Memorandum from Mr Austin Crick
I write to submit this letter in opposition
to the "UK-US Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty", published
24 September 2007, currently before the Defence Committee for
Inquiry; and to explain my reasons for doing so.
Firstly, I would like to make it clear that
is I am a "private citizen"; am not representing any
institution, company, lobbying organisation, or government; do
not have any other interest other than the "British National
Interest" in mind; and write in my capacity as a Political
Scientist, one who takes a great interest in Defence and International
Relations.
It is within this context, and for these reasons,
that I make the following points in opposition to the signing
of this Treaty, in its present form; and urge the Committee to
reject or make amendment to the Treaty.
In summary of my objection to the Treaty, I
make the following points.
The Treaty is:
— A "one-way" unrestricted
transfer of United Kingdom defence technology, know-how, and
personnel to the US and its allies (Israel): "blanket or
open authorization" (Article 8, (2)).
— Unequal, unfair, and totally one-sided
in favour of USA interests, against those of the United Kingdom.
— A potential means by which
UK defence technology or secrets may be stolen, or sold without
UK government approval, or in violation of United Kingdom and
International Law.
— Not in the National Interest of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
In putting forward my objections, I submit to
the Committee that in all of our nations Agreements and Treaties,
with other nations, the principle of equity, fairness, and respect;
and the protection of "national advantage", and the
advancement and protection of the "national interest",
should be the heart and basis of any such agreement: the upholding
of "National Sovereignty"; "National Self-determination"
and an "Independence Military"; the protection of "Intellectual
Property Right"; the maintenance of "Technological and
Military Superiority"; and "Sovereign Security".
Fundamental to achieving and maintaining these
things, is the principle of equity, fairness, and respect, and
"National Interest", governing the establishment of
every Treaty. This treaty fails to meet all of these criteria,
and I will speak plainly, and briefly, with reference to the Treaty
itself, as to why I make this assertion:
1. The Treaty is totally one-sided and
absolutely not in the United Kingdom "National Interest".
It contains the kind of terms and conditions, a victor nation,
would give to a nation it has defeated in war; or those handed
out to Third World dictatorships, and corrupt regimes. Providing
for unrestricted access to their "resources", offing
them little or nothing in return.
2. This Treaty provides for the transfer
of UK defence technology, to countries where such transfers would
not be in the United Kingdom National Interest. The "Approved
Community" and "movement of defense articles for the
end-use of the United States Government without the requirement
for individual export licensing" [see Preamble] and "Re-export"
and "Retransfer" [see Definitions] its speak of means
Israel. Israel is notorious for selling on "restricted"
USA military technology, and technology secrets, in violation
of their treaty obligations, to that country. If this Treaty is
passed, and UK defence technology is pass on to Israel (as is
the very strong probability), the UK defence industry will soon
see "knock-off" UK designed defence technology (resulting
from their transfer to Israel) on the "black market"
and in the hands of potential adversaries. Israel gets away with
this practise, in the US, because of the Israeli Lobby. The damage
done to UK armed forces (army, navy, air force) in the field,
and the UK Defence Industrial base, will be devastations. This
is a threat to UK National Security!
— 3. "This Treaty provides
a comprehensive framework for Exports and Transfers, without a
license or other written authorization, of Defense Articles, whether
classified or not, to the extent that such Exports and Transfers
are in support of the activities identified in Article 3(1)."
[see Article 2] ie the purpose of the Treaty is the transfer of
United Kingdom defence technology, know-how, and personnel to
the US and its allies (Israel). Exports and Transfers "in
support of the activities identified in Article 3(1)". Being
"security and defense research, development, production,
and support programs that are identified pursuant to the
Implementing Arrangements" [see Article 3, (b)].
4. Although the Treaty contains the provision
that "(4) This Treaty shall not prevent the issuance of a
defense export license or other authorization should an entity
eligible to Export or Transfer Defense Articles under this Treaty
seek to obtain an individual defense export license or other authorization
for a particular transaction, in which case the terms of any such
license or authorization granted shall apply instead of the terms
of this Treaty." [see Article 3, (4)]; and the provision
that "(1) All Re-transfers or Re-exports of Defense Articles
shall require authorization by Her Majesty's Government. In reviewing
requests for such authorization, Her Majesty's Government shall,
with certain exceptions that shall be mutually agreed and identified
in the Implementing Arrangements (such as the operational use
of a Defense Article in direct support of deployed United Kingdom
Armed Forces), require supporting documentation that includes
United States Government approval of the proposed Re-transfer
or Re export. The procedures for obtaining United States Government
approval and Her Majesty's Government authorization shall be identified
in the Implementing Arrangements." [see Article 9, (1)].
All of this is negated by Article 8 (2): "(2) All
Defense Articles Exported pursuant to this Treaty to be Transferred
in accordance with Her Majesty's Government's blanket or open
authorizations." [see Article 8, (2)]. In effect allowing
the USA to transfer or sell United Kingdom defence technology
to whomever they like (ie Israel).
5. Article 4 United Kingdom Community (ie
UK Defence Community) provides for full USA open access to
UK facilities (secret research facilities, and military bases),
personnel (army, navy, air force, security services), non-governmental
entities and facilities (universities, and research institutes),
and employees of UK defence industries [see Article 4]. In reciprocation
Article 5 United States Community (ie USA Defence Community) only
provides for limited UK access to USA government departments
and agencies, and their personnel (USA Civil Servants), and non-governmental
entities and facilities (universities, and research institutes),
including their employees [Article 5]. No UK access to USA facilities
(secret research facilities, and military bases), personnel (army,
navy, air force, security services). A completely one-sided
arrangement that provides the USA with completely open access
to the UK Defence Industrial base; and only "limited"
and highly "restricted" access to the USA Defence Industrial
base, by the UK.
6. To emphasise the inequality of the "Imperial
relationship", the United Kingdom must deal with the USA
though the Department of State (their Foreign Office), not the
Department of Defence (DoD), as a colonial dependency would with
its Imperial master. The USA on the other hand can deal with the
United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, without restriction. This
arrangement has the advantage for the USA that, if, or
most likely when, they breach these unequal terms, a forest of
bureaucracy can be placed in the way of the UK government, before
they have to do anything to resolve it (close the gate after the
horse—ie UK defence technology secrets—have bolted
over the hills and far away!) [see Article 15, (a) and (b)].
7. Article 8 "Dispute Resolution"
ensures that the UK government has absolutely no legal redress
whatsoever if UK defence technology or secrets are stolen
or sold without UK government approval: "Any disputes between
the Parties arising out of or in connection with this Treaty shall
be resolved through consultations between the Parties and shall
not be referred to any court, tribunal, or third party."
[see Article 18].
8. Unusual for a treaty, this Treaty, has
no time limitation on its duration, or any prescribed period of
review: "(1) This Treaty shall, subject to paragraph (2),
be of unlimited duration." [see Article 21, (1)]. Further
any withdrawal by the UK from the Treaty due to National Security
or "extraordinary events" will still allow the USA full
and open access to UK defence technology, secrets, facilities,
and personnel for a period of six months (after they have been
notified of such a withdrawal from the Treaty): "The Parties
shall commence consultation within 30 days of the provision of
the notice of intention to withdraw with the aim of allowing the
continuation of this Treaty. If, after such consultation, the
notifying Party does not agree to the continuation of this Treaty,
the withdrawal of the notifying Party shall take effect upon the
expiry of six months from the provision of the notice of intention
to withdraw". [see Article 21, (2)]. In a "worst case
scenario", this would be more than enough time to continue
abuses, if UK defence technology or secrets are stolen or sold
without UK government approval; with the UK government impotent,
during that six month period.
Obviously the whole document was written by
the United States of America, in and for their "national
interest"; none of it is in the UK "National Interest";
the interest of UK Defence Industries; or the British people.
The British people have little enough belief
in the United Kingdom Parliament to defend, protect, and further,
the British "National Interest" against the abuse of
our sovereignty, dignity, material resources, and armed forces.
If this Treaty is allowed to pass the Defence Committee, in its
present form, without rejection or without fundamental amendment:
the consequence for United Kingdom Defence; the UK Defence Industries;
United Kingdom "Independence and Sovereignty"; and the
confidence and trust of the British people, in the Defence Committee,
Parliament, and politics in general, will be harmful if not dire.
I strongly urge the Defence Committee to reject
the "UK-US Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty", for these
reasons.
14 November 2007
|
