---

Armed Forces: US Missile Defence

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for giving us the opportunity to debate this vital issue. Listening to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, I am reminded that these debates always take place against the backdrop of whether you are coming from a unilateralist or a multilateralist position. My attitude towards nuclear weapons has gone through the full spectrum, from a totally unilateralist position to one where I recognise that, although I do not like nuclear weapons—I abhor them—they are there. As the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, reminded us, they are an unfortunate reality with which we must deal. That is why I have moved towards a multilateralist position. I listened with interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. Although I share some of his analysis, I feel that his description of Menwith Hill as somewhere that totally serves American interests, or hegemonic American interests, causing us to become Airstrip One—I hope that I am not paraphrasing too wildly—was a little over the top. I was reading the Statement on Menwith Hill. We may not all like it, but I thought that it would be useful to quote from it. It states: "““Also, at RAF Menwith Hill, equipment will be installed and operated by the US Government to allow receipt of satellite warnings of potentially hostile missile launches and will pass this warning data to both UK and US authorities. The data will also be fed into the US ballistic missile defence system for use in its response to any missile attack on the US. This will guarantee the UK’s continued access to essential missile attack warning data, as well as enhancing the ability of the US to deal with any attack aimed at that country””.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/7/07; col. 77WS.]" I do not want to go on, because I am conscious of time. I accept that there may be other uses, which may well be worth a debate, but I thought that it was useful to cite that. I share the view of my noble friend Lord Giddens. I, too, do not like the use of the term ““neocon””, because it introduces into the debate an emotional description that does not take us forward. The attitudes of American Governments are varied and tend to change over time. A number of contributors attacked the system on the basis of whether it would work. Of course, the whole concept of nuclear deterrence was that no one wanted these weapons to work in operation but hoped that they would work as a deterrent. Over a period, I would say that those who argued that it would be an effective deterrent were proved right. All of us in this Chamber remember that we came through a period when we had the wonderful acronym MAD, which meant mutually assured destruction. What a dreadful thought. The unilateralists said that the end of the world would occur if we continued on that course; the multilateralists said that the system would not and that it would prove to be an effective deterrent. Your analysis of history depends on your perspective, but I tend to believe that the multilateralists have been proved right over a period. There are those who have argued that any support for this system has made Russia more belligerent and hostile. I do not think that we can have any debate on the attitude of Russia today without recognising, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, reminded us, that we are in a period when Russia as a nation state is seeking to assert itself on the world stage. It is going through its own electoral cycle, which causes President Putin to make various statements that are, I would say, somewhat over the top but that serve his political purpose. There are those who also allege that this system would mean a loss of UK sovereignty. I do not see that. Like the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I do not believe that our sovereignty is threatened. We are, after all, still NATO partners, a fact that some seem to have almost forgotten. I was interested when the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that going down this road would blight any form of diplomacy—I think that that was the phrase that he used. I have concerns about that issue and I thought that it would be useful to look at the Select Committee report. Paragraph 270 from its 25 November report says: "““At the G8 Summit … President Putin appeared to surprise President Bush by suggesting co-operation on BMD via joint US and Russian use of existing radar facility””." It does not seem to have blighted diplomacy there. Paragraph 271 says: "““In October 2007, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Robert Gates went to Moscow for talks with their Russian counterparts””." The talks have not led to a resolution of the problem, but it is wrong to say that this has blighted any form of diplomacy. I do not think that that is the case. Moreover, situations change. Those who characterise or caricature the American approach as being one that is based only on the military analysis seem to me to ignore the approach that has been taken towards North Korea. We see that as progress that has been achieved through diplomacy. We should not take absolute positions or describe the US as having only one strategy. As a number of people have said, if we are talking about electoral cycles, the US position could change. I share some of the concerns that have been expressed to the Government. I think that the critics who said that there has not been enough transparency and accountability have a point, which it is essential for the Minister to answer in her response. This is going to be a continuing and important debate. In their Statement on 25 July, the Government said: "““We have no plans to site missile interceptors in the UK but will keep this under review as the threat evolves””.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/7/07; col. 77WS.]" I do not mind them keeping it under review but I would like an assurance that there will be a debate before a decision is taken. That is vital. I must declare an interest, which I should have declared at the outset. I am a member of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. If decisions were taken in relation to the siting of missiles et cetera, I would be worried whether that would have an impact on defence expenditure and on our ability to ensure that the Armed Forces are suitably rewarded for their contribution. I think that I have covered the key issues that I wanted to raise. Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. I reiterate the three key points that concern me: the question of transparency and accountability; the ability to debate whether we should participate further on the siting of interception missiles; and the question of financial resources.