House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee Global Security: UK-US Relations Sixth Report of Session 2009–10 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 18 March 2010 HC 114 Incorporating HC 1100-i, Session 2008-09 Published on 28 March 2010 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Foreign Affairs Committee The Foreign Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its associated agencies. Current membership Mike Gapes (Labour, Ilford South), Chair Rt Hon Sir Menzies Campbell (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife) Mr Fabian Hamilton (Labour, Leeds North East) Rt Hon Mr David Heathcoat-Amory (Conservative, Wells) Mr John Horam (Conservative, Orpington) Mr Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central) Mr Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat, Hereford) Andrew Mackinlay (Labour, Thurrock) Mr Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire) Sandra Osborne (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) Mr Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn) Mr Ken Purchase (Labour, Wolverhampton North East) Rt Hon Sir John Stanley (Conservative, Tonbridge and Malling) Ms Gisela Stuart (Labour, Birmingham Edgbaston) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/foreign_affairs_committee.cfm. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Dr Robin James (Clerk), Dr Rebecca Davies (Second Clerk), Ms Adèle Brown (Committee Specialist), Dr Brigid Fowler (Committee Specialist), Mr John-Paul Flaherty (Senior Committee Assistant), Miss Jennifer Kelly (Committee Assistant), Mrs Catherine Close (Committee Assistant) and Mr Alex Paterson (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerks of the Foreign Affairs Committee, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6394; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] Global Security: UK-US Relations 1 Contents Report Page Conclusions and recommendations 3 1 Introduction 8 Our inquiry: scope and focus 8 Conduct of the inquiry 9 2 The basis and nature of the UK-US relationship 11 Trade, finance and cultural links 11 Mutual benefits 13 Recent disagreements 15 The role of the British media 17 Foreign policy alignment 18 Still ‘special’? 19 3 Key areas of co-operation 23 Military and defence co-operation 23 Case study: Afghanistan 24 Defence trade 25 Current challenges 26 Future challenges 32 Intelligence co-operation 39 Public disclosure of US intelligence material 42 Security co-operation 44 Case study: Pakistan 45 Nuclear co-operation 46 Case study: disarmament and non-proliferation 49 4 The FCO’s work in the US 51 The US Network 51 Influencing decisions 53 Access and influence 54 Shaping American perceptions: the FCO and public diplomacy 57 Financial constraints and their consequences for British national interests 59 5 The British political approach to UK-US relations 62 Other European approaches to the US 65 Unduly deferential? 66 Importance of personal relations 66 6 The future of the relationship 69 The US view of the UK 69 Drivers of change 70 Consequences for the UK 73 The UK’s future approach to the US 75 2 Global Security: UK-US Relations Annex: Foreign Affairs Committee visit to the United States 26–30 October 2009 78 Formal Minutes 80 Witnesses 85 List of written evidence 86 Global Security: UK-US Relations 3 Conclusions and recommendations The basis and nature of the UK-US relationship 1. We conclude that recent minor disagreements between the UK and US do not in any way threaten the underlying strength of the bilateral relationship. However, they do highlight the need for better understanding between the UK and US governments if the strength of the relationship is not to be eroded over the longer term. (Paragraph 30) 2. We conclude that in some cases the British media performs a valuable role in informing the public about the state of UK-US relations, but frequently it indulges in speculation about relations between the Prime Minister and the President. Important though personal relations at the highest level may be, they form only one aspect of the transatlantic relationship. (Paragraph 34) 3. We conclude that under the Obama administration there is a significantly greater degree of alignment with the UK on a number of key policy areas. However, as is perhaps inevitable, there remain some key areas of British interest where policies continue to diverge. In these areas the UK may work more effectively in harness with other countries, including its European partners. (Paragraph 38) 4. We conclude that the UK has an extremely close and valuable relationship with the US in specific areas of co-operation, for instance in the fields of intelligence and security; that the historic, trading and cultural links between the two countries are profound; and that the two countries share common values in their commitment to freedom, democracy and the rule of law. However, the use of the phrase ‘the special relationship’ in its historical sense, to describe the totality of the ever-evolving UK- US relationship, is potentially misleading, and we recommend that its use should be avoided. The overuse of the phrase by some politicians and many in the media serves simultaneously to de-value its meaning and to raise unrealistic expectations about the benefits the relationship can deliver to the UK. We further conclude that there is nothing wrong in acknowledging the undoubted truth that the UK has a special relationship with the US, as long as it is recognised that other countries do so also, including the regional neighbours of the US and its other key strategic allies and partners. (Paragraph 48) UK-US military and defence co-operation 5. We conclude that stabilisation in Afghanistan does require provision of security, good governance, and a belief within the local population that international forces will outlast the insurgents. We further conclude, as we stated in our Report, Global Security: Afghanistan and Pakistan, that there can be no question of the international community abandoning Afghanistan, and that the need for the international community to convey publicly that it intends to outlast the insurgency and remain in Afghanistan until the Afghan authorities are able to take control of their own security, must be a primary objective. (Paragraph 55) 4 Global Security: UK-US Relations 6. We conclude that reports of dissatisfaction with the capabilities of the British military amongst some middle-ranking and senior US officers must give cause for concern. However, we further conclude that, on the basis of the evidence we have received, these reports appears to be exaggerated in their substance. Notwithstanding this, the fact that these perceptions appear to exist at all remains disturbing, given the considerable effort that has been expended and the sacrifices that have been made by British armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Paragraph 69) 7. We are disappointed that despite promises to do so, the US Senate has not yet ratified the UK-US Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty. We conclude that its swift ratification is imperative and would bring a range of benefits to both countries, including the enhanced ability of British forces to work with their US counterparts in current and future joint operations. We recommend that the FCO should continue to press strongly its contacts in the Administration and Congress to make rapid progress with this matter. (Paragraph 73) 8. We conclude that the issues relating to rendition through Diego Garcia to which we have previously drawn attention raise disturbing questions about the uses to which US bases on British territory are put. We greatly regret the fact that there are considerable constraints upon the abilities of both the UK Government and Parliament to scrutinise and oversee many of the longstanding agreements which govern US use of British territory. We recommend that the Government should establish a comprehensive review of the current arrangements governing US military use of facilities within the UK and in British Overseas Territories, with a view to identifying shortcomings in the current system of scrutiny and oversight by the UK Government and Parliament, and report to Parliament on proposals to remedy these whilst having regard to the value of these facilities to the security of the UK. (Paragraph 79) 9. We conclude that the current financial climate has implications for the UK’s future defence posture and its ability to sustain the level of military commitment in support of the US that it has demonstrated in recent years. We further conclude that it is likely that the extent of political influence which the UK has exercised on US decision-making as a consequence of its military commitments is likely also to diminish. (Paragraph 91) 10. We conclude that, in the short-term, the UK should continue to do all it can to assist the US in the areas where it is also in the UK’s security interests to do so, most notably in relation to Afghanistan and Pakistan and in respect of reform of NATO. We further conclude that, in the longer term, the Government’s foreign and security policy needs to be driven by the UK’s national security obligations including those towards Britain’s Overseas Territories, its NATO commitments and its security partnership with the US. (Paragraph 96) 11. We conclude that it is imperative that the forthcoming Strategic Defence Review should be foreign policy and defence commitments led and be preceded by an honest and frank debate about the UK’s role in the world based on a realistic assessment of what the UK can, and should, offer and deliver.