US Seeks to Update NMD to Ensure Participation of its Allies

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

US Seeks to Update NMD to Ensure Participation of its Allies

United States, Poland Signal Support for Maximum NATO Enlargement

Solidarity Events with Colombian People

The United States changed the title of its National Missile Defence programme title to Ballistic Missile Defence over a year ago in hopes of gaining support from its allies, who saw the programme as serving US imperialist interests and conflicting with their own big power interests. The Bush administration will now embark on a round of official visits next month to NATO member states and Asia to discuss the possibility of co-operation. According to a Washington Post article, topics for discussion will include basing rights for radars and interceptor missiles, as well as contracts for European defence companies.

Washington hopes to include as many European and Asian allies as possible in the effort, though the initial focus appears to be on enlisting London and Moscow’s support. According to a report from Global Security Newswire (GSN), the United States hopes to employ Britain’s new Type 45 destroyers in the missile defence system, though no formal request has been made to British officials. GSN also reports that Russia is interested in developing low-yield nuclear warheads for use on missile interceptors.

The US plans to request the use of British naval warships to develop a US missile defence system under the guise that the programme could also be used to defend Britain, it was reported a few weeks ago.

Top US Defence Department officials are expected to travel to London later this month to request British co-operation in constructing a missile defence system, The Times has reported. The proposed system would employ new destroyers currently under construction as early warning ships that could also be armed with missile interceptors, according to The Times.

Britain's new Type 45 destroyers, which are expected to be operational in five years, could be used to track incoming ballistic missiles and possibly to destroy them, according to Ministry of Defence officials.

"The Type 45 and its radar system can be developed to play a part (in missile defence)," said Ralph Dunn, spokesman for the British Defence Procurement Agency. "The missile we have is designed to shoot down low- and medium-level incoming missiles, but an anti-tactical ballistic missile could be added."

British officials are still waiting for a formal US request for the use of the destroyers and for notification that Britain would be protected by the system, according to The Times. A spokesman for the Conservative Party has said the British government is hiding its involvement in the US missile defence programme.

"It is time for the defence secretary or even the prime minister to make a statement to Parliament about the government’s missile defence policy and why they are hiding it from the public and their own party," Conservative Defence spokesman Bernard Jenkin said.

Meanwhile, Russia and Ukraine might also help the US develop a missile defence system, said Russian Maj. Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin, senior chair for the centre for the problems of strategic nuclear forces. One example of possible co-operation between the three countries is the use of the Russian-Ukrainian-developed Dnepr rocket to install a system of satellite sensors in space, he said.

"Co-operation is needed for eliminating the uncertainty," Dvorkin said. "We have to co-operate to prevent another round of confrontation."

The "Third Way" on Missile Defence

There is no single European view on the rationale for missile defence. Statements by European politicians, defence and foreign policy analysts, and media commentators differ greatly, even compared with the opinions of their own parliamentarians and public sentiment.

The flourishing of "centre-right" parties is seen, however, as heralding a more supportive climate in many European capitals for US proposals on missile defence.

Despite this, there is widespread recognition that the threat from missile proliferation is growing and could endanger large parts of Europe in the coming years.

The European Common Security and Foreign Policy (CSFP) has been formulated as a European strategy to bolster the EU as a military power in opposition to domination by NATO. However, the divergent interests of the European big powers has caused and still is causing problems for its development, since especially Britain, for example, sees this programme as activating such a policy in support of the US, taking responsibility for its burden. Britain is also doing propaganda in this context of the "threat from Iraq", toeing the US line, and thereby coming into contradiction with other EU countries such as France.

In May, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw noted in his speech at the Brookings Institute: "There are in fact plenty of differences with our European partners in the EU – over beef and asylum seekers and energy liberalisation with France, over a properly functioning free market in financial services with Germany." This is also the case with the issue of missile defence.

The US has made it clear that participation by Britain is crucial to plans for the NMD system currently under consideration. Two sites on British territory, the US bases at Fylingdales and Menwith Hill, would be required for NMD to work.

Both current Conservative leader Ian Duncan Smith and former leader Margaret Thatcher have spoken in support of US missile defence proposals.

Ian Duncan Smith wrote in an article "Allies Face Critical Race" in Defence News, 10-16 June 2002: "Freed from the ABM’s constraints, the United States will exploit fully the complete range of missile defence technologies. The effectiveness of these defences is simply not understood in Europe…The potential of ballistic missile defence to enhance international stability has been almost entirely overlooked in a UK debate that has often been parochial and poorly informed."

Similarly, according to Margaret Thatcher: "I strongly support President Bush’s plan to protect America and her allies from attack by ballistic missiles, and I trust that the British government will stop its shilly-shallying and support them too. The West is faced by an ever-increasing number of dangerous states with access to weapons of mass destruction. It is in all our interests that America should recognise and act speedily on this grave and growing threat. Britain, as America’s staunchest ally, should not only make available whatever facilities we can. We should also champion the president’s bold vision in every international forum." ("Thatcher backs Bush over Missile Defence Plan", BBC News Website, 2 May 2001)

However, among many Labour MPs, rank and file supporters and the general public, the attitude towards missile defence is decidedly hostile. In the House of Commons, for example, a recent Early Day Motion (EDM) tabled by Malcolm Savidge, MP, strongly questioning the wisdom of the US plans to develop missile defence, collected 280 signatures – a large number considering that very few EDMs collect more that 100 names. The huge and military demonstrations against the Bush-Blair "war on terrorism" have underlined this opposition.

Despite this, the Labour government’s position on missile defence, and particularly the use of British bases at Fylingdales and Menwith Hill as part of the US system, has been to neither rule it in or out. Recent statements by both Blair and Straw, however, have suggested that a limited missile defence system might be a useful addition to the non-proliferation toolbox.

According to Jack Straw, in his speech "The Future of Arms Control and Proliferation" at King’s College on February 6: "What missile defence should do is give pause to those tempted down the path of proliferation even before they begin. Those who seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction are not usually irrational. They must make a cost/benefit calculation before seeking to acquire such weapons or the means of delivering them. Anything that affects this calculation by raising the cost or reducing the benefit has to be worth considering."

The MoD in February 2001, for example, stated: "[A]t current rates of progress, it seems likely that, well before 2030, one or more of these [proliferating] states will have ballistic missiles capable of reaching the UK carrying chemical or biological payloads and, potentially, nuclear weapons." ("The Future Strategic Context for Defence")

In March, the MoD in a memorandum to the Select Committee on Defence wrote: "We currently assess that there is no significant ballistic missile threat to the UK. We do not believe that any of the states listed above [North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and Libya] currently has the capability to reach the UK with ballistic missiles…… However, we can state that were a country in the Middle East or North Africa to acquire a complete ballistic missile system of sufficient range, a capability to target the UK could emerge within the next few years."

The most ambitious European system currently under development is NATO’s ongoing feasibility study on the development of a Theatre Missile Defence system. NATO labelled anti-missile systems as the "Number one new equipment priority" as far back as 1993. More recently, NATO’s new strategic concept from 1999 stated: "The alliance’s defence posture against the risks and potential threats of the proliferation of NBC weapons and their means of delivery must continue to be improved, including through work on missile defences."

NATO awarded two transatlantic consortia with contracts in June 2001 to study the technical feasibility, costs and timescales for developing a TMD system. The studies are due to be completed in December 2002, at a cost of $13.5 million.

NATO Secretary-General George Robertson, former Labour Defence Minister, emphasises that European NATO states should increase their respective defence budgets. This contrasts with the statement of Britain's Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Michael Boyce: "There’s no point in completely impoverishing ourselves in order to provide ourselves with a defence against one particular system and not being able to do anything else ... As far as I’m concerned there is no way I’m in the position to suggest we can pay for any missile defence technology from within the existing defence budget and carry on doing what we are doing at the moment."

These positions all emphasise that the European powers should submit to the geo-political and military strategy of the US, which is going under the signboard of the "war on terrorism".

Army to be "Enhanced" for "War on Terrorism"

In this context, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon announced last week that Britain's armed forces are to be reorganised to focus on countering new "terrorist" threats. In what was billed as the most far-reaching set of changes since the 1998 strategic defence review, Geoff Hoon said force structures must match the new threats of the post-September 11 world.

Armed forces could in future expect to be used against a "determined, mobile, often disparate and elusive enemy", Hoon said. "We must be able to get the right forces quickly to where we need then, make better use of intelligence to identify the threat, decide how to deal with it and then strike decisively."

The government was committed to "strong defence", said Hoon, pointing to the announcement that the Ministry of Defence budget will rise from £29.3 billion this year to £32.8 billion by 2005/06. This is the largest rise for 20 years, including £1.5 billion for a new frontline command system and £1 billion on new equipment.

This reorganisation is said to facilitate the rapid deployment of British armed forces.

Moreover, in February 2002, an MoD official quoted a figure of £10 billion as the likely cost of a British decision to participate in the US missile defence system – more than 40 per cent of the entire defence budget.

The Dangers Stemming from the Militarisation of the Economy

The dangers stemming from the resurgence of the European missile defence industry should not be underestimated. As the crisis deepens, and the stock market collapses, the European missile industry is striving to compete in the global market against larger US firms, such as Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. At present, European companies have had little success in winning more than minor US NMD contracts. However, they are keen for a slice of a very large pie. For example, Matra BAe Dynamics Chairman, Mike Rouse, has stated that involving the company in the US NMD programme "would help Washington sell the concept to Europe, while enabling us to sell some of our systems and capabilities into the programme". ("Missile House Matra BAe Targets Teaming Deals With US Firms", Defence News, 13 March 2001.)

This also underlines the danger of the US imperialist concept of "pre-emption", including active consideration of first-strike attacks against so-called terrorists and hostile states suspected of possessing "weapons of mass destruction". The US having sought to reassure its allies that the proposed missile defence system is limited and purely protective in nature, this reasoning cannot be reconciled with a strategy of "pre-emption" that earmarks missile defence as a tool of military aggression. The US military is being given freedom to attack when and where it pleases. Clearly this developing US agenda is divergent from any co-operative security model that European governments support.

Stand towards China

The Bush administration's position towards China is that it is not a strategic partner but rather a strategic competitor. The US-China Review Commission has threatened that a growing reliance on Chinese imports might eventually "undermine the US defence base". This reflects the stand of the military hard-liners. They want the administration to provide more sophisticated weapons to Taiwan, bolster the US military presence in East Asia, and follow through on proposals to create a new security framework of allies in the region.

The People's Republic of China has opposed Washington's withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, and its construction of the National Missile Defence system, as well as Bush's promise to do "whatever it took" to help Taiwan defend itself, including selling it top-of-the-line weapons and surveillance systems and increasing military exchanges symbolised by an unprecedented meeting this spring between Taiwan's defence minister and Deputy Pentagon Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

China's fears are reported to be focused in particular on the political appointees in the Pentagon, including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. The Pentagon, for example, reportedly refused to deal directly with the PLA in exchanging intelligence during the "war against terrorism", leaving that job to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) instead. Rumsfeld also reportedly barred the interpreter provided by the State Department from attending the meeting he held with visiting Chinese Vice President Hu Jintao in May at the Pentagon in what was widely seen as both a rebuke to Powell's far more conciliatory approach toward Beijing and an intent to keep what in diplomatic language is called a "frank exchange of views" as closed as possible.

US President George W Bush and his Polish counterpart Aleksander Kwasniewski signalled Wednesday, July 17, that they want NATO to admit as many new members as possible at the aggressive military alliance's November summit in Prague, including Bulgaria and Romania who had been classed as doubtful. Bush called for NATO to dominate "from the Atlantic and the Mediterranean to the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea" in the name of "freedom and security". Kwasniewski was even more specific, saying, "Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, our friends from Slovakia, and our close partners from Bulgaria and Romania and Slovenia will be welcomed."

The summit is being held in the context of NATO's enlargement to the east, by which the US aims to further dominate Europe and neutralise Russia, in its strategy for complete global hegemony.

Solidarity events related to Colombia are being held today, Monday, in London, as well as in the US, during the coming week.

In London, the Colombia Peace Association is holding a fundraising party to raise money for street children in Bogotá. A band from Colombia will be playing live and Colombian food will be on sale from 7.30pm at Conway Hall in Red Lion Square, Holborn, central London.

The United Steel Workers of America (USWA) and the Colombian SINALTRAINAL trade union will also be holding a joint press conference and vigil at Coca-Cola headquarters in Atlanta, USA, in protest at the involvement of the company in human rights abuses in Colombia.

On July 17 and 18 Father Roy Bourgeois, the founder of the School of the Americas Watch (SOAW) campaigning organisation, was speaking in New York City about why the School must be closed and some of its infamous graduates. The notorious US Army School of Americas (SOA), based in Fort Benning, Georgia, trains Latin American soldiers, including thousands of Colombian military personnel, in combat, counter-insurgency, and counter-narcotics. Graduates of the SOA are responsible for some of the worst human rights abuses in Latin America. Among the SOA's nearly 60,000 graduates are notorious dictators Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola of Argentina, Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru, Guillermo Rodriguez of Ecuador, and Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia. Lower-level SOA graduates have participated in human rights abuses that include the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero and the El Mozote Massacre of 900 civilians.

On January 17, 2001, the SOA was replaced by the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Co-operation (WHISC). The result of a US Department of Defence proposal, the name-change measure passed when the House of Representatives defeated a bi-partisan amendment to close the SOA and conduct a congressional investigation by a narrow ten vote margin. In a media interview last year, Georgia Senator and SOA supporter, the late Paul Coverdell, characterised the proposal as consisting of "cosmetic" changes that would ensure that the SOA could continue its mission and operation. Critics of the SOA concur. The new military training school is the continuation of the SOA under a different name.

Notice has also been given of the dates of the annual civil resistance demonstrations outside of the School of the Americas organised by the SOA Watch. Thousands normally take part and the next demonstration is due November 15-17. SOAW is an independent organisation that seeks to close the US Army School of the Americas, by whatever name it is known.