APPENDIX 18
Memorandum submitted by the Menwith Hill
Forum (9 January 2003)
The Menwith Hill Forum (which is an independent
group of organisations and concerned local individuals seeking
transparency in the operation of the American surevillance station
at Menwith Hill; compliance with UK and international law and
raises legitimate concerns relating to the base's impact on the
local community) has sent the following response to the MoD's
public discussion paper.
At its last meeting in Harrogate on 10 January,
I was asked to also forward the Forum's response on to the Defence
Select Committee in its current review of missile defence.
LETTER FROM
THE MENWITH
HILL FORUM
TO THE
MINISTRY OF
DEFENCE (JANUARY
2003)
On behalf of the Menwith Hill Forum, I would
like to pass on its comments on the recently published Ministry
of Defence (MoD) discussion paper on Missile Defence.
To begin with, the Forum is troubled by the
timing of the publication of the discussion paper and the disclosure
by the Secretary of State for Defence of the official request
from the United States to use the Fylingdales base for the Missile
Defence system. The Christmas and New Year holiday period is inevitably
one where it is difficult to get relevant people and information
together at short notice. Formulating a response is therefore
rendered problematical.
In this regard we would like to draw your attention
to the Cabinet Office's Code of Practice on Written Consultation
(published in 2000) which suggests giving stakeholders 10 weeks
to respond to the Government's review, with additional weeks added
where statutory holidays intervene. As a Forum which is seeking
openness and transparency in the operation of the Menwith Hill
base, we would like to see a similar process in place for this
fundamentally important decision so that it is not seen to be
occurring at a time when people are otherwise engaged.
The Forum is disappointed that the MoD has called
the document a "public discussion paper" rather than
an "official consultation paper", as normally occurs
with major developments, for example as with decisions relating
to nuclear power. In light of this could you advise what will
be the basis on which responses are considered? Will they be published
along with a thorough explanation of how this will affect the
Government's thinking in this area?
In terms of the detail of the discussion paper,
the Forum has a number of specific points it wishes to make:
Ballistic Missile Threat
The Menwith Hill Forum believes that the major
threats to world security come not from any impending ballistic
missile threat, but rather from much more conventional forms of
low level attack. None of the nations mentioned as "rogue
states", Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, has the capability
to make a ballistic missile attack on either the United Kingdom
or the United States, as the discussion paper concedes. The Forum
is of the view that the most effective way to deal with such nations
is through diplomacy and the encouragement to sign multilateral
disarmament treaties, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
The creation of a "defence" shield
is likely to be seen by these (and other) states as an offensive
weapons capability and encourage them to either seek weapons that
may circumvent the shield, or to use conventional weaponry (whether
using explosive or more deadly chemical and biological weaponry)
to carry out more effective attacks on the United Kingdom or the
United States.
Missiles based in the UK
Although no mention is made of it in the discussion
paper, The Guardian newspaper recently reported that the
United States government is urging Britain to allow US interceptor
rockets at bases involved in the missile defence scheme (source:
"Star War Missiles may be based in the UK", The Guardian,
19/12/02).
It is the view of the Menwith Hill Forum that
such a future request will be of great concern to the local residents
around the Menwith Hill and Fylingdales bases. It would increase
the likelihood of a terrorist attack and therefore may increase
the potential impact upon the local residents in Yorkshire. The
Forum would like to know what the position of the MoD is on this
matter and whether it believes this would be in the interests
of the UK.
Lack of mention of Menwith Hill
The Menwith Hill Forum is puzzled that no mention
has been made in the discussion paper of the possible use of the
Menwith Hill base in national missile defence. The United States
Strategic Command website notes that the Defence Support Programme
Space based infra-red system (SBIRS) will eventually form part
of theatre missile defence for the country. In 1997, the Ministry
of Defence announced that a ground-based relay station, a key
component of SBIRS, was to be built at Menwith Hill, and it is
the understanding of the Forum that this has duly occurred.
In light of this, it appears clear to us that
the Menwith Hill base will have some eventual role to play in
the national missile defence system. However, none of this is
mentioned in the discussion paper. The Forum would be interested
to hear from the Ministry what role Menwith Hill will play in
missile defence and whether any formal request has been made from
the United States government in relation to this.
X-Band Radar
There has been considerable concern raised that
the X-band radar system, a key component of national missile defence,
may affect civilian radar systems at nearby airports, and may
also increase levels of electro-magnetic radiation in the adjoining
area. The Forum would like to know where it is proposed to locate
the radar and how the Ministry of Defence proposes to protect
the population from its potentially negative consequences.
Cost
The Forum notes in section 64 of the paper that
the United States is seeking to work closely with its allies on
missile defence. The costs for the system are conservatively estimated
in terms as high as tens of billions of pounds. The Forum would
like to know whether the United Kingdom will "buy into"
the system and the likely budgetary implications for the Ministry
of Defence. The Forum would also like to know how much a missile
defence technology centre would cost and where it is likely to
be based.
Conclusion
The Menwith Hill Forum agrees with the Ministry
of Defence that there may be an increasing number of potential
threats to the security of the UK in the world today. However,
the Forum though believes that establishing a costly, provocative
and unproven missile defence system does not constitute an appropriate
response to this dilemma. The Forum considers that the threat
to world and national security derives more from small terrorist
groupings rather than from "rogue states".
The Forum fundamentally believes that the British
government should be pursuing a more constructive approach by
encouraging all states (including the United States) to sign up
to multilateral treaties in preference to demonising unpredictable
regimes. The effective use of the United Nations in this process
? as has been recently used in the case of Iraq, would also enhance
this and provide for a more peaceful world. Creating a protective
shield may only encourage an "us and them" mentality
and lead to a more, rather than less, stable world.
I look forward to receiving your reply and confirmation
that all views are going to be collated and published in the near
future. I would also appreciate if these views are passed on to
the Defence Select Committee's Review of Missile Defence.
| 
