Finking on the Brits; UPDATE
posted at 9:01 pm on February 4, 2011 by J.E. Dyer
[ Diplomacy ]
Great: the UK Telegraph reports that according to diplomatic cables released to WikiLeaks, the Obama administration agreed to give Russia confidential information on Britain’s nuclear forces as a bargaining chip in the New START negotiations.
This seems to have been done in a particularly shabby manner. Obama began pressuring the British government in 2009 to authorize release of this information itself. Encountering resistance, Team Obama went ahead and agreed to give Moscow the information without permission from London.
It’s not that US administrations haven’t unilaterally undercut the nuclear deterrence posture of our European allies before. John F. Kennedy did it as a way of resolving the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.
But if the Telegraph’s is an accurate depiction (which is probable; the communications in question reportedly involved giving the Russians Trident missile serial numbers), it’s still a rotten, low-down thing to do.
Update: Ed has links to the statements from the State Department on this, and Jake Tapper’s report on an unnamed source in the British government. The upshot is that the New START treaty does, in fact, provide for conveying more specific information to the Russians on the British Trident missiles than START I did. Ed has the cable citation on this.
Jake Tapper’s report does not indicate that any British source has explicitly refuted the implication of the Telegraph story. The unnamed source he refers to is reported as saying “his understanding of the policy (i.e., the reporting policy of the arms treaties) conforms with that asserted by the state department.”
The burden of the Telegraph‘s point, however, is the following passage:
Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.
At this point, I have not seen a posted cable that contains information about “Washington lobbying London” on this head in 2009. It’s unlikely the Telegraph made that part up. Perhaps that cable has yet to be posted, or I just haven’t located the pertinent passage in one that is available online. The British concern about revealing nuclear weapons information is referenced in this cable (paragraph 17), but the specific statement about Washington pressuring London in 2009 doesn’t appear to have been sourced from a cable that has been posted to date.
Whether the British were pressured and disagreed with the proposal is the actual issue — not how much of an extension, expansion, or extrapolation from START I the reporting protocol in New START is. I doubt the British government will be explicit about its role or sentiments in any of this. We’ll see if the Telegraph comes out with more.
J.E. Dyer blogs at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions” and as The Optimistic Conservative. She writes a weekly column for Patheos.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
If I were in Britain’s shoes, I might just state publicly the role the Obama Administration played in the release of Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi and begin an immediate withdraw of all combat troops from the Afghan theater.
But that’s just me.
BKeyser on February 4, 2011 at 9:16 PM
from the linked story
Dyer, there must be more to it than this if you think it worthwhile to say that
(my emph)
Surely you can’t mean that this info has done that. That surely isn’t what the guy from Jane’s is saying in the link.
audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 9:21 PM
The problem is that Wikileaks showed that London told the Libyans how to negotiate the Scottish law (Scotland has a separate judicial system) to get him released. London wanted the big oil contract, not Edinburgh.
But a leak embaressing the WH would still be a nice tit-for-tat.
Wethal on February 4, 2011 at 9:22 PM
Dude, I’m sorry, but if you think that missile serials aren’t a big deal, I can assure you they are quite germane to a nation’s national security. That information is classified for a reason.
Obama handed Russia information that could be key to finding out how many missiles Britain has, as well as exactly where some of them might be. We’re not talking about serial numbers you can shave off of hot DVD players; we’re talking about digital codes embedded in each individual missiles control circuitry.
What Russia can do with this information, given their current capabilities, is way beyond my pay grade to guess, but a worst-case secenario could potentially destabilize a good chunk of Europe between The Island of the Mighty and the former eastern bloc nations.
gryphon202 on February 4, 2011 at 10:12 PM
it surely wasn’t a nice thing to do, give Britain all those nice missiles and then tell the Russians.
but, since I finished reading Dyer’s post an hour ago, I’m trying, and failing, to think about what the likelihood of any actual harm arising from it might be.
can’t see how it changes anything.
if you’ve got a guess, I’m all eyes.
audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 10:21 PM
Confused about this issue? Just take the Bush test. Ask yourself, “How would I respond if the Bush administration had released serial numbers of British nukes to Russia?”
Clarity will follow. If if hasn’t already.
dkmonroe on February 4, 2011 at 10:22 PM
Likelihood? I dunno. Possibilities are what I find scary — especially the possibilities involving what other sensitive information might have been handed over that we don’t know about yet.
gryphon202 on February 4, 2011 at 10:33 PM
still confused. weren’t we talking about missiles not nukes?
American missiles? which the Brits probably haven’t even half paid for?
audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 10:35 PM
I’m sure I’m missing something obvious or Dyer wouldn’t have printed this alarming post.
But I just can’t figure how there’s even a remote possibility that Russia is now going to be attacking Britain or thinking that NATO (read the US) isn’t really the nation protecting Great Britain from attack.
Matter of fact, the Russians might have wanted the info because those Trident missiles as part of our inventory more than Britain’s.
They are American missiles and I doubt that Britain really pays for them.
audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 10:45 PM
Swing and a miss. Keep your eye on the ball. You wanna pedantically fixate on details, OK. Imagine the Bush Admininstration gave the location of UK Trident missles to Russia, against the will of the UK government, in order to induce Russia to enter into an agreement with the US. How do you react?
Missles not paid for? Does the UK only have an expectation of discretion from the US when they’ve paid their bill? Is it reasonable to put a disclaimer on the receipt: “Please pay within 30 days or we will blab your missile location to the country or countries of our choosing?”
dkmonroe on February 4, 2011 at 10:45 PM
LOCATION?????????????
I’m real confused now, dk.
I musta missed the part where somebody gave the location….
Help me here…
I’m getting all SNAFU’d
audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 10:56 PM
Use your imagination, audiculous. You know what I’m asking, try to answer the question. I betcha can’t do it.
“The UK Telegraph reports that according to diplomatic cables released to WikiLeaks, the Bush administration agreed to give Russia confidential information on Britain’s nuclear forces as a bargaining chip in the New START negotiations.”
How do you react?
dkmonroe on February 4, 2011 at 11:03 PM
I wouldn’t care a bit more or a bit less.
I would still be trying to figure out if it might be a real-world problem.
audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 11:13 PM
I dislike the Obama administration less than I disliked the previous one…so far, but I’m still going to start from the presumption that ANY American administration isn’t really gonna screw the British without getting something really big in return.
Haven’t gotten to the point where I see this as a real screwing yet.
And I usually think that I understand what Dyer’s talking about.
All I see here is that she’s saying that we did something unmannerly.
audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 11:17 PM
I really, really doubt that.
Giving away another country’s confidential military information isn’t a “real-world problem?”
Yeah, uh huh. You’d be giving Bush a pass. While the whole of the media was crucifying him (as you know they would be), you’d be going, “Hey, guys, this isn’t a ‘real-world problem.’ Give Bush a break. He’s just trying to use this info as a bargaining chip. No harm done.”
dkmonroe on February 4, 2011 at 11:20 PM
This missiles and serial numbers issue isn’t the world I live in, and I have no clue what harm might come from it. What I know is that the UK didn’t want the number released. I suspect they know better than any of us whether there’s any harm to them from it.
RegularJoe on February 4, 2011 at 11:29 PM
yeah, I would. I don’t have any problem with Bush.
Cheney and Rumsfeld and their little bunch is something else again. I give him a tiny bit of credit for wising up and, in the second term, shrugging off those lice.
when I can figure out or be shown if there’s any actual harm, I’ll be quite OK with decrying it, whatever the press might say.
audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 11:33 PM
Ah, so you supported his Iraq policy then?
So you’ll wait until you’re sure there’s actual damage before passing judgment on whether giving away the military secrets of other countries is a bad thing? The whole issue of violating another nation’s confidentiality is just academic and irrelevent?
dkmonroe on February 4, 2011 at 11:41 PM
Liberalism means never having to say you’re sorry.
gryphon202 on February 4, 2011 at 11:46 PM
you trying not to understand the difference between unethical and really damaging?
I acknowledged that it wasn’t ethical, am interested in figuring out damages.
audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 11:56 PM
I thought we weren’t supposed to go throwing our weight around and making decisions for other countries. Didn’t they used to call that “hubris” and “imperialism”?
RegularJoe on February 5, 2011 at 12:23 AM
Nope, don’t see where you acknowledged it as unethical. Your response so far has been, ‘shrug’, “So what?”
This is an example of how a normal person with your claimed perspective might respond:
“Wow, that’s not cool. Clearly it’s unethical to disclose another country’s military secrets without their consent in order to secure a poltical agreement. I hope that there’s no practical or lasting damage, either to the security of the UK or our diplomatic relationship with the UK.”
But you? “It wasn’t nice, BUT…” ‘shrug’
dkmonroe on February 5, 2011 at 12:28 AM
Oh, and did you support Bush’s policy in Iraq? You must have, since you “didn’t have any problem with Bush.”
dkmonroe on February 5, 2011 at 12:34 AM
Trident missiles were developed to carry nukes so that does give information about the British nukes. You are not going to waste ICBM’s carrying fire crackers.
chemman on February 5, 2011 at 12:43 AM
yes, that is very good. and I’m perfectly willing to sign on to it.
however, I’m more comfortable trying to figure out if there is any damage to the security of the UK prior to considering whether our diplomatic relationship with them will be strained.
likewise, I can’t truly rank the degree of the ethical offense without gauging the likelihood of adverse consequence to the Brits.
I’m not even able to figure out if it was really sporting of the British to deny us permission to disclose how many of our missiles they’re holding. Perhaps they had a good reason and felt it was sufficient to overcome their obligation to the people who quite generously supplied the missiles and also outweighed the possible strain in their relationship with us.
audiculous on February 5, 2011 at 12:56 AM
most of the info is publicly available via statements of the British government. If I’m correct, the missiles can carry multiple nukes, from 1 to a max of 8 or 10.
since the Brits are holding many more missiles than are, at any given time, actively deployed, and also since the British have a total of 4 subs that max out at 16 missiles each, and since the British have published that they have at least 58 Tridents, I’m guessing that a reasonable person would figure that they have somewhere between 60 and 80.
now, i’m guessing that the real reason that the Russians want to know how many they have really has more to do with them wondering, not about the British supply, but whether the US has a stash in GB and are trying to fudge our inventory numbers.
just trying to guess.
audiculous on February 5, 2011 at 1:12 AM
initially, I did. the whole thing about lying to the world and fabricating evidence soured it for me.
the epic mismanagement of the occupation and the DoD failure to allot sufficient troops to police the place after we killed a big bunch of folks soured it some more.
audiculous on February 5, 2011 at 1:32 AM
Maybe it’s time for the Brits to release the Kenyan birth certificate.
Payback’s a bi—, ain’t it, Barry?
/sorry, couldn’t resist
cane_loader on February 5, 2011 at 3:48 AM
Audiculous- giving the Russians classified information about our nukes is a big deal. If it wasn’t why would our government refuse to hand out that information- and why would the Russians want it so badly?
Second, and possibly more importantly, Obama has just told the rest of the world that he will sell out America’s closest allies in the blink of an eye to get what he wants. That’s the problem- and it could turn out to be a big one for America.
Who will trust America will information they consider vital to their national security ever again? Why would any nation place any trust in America when Obama will give them up for a treaty with a nation which continually undermines America’s interests around the world? What’s the point of cooperating with America when resisting it seems to bring better results?
This scandal isn’t just about how Obama screwed Britain over- it’s about how he has undermined America and its relationship with all of its allies.
Smart power indeed.
Jay Mac on February 5, 2011 at 8:22 AM
But you have no problem with Bush. I think you may be the only liberal in the entire world that has no problem with Bush.
Watch out, they may dissect you.
dkmonroe on February 5, 2011 at 9:56 AM
If dear leader will lie to us, why can’t he just lie to the Rooskies as well. Should they trust him any more than we do? He’s really got the street thingy goin’ good.
Kissmygrits on February 5, 2011 at 10:00 AM
Revealing state secrets of a third party in treaty negotiations is damaging in its very nature. It is a violation of trust and entirely unethical and cannot fail to harm diplomatic relations with the exploited nation. And if it were President Palin who had done it, a big fat light bulb would come on in your head instantly.
dkmonroe on February 5, 2011 at 10:01 AM
if Bristol Palin becomes president, I’ll believe anything is possible.
audiculous on February 5, 2011 at 11:45 AM
If you were as convinced of the irrelevence of this as you pretend, you wouldn’t have to do so much bobbing and weaving.
dkmonroe on February 5, 2011 at 12:32 PM
audiculous = ridiculous
teacherman on February 5, 2011 at 1:26 PM