy choice.
The briefing paper hues closely to the Bush administration's positions on the limitations of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the perceived failure of recent attempts to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Like Washington, the paper downplays possible conflict with both Russia and China, buying into the claim that the United States must develop and deploy missile defenses to ensure its security against the threat posed by "rogue states",.
In reality, while some form of agreement with Russia and China is possible, these countries will undoubtedly respond by raising the readiness of their nuclear arsenals and developing new and improved weapons.
The paper makes no mention of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT), which Bush refuses to submit for ratification. Nor does
it mention of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) Protocol,
which the United States recently abandoned. Support for these
two arms control pillars are declared British government policy.
Yet we are now witness to the
spectacle of Blair applauding from the sidelines as Bush tears
them apart.
The paper also glosses over the involvement of British based radar facilities in a US missile defense system. That involvement will take the form of ground stations that will relay information from Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) satellites. These satellites will detect missile launches and provide initial trajectory information, thus forming an integral part of any future US missile defense 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.
The use of British radar facilities as part of a US missile defense system raises serious political and strategic implications. Recent opinion polls show that nearly three-quarters of the British public feel such a step could make Britain a military target. Yet no debates or consultations with the public or in Parliament have taken place.
The timing of the paper's release also raises suspicions. It surfaced as Democrats leaders in the U.S. Senate prepared to return to Washington this fall to debate funding for the missile plan. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, has said that if the Bush administration fails in its current diplomatic efforts to win acceptance for the system, he will use his influence to block the plans. A principled and timely --British objection to US missile defense could strengthen the hand of Congressional opponents and temper Bush's plans.
The UK government is clearly in an unenviable position. Britain's ability to "punch above its weight" on the world stage depends largely on its special relationship with the United States in strategic matters. All this would be put at risk if London refused to cooperate with Washington on missile defense.
But if the benefits of the special relationship only can 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 the Americans need to be reined in.
Mark Bromley is an analyst with British American Security Information Council.(Copyright 2001, Global Beat Syndicate, 418 Lafayette Street, Suite 554, New York, NY 10003 http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate).