UK "STAR WARS" CONTRACTS SEEN AS TOO SMALL
British companies are being largely
frozen out of President Reagan's "Star Wars" project despite
earlier hopes of lucrative contracts from the research bonanza,
according to a report by Members of Parliament (MPs).
    Funding for the project, formally known as the Strategic
Defence Initiative (SDI), has so far amounted to some 7.5
billion dlrs, parliament's Defence Committee said.
    But British contractors have won only 34 mln dlrs of this
-- 20 mln dlrs on a government-to-government basis, with the
rest secured directly by U.K. Firms and institutions.
    In December 1985, Britain and the United States signed a
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) relating to cooperative
research for the Strategic Defence Initiative.
    At the time, hopes were expressed that U.K. Industrial
participation would lead to significant spin-off of technology,
both of other defence areas and to the civil sector.
    But the all-party committee report said "the debate about
the merits of U.K. Participation in SDI has now to be conducted
within a rather different context than was the case when the
MoU was negotiated.... It has become evident that SDI
participation may not be the great bonanza that some thought."
    British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has been one of
President Reagan's few staunch supporters on his plan to
development an anti-ballistic missile defence screen.
    But government sources said she has become angry about
bureaucratic barriers to British companies trying to break into
the lucrative American defence market generally -- a view
voiced again today by her defence minister, George Younger.
    He told a gathering here of British and American
businessmen, "We in Europe greatly welcome the emphasis which
you in the U.S. Have placed on cooperation and collaboration in
the defence equipment sphere."
    He added, "But I do worry that the failure of important and
influential individuals in Congress and elsewhere to realise
the true nature of the two-way street in terms of ideas,
technology and equipment will lead to the erection of
artificial barriers."
    "I am afraid that the danger signals are only too visible in
the form of both of the legislative proposals which seem to
arise with ever increasing frequency on (Capitol) Hill, and of
new regulations from the U.S. Administration," Younger said.
    "The defence balance of trade with the U.K. and other allies
is still markedly in favour of the U.S."
    Thatcher will visit Washington next month for talks with
President Reagan. U.K. Government officials said she would
probably raise the subject of defence trade when they meet.
    The report by Parliament's Defence Committee said that the
British position towards SDI was based on four points agreed
between Thatcher and Reagan in December 1984, they being that:
    - The aim was not superiority, but to maintain balance
    - SDI-related deploymewnt would be a matter for negotiation
    - The overall aim is to enhance, not undercut, deterence
    - East-West negotiation should aim to achieve security with
reduced levels of offensive systems on both sides.
    The committee in its report said, "we very much support the
government's view that SDI research should proceed only within
the framework of the Camp David "four points" and in particular
that it should be in entire conformity with the provisions of
the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty."
    "We note that all present and envisaged SDI work undertaken
by UK contractors falls in the "narrow" interpretation of the
treaty, (and) we recommend that the government takes the
appropriate steps to ensure that this continues to be the case."
    That definition prohibits the U.S. And Soviet Union from
developing, testing or deploying ABM systems, experts said.
    That recommendation would of course change, it added, if "it
has become clear that the Soviet Union has taken the lead in
renouncing the constraints of the narrow interpretation."
    Regarding possibilities for technology spin-offs, the
committee report said that "the present predominance of "paper
studies" in SDI contracts awarded to British firms and
institutions militates against any such achievement."
   
 Reuter
