|
25 March 2005 |
|
http://www.etaiwannews.com/Opinion/2005/03/25/1111723232.htm |
|
The Bush administration's cherished missile defense program has gone badly off course. A working system was due to be deployed by the end of 2004, but there is still no sign of it. In February, an interceptor missile that would in theory destroy a missile targeted on the United States failed to launch at Kwajalen Atoll in the Pacific Ocean. Lieutenant General Trey Obering, head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, saw the failure as typical of any weapon still in development and said it was simply a case of having "rust that we have got to get out of the system." In its 2006 budget, the White House plans to spend US$8.8 billion "rust remover" for its ballistic missile defense program in 2006, and to further oil the parts, is reducing congressional oversight of the project. Leaving aside the mammoth waste of more than US$80 billion in U.S. tax dollars since 1985, what does any of this have to do with Britain? For one thing, UK-based facilities will be crucial to a functioning U.S. system, specifically the communication base at Menwith Hill and the radar facility at Fylingdales, both in northeast England. Second is the question of whether we should directly participate in the U.S. program. Remarkably, the Blair government seems determined to make both decisions without parliamentary scrutiny or public debate. Bilateral collaboration, meantime, quietly grows apace: Britain's elusive Missile Defense Center continues to facilitate scientific and commercial links with its U.S. counterpart; meanwhile, Defense Minister Geoff Hoon remains defiantly tight-lipped about the whole matter. The most recent bilateral agreement on missile defense, signed last October in London, proposes "joint development of defense options" and "the extension of the U.S. system to make missile defense capabilities available for the UK ... for the purpose of harmonizing the participants' ballistic missile defense requirements." Parliamentary records for 2004 reveal a paucity of debate on missile defense debate. What limited information so far in public domain has been handed out grudgingly. Hoon's replies to parliamentary questions are curt, evasive and dismissive. No clear answers In contrast, General Obering has said that he wants to base at least 10 interceptor missiles in Europe within the next five years and says Britain is in the running to host them. Although the British government has denied having agreed to take an interceptor battery, the defense ministry has admitted to discussions. Minister Hoon has said, "Any decision on the siting of interceptor missiles in the United Kingdom would be open to scrutiny and debate in the normal way." What scrutiny? What debate? What passes for the "normal way?" Officially, no decision has been taken on whether we will, at some stage, procure missile defense systems for Britain, but there have been discussions and feasibility studies within the confined circles of NATO that are not reported to national parliaments nor released for public comment. Military units in Britain and America tasked with missile defence systems will, it seems, manage "all missile defence efforts." But we are not informed what that might amount to. Evidence clearly suggests that there will be missile defence for the UK and Europe at some stage, with obvious policy and financial implications at stake for the prime minister and the defence, foreign and finance ministers. We have a general election here soon. Our opposition parties have failed to get information from the ruling Labour Party. In sum, the positions of the Conservative and Liberal Democrats on missile defence remain unclear and the Labour Party is studiously opaque on the matter. In contrast, after a vigorous, far-reaching debate in Canada, Prime Minister Paul Martin recently decided to opt out of any further involvement in the U.S. missile defence system. Martin reversed his position amid strong opposition from backbench Canadian MPs and opinion polls showing the system to be unpopular among voters. Surely, a similarly vigorous missile defence debate is appropriate in the UK before the decisions are made. The upcoming general election campaign might be just the time to ask those questions. But judging by recent and past government performance, do not expect clear or concise answers. Nigel Chamberlain is an information officer with British American Security Information Council in London.
|
|
|
