 |
|
Sir Menzies Campbell |
BRITAIN'S right-wing press, politicians and commentators have an unshakeable
habit of working themselves into a fury about power-sharing in Europe.
They see themselves as the great defenders of British sovereignty against the
political ambitions of our continental partners.
Yet those same people remain largely silent over the transfer of British
sovereignty in crucial areas of national security to the United States.
In a three-paragraph written statement slipped out in July, just one day
before Parliament rose – and almost completely unnoticed by the press – the
Defence Secretary announced that the Government is permitting the US
administration to install additional equipment at Menwith Hill, in Yorkshire,
to support its unproven missile defence system.
There has been no public debate in Britain about the desirability, or
workability of missile defence, let alone about the strategic assumptions that
underpin it. The American programme has suffered from successive test failures
and critical Congressional reports over the past 20 years.
The political will to persevere with it has been driven as much by industrial
as military priorities. Its original justification was to defend America
against China; now it is said that it will protect against Iran, depicted in
Washington as an implacable, long-term enemy.
Des Browne's statement swallows the neo-conservative terminology of the
Republican right, declaring that "the Government welcomes US plans… to address
the growing threat from rogue states".
Even Tony Blair hesitated to apply the label of "rogue state" to all those the
Bush Administration labelled as beyond the limits of international diplomacy.
Commendably, the Blair Government worked with the US and others to bring Libya
back within acceptable rules of international order.
After several years of hardline rhetoric against North Korea – the world's
clearest example of a state run by people who reject the norms of civilised
behaviour both towards their neighbours and towards their own citizens – the
Bush Administration is not only negotiating with them but even offering
economic assistance in return for co-operation.
While attacking Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, for
falling short of its treaty obligations, Washington is offering non-signatory
India a nuclear partnership which some say threatens to undermine the entire
non-proliferation regime.
The exceptional depth of American hostility towards Iran is rooted in the
ideology of a "long war" between the West and Islam, in which Iran has now
replaced Iraq as the prime sponsor of anti-Western terrorism and Islamic
fundamentalism. The US approach to the complex international politics of the
Middle East is mistaken. The British government should resist aligning this
country with that approach.
Those in power in Iran are hardline nationalists with deeply unattractive
views and close links to Hezbollah and Hamas, but they are effective at
exploiting Anglo-Saxon hostility to bolster their position against domestic
critics.
Without some co-operation with Iran, the restoration of stable government in
southern Afghanistan will prove impossible; the Iranian government has, after
all, assisted efforts to contain the Taliban at crucial points over the past
five years.
The current drift of US Iraq policy towards supporting Sunnis against Shias,
and bolstering Saudi and Israeli national interests, does not provide a
short-cut towards a stable
Middle East region. Britain's invitation to the Saudi king
to make a state visit this
autumn signals support for the US-Saudi alliance in the Middle East, as well
as commitment to BAE's biggest arms export customer. Liberal Democrats will
press the Government to challenge their guests on Saudi support for Sunni
fundamentalism; the evidence on suicide bombers and al-Qaida terrorists in
Iraq, for example, suggests that many more have crossed the Saudi frontier
than have entered from Iran.
Meanwhile, our government allows the continuation of American enclaves on
British soil, protected from Parliamentary scrutiny or public debate. Menwith
Hill is effectively outside the control of British authorities, with Ministry
of Defence police patrolling only the outside perimeter.
In the months after the 9/11 attacks of 2001, numbers of US personnel there
rose sharply, unreported to the UK Parliament. There are other US intelligence
and early-warning bases around the country, which also primarily serve
American interests rather than British.
Later this month, RAF Fylingdales will switch on its upgraded radar. Des
Browne has announced that it "will contribute to the US ballistic missile
system, alongside a global network of other US-owned sensors".
"The UK," he added, "will have full insight into the operation of the US
missile defence system when missile engagements take place that are wholly or
partly influenced by data from the radar at Fylingdales."
This amounts to a pledge of information post-event, but no part in any
decision on how to respond or under what assumptions and instructions.
Parliamentary scrutiny is denied or obstructed in the name of national
interest. It is inconceivable that if circumstances were reversed, the US
Congress would tolerate such limitations on its powers. The British Parliament
seems supine in comparison.
Those who defend against the infringement of British sovereignty should take
note of this issue, rather than battering at the compromises British Ministers
make in European negotiations. Labour and the Conservatives, in cosy
consensus, justify the use of UK bases as extra-territorial enclaves that
serve American ends.
The drive towards missile defence in Washington is driven by a mixture of
industrial and military interests, and the identification of Iran as an
existential enemy of the West. The British Parliament has the duty to question
whether such motivations are compatible with British national interests.
|
