Britain: Balancing ‘Instinctive Atlanticism’¹

1. The phrase ‘Instinctive Atlanticism’ is used by Zaborowski and Longhurst in connection with Poland, but it can just as accurately be applied to the UK. See Marcin Zaborowski and Kerry Longhurst, ‘America's Protégé in the East?’, International Affairs, Vol. 79, No. 5 (Oct. 2003), pp.1009–28.

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Nigel Chamberlain, Chris Maddock, Jeremy Stocker and the editors of this collection for very useful comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Notes

1. The phrase ‘Instinctive Atlanticism’ is used by Zaborowski and Longhurst in connection with Poland, but it can just as accurately be applied to the UK. See Marcin Zaborowski and Kerry Longhurst, ‘America's Protégé in the East?’, International Affairs, Vol. 79, No. 5 (Oct. 2003), pp.1009–28.

2. For a history of British policy on MD, see Jeremy Stocker, Britain and Ballistic Missile Defence 1942-2004 (London: Frank Cass, 2004).

3. ‘Hawks and Doves Fight for Control of Campaign’, The Observer, 30 Sept. 2001.

4. ‘Top 100’, Defense News, <www.defensenews.com/content/features/2003chart1.html>.

5. Proceedings of the Royal Aeronautical Society Conference on ‘The History of the UK Strategic Deterrent: The Chevaline Programme’, 28 Oct. 2004 (typescript).

6. Michael Alexander and Timothy Garden, ‘The Arithmetic of Defence Policy’, International Affairs, Vol. 77, No. 3 (July 2001), p.510.

7. Michael Clarke, ‘Does My Bomb Look Big in This?’, International Affairs, Vol. 80, No. 1 (Jan. 2004), p.56.

8. Barry Buzan defines a security complex as ‘a group of states whose primary security concerns link together sufficiently closely that their national securities cannot realistically be considered apart from one another’. Barry Buzan, People, States and Fear (London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991), p.190.

9. Ivo Daalder, ‘The End of Atlanticism,’ Survival, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Summer 2003), pp.147–66.

10. Lawrence Freedman, Britain and Nuclear Weapons (London: Macmillan, 1988), p.127; Lorna Arnold, Britain and the H-Bomb (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001); John Baylis, Ambiguity and Deterrence: British Nuclear Strategy 1945-64 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), p.180.

11. Henry Tizard, virtually alone in the immediate post-war period, argued vociferously against a British nuclear capability, but to no avail. See Baylis, Ambiguity and Deterrence (note 10) pp.86–7.

12. Hurd made this widely quoted comment in a speech at the Royal Institute for International Affairs in 1993.

13. Quoted in Peter Hennessy, Muddling Through (London: Indigo, 1997), p.106.

14. Colin S. Gray, European Perspectives on U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense (Fairfax, VA: National Institute for Public Policy: 2002), also available at <www.nipp.org/Adobe/europe.pdf>.

15. Jolyon Howarth, ‘Britain, France and the European Defence Initiative’, Survival, Vol. 42, No. 2 (June 2000), pp.33–55.

16. Gray, European Perspectives on U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense (note 14) p.18.

17. Michael Clarke, ‘French and British Security: Mirror Images in a Globalized World’, International Affairs Vol. 76, No. 4 (Oct. 2000), p.729.

18. This is in marked contrast to France, which has never recoiled from isolating itself from Washington. (See the contribution of Ronja Kempin and Jocelyn Mawdsley in this issue.)

19. For a comparison of the current capabilities and those of the UEWR, see the information provided by the manufacturers: Raytheon, Upgraded Early Warning Radars (UEWR) for Missile Defense, <www.raytheonmissiledefense.com/matrix/pdfs/fs/fs_uewr.pdf>.

20. ‘Pentagon Opts for Sea-Based Missile Defense Radar’, Arms Control Today, Vol. 32, No. 7 (Sept. 2002), p.19.

21. For example ‘Star Wars Deal Places US Missiles on British Soil’, Independent, 17 Oct. 2004. The story was refuted by the British government, but a spokesperson for the MoD did admit that ‘there have been discussions’ on the subject between London and Washington. ‘Britain: The Outpost for Son of Star Wars’, The Guardian, 29 Oct. 2004.

22. Gray, European Perspectives on U.S. Ballistic Missile Defence (note 14).

23. Ian Kenyon, Mike Rance, John Simpson and Mark Smith, Prospects for a European Ballistic Missile Defence System, Southampton Papers in International Policy, No. 4 (June 2001), p.22, <www.mcis.soton.ac.uk/spip4.pdf>.

24. The Iranian Shahab-3, the longest-range ballistic missile in the Middle East other than Israel's Jericho, has a range of up to 2,000 km, which covers the whole Middle Eastern strategic theatre. See the contribution of Isil Kazan in this issue.

25. Joseph Cirincione with Jon B. Wolfsthal and Miriam Rajkumar, Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1999).

26. John Baylis, British Defence Policy: Striking the Right Balance (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1989), p.57.

27. Defense News 2003 Index, available at <www.defensenews.com>.

28. Alex Ashbourne, ‘Introduction,’ in Gordon Adams et al. (eds), Europe's Defence Industry: A Transatlantic Future? (London: Centre for European Reform, 1999), p.15.

29. ‘Top 100’, Defense News, <www.defensenews.com/content/features/2003chart1.html>; see also Terence Guay and Robert Callum, ‘The Transformation and Future Prospects of Europe's Defence Industry’, International Affairs, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Oct. 2002), p.760.

30. Ibid., p.764.

31. Jeffrey Becker, ‘The Future of Atlantic Defence Procurement’, Defence Analysis, Vol. 16, No. 1 (April 2000), pp.9–31.

32. Guay and Callum, ‘The Transformation and Future Prospects’ (note 29) p.764.

33. ‘Transformed? A Survey of the Defence Industry’, The Economist, 20 July 2002, p.12. Despite the efforts of the ‘Buy American’ movement, which aimed to compel the Pentagon to shop at home for defence contracts, it is reported that contracts are being awarded to overseas companies. ‘Pentagon's Global View’, Washington Post, 8 March 2005.

34. Ibid., p.12.

35. Paul Cornish, Partnership in Crisis: The US, Europe and the Fall and Rise of NATO (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1997), p.2.

36. Julian Lindley-French, ‘In the Shade of Locarno? Why European Defence is Failing’, International Affairs, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Oct. 2002), p.789.

37. One of the best analyses is in Colin McInnes, ‘Labour's Strategic Defence Review’, International Affairs, Vol. 74, No. 4 (Oct. 1998), pp.823–45.

38. See also the contribution of Bernd W. Kubbig on the US in this issue.

39. Foreign Affairs Committee, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Eighth Report (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 2000), p.134.

40. Ibid., p.xvii.

41. Ibid., pp.131–2.

42. These signs included some ‘consultative’ visits to important allies, informing them of the administration's plans. See ‘Washington's Soft Sell Seems to be Going Pretty Well So Far’, The Guardian, 10 May 2001.

43. Foreign Affairs Committee, British-US Relations, Second Report (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 2001), <www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmfaff/327/32703.htm>.

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid.

46. House of Commons, Ballistic Missile Defence, Research paper 03/28 (London: House of Commons Library, 26 March 2003), p.46.

47. Select Committee on Defence, ‘Examination of Witnesses’, 20 March 2002.

48. Quoted in ‘Catcalls Greet US Missile Chief on “Star Wars” Visit’, The Guardian, 21 Nov. 2002.

49. Ministry of Defence, Missile Defence: a public discussion paper (London: Ministry of Defence, 2002).

50. Ibid., p.30.

51. House of Commons Debates, 15 Jan. 2003, Hansard, Col. 697.

52. Ibid., Col. 698.

53. Ibid., Col. 699.

54. Committee on Defence, ‘MoD Memorandum in Response to HCDC's First Report of Session 2002-03 on Missile Defence’, Appendix to First Report, <www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmdfence/411/41104.htm>.

55. Nicola Butler, ‘What Price British Influence? Tony Blair and the Decision to Back Missile Defence’, Disarmament Diplomacy, No. 72 (Aug./Sept. 2003), p.26.

56. An official parliamentary database containing details of Early Day Motions is available online at <www.parliament.uk/about_commons/early_day_motions.cfm>.

57. The Memorandum of Understanding, and BASIC's analysis of it, are available at: <www.basicint.org>.

58. ‘BAE Joins Group of Firms Developing US Missile Defense’, Defense News, 29 July–4 Aug. 2002, p.3.

59. ‘BAE Deal to Woo Blair on Missile Defence’, Daily Telegraph, 25 July 2002; ‘BAE Joins Group of Firms Developing US Missile Defense’, Defense News, 29 July–4 Aug. 2002, p.3.

60. Select Committee on Defence, ‘Examination of Witnesses’, questions 1–19, 27 Feb. 2002, <www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmdfence/644/2022709.htm>.

61. Ibid.

62. Quoted in ‘Cost Warning on Missile Defence’, The Guardian, 2 March 2001.

63. Quoted in House of Commons, Ballistic Missile Defence (note 46) p.51.