[R-G] Monbiot / Drumming Up a New Cold War / Sep 10

[Anthony Fenton]

Today's commentary:
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2007-08/16monbiot.cfm

==================================

ZNet Commentary
Drumming Up a New Cold War September 10, 2007
By George  Monbiot

In one short statement to parliament last week, the defence  
secretary, Des Browne, broke the promises of two prime ministers,  
potentially misled the House, helped bury an international treaty and  
dragged Britain into a new cold war. Pretty good going for three  
stodgy paragraphs.

You probably missed it, but it's not your fault. In the 48 hours  
before parliament broke up for the summer, the government made 76  
policy announcements(1). It's a long-standing British tradition: as  
the MPs and lobby correspondents are packing their bags for their  
long summer break (they don't return until October), the government  
rattles out a series of important decisions which cannot be debated.  
Gordon Brown's promise to respect parliamentary democracy didn't last  
very long.

Thus, without consultation or discussion, the defence secretary  
announced that Menwith Hill, the listening station in Yorkshire, will  
be used by the United States for its missile defence system(2).  
Having been dragged by the Bush administration into two incipient  
military defeats, the British government has now embraced another of  
its global delusions.

Des Browne's note asserted that the purpose of the missile defence  
system is "to address the emerging threat from rogue states". This is  
a claim that only an idiot or a member of the British government  
could believe. If, as Browne and Bush maintain, the system is meant  
to shoot down intercontinental missiles fired by Iran and North Korea  
(missiles, incidentally, that they do not and might never possess),  
why are its major components being installed in Poland and the Czech  
Republic? To bait the Russian bear for fun? In June, Vladimir Putin  
called Bush's bluff by offering sites for the missile defence  
programme in Azerbaijan and southern Russia, which are much closer to  
Iran(3). Bush turned him down and re-stated his decision to build the  
facilities in eastern Europe, making it clear that their real purpose  
is to shoot down Russian missiles.

Nor is it strictly true to call this a defence system. Russia has  
around 5700 active nuclear warheads(4). The silos in Poland will  
contain just 10 interceptor missiles. The most likely strategic  
purpose of the missile defence programme is to mop up any Russian or  
Chinese missiles which had not been destroyed during a pre-emptive US  
attack. Far from making the world a safer place, its purpose is to  
make the annihilation of another country a safer proposition.

This strategic purpose takes second place to a more immediate  
interest. Because it doesn't yet work, missile defence is the world's  
biggest pork barrel. The potential for spending is unlimited. First a  
number of massive - and possibly insuperable - technical problems  
must be overcome. Then it must constantly evolve to respond to the  
counter-measures Russia and China will deploy: multiple warheads,  
dummy missiles, radar shields, chaff, balloons and God knows what.  
For the US arms industry, technical failure means permanent  
commercial success.

But this is not the only respect in which Browne appears to have  
misled the House. He claimed to have assurances from the US that "the  
UK and other European allies will be covered by the system elements  
they [the Americans] propose to deploy to Poland and the Czech  
Republic". Browne must be aware that this is a United States missile  
defence programme. It incorporates no plans for defending other  
nations. The British government has handed over its facilities,  
truncated parliamentary democracy and put its people at risk solely  
for the benefit of a foreign power.

The diplomatic cost of this idiocy is incalculable. It has already  
required the abandonment by the US of the Anti-Ballistic Missile  
Treaty, which is the bilateral agreement struck between the United  
States and the Soviet Union in 1972. It survived both the  
vicissitudes of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union,  
but not George W Bush. Any hope that it might be revived has now been  
buried by the facts on the ground in Poland, the Czech Republic and  
the United Kingdom. Two weeks ago Vladimir Putin suspended another  
long-standing agreement: the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe  
Treaty, which limited the troops and military hardware Russia could  
assemble on its borders. In response to the US missile defence  
programme, Russia has also been testing a new version of its short- 
range Iskander nuclear missile, and it has been developing a new  
intercontinental missile with multiple warheads, called the RS-24.  
Their purpose, according to Sergei Ivanov, the deputy prime minister,  
is to "overcom[e] any existing or future missile defence systems"(5).  
The Iskander missiles will be deployed on the European border and  
aimed at Poland and the Czech Republic. Intermediate-range missiles  
will be pointed at Menwith Hill.

Bush's missile defence programme almost certainly means the end of  
the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty as well, and the  
cancellation of any successor to the strategic offensive reductions  
treaty (which expires in 2012). Asked whether this might be the  
beginning of a new cold war, Putin replied "Of course we are  
returning to those times. It is clear that if a part of the US  
nuclear capability turns up in Europe, and, in the opinion of our  
military specialists will threaten us, then we are forced to take  
corresponding steps in response ... We are not the ones who are  
initating the arms race in Europe."(6) Like the war with Iraq, the US  
missile defence programme exacerbates the threats it claims to confront.

All this, as you would hope, is of some interest to our members of  
parliament, who have long been demanding a debate. In February, Tony  
Blair agreed that they would have one. "I am sure that we will have  
the discussion in the House and, indeed, outside the House.... When  
we have a proposition to put, we will come back and put it."(7) In  
April, Des Browne told MPs that "the UK has received no request from  
the US to use RAF Menwith Hill for missile defence-related  
activities."(8) That, until last week, was all that parliament knew.  
Now we discover that the proposition had been made and accepted  
before MPs had a chance to discuss it. Browne was in the House on  
Wednesday, where he made some announcements about aircraft carriers  
and the military budget. These - because they were delivered in  
person - could be discussed, though (shamefully) neither of them  
provoked any opposition(9). But knowing that the Menwith Hill  
decision would be furiously opposed, Browne released it in the form  
of a written statement, which cannot be debated.

Like everyone on the left in Britain, I wanted to believe that Gordon  
Brown's politics would be more progressive than Tony Blair's. But as  
he grovels before the seat of empire, I realise that those of us who  
demand even a vaguely sane foreign policy will find ourselves in  
permanent opposition. With his appointment of Digby Jones as trade  
minister and his plans for deregulation, Brown demonstrated that the  
government is still mesmerised by big business. By proposing that  
suspects be held for up to 56 days without charge, he appears to  
share Tony Blair's distrust of liberty. Now, in one furtive decision,  
he reveals both his contempt for parliament and his enthusiasm for  
the neocon project. What, I wonder, is there left to hope for?

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. Colin Brown, 27th July 2007. A good day to bury the bad news that  
ministerial car use has soared. The Independent.

2. Des Browne, 25th July 2007. Ballistic Missile Defence. http:// 
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070725/wmstext/ 
70725m0003.htm#07072565000029

3. Patrick Wintour, 8th June 2007.  Putin surprises US with missile  
suggestion. The Guardian.

4. SIPRI, 2006. Russian nuclear forces, 2006: Land-based ballistic  
missiles. http://www.sipri.org/contents/expcon/Russia.pdf

5. Luke Harding, 30th May 2007. Russian missile test adds to arms  
race fears. The Guardian.

6. Luke Harding, 4th June 2007. The new cold war: Russia's missiles  
to target Europe. The Guardian.

7. Tony Blair, 28th February 2007. Prime Minister's Questions. http:// 
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070228/debtext/ 
70228-0002.htm#07022879001973

8. Des Browne, 16th April 2007. Written answer. http:// 
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070416/text/ 
70416w0032.htm

9. Commons debate, 25th July 2007. CSR and Aircraft Carriers. http:// 
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070725/debtext/ 
70725-0007.htm#07072570000993



  Published in the Guardian 31st July 2007