1. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum...
    You are currently logged out and viewing our forum as a guest which only allows limited access to our discussions, photos and other forum features. If you are a 12ozProphet Member please login to get the full experience.

    If you are not a 12ozProphet Member, please take a moment to register to gain full access to our website and all of its features. As a 12ozProphet Member you will be able to post comments, start discussions, communicate privately with other members and access members-only content. Registration is fast, simple and free, so join today and be a part of the largest and longest running Graffiti, Art, Style & Culture forum online.

    Please note, if you are a 12ozProphet Member and are locked out of your account, you can recover your account using the 'lost password' link in the login form. If you no longer have access to the email you registered with, please email us at info@12ozprophet.com and we'll help you recover your account. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum (and don't forget to follow @12ozprophet in Instagram)!

Britain: US client state?

Discussion in 'Channel Zero' started by BROWNer, Jul 18, 2003.

  1. BROWNer

    BROWNer Guest

    Britain: US client state?

    Discussion started by BROWNer - Jul 18, 2003

    Britain has lost its sovereignty to the United States

    David Leigh and Richard Norton-Taylor
    Thursday July 17, 2003
    The Guardian

    Britain has by now lost its sovereignty to the United States and has become a client state. As Tony Blair flies in to Washington today to be patted on the head by the US Congress, this is the sad truth behind his visit. No surprise, therefore, that the planned award to him of a congressional medal of honour for backing the US invasion of Iraq has been postponed. To be openly patronised in that way, under the circumstances, would be just too embarrassing.

    Is it fair to accuse the US of destroying our national sovereignty? The issue is so little discussed that even to make the claim has parallels with the ravings of the europhobes that Brussels plans to make Britons eat square sausages. Yet consider the following seven facts, none of which depends directly on the way the US dragged Britain into Iraq, nor on the current MI6-CIA intelligence blame game about the war.

    Firstly, we cannot fire cruise missiles without US permission. The British nuclear-powered submarine fleet is being converted wholesale so that it is dependent on Tomahawks, the stubby-winged wonder-weapons of the 21st century. They transform warfare because of their awesome video-guided precision. But Britain can't make, maintain or target Tomahawks. The US agreed to sell us 95 cruise missiles before the Iraq war, the first "ally" to be thus favoured. They are kept in working order by Raytheon, the US manufacturer in Arizona. Tomahawks find targets via Tercom, the American terrain-mapping radar, and GPS, its ever-more sophisticated satellite positioning system. The Pentagon, meanwhile, is trying to block Galileo, a European rival to GPS, which the French think will rescue their country from becoming a "vassal state".

    Sir Rodric Braithwaite, former head of the joint intelligence committee and former ambassador to Moscow, published earlier this year a little-noticed but devastating analysis in a small highbrow magazine, Prospect, of the price we are now paying to the US in loss of sovereignty. Of the Tomahawks purchase, he wrote: "The systems which guide them and the intelligence on which their targeting depends are all American. We could sink the Belgrano on our own. But we cannot fire a cruise missile except as part of an American operation."

    The second in this list of sad facts is better known. Britain cannot use its nuclear weapons without US permission. The 58 Trident submarine missiles on which it depends were also sold us by the US. Just as Raytheon technicians control the Tomahawk, so Lockheed engineers control Trident from inside a Scottish mountain at Coulport, and from the US navy's Kings Bay servicing depot in Georgia, where the missiles must return periodically. "Cooperation with the Americans has robbed the British of much of their independence," Braithwaite observed. "Our ballistic missile submarines operate by kind permission of the Americans, and would rapidly become useless if we fell out with them. Since it is no longer clear why we need a nuclear deterrent, that probably does not matter. But it makes our admirals very nervous about irritating their US counterparts."

    The third awkward fact is that Britain cannot expel the US from its bases on British territory, or control what it does there. Some, such as RAF Fairford, are well known - surrounded by armed guards as the huge B52s roared off nightly to bomb Baghdad. Others are remote, particularly Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, where any British citizen who attempts a landing will rapidly find himself arrested. The bases are given bogus British names - such as RAF Fairford or RAF Croughton - because Britain is ashamed of all this. "The British have never questioned the purposes for which the Americans use these bases," Braithwaite wrote. "The agreements which govern them leave us little scope to do so. It is yet another derogation from British sovereignty."

    The fourth fact is about intelligence. The row over scraps of British material used for public propaganda purposes - alleged uranium from Niger, alleged 45-minute Iraqi missile firing times - shows, if nothing else, that MI6 does still run independent spying operations. But it obscures the big truth: the policy-determining, war-fighting intelligence on which Britain depends is all American. The US has the spy satellites and the gigantic computers at Fort Meade in Maryland which eavesdrop on the world's communications. Britain gets access to some of these because GCHQ in Cheltenham contributes to the pool and collects intercepts which the US wants for its own purposes. This is cripplingly expensive: Britain has just invested a wildly over-budget £1.25bn in rebuilding Cheltenham. Yet it brings us no independence.

    Braithwaite again: "The US could get on perfectly well without GCHQ's input. GCHQ, on the other hand, is heavily reliant on US input and would be of little value without it."

    Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, recently - and somewhat drily - let it slip to the foreign affairs committee how the US wears the trousers in the intelligence marriage. America receives all the intelligence that Britain gathers, he said. "On our side, we have full transparency." Britain, on the other hand, merely "strives to secure" transparency from its supposed partners.

    These points lead inexorably to the fifth fact about our loss of sovereignty. Britain can no longer fight a war without US permission. Geoff Hoon, Britain's defence secretary, said humbly last month that "the US is likely to remain the pre-eminent political, economic and military power". Britain would concentrate, therefore, on being able to cooperate with it. "It is highly unlikely that the UK would be engaged in large-scale combat operations without the US," he said. As Rumsfeld brutally pointed out, however, the US could easily have fought the Iraq war without Britain.

    The sixth fact is that Britain cannot protect its citizens from US power. Blair faces an outcry as he flies into America because the US refuses to return two British prisoners for a fair trial; rather, they have to face a Kafkaesque court martial at Guantanamo Bay.

    And the seventh and final fact is that Britain is reduced to signing what the resentful Chinese used, in colonialist days, to call "unequal treaties". At the height of the Iraq fighting, David Blunkett went to Washington to be praised by John Ashcroft, the US attorney general, for what he termed Blunkett's "superb cooperation".

    Blunkett agreed that the UK would extradite Britons to the US in future, without any need to produce prima facie evidence that they are guilty of anything. But the US refused to do the same with their own citizens. The Home Office press release concealed this fact - out of shame, presumably. Why did the US refuse? According to the Home Office, the fourth amendment of the US constitution says citizens of US states cannot be arrested without "probable cause". The irony appears to have been lost on David Blunkett, as he gave away yet more of Britain's sovereignty. If we really were the 51st state, as anti-Americans imply, we would probably have more protection against Washington than we do today.

    · David Leigh is the Guardian's investigations editor, and Richard Norton-Taylor is security affairs editor

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...,999605,00.html
     
  2. HAL

    HAL Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2001
    Messages:
    5,002

    HAL - Replied Jul 19, 2003

    Gobbless the US.
     
    HAL - Rank: Dirty Dozen Crew - Messages:
    5,002
    - Joined:
    Oct 23, 2001
  3. Dick Quickwood

    Dick Quickwood 12oz Loyalist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2002
    Messages:
    14,783

    Dick Quickwood - Replied Jul 19, 2003

    that would explain their cooperation on the war with iraq
     
    Dick Quickwood - Rank: 12oz Loyalist - Messages:
    14,783
    - Joined:
    Aug 25, 2002
  4. mogilny

    mogilny 12oz Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,582

    mogilny - Replied Jul 19, 2003

     
    mogilny - Rank: 12oz Senior Member - Messages:
    1,582
    - Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
  5. miles apart

    miles apart 12oz Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    407

    miles apart - Replied Jul 19, 2003

    "These points lead inexorably to the fifth fact about our loss of sovereignty. Britain can no longer fight a war without US permission."


    Slowly but surely...we will win the race.
     
    miles apart - Rank: 12oz Member - Messages:
    407
    - Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
  6. nG

    nG 12oz Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Messages:
    995

    nG - Replied Jul 19, 2003

    "And the seventh and final fact is that Britain is reduced to signing what the resentful Chinese used, in colonialist days, to call "unequal treaties"."

    karma. :(

    i notice that some of you seem to be proud of the headline. to put this article in context: it appeared on The Guardian comment page, and though it is undoubtably factual it is more a piece of left-wing rhetoric than anything else. ironically it will probably appear word-for-word in the right-wing Daily Mail this weekend, with an anti-US spin on it.

    so britain can't fight a war without america (i think this is what they mean by 'soveriegnty'), so what? would we really want to these days? i doubt it.
     
    nG - Rank: 12oz Member - Messages:
    995
    - Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
  7. BROWNer

    BROWNer Guest

    BROWNer - Replied Jul 19, 2003

    maybe the author is saying that if america wants to go to war, brit support is not up for debate. you'll be apart of it even if it's illegal and based on lies whether you like it or not. so what? ask anthony.
     
  8. sneak

    sneak Guest

    sneak - Replied Jul 19, 2003

    Blair = Bush's bitch.
     
  9. 40ozProphet

    40ozProphet Guest

    40ozProphet - Replied Jul 20, 2003