George W Bush’s National Missile Defence plans are facing growing opposition in the Labour Party as well as from the peace movement and public opinion. There are growing signs that the issue may prove contentious at October’s party conference. A series of statements, most recently by Jack Straw, have indicated ministerial sympathy to the US plan, suggesting that British support for NMD has been promised. The problem for ministers, however, is that opinion in the party and the wider public is going in entirely the opposite direction. The Commons’ Early Day Motion against NMD tabled by Malcolm Savidge MP has now received support from more than half of Labour MPs, senior officials from 16 trade unions urged the government not to support NMD in an open letter earlier in the summer, and opinion polls now show five to one opposition to the plans. Against this backdrop rumours are circulating of ministerial attempts to sidestep a debate at party conference. A short paragraph in the Britain and the World ‘delivery document’ — to be put to conference — states: ‘we understand the role that missile defence systems can play as one element of a comprehensive strategy.’ Below MALCOLM SAVIDGE MP explains why the government must reject Bush's Star Wars plan.

Jack Straw’s intervention into the discussion around Star Wars, through both an email briefing sent from his office and statements directly from the Foreign Secretary, was deeply worrying.Why? Because they may well signal the attempt by the Labour leadership to use the parliamentary recess to railroad through a crucial policy change without any proper discussion in the party.

Such a change — to explicitly endorse US National Missile Defence plans — is being urged by no section of the Labour Party membership. It comes direct from the right of the US Republican Party. George Bush’s justification for missile defence is as protection against nuclear missile attack from a ‘rogue state’. This is a ‘risk’ which even the British Ministry of Defence, looking ahead 30 years, rates as ‘very low’. Evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee indicated the threat had been vastly hyped in the US, driven more by political and commercial interests than strategic analysis.

Last September I attended a seminar organised by one of these, the Heritage Foundation. It was mostly a coming together of the far right of both the Republican and Tory parties. Instructively, British speakers included Iain Duncan Smith and David Davis. In their world view, by implication, countries seek to acquire rockets and weapons with the primary intention of attacking America. ‘Rogue states’ have ‘irrational leaders’ who are impervious to deterrence. There is no recognition that even insane despots are unlikely to seek nuclear annihilation. Therefore, these Americans are committed to urgently developing a multi-layered shield — land, air, sea and space-based.

That this could undermine the whole framework of international agreements is not seen as a disadvantage. Some members of the Bush administration caricature the ABM Treaty as a 30 years out-of-date relic of the Cold War. Some members of the Bush administration could be called 30 years out-of-date relics of the Cold War.

The Treaty is no longer the exclusive concern of the US and Russia. Firstly, all nations at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Review Conference last year gave a commitment to ‘strengthening the ABM Treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions in offensive weapons’. If the world’s major super-power disregards treaties why should others conform?

‘No Prime Minister should sacrifice British interests and world safety to appease a particular US President with a questionable mandate’ Secondly China cannot be ‘left out of the loop’. China knows it is the real adversary envisaged by extreme Star Wars advocates. If China is driven to excessive nuclear expansion, that will encourage wider proliferation.

Proponents of Star Wars talk about ‘protecting US cities and families’. Yet, unless the technology proves infallible, those US cities and families — and US allies — might find themselves in greater jeopardy. Star Wars could increase the threat of catastrophic accidents. Other nuclear weapons states could be motivated to go on to hair-trigger alert through fear of a strike by the USA. The weaponisation of space looms.

The potential danger of Star Wars Two is that, in seeking to reduce a comparatively remote threat, the US could indirectly contribute to increasing greater risks: regional nuclear war; terrorism; proliferation; a renewed nuclear arms race; missiles launched through accident.

Individual national invulnerability may sound tempting, but it is unattainable. Increasingly, security for any nation depends on the security of all nations.

There are divisions on NMD in all British political parties. The Liberal Democrats are against NMD, yet Paddy Ashdown has argued in favour.

Conservative leadership contender Iain Duncan Smith persuaded the party to adopt a pro-NMD stance. However, last year the Foreign Affairs Select Committee unanimously commended the Prime Minister’s approach of seeking to take account of US fears ‘in a way that does not put at risk the substantial progress that has been made on nuclear disarmament over the past few years’. They were not convinced that missile defence was ‘an appropriate response’ and recommended ‘that the government encourages the USA to seek other ways of reducing the threat it perceives’.

‘growing numbers of people are increasingly worried that involving Fylingdales and Menwith Hill will make Britain a sitting target’ Furthermore, so far 276 MPs have signed my motion supporting that conclusion, including 216 of the 412 members of the Parliamentary Labour Party — a massive majority since only backbenchers can sign.

It is disturbing that Bush and others can represent Tony Blair as supporting Star Wars. Growing numbers of people are deeply worried that involving Fylingdales and Menwith Hill will make Britain a sitting target. This is borne out by opinion polls. Mori has shown opposition to Star Wars is five to one. The International Herald Tribune in August showed there was overwhelming opposition in Britain and other European countries to the US breaching the ABM Treaty, and now opposition in the United States as well, by a small majority. Indeed Republican supporters of NMD have been reduced to citing very out of date polls in attempts to pretend support for their plans.

The conclusion is clear. No Prime Minister should sacrifice British interests and world safety to appease a particular US President with a questionable mandate and an uncertain future.

• Global Day of Action Against US bases 13 October. Details: contact CND 020 7700 2393
• London CND Conference Against Star Wars — Saturday 20 October 10.30 – 5 pm Essex Hall, Essex St, London (tube: Temple) Speakers include: Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, Alice Mahon MP, Jeremy Corbyn MP, Caroline Lucas MEP, trade unionists, campaigners and international speakers
• OKBLOCK — 7am Monday 22 October Building on the success of the Big Blockade in February, Scottish CND, British CND and Trident Ploughshares are organising another major blockade of Faslane Trident nuclear submarine base. Contact Scottish CND for leaflets and details www.cndscot.dial.pipex.com or 0141 423 1222.