The “Special Relationship” and the missile defense debate in Britain

By Nigel Chamberlain
Global Beat Syndicate

LONDON—British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon spent the first two years of the millennium acting like a club bouncer to prevent any substantive debate in parliament on missile defense. He reasoned that any debate would be premature, because the Bush administration had not made a formal request for the use of Fylingdales radar station to help protect the American homeland.
Then, rather surprisingly, in the autumn of 2002, a U.S. Missile Defense Agency official said this was basically a “done deal.” Either someone neglected to inform Britain of that, or the pending invasion of Iraq delayed an official announcement.
The formal request finally did arrive—on Dec. 17, 2002—and was formally agreed to on Feb. 5, 2003, just eight weeks and a Christmas recess later.
The Bush administration is determined to have some missile interceptor batteries deployed at Fort Greely in Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California before the presidential election in November. Work at Fylingdales to support these batteries is due to start this month. The Boeing Corporation has been awarded the $111 million contract for the upgrade. Planning authorization from the North Yorkshire Moors National Parks Authority was deemed unnecessary.
In his parliamentary statement of December 17, 2002, Geoff Hoon said, “The decision on Fylingdales upgrade is an important one, and the [British] government is keen for it to be informed by public and Parliamentary discussion. We shall ensure that this House has appropriate opportunities to debate the issue in the new year.”
The House of Commons Defense Committee had a different, rather stronger view: “The Committee strongly regrets the way in which the issue has been handled by the Government [which] has shown no respect for either the views of those affected locally by the decision or for the arguments of those opposed to the upgrade in principle.”
Ultimately, there was no substantive debate on missile defence in British Parliament 2003. The Iraq war, the battle between government and the BBC, the death of Dr Kelly and the Hutton Inquiry all intervened.
Now, time has come for the “Big Conversation.” The British-U.S. “Special Relationship” is about to come under serious scrutiny in Parliament and in the British media.
“We should have the confidence to open up the debate, be honest about the challenges, lay out the real choices,” Prime Minister Tony Blair declared recently.
Among the key items will be the “missile defence debate gap.”
Besides upgrading the radar facilities at Fylingdales, the U.S. Missile Defence Agency has extensive plans for a range of high-tech space weaponry for “the fourth medium of warfare” and the agency is not waiting for the go-ahead from Geoff Hoon. The Menwith Hill communications station, run by the U.S. National Security Agency, is already being developed to facilitate the deployment of space-based weapons—without any parliamentary oversight.
The Bush administration has used the very real threats of global terrorism and weapons proliferation to plan the deployment of many new weapons systems and new technologies, from ground and sea-based interceptors (some to be based in Europe) to new sensors on land, at sea and in space. The British government has given every impression that it intends to go along with this U.S.-led agenda. Now, British opinion leaders in national security affairs, in and out of government, are insisting that the impact of missile defense deployment gets serious debate before Britain commits to what may, as on expert puts it, “turn out to be the 21st century equivalent of the Maginot Line.”
Many questions need to be asked and answered openly and honestly; so far, the Blair government has given every impression of not wanting to engage in serious debate on these crucial issues.
Britain is likely to hold general election of its own next year. It is important for the country, and for our special relationship with the United States, for all British political parties to develop clear positions on missile defense—and the many important issues related to it.