|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S.-Europe: Bush Plan Could Lead to U.S. Funding of European Missile Defense By David Ruppe Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this week officially requested permission to improve U.S. radar capabilities at the Royal Air Force Fylingdales base in the United Kingdom and the Thule airbase in Greenland. By upgrading the existing early warning radars now operating at those sites, the United States could better track long-range missiles that Middle Eastern nations might someday possess. In exchange, at least with respect to the British base, Rumsfeld said the United States would “extend missile defense coverage” to Britain, according to British Defense Minister Geoffrey Hoon in comments this week after receiving the request. Extending medium- to long-range missile defense coverage to Britain could require basing an anti-missile battery in Europe, experts say. “Additional interceptor sites, perhaps in the northeast United States (see GSN, Dec. 19) and in northwest Europe, would greatly enhance the defense of the U.S., and the latter could also provide protection for part of Europe,” according to a paper published by the British Defense Ministry last week (see GSN, Dec. 11). The United States is seeking to deploy such interceptors in the United Kingdom, according to the British newspaper The Guardian, citing an unidentified Defense Ministry official. Ministry spokesman Paul Barnard confirmed for Global Security Newswire today the subject was a matter of discussion. A battery in the United Kingdom could provide coverage for all but a small area of the southeast corner of Europe against a launch from Iran, according to a Boeing slide presentation at a conference on trans-Atlantic missile defense cooperation in London last month. Discussions Underway The Bush administration has sought to develop missile defenses for protecting U.S. territory as well as U.S. and allied forces abroad, but officials have not yet detailed how all of that might be accomplished, which allies would be defended or who might pay for it. Hoon’s depiction of Rumsfeld’s offer, detailed on the floor of the House of Commons, did not indicate which country would be responsible for operating and protecting such a battery. Spokesman Barnard said such details remain to be worked out between the two governments. “Obviously discussions are taking place and we’ll have to talk this whole matter through, clearly,” he said. “No doubt, all the questions of where any missiles might be based, or who will pay for them and how it might work, these are things that will have to be talked through.” Affording the Coverage British defense analysts are skeptical there is the political will or public financing to approve and fund an interceptor battery. Although neither country has released an estimate of what that might cost, independent analysts project it could run as high as $16 billion. Total British military expenditures are currently about $32 billion, according to an official U.S. estimate. The requested U.S. missile defense budget for next year is expected to be around $9 billion. Both the British and Danish militaries report being strapped for cash and unable to fully fund current major defense acquisition priorities and there is significant opposition to the missile defense proposal in each country’s parliament from members of the governing parties. “If there was a direct financial implication for the [British] defense budget, which by U.S. standards is miniscule … there would be a squeeze on other programs and right at the moment there are several that are quite critical,” said Nigel Chamberlain, a spokesman for the British American Security Information Council in London. He cited costly work on the Eurofighter aircraft, still under development, and two new aircraft carriers and some hunter-killer submarines that the defense ministry hopes to purchase. “An interceptor battery retails at about 10 billion [pounds ($16 billion)],” said Dan Plesch, an analyst with the Royal United Services Institute for Defense Studies in London, who has done a cost analysis, adding, “They’ll end up paying for it, we won’t end up paying that much.” Plesch is doubtful opposition in the Parliament will deter the British government from approving the radar upgrade at Fylingdales, but believes the government could face determined opposition on the missile batteries. “I think that the Cabinet office and the Ministry of Defense have been briefing that deploying missiles is a lot more controversial and they know that and they may not get it through,” he said. Stephen Pullinger, executive director of International Security Information Service in London, agreed. “Talk of basing interceptors in the U.K. or elsewhere in Europe is premature and U.K. government won’t make any commitments on that score yet. Nor does it need to,” he wrote in an e-mail. “The threat from ballistic missiles in the Middle East will need to get a lot closer before U.K. government could justify any serious expenditures on missile defenses against long-range missiles,” he said. British Air Marshal (Ret.) Timothy Garden wrote in a July article that defending the newly upgraded radars could be costly. “This may require a significant air defense (including point anti-missile defense) and ground defense at the sites,” he said, and an increased U.S. presence to provide such defenses could pose political difficulties. “I think for many of us, the concerns that we would have for missile defense are that it is expensive, that we think the threat is very remote,” said Member of Parliament Malcolm Savidge, who last year organized a House petition with overwhelming Labor Party support condemning the idea of a U.S. withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. “There are states we are concerned about, but in most cases they are a long way from getting long range missile capacity … and we don’t believe even the most bloodthirsty dictators seek nuclear annihilation,” said Savidge. Strong U.S. Interest The U.S. Missile Defense Agency, meanwhile, has said little on the idea of basing interceptors in Europe. Pentagon officials have stated repeatedly they have settled on no final “architecture” for the system they are developing, but they have been fairly specific about identifying systems that will operate in the Pacific Ocean arena. Basing the ground-based interceptors in Europe also would offer benefits for defending the United States, providing overlapping coverage with the Alaska missiles against a Middle East threat, according to the Boeing presentation. A Boeing slide depicted how interceptors could do the same job based in Poland rather than the United Kingdom, an idea that the British government would find anathema, said Plesch. British officials know “that the softening up for European deployment is happening continuously, and that in the U.K., the last thing they want is for these things to be in Poland, Slovenia and Turkey,” said Plesch. The Bush administration clearly wants the British government to sign on to the proposed deal. The Rumsfeld letter said the United States would make emerging missile defense capabilities available to Britain “as the evolution of the U.S. system permits,” according to Hoon. It also proposed, “the early conclusion of a new bilateral Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Memorandum of Understanding, to ensure that the U.K., both government and industry, have the fullest possible insight into, and opportunity for involvement in, the missile defense program,” Hoon said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
