---

Armed Forces: US Missile Defence

rose to call attention to the United Kingdom’s commitment to participate in the United States missile defence system, and to the implications of recent negotiations between the United States and other states for the deployment of that system; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the context for this debate is provided by the Government’s commitment to participate in the United States missile defence system, slipped out in a Written Statement one day before Parliament rose last July. Since then, the Government have offered no opportunity to debate this decision in either House; despite the promise that Tony Blair, as Prime Minister, made in the other place last February that: "““We will tell the House as soon as there is something to say. At the moment those discussions are at a very preliminary stage ... When we have a proposition to put, we will come back and put it””." He was forced to say that only because the Economist had just published an article detailing negotiations under way between the UK and the US in Washington, based on Washington sources. Mr Blair also promised that when a decision was made there would be a, "““discussion in the House and, indeed, outside the House””.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/07; col. 919-920.]" No such discussion has yet taken place. We therefore offer the Lords the opportunity to consider Her Majesty's Government’s acceptance that the US will install new equipment at Menwith Hill, in addition to switching on the enhanced radar at RAF Fylingdales, in the hope that the Government will be sufficiently embarrassed to provide a fuller and more detailed justification of their decision, and to grant time for an appropriate debate also in the other place. We are not, as a party, opposed in all circumstances to the concept of missile defence—no more than we are opposed in desperate circumstances to nuclear weapons, dreadful as they are. We are however committed to a multilateral approach to international security and to the development of a treaty-based framework for controlling and reducing the world’s dependence on armaments, most of all nuclear weapons. In the course of the 1970s and 1980s an extensive multilateral framework was constructed for limiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the treaty to ban weapons in outer space and the 1972 bilateral US-Soviet Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. This framework has sadly been significantly weakened over the past seven years by the actions of the Bush Administration. The case for a more determined effort to build a multilateral regime to control fissile materials and to reverse the proliferation of nuclear weapons was strongly argued in an article jointly signed by George Shultz, Bill Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn in the Wall Street Journal on 4 January last year—not a group of lily-livered liberals but hard-headed and experienced American statesmen who recognise that a stronger global framework to end what they called ““the nuclear madness”” is essential. In that context, some precautionary research on the long-term possibilities of missile defence, in case efforts at multilateral regime-building fail, is justifiable—but not a rush to deployment. That was, until 2001, the position of the Labour Government. When the Republican majority in Congress attempted to push President Clinton towards a programme of national missile defence in 1999-2000, Peter Hain, as a Foreign Office Minister, declared: "““I don’t like the idea of a Star Wars programme, limited or unlimited. Unilateral moves by Washington would be very damaging””;" while Geoff Hoon, as Secretary of State for Defence, expressed concern that such a development would breach the ABM treaty, telling the Commons, "““we continue to value the strategic stability that the treaty provides. We want to see it preserved””.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/5/00; col. 312.]" An alternative, unilateral approach to missile defence has been a core element of the ideology of the American Republicans for the past 30 years, supported vigorously by the companies that form America's military-industrial complex and which have benefited so well from the enormous expenditure on the Star Wars programme over the years. When President Reagan promoted the strategic defence initiative in the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher, to her great credit, used her personal relationship with him to insist that the SDI programme must remain compatible with existing arms control agreements, including the ABM treaty. After the Cold War ended, the programme was scaled back, and scaled back further when the Democrats under Clinton recaptured the White House. But neo-conservatives and other believers in American exceptionalism kept the faith and declared their willingness to tear up arms control treaties to achieve it. This is, after all, an essential part of the project for a new American century: to establish global American hegemony behind a secure missile shield, unconstrained by treaties or by unreliable allies. The Rumsfeld Commission in 1998 encouraged the Republican Congress to push national missile defence forward; and the US Air Force Space Command, for which much of the additional funding was provided, developed proposals for the potential militarisation of outer space in response, which would break another pillar of the arms control regime. It is astonishing how completely our Labour Government—a supposedly progressive Government committed in principle to international law, multilateral institutions and the limitation of armaments—have since caved in to the neo-conservative Bush agenda. In February 2001, Prime Minister Blair told Forbes magazine that the missile defence issue needed to be marked ““handle with care”” in Washington. By the autumn of 2002, the MoD, in a public discussion paper, cautiously indicated: "““The Government will agree to a US request for the use of UK facilities for missile defence only if we believe that doing so enhances the security of the UK and the NATO alliance””." In January 2003, Mr Hoon announced that Her Majesty’s Government had agreed to upgrading the Fylingdales radar, telling the Commons that this, "““should be considered as a discrete proposition. It does not commit us in any way to any deeper involvement in missile defence””.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/03; col. 697.]" He did, however, admit to Sir Menzies Campbell that the Government had not discussed this decision with any of our major European partners—so much for ensuring that it would strengthen the NATO alliance. Over the past few months the German Government in particular have asked for much more multilateral discussion about the current proposed deployment of US missile defence across Europe, but the British Government have not responded to the German Government on that. In January 2003, in recognising that there were some arguments for upgrading Fylingdales, the Commons Defence Committee said: "““Further steps down the path towards a UK missile defence capability, however, will require a more robust justification couched more directly in terms of our own national interest. Future upgrades will have to be judged on their merits at the time””." Amid persistent rumours that the Government were negotiating with Washington for a major role in the US system, Des Browne assured the Commons as late as April last year that: "““The UK has received no request from the US to use RAF Menwith Hill for missile defence-related activities””.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/4/07; col. 162W.]" That must have been a misleading statement. Formal letters on the use of Menwith Hill were exchanged only two months later, although Parliament was not informed for several more weeks to avoid embarrassment to the Government. Noble Lords may not be familiar with the exact status of Menwith Hill. I have a particular interest because this American base is sited on the ridge between Wharfedale and Nidderdale, and I see its multiple sensors and radars on the horizon—in their giant golfball cladding—every time I walk up from Saltaire onto Ilkley Moor. Unlike Fylingdales, which is operated by the RAF, Menwith Hill is under American control. It is a field station of the US National Security Agency. It has been described as the largest electronic monitoring station in the world. Between 1,500 and 2,000 US nationals from various agencies work at the base. Contacts in Harrogate council tell me that numbers rose by several hundred in the months after September 11 2001, although that was unreported to the British Parliament. I hope that the Minister can enlighten us on the exact status of this base. As I understand it, it was granted to the United States under a bilateral exchange of letters in December 1951, and a 21-year lease was confirmed by a further exchange of letters in 1955. In 1976, when the first 21-year period was up, the Pentagon admitted that it had lost the original exchange of letters. Nevertheless, the MoD granted a further 21-year occupation until 1997. In February 1997, Nicholas Soames, as a Conservative Minister, stated: "““There is one security of tenure agreement applicable solely to RAF Menwith Hill. No leases have ever been granted to the US authorities””." He went on to say that, "““there are no plans, nor is there any requirement, to renew the arrangements at RAF Menwith Hill””.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/97; cols. 118-19.]" Nevertheless, the base is still very much there, serving American interests on British soil. Noble Lords will remember the European Parliament inquiry several years ago which investigated the Echelon programme when it was said that Americans were being allowed to listen in on European communications and to feed back commercial as well as security information to the US authorities and the companies with which they had close relationships. The British Government at the time had no comment to make on these investigations. My good friend Norman Baker MP has tried without success through successive parliamentary questions to discover exactly what the terms are under which the US NSA now occupies and operates this base. Over the coming months we will hear a great deal in both Houses and in the British press about the limitations to British sovereignty involved in ratifying the EU reform treaty. But the abandonment of British sovereignty involved in the operation of Menwith Hill—and of course also in the more distant Diego Garcia—presents a far deeper incursion into British sovereignty than anything the EU has to offer. The ministerial Statement of 25 July 2007 stated clearly that, "““at RAF Menwith Hill, equipment will be installed and operated by the US Government [to feed data] ... into the US ballistic missile ... system for use in their response to any missile attack on the US””.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/7/07; col. 71WS.]" This is Britain as ““Airstrip One”” for a hegemonic USA, not the basis for a co-operative partnership among allies. It seems appropriate that Menwith Hill should have appeared in a slide map presented by an official from the US Missile Defence Agency to the WEU Assembly in December last year in military newspeak as the ““UK situational awareness node””. An even clearer indication of Labour’s subservience to the Rumsfeld-Cheney agenda was the Defence Secretary’s use of the term ““rogue states”” in his 25 July Statement in order to explain ““the emerging threat”” which this US system is intended to counter. Do the Government really believe that there are states beyond the reach of international pressure or diplomacy that presently constitute existential threats—an axis of evil against which only a military response is possible? In January 2003 Mr Hoon justified the upgrading of Fylingdales in terms of the threat from Iraq, but the threat was then defeated and discovered to be rather insubstantial. Some Washington policy makers then were more focused on North Korea; but the United States has, sensibly, shifted towards a multilateral effort to contain North Korea through sanctions and negotiations. Libya used to be on the list; but successful British and American diplomacy has persuaded Libya to dismantle its nuclear programme. Now it is Iran which is called on to justify the project, assumed to remain an implacable enemy over the 10 to 20 years needed to get the system up and running and justify its cost. Why has there been so little public concern about this in Britain so far? Well, the Conservatives have given their unconditional support to this neo-conservative project, so also giving the Government a free pass from proper parliamentary scrutiny. William Hague, the MP for a constituency that neighbours on Menwith Hill as well as Conservative foreign affairs spokesman, replied to one of his own constituents last October with the robust declaration: "““Conservatives are fully supportive of the principle of a Missile Defence system in Europe, which, as you say, includes the facility at Menwith Hill ... We encourage future cooperation with the United States on defence and security related issues””." We might expect the Conservatives to support this essentially Republican project, even if it marks a sad retreat from the traditional Tory support for multilateralism and international institutions. What is extraordinary is that the Labour Party has been so silent on this betrayal by its own Government of traditional internationalist principles. In the American presidential campaign, it has been Rudy Giuliani and John McCain who have made missile defence a major theme in their campaigns. Both of them have made it clear that they see the system as aimed at containing Russia as well as emerging nuclear states, and that they do not care if further development worsens our already difficult relations with Putin’s Russia. But, as my noble friend Lady Williams will argue later, we need Russia as a partner in strengthening the global arms control regime, and in tightening controls over trade in fissile materials and nuclear components. The Economist story last February reported, on good authority, that our then Prime Minister, with the support of our then Chancellor, was pressing the American Administration to station not only sensors, radars and communications networks in Britain, but also missile interceptors. In the event, Washington chose to place the interceptors in Poland rather than in Britain, with additional radar facilities in the Czech Republic. A change of government in Poland has since thrown this in doubt, with the robustly right-wing Polish foreign minister, Radek Sikorski, bluntly stating, "““this is an American, not a Polish project””," which jeopardises Polish relations with Russia unnecessarily. On 8 October, the Daily Telegraph reported that the British Government were still pursuing negotiations for closer involvement; that—quoting a Foreign Office spokeswoman— "““missile defence would be one of Sir Nigel Sheinwald’s top priorities””" when he took up his post as UK ambassador in Washington; and that the likeliest site for a UK missile interceptor base would be at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk. Well, at least that makes a change from placing everything in Yorkshire. Can the Minister possibly assure us that in the event of the new Polish Government declining to accept these missiles, the Government will not leap into the gap to accept them instead? Foreign Minister Sikorski raised another query about current US plans in his interview last week, reported in Monday’s International Herald Tribune. He said that, "““he was worried that the United States could abandon the project after the American presidential election in November””," leaving Poland to carry the costs of a deterioration in relations with Russia without any gain in longer-term security. The same fate could of course meet our Labour Government, to find themselves—after years of subordinating their principles to Republican unilateralism—faced with a Democratic President who thankfully prefers a multilateral course. I, for one, hope that that indeed will be the outcome. But in the mean time, this House, and this Parliament, deserves a much fuller justification from the Government of the commitments on the use of British soil for US missile defence than they have given over the years. The British public deserve that explanation, too. I beg to move for Papers.