Missile defence decision condemned by Liberal Democrat Conference
March 8th, 2008 by Defence Team — Disarmament, Articles
The Liberal Democrats today called for the Government to deny America the use of British bases for a unilateral ballistic missile defence system.
The party’s Spring Conference also condemned the way the Government’s decision to allow the US to use RAF Menwith Hill for the system was announced on the last day of a parliamentary session in an attempt to avoid publc scrutiny.
Commenting, Liberal Democrat Shadow Defence Secretary, Nick Harvey said:
“Despite Tony Blair’s pledge that there would be a parliamentary debate on the son of star wars system, this crucial decision was smuggled out in a written statement at a time designed to get the minimum possible coverage.
“A unilateral system like this risks further destabilising relations with Russia and will undermine international agreements.
“This decision is further evidence of the Government’s slavish desire to do whatever the US demands, regardless of the long-term risks.”
4 comments ↓
I agree with Nick Harvey’s comments on the use of British bases by the USA, but by far the biggest issue is the continuing development of nuclear weapons. To spend upwards of £20 billion pounds on the Trident system is both immoral and illogical. Lord Mountbatten said they are militarily useless back in the 70s. Meanwhile our troops on the ground are short of equipment.
I agree with Chris Hawkyard above. Of course we shouldn’t allow the USA to use British Bases and it is a scandal that at Harrogate in 2007 we narrowly failed to mandate the party to stop the replacement of Trident. Fence sitting is very uncomfortable and we have done this in our usual way of compromise.
It is a pity that there will not be a formal Lieral Democrat presence at the 50th anniversay of CND marches at Aldermaston on Easter Monday.
I will be there.
I must say I think the ideal of disarmament is a vision that should be kept alive. However, in my view it would be an abrogation of Britain’s responsibility to the world to try to derogate from our international commitments.
These have arisen over centuries of activity and have an organic nature.
It is both necessary and desirable for Britain to play a full role in the execution of the strategic defence of western liberal values.
On a personal note, my sole reason for not voting for Chris H was his (publicised) antipathy to the nuclear capacity.
It is certainly right to oppose the use of British bases for a unilateral ballistic missile defence system. But the fact that going down the government route sends the wrong signal to Russia is only one facet of the problem. We need to think very carefully about the signals we send to the THIRD WORLD where, arguably, the real threat exists in terms of terrorist attacks and actions by maverick heads of state. I don’t think it is surprising that the third world views us a bellicose aggressor when we insist on attempting to impose standards on them that we are not prepared to meet ourselves. We should instead be going swiftly in the other direction towards total nuclear disarmament. If there ever was an argument for the deterrent principle it lost any relevance with the end of the cold war. The money could be used so much more effectively elsewhere – not least in properly funding our conventional capability so we can provide an effective contribution to a world peace keeping force and combat domestic terrorism.
Leave a Comment