|
JOHN HUMPHRYS: The Foreign Secretary Robin
Cook is off to Washington this week. Tony Blair's going a few weeks later.
They have some fences to mend with an administration they did NOT want
to see in power. There is something they can do to score a few brownie
points in Washington: help President Bush set up his missile defence shield
- son of Star Wars as it's called. When (or if) it's operating it will
need to use the Fylingdales Radar Station in North Yorkshire. Opponents
say that will make us a target and anyway the whole project is dangerous
because it will destroy existing Missile Treaties. It's already made both
the Russians and the Chinese very angry. The row in this country is building
up and Mr Blair will meet serious opposition if he comes down in favour
of what is called NMD.
Iain Duncan-Smith is the
Conservatives' Defence spokesman. Peter Kilfoyle was a Defence Minister
in this government until he resigned last year.
Mr Kilfoyle, what are
the arguments against NMD?
PETER KILFOYLE: Well very simply I think
you firstly have to define what the threat is and it has to be a credible
threat. Then you have to come up with an appropriate solution to that threat.
Now, NMD is based on a false premise it's argued and it certainly does
not yet possess the technology to do what it's said to do but under-pinning
all of that is the fact that it does make the UK a frontline threat. It
does destabilise relationships within Europe and further more it does destroy
the whole basis of the treaties which have led to the diminution of the
old doctrine of mutual, indeed mutually assured destruction, ie a huge
over-bearing stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Now, these are very very high
stakes indeed in order to feed what many believe is a degree of paranoia
amongst the new administration.
HUMPHRYS: Iain Duncan-Smith, let's
deal with that question about destabilising the world and destroying existing
treaties. That's a very serious point isn't it, the Russians themselves
say that's what will happen.
IAIN DUNCAN-SMITH: No, I don't actually think it
will, these are the same old arguments that used to be deployed at the
time when we were facing off the Russians or the Soviet Union as they then
were over the deployment of SS20s and people didn't want us to deploy Cruise
and Pershing. Almost exactly the same argument that Peter's put forward
and were put forward then.
HUMPHRYS: The difference is there's
not a threat from them though...
DUNCAN-SMITH: ..no there is a threat...it's
important actually. Let's just get back to this question of a threat, he's
quite right to say what is the threat. The threat is actually that there
are a large number of nations who through proliferation, regardless of
the non-proliferation treaties, have actually come by the technology to
create weapons of mass destruction. That's biological, chemical, as well
as nuclear and, and this is the critical bit, are also at the same time
developing the means to launch those through ballistic missiles. I'll give
you one example, Iran about two to three months ago test launched a missile
which was close on a thousand miles in range which is a huge quantum leap
from where they were as was expected by the west about a year-year and
a half ago.
HUMPHRYS: And by co-operating with
this system, by saying alright you can use Fylingdales, we are saying to
Iran or whoever else, which ever rouge state you happen to pick, we are
saying, fire them at us, we are the target. We are co-operating, knock
us out and you will do damage to the system.
DUNCAN-SMITH: Well let's actually cut through
all the silly nonsense that theirs is the only one system out there. What
the Americans are talking about and this is where we should have been giving
some leadership over this, they are actually talking about how you defend
against that sort of threat. The NMD system that President Clinton was
on about is not the only way of doing it, there are other ways and that's
the critical issue about bringing Britain to get leadership in Europe over
it, to bring that in. I mean the key thing is there is another system
called Boost Phase which is about knocking out missiles as they are launched,
over the place that they are launched from and that's an issue that the
American government, this present government is very keen to do a lot of
work on but would like, I know for a fact, would like the British to lead
to get a NATO programme with all the other European nations. If they stopped
playing silly games about this anti-Americanism, they'd actually be able
to come together to defeat this threat, that's the key.
HUMPHRYS: Peter Kilfoyle - anti-Americanism.
That's what it's all about, you're playing silly games.
KILFOYLE: Well this is the kind
of charge that's always made and again the arguments that are made are
wholly fallacious. It was a man called Robert Walpole, who's the National
Intelligence Officer for the Americans for Nuclear and Strategic programmes,
who said that the threat doesn't come from world states, it comes from
individual terrorists and they would not be dealing with by missile, they'd
be delivered in a suitcase or a container. Now, the Tories know this but
what they really want to do on the back of this is to destabilise our relationships
within Europe because they know full well, that there's great mistrust
about this throughout Europe, indeed Herr Schroeder made representations
apparently this very week to Donald Rumsfeld and I really think that they
have two very different agendas here, one of which is anti-European and
the other one is to favour the dollars which come in and out of the military
and industrial complexes, both in America and the United Kingdom.
HUMPHRYS: Iain Duncan-Smith, whether
you want to do that to Europe or not, you are certainly going to do damage
to NATO by supporting. If this goes ahead, we will see NATO split down
the middle, NATO is already split down the middle, Peter Kilfoyle talked
about Mr Schroeder there, he said: we should be working to encourage disarmament,
not the opposite.
DUNCAN-SMITH: Well there are two or three
points. The first is that the terrorist threat is always thrown at you
as the threat which you need to deal with. Of course you need to deal with
terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction but to prove one threat
does not disprove another and the second point about splitting NATO. Again,
exactly the same argument that we used back in the mid-eighties over Cruise
and Pershing. You know in Germany Volker Ruehe, the ex-Defence Minister,
a Christian Democrat, has called on NATO to work with the Americans, exactly
what William Hague and myself have been calling on for the last year. What
you see here is a split, is actually between governments of the left and
parties of the left who have this age old desire not to confront threats,
that's exactly the game here versus Conservative parties now who believe
there is a real need to deal with this. And if we don't get on with this
what will happen is in four or five years' time, as the threat grows hugely,
we will have no answer to it, so when people say you bring yourself under
threat, when they do threaten us we will have to say, yes sir, no sir,
because we won't be able to deal with it. That's the key.
HUMPHRYS: But what' extraordinary
about your position politically to many people, is that you have effectively
- you have signed up to it, you have said yes, okay, we will do it whatever
it is. because you don't even - well you don't know what the -
DUNCAN-SMITH: Oh, no, no no.
HUMPHRYS: The Americans don't know
what system they're going to plug for.
DUNCAN-SMITH: Our position is, that we
said that NATO - there should be a NATO programme. What we have said is
we agree with the Americans, there is a serious threat and it is growing,
and we want to lead Europe, NATO to actually go ahead and confront that
threat. And the way to do it is to work with the Americans, to talk to
them about how best it can be done so that such a defence could encompass
a defence of western Europe, and our allies by the way as many of whom
are in the Middle East. In other words to deal with that threat by working
with them to sort it out. If we don't do that all that will happen is
the Americans will go ahead but in an isolated way and not actually produce
any defence that we think is credible. That's the key, by sitting back,
by doing nothing, by playing silly games, you won't actually achieve anything
at all for us. By leading in this we will actually achieve a serious position,
one that is able to defend our people.
HUMPHRYS: Peter Kilfoyle, why isn't
that a reasonable position to take.
KILFOYLE: Well, it's wholly unreasonable.
You're dealing with an American administration which involves people like
Jesse Helms who's never agreed an arms limitation treaty....
HUMPHRYS: Well, he's not actually
in the administration but....
KILFOYLE: But he's a very influential
figure on Capitol Hill and within the Republican ..... Can I also say
that you have people like Donald Rumsfeld , who feels that the ABM treaties
of seventy-two is ancient history, but these are the things that underpin
modern security. They're talking about missiles being based all over the
world now.
DUNCAN-SMITH: You placed things set in
concrete twenty years ago. Of course all of this is due for re-negotiation.
The idea that once you've signed something you must never go near it,
it sits in a cupboard somewhere gathering dust but nobody dares discuss
it is absolutely crack-pot. I mean the Labour Party itself has supposedly
changed so why can't treaties that dealt with the situation with two super-powers
not be dealt with in the same say. Of course you need to re-visit them.
You need to change, you need to discuss a new threat, a different threat.
That's the key, not to sit around scared of dealing with the past like
you seem to be.
KILFOYLE: It has never been suggested
that treaties cannot be re-negotiated.
HUMPHRYS: Hang on -let him finish,
Ian Duncan-Smith. Peter Kilfoyle?
KILFOYLE: The position has been
made clear by the Russians and the Chinese, and indeed by our European
allies, that this de-stabilises the whole world situation, that it may
very well lead to a new arms race, that the Chinese already have expressed
their fears that it would be used for the defence of Taiwan, that the Russians
feared that it would be used against their own defence interests. That's
bound to spur them on to an arms race.
HUMPHRYS: Let me get - Iain Duncan-Smith.
The Foreign Secretary Robin Cook is saying this morning apparently: we
haven't made up our minds yet, we're not quite sure what we're going to
do. We want to wait and see exactly what is proposed, what are the terms
and all the rest of it and then we will consider. Isn't that the responsible
position to take. Isn't anything else playing politics.
DUNCAN-SMITH: No. Because in actual fact,
I know I have been talking about this for the last two years, and my visits
to Washington and my discussions with the previous administration who were
very keen on this and also the Republicans coming into power has made it
absolutely clear to me that this government is playing two games here.
Publicly here because they're worried about the response such as we've
seen here from the Labour Party and from some Europeans they're pretending
that they haven't taken a position, but privately they were telling the
previous administration that when they finally asked them, yes they would
agree to it. So they're playing two games and they're hoping they can
slide through this until the next election without any dispute, and that's
not leadership, that is being rather pathetic and the worst part about
that position is to do exactly what Peter Kilfoyle worries about, which
is to say to the Americans, what you want you get. What I'm calling for
is for us to say to the Americans, we agree there is a threat, let's work
together to find a defence not just for the United States but for Western
Europe and our allies as well.
HUMPHRYS: Peter Kilfoyle, you may
have disagreed with everything else that Iain Duncan-Smith has said this
morning, but you wouldn't argue with that would you, where he says in truth
Tony Blair has made up his mind, the government's made up its mind. It
know what it wants. The idea that it's going to say to the Americans,
clear off, is simply unthinkable. They just want to avoid a row, that's
true isn't it?
KILFOYLE: Well, I don't think it
is unthinkable. I really think that we ought to take an independent view
upon this. After all it does set us up as a target outside of the shield
that is currently proposed, no matter what Iain might say. And incidentally
Iain may take a somewhat sanguine view of these things but his leader William
Hague has already committed himself regardless of whatever may come out
of any re-negotiations that take place. He's affirmed himself as a supporter
of SDI-Two.
HUMPHRYS: But the idea that Tony
Blair- let me deal with the politics of it, that's what I'm trying to get
at - the politics of it is that Tony Blair who is desperately anxious apart
from anything else now to persuade George W Bush that we are good friends
as we always have been - the idea that in this first test of our relationship
he's going to turn round and say clear off! That's not on is it, he won't
do it for political reasons. He won't do it will he?
KILFOYLE: Well, I happen to have
said it before, but good friends are not uncritical friends, and...
HUMPHRYS: I'm asking you what
you think Tony Blair is going to say, that's the point.
KILFOYLE: Well, I've no idea what
he will say. I can tell you what I hope he does say, and that is that
he will question what is in our interests in all of this. What dos the
new President hope to gain by a missile system which as of yet does not
work against a target which is undetermined to put it at its mildest?
HUMPHRYS: So Robin Cook ought to
be going to Washington and saying: No, we're not interested
KILFOYLE: What he should be doing
is going to Washington and trying to ascertain exactly what the truth of
the matter is as regards the threat, and of deferring any decisions of
any sort until such time as that is clear and the proposed technology has
been developed in such a way that you have a credible alternative to a
credible threat if there is one..
HUMPHRYS: Ian Duncan-Smith, sensible
eh?
DUNCAN-SMITH: Well, the real problem that
they've got here is that William Hague has committed us to working with
the Americans, and I'm fully in favour of that and I think it's an excellent
position of leadership. The problem for the government is as you saw the
other day with Peter Hain who was the Foreign Office minister responsible
for any of the arms negotiations, he was absolutely and publicly opposed
to this system, and so for that matter privately is Robin Cook. You've
got a split here in the government. What Cook is have to do now is having
to do something that he doesn't like, which is to try and cosy up to the
American administration privately, whilst he's desperately hoping that
nothing blows on it The reality is that Robin Cook, Peter Hain and a large
chunk of the Labour Party are absolutely adamantly opposed to it , and
Mr Blair is trying to cover this all with a sort of band-aid.
HUMPHRYS: There we must end it.
Iain Duncan Smith and Peter Kilfoyle, thank you both very much indeed.
|